This paper explores different ways of using occult teachings and, first of all, magical tradition in the process of development of modern European science. The author argues against a widespread opinion that modern science appeared as a clear antithesis to pre-scientific forms of research and knowledge; using concrete examples, he claims that certain elements of occult traditions (first of all, natural magic) were included into a new natural philosophy which substituted the old Aristotelian one, while other elements (f. e. demonology) were discarded; the later notion that magic could be reduced to only these discarded elements has proven to be wrong.

Keywords: natural philosophy, natural and supernatural magic, alchemy, demonology, mathematics, Hermeticism, Aristotelianism.

The importance of magic for the emergence of modern science

Isaac Newton's interest in alchemy is well known today, but researchers of his life and work generally still deny that he was influenced by occult traditions.1 So, for example, a significant number of philosophers of science claim that Newton did not believe (and even

The article was sent to the editor by the author.

This paper was written on the basis of a much larger study, which provides detailed justifications for the statements made here. See: Henry, J. The Fragmentation of Renaissance Occultism and the Decline of Magic/ / History of Science. 2008. Vol. 46. P. 1 - 48.

Dobbs B. J. T. 1. The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy. Cambridge, 1975; The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought. Cambridge, 1991.

page 53
could not believe) that an impact at a distance of 2 is possible. However, no matter what they think about it, the historical reality is quite obvious. Newton used the concept of "impact at a distance" (an idea that was previously excluded from natural philosophy, but which was common in the occult tradition) and he made it one of the key propositions of his physics (this is most evident in Newton's concept of gravitation; but we can also recall the theory of matter, as it was presented in the "Questions" attached to "Optics")3. Moreover, thanks to his influence, the history of eighteenth-century natural philosophy, especially in Britain, was dominated by those who accepted the Newtonian theory of the forces of attraction and repulsion acting at a distance between particles (except for microscopically small distances); as well as those who accepted the Newtonian idea of a highly discharged but highly transmitting ether formed by particles that are significantly distant from each other due to the presence of powerful repulsive forces 4 between them. Newton almost single-handedly destroyed the prevailing position (since the time of Aristotle), according to which "a thing cannot act where it does not exist", and made the effect at a distance quite acceptable to physics idea. As J. S. Mill wrote in his System of Logic, published in 1843, "probably no educated person in Europe now believes in the ancient maxim that a thing cannot operate where it does not exist." 5
It was only in the second half of the twentieth century that historians of science began to recognize the presence of elements of magic in Newton's work. As a result of this ongoing research, Newton was recognized as "the last of the magicians", "the last miracle child that magicians should have treated with respect-

Janiak A. 2. Newton as Philosopher. Cambridge, 2008; Ducheyne S. The Main Business of Natural Philosophy: Isaac Newton's Natural-Philosophical Methodology. Dordrecht, 2012; Kochiras H. Gravity and Newton's Substance-Counting Problem//Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 2009. Vol. 40. P. 267 - 280.

Henry J. 3. Gravity and "De gravitatione": The Development of Newton's Ideas on Action at a Distance//Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 2011. Vol. 42. P. 11 - 27.

Schofield R.E. 4. Mechanism and Materialism. Princeton, 1970; Thackray A. Atoms and Powers. Cambridge, MA, 1970.

Mill J.S. 5. Collected Works. Vol. 8/Ed. J.M. Robson. Toronto, 1974. P. 754.

page 54
sincere and sincere respect"6. There is no doubt that he was the last magician, or at least one of the last. By the time of Newton's death in 1727, the updated natural philosophy, which dates back to the sixteenth century, when Francis Bacon drew up his research program, was already sufficiently developed that its Enlightenment propagandists could perceive it as a sui generis phenomenon and did not see the need to refer to its creators. But Newton was not the only natural philosopher to draw on magical traditions. Moreover, Newton's very interest in various magical traditions is fully explained precisely in the context of the late Renaissance reform of natural philosophy, with its special attention to magic and the occult.

However, there is still a huge amount of resistance - although not quite as strong - from positivist philosophers and historians of science who refuse to accept that magic could have contributed to the emergence of modern science. It is quite remarkable that the authors of the last two books devoted to the role of alchemy in the Scientific Revolution (one of them has the character of an introduction, and the other is written for specialists) feel the need to justify their statements in favor of alchemy, since it is "associated with magic and the occult"7. Indeed, in most cases, arguments against the possibility of magic influencing science are accepted a priori, and historical evidence is simply ignored. Magic is characterized as something irrational, and the very possibility of its influence on such a highly rational enterprise as modern science is easily dismissed as implausible. Similarly, magic is said to deal with the supernatural, and therefore can only be regarded as the antithesis of humanity's heroic intellectual attempt to explain phenomena exclusively in natural terms.8 The saddest thing about this approach is that, with sa-

Keynes J.M. 6. Newton, the Man//The Royal Society, Newton Tercentenary Celebrations. Cambridge, 1947. P. 27 - 34.

Moran B. T. 7. Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA, 2005. P. 1 - 7; 185 - 189; Newman W.R. Atoms and Alchemy: Chemistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago, 2006. P. 1 - 20; 224 - 225.

8. См., например: Casini P. Newton, a Sceptical Alchemist?; Hall A. R. Magic, Metaphysics and Mysticism in the Scientific Revolution//Reason, Experiment, and Mysticism in the

page 55
While rejecting magic from the very beginning, he in no way attempts to explain its nature and significance for both the early Modern period and previous epochs. This anti-historical approach is an arrogant intellectual chauvinism that hinders a better understanding of the origins of modern science. To act in this spirit is to repeat the mistake of Sir David Brewster, Newton's first biographer. When he was able to examine the manuscripts left after Newton, he immediately discovered a huge number of alchemical manuscripts. Brewster's shocked reaction is well known:

We do not understand how a mind of such power, devoted to the noble abstractions of geometry, as well as to the study of the material world, descended to imitate the most despicable examples of alchemical poetry, and to comment on works that were the fruit of folly and fraud.9
In light of Brewster's great admiration for Newton, this reaction is extremely important. An outsider might expect that Brewster's otherwise slavish reverence for his great predecessor would lead him to conclude that if Newton was so interested in alchemy, there must be something in it. But no: Brewster's conviction that alchemy was useless nonsense was stronger than even his admiration for Newton. However, from a historical point of view, it should be recognized that while many of the main figures of the Scientific Revolution (undoubtedly some of the best minds of their era) relied on magical traditions, our task as historians is to try to understand what they found in these traditions. In the future, we will learn more not only about the nature of early Modern magic, but also about the origin of modern science.

Of course, it seems fairly obvious that something that can be identified as modern science originally emerged from the inclusion of various aspects of magical science.

Scientific Revolution/Ed. Rhigini BonelliM. L. and SheaW. R. London, 1975. P. 233 - 238, 275 - 282.

Brewster D. 9. Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1855. Vol. 2. P. 374 - 375.

page 56
traditions in traditional speculative natural philosophy. Both the experimental method and the belief that knowledge of the natural world should be used for the benefit of humanity can be considered as long-existing features of the magical tradition, which were increasingly adopted by nature researchers, who thus turned natural philosophy into one of the so-called "new philosophies" of the early Modern era. It is hardly necessary to reproduce all the arguments that are given in support of these claims concerning the methodology of the new science. It does not follow, however, that there is nothing more to say. Even the essential content of natural philosophy - not just the methodology - has been expanded by borrowing beliefs from the magical tradition. It is clear that some aspects of the magical tradition were recognized by early Modern thinkers and thus considered valid and true; while other aspects were ignored or denied and thus considered unfounded and false. The main purpose of this article is to show that this was the general fate of the magical tradition. Some aspects of this tradition were used and included in the updated version of natural philosophy, while other aspects were discarded.

If it is true that many aspects of the magical tradition have been incorporated into what we may call (if we may be allowed a slight anachronism) modern science, then we are forced to reconsider the idea that the end of the seventeenth century marked the decline of magic. By "decline," of course, we mean the decline of magic as an object of serious scientific research and discussion. While magical ideas continued to flourish in popular culture, the educated elite abruptly lost interest in them and began to view them as something that was beyond rational. There were many reasons for this, and some of them have already been discussed; first of all, in the well - known book by K. Thomas "Religion and the Decline of Magic"10. The purpose of this article is to show other reasons for the decline of magic that have not been discussed before and that

Thomas K. 10. Religion and the Decline of Magic. London, 1971. For information on the fate of magic in popular culture, see, for example: Muchembled R. Popular Culture and Elite Culture in France, 1400-1750. Baton Rouge and London, 1985; Davies O. Cunning Folk: Popular Magic in English History. New York and London, 2003.

page 57
They are essential for our understanding of the intellectual history of the early Modern period.

Therefore, I will now offer a new perspective that is complementary to previous attempts to explain the so-called decline of magic. I argue that a significant number of elements traditionally associated with the occult arts and sciences during the Renaissance and early Modern periods were used by natural philosophers and entered into new directions of philosophy. It is largely due to the influence of magic that these new philosophical trends have become what they have become - not only as far as the experimental method is concerned, and as far as the new ethos is concerned (natural science must be practically useful), but also as far as their essential content is concerned. At the same time, other aspects of the magical tradition were definitely rejected.

These historical changes may be better represented in terms of what sociologists of science call "borderline work," that is, in terms of the process of demarcating supposedly legitimate and justified procedures and assumptions in obtaining natural science knowledge from those that are considered illegitimate and unjustified.11 Since the Renaissance, and throughout the period known as the Scientific Revolution, ideas about what is and isn't magic and occultism have continuously changed; and this process, in turn, has meant redefining the boundaries that separated natural philosophy from what is not. Moreover, in my opinion, it led to a sharp decline in interest (at least among orthodox thinkers) in what still remained in the realm of magic.

This article will also help you see what now appears to be historical and historiographical irony. Positivist historians refused to recognize the significance of magic in the history of science, because they confused the rejected remnants of the magical tradition (the pathetic fragments left after the natural philosophers of the early Modern period took everything they needed from it) with the tradition itself as a whole. I've said before that historians like Brewster, when confronted with al-

11. См. Gieryn T.F. Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists//American Sociological Review. 1983. Vol. 48. P. 781 - 795; Barnes B., Bloor D., Henry J. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London and Chicago, 1996. P. 140 - 168.

page 58
They didn't even try to understand the nature of the magical tradition. Brewster in the mid-nineteenth century, knowing that modern science rejected alchemy, did not even try to find out what was thought about alchemy in the Newtonian era; and similarly, some current commentators, relying on today's understanding of what magic is (and, accordingly, in their opinion, always has been), they refuse to accept the position of other historians who claim that magic was once completely different - so much so that, if understood correctly, it could undoubtedly have had, and indeed has had, an impact on the development of modern science. The current concept of the magical tradition was created in the eighteenth century and is still part of that era.12
The nature of "magic"

One of the main reasons why historians (positivists and some others) have misunderstood the nature of Renaissance magic is the lack of understanding of what was then called natural magic. The lack of understanding of this tradition, in turn, is due to the fact that most of it was accepted by what we now call science, and the remaining, less numerous elements of it were preserved in what should be considered only as remnants left after other elements were included in natural philosophy. Today we tend to identify magic with the supernatural (if we leave aside magicians from variety magic), but in the period we are considering, the description of supernatural events and phenomena involved talking about miracles performed by God - after all, only God was above nature and only He could perform supernatural actions.13 On the contrary, magic appealed to the natural properties of things, and a good magician was considered to have knowledge of the various secret qualities of objects. As Giambattista della Porta wrote:

12. I am inspired by the fact that a similar statement regarding alchemy has already been made in an excellent article: Principe L. M., Newman W. R. Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy/ / Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe / Ed. Newman W.R., Grafton A. Cambridge, MA, 2001. P. 385 - 431.

Clark S. 13. The Scientific Status of Demonology//Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance/Ed. Vickers B. Cambridge, 1986. P. 351 - 374; Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. Oxford, 1997. P. 161 - 179.

page 59
Magic is nothing but the knowledge of all natural processes... I say that this art is full of much knowledge, many secrets; it reveals to us the properties and qualities of hidden things, as well as the knowledge of all natural processes; it teaches us to see by means of agreement or disagreement between things: so that we must either separate them or connect them in such a way as to perform amazing deeds, which ignorant people call miracles... Therefore, those of you who turn to magic should understand that the actions of magic are nothing but the actions of nature, whose executive assistant is magic.14
This definition appears in the most popular magic textbook at the time, which was simply called "Natural Magic"; and similar ideas about the nature of magic were then widespread. Cornelius Agrippa, one of those who made the greatest contribution to the Renaissance magical tradition, insisted that " magicians are scrupulous researchers of nature, only managing what she herself has previously created by combining the active and passive; and they often manage to predict the result - so that such actions are ordinary people they are often regarded as miracles, when in reality they are nothing more than anticipations of the actions of nature."15
So, the basic principle of natural magic was that all bodies have secret qualities that enable them to influence other bodies in various ways (although in many cases the effect of these secret qualities was considered very specific). Accordingly, the main method of using magical knowledge was to connect the body that has a specific effect and the body that it is known to affect; or to separate such bodies in order to achieve a negative effect. This is what della Porta meant when he spoke of the separation or juxtaposition of things according to their "agreement or disagreement"; and this is what Agrippa meant when he wrote of the union of the "active and passive". This doctrine made a strong impression on one of the greatest reformers of natural philosophy, Francis-

Delia Porta G. B. 14. Natural Magick in Twenty Books. London, 1658. P. 2.

Agrippa C. 15. De incertitudine et vanitate omnium scientiarum et atrium. 1531. Cap. 42.

page 60
In the fourth aphorism of his famous New Organon, he stated: "In performing an action, man can do nothing else but unite and separate natural bodies; nature does the rest by means of internal action." 16 These mysterious interactions were often described in terms of liking and disliking between bodies - a notorious way of expressing it that is characteristic of magicians, but which, however, was used with minor modifications by such famous representatives of the new philosophy as Robert Hooke, who spoke about the conformity and incongruity between bodies, and Isaac Newton, who explained some chemical phenomena in terms of sociability or non-sociability 17.

When other elements of the tradition (which today are often characterized as the very essence of magic) are correlated with natural magic, they find themselves in a subordinate position to it. A truly learned magician was a person who had the broadest knowledge of how to do the most amazing things... through a combination of active and passive forces of nature. " 18 In other words, the highest-level magician knew from his own experience many of the actions of the secret qualities of things and was able to apply this knowledge in practice. A lower-level magician, however, could refer to one or two alternative aspects of the tradition, replacing their lack of knowledge. This tactic was considered a way to "cut corners", to take a shorter path to the knowledge of secret qualities that a real magician received through experience (at least in principle: in practice, they often relied on accumulated oral knowledge, and over time, increasingly, on written tradition)19.

Bacon F. 16. Novum organum, I, aph. IV. On magic in Bacon's works, see: Rossi P. Francis Bacon. London, 1968; Henry J. Knowledge is Power: Francis Bacon and the Method of Science. Cambridge, 2002. P. 42 - 81.

Hooke R. 17. Micrographia. London, 1665; Newton I. Letter to R. Boyle, February 28,1679 // Isaac Newton's Papers and Letters on Natural Philosophy/Ed. Cohenl.B.Cambridge, 1958. P. 251. См. Henry J. Robert Hooke, the Incongruous Mechanist//Robert Hooke: New Studies/ed. Hunter M., Schaffer S. Woodbridge, 1989. P. 149 - 180.

Agrippa C. 18. De incertitudine. See also Kassell L. All Was That Land Full Fill'd of Faerie', or Magic and the Past in Early Modern England//Journal of the History of Ideas. 2006. Vol. 67. P. 107 - 122.

Eamon W. 19. Science and the Secrets of Nature. Princeton, 1994; Hansen B. Science and Magic//Science in the Middle Ages/Ed. Lindberg D.C.Chicago, 1975. P. 483 - 506.

page 61
Take, for example, witchcraft (including necromancy, theurgy, witchcraft, and other arts of summoning spiritual entities), as well as semiology, or symbolic magic (which relies on the power of signs, words, and other symbols, including numerology, gematria, sorcery, incantation, etc.). but this view is connected with the fact that at the dawn of Modern times, the corresponding boundaries were shifted. Before the beginning of Modernity, witchcraft and symbolic magic were considered primarily as disciplines subordinate to natural magic. For example, an important element of symbolic magic was the reading of "signatures" in things. It was assumed that God, in the process of creating the world, left physical clues about the secret actions of things, so to speak, "signatures". As one commentator put it, "in addition to the obvious secret qualities of plants, which can help us understand how to use them, nature has marked what is most useful to us with special signs and symbols."20 God and nature, after all, don't do anything for nothing, so there is a definite reason why such and such a thing has such and such a specific element. Historians ' favorite example is the walnut: the nut core inside the shell is similar to the human brain inside the skull, and if you divide the core in half, you will see a surface with brain convolutions. What is this, if not a divine sign that the walnut has a certain relation to the human head or brain? It was widely assumed that the "signature" signified some kind of healing power, and, accordingly, it was believed that the walnut could be used as a medicine, for example, for headaches or mental illnesses. It must be said that an accurate determination of the effectiveness of walnuts would require empirical research conducted by trial and error. And at least in this respect, the knowledge of symbolic magic, or the ability to read the "signatures" in things, can be considered as a shortcut to the knowledge of secret qualities that was required for someone who practiced natural magic.21
Wellman K. 20. Talismans, Incubi, Divination and the Book of M*: The Bureau dAdresse Confronts the Occult // Reading the Book of Nature: The Other Side of the Scientific Revolution/Ed. Debus A.G., Walton M.T. St. Louis, 1998. P. 215 - 238.

Copenhauer B. 21. Did Science Have a Renaissance? // Isis. 1992. Vol. 83. K387 - 407; Tillyard E.M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. London, 1943.

page 62
It's easy to see the connection between natural magic and "signatures" in things, but the connection between natural magic and witchcraft seems ridiculous to the extreme. However strange this connection may seem, witchcraft was also seen only as an opportunity to avoid the painfully long acquisition of knowledge about secret qualities by experience. If we want to understand this, we must once again recall the changing meaning of the concept of "supernatural." From today's perspective, the idea that pre-Modern thinkers believed that demons were capable of performing supernatural acts to bring about certain miraculous phenomena seems quite correct. This corresponds to our understanding of demons. Our ideas, however, are historically incorrect. It's ironic, in a way, that the modern idea of demons with superpowers, like comic book characters, is a product of the secular imagination. In the intellectual cosmology of the early Modern era and earlier periods, only God is capable of performing supernatural actions. Demons, even the devil himself, were considered God's creations and as such obeyed the same natural law as humans.22 As John Cotta wrote in The Witchcraft Trial (1616), "nature is nothing but the ordered power of God in all created things, to which the devil also belongs; and therefore he is subject to this universal power." 23 The devil could perform miraculous works only in so far as he was a perfect connoisseur natural magic. The devil knew the secret qualities of things, he knew how to properly combine the active with the passive in order to achieve the desired result. William Perkins explained this quite well in A Discourse on the Cursed Art of Witchcraft:

The devil has knowledge of all natural things, of the influence of the stars, of the constitution of man and other creatures, of the species, powers, and operations of plants, roots, herbs, minerals, etc., and this knowledge surpasses the capacity of all men, even those who are experienced in such matters, i.e., philosophers and physicians..
Clark S. 22. The Scientific Status of Demonology; Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. Oxford, 1997. P. 161 - 78.

Cotta J. 23. The Trial of Witch-craft. London, 1616. P. 34.

Perkins W. 24. Discourse of the Damned Art of Witch-craft. Cambridge, 1610. P. 59.

page 63
Accordingly, if someone practicing natural magic did not know exactly how to achieve this or that result, they could decide to summon a demon or even the devil himself. However, it is important to note that if the devil did what the magician wanted him to do, it was only because, as Perkins wrote:

In nature, there are some properties, causes and effects... such things are not miraculous in themselves, but only hidden and secret, and the devil knows their power and effect from the very first days of creation.25
In other words, the devil can do such things in the same way that a magician does them, but with more success, because he has a lot of experience: after all, the devil has been present in this world for a long time. Ignorant people may think that the devil and the magician can perform miracles, but, as Cornelius Agrippa insists, both only anticipate and use the actions of nature.26 In the words of Francesco Giuntini, "there is nothing in the actions of demons but the application of natural active forces to corresponding proportionate passive objects, which is, in fact, the action of nature."27. The devil has no supernatural power, but he achieves his goals by using the secret forces of nature.

Thus, although in the pre-Modern era the logic of symbolic magic and the logic of demonology were closely related to the logic of natural magic, at the end of the sixteenth century a revision of these concepts began. By the end of the seventeenth century, most of the elements of the magical tradition were either incorporated into the new philosophy or reformulated to meet the requirements of the new naturalism. But symbolic magic, demonology, certain aspects of the natural-magical tradition (such as astrology), and the aspect of alchemy associated with the "creation of gold" (Chrysopoeia), formed the sphere of a new understanding of magic. This new magic was now regarded by educated people only as spurious and false knowledge; and this was true, since it was not true at all.

25. Ibid. P. 110.

Agrippa C. 26. De incertitudine.

Giuntini F. 27. Speculum astronomiae. Paris, 1573. Cit. by: Thorndicce L. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. 8 vols. New York, 1923 - 1958. Vol. 6. P. 132.

page 64
all the useful aspects (such as the idea that forces can act at a distance) have become part of the natural philosophy mainstream.

The most important aspect of redefining natural magic as a set of propositions that could be used more usefully in natural philosophy was the denial that natural magic was magic. Thanks mainly to the church authorities, magic has always had what is now called a " bad press." As if it were not enough for the Catholic Church to constantly accuse magicians, astrologers and alchemists of deceit and charlatanism, undermining their authority, it also exaggerated the demonological aspect of the magical tradition, presenting it as dangerous and anti - religious. It is quite obvious that the Church was trying to avoid mixing up miracles and those amazing things that could be carried out by natural, though secret forces. Natural magic, it seemed - at least to the uneducated-suggested that miraculous things could be performed by lay people without supernatural help. An implicit threat to the authority of the Church could be skilfully prevented by insisting that all magical actions are performed by demonic forces, and then on this basis condemn magic in the strongest possible terms. For the Church, every magician was a Doctor Faust (and during the persecution of witches, "clever men", and especially "clever women", were accused of receiving their knowledge not from nature, but directly from Satan)28.

After this, it is hardly surprising that, although there are many references to famous magicians in historical documents, few people claimed to be magicians themselves; moreover, those who were considered magicians usually disavowed such a reputation. Roger Bacon was considered the greatest magician, and yet he strenuously denied that he did anything with magic. However, if we look at Bacon and other magicians according to what they themselves wanted to look like, we will have to admit that there was no such thing as a magical tradition, and that there were never any magicians. In some places-

28. См. Walker D.P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella. London, 1958. P. 36, 83; Hansen B. Science and Magic. P. 488 - 489. Here, as in many other cases, the Church shaped public opinion.

page 65
In a sense, the latter is true, since there was never Merlin or Faust, but mathematicians, alchemists,Kabbalists, more or less mystically inclined natural philosophers, humanists fascinated by Plato's theurgy, and so on. 29 However, we should think in terms inherent in historical characters themselves, and not in our own. From the point of view of our contemporaries, Roger Bacon was, as J. R. R. Tolkien points out. According to Molland," a full-blooded magician", and according to Molland, despite Bacon's own assurance to the contrary, this is not surprising, since he "went a long way to get into the category of magicians later" 30.

Since religion condemned magic, it was not so easy to openly incorporate the magical tradition into natural philosophy. Accordingly, an important aspect of including natural magic in the reformed version of natural philosophy was to protect those thinkers of the past who were considered magicians from all charges of using magic. Again, as J. R. R. Tolkien points out. Molland, medieval writers who had a reputation as magicians, such as al-Kindi, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon, Arnold of Villanova, and Michael Scott, in the scientific literature of early Modern times turned from magicians into heroes of experimental science. The main credit for this transformation belongs to the book of Gabriel Naudet "Apology of all those great men who are falsely suspected of magic "(Paris, 1624); in addition, John Dee, in a now lost treatise, defended Roger Bacon from accusations of witchcraft. Robert Hooke, in turn, later defended Dee himself: he claimed that Dee, whose notoriety had been growing steadily since his imaginary conversations with angels were published, was a cryptographer, not a sorcerer. According to Hooke, this conversation with angels was actually "a secret history of nature and art." 31 In this respect, Hooke only reproduced the line that was used to protect the-

29. Or those who had several similar interests at once. For example, John Napier, the inventor of logarithms, also practiced alchemy and was known in Edinburgh as a sorcerer. See Shennan F. Flesh and Bones: The Life, Passions and Legacies of John Napier. Edinburgh, 1989.

Molland A. G. 30. Roger Bacon as Magician//Traditio. 1974. Vol. 30. P. 459 - 460. The controversial title of Bacon's Epistle on the Secret Works of Nature and Art, and on the Insignificance of Magic, written between 1248 and 1267, is also characteristic.

31. For a contemporary discussion of Naudet's book, see: Kassell L. A. All Was That Land Full Fill'd of Faerie'; Molland A. G. Roger Bacon as Magician.

page 66
you know the reputation of Johann Trithemius, another magician who reported his conversations with angels, which were later declared to be just exercises in cryptography (the essence of the exercises was to discover what was really being said under the guise of these conversations)32.

Other thinkers who have used the magical tradition have preferred to remain silent about what they owe to it, or have confused their contemporaries by concealing their true position on magic. Francis Bacon, for example, was a persistent critic of magic, even though he adopted many of its principles and doctrines. 33 Cornelius Agrippa made rather ambiguous the nature of his Secret Philosophy (Cologne, 1533) by publishing what appeared to be a reinterpretation of it three years before the publication of the work itself (although this supposed revision, "On the unreliability and futility of the sciences", was, as modern researchers have shown, also very ambiguous)34.

Both the omission of the influence of magic and the open denial of magic should not be taken as evidence that the magical tradition played no role in the emergence of modern science. Some early Modern thinkers viewed symbolic magic as something irrational while accepting natural magic; others rejected witchcraft (on both skeptical and religious grounds), 35 but still considered certain aspects of the magical tradition to be an essential part of natural philosophy. Those positivist-oriented historians and philosophers on-

Hooke R. 32. Of Dr. Dee's Book of Spirits//The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke/Ed. Waller R. London, 1705. P. 203 - 210. См. также Henry J. Robert Hooke. P. 176 - 178; Deacon R. John Dee, Scientist, Geographer, Astrologer and Secret Agent to Elizabeth I. London, 1968. Dee's Conversations with Angels were published in: A True & Faithful Relationship of What Passed for Many Years Between Dr. John Dee... and Some Spirits/Ed. CasuabonM.London, 1659. См. Harkness D.E. John Dee's Conversations with Angels. Cambridge, 1999. For Trithemia, see Arnold K. Johannes Trithemius (1462-1516). Wurtzburg, 1971; Shumaker W. Renaissance curiosa. Binghampton, 1982.

33. For Bacon's critique of magic, see Rossi P. Francis Bacon, pp. 31-35.

34. The reaction manifested itself in attacks on all knowledge in general and in the assertion of Christian fideism in On Unreliability..., but it has been shown that this work is based on the same magico-religious premises as The Secret Philosophy, so that it can be said that both works are fundamentally the same. См. Keefer M. H. Agrippa's Dilemma: Hermetic Rebirth and the Ambivalence of De vanitate and De occulta philosophia//Renaissance Quarterly. 1988. Vol. 41. P. 614 - 653.

35. On the spread of denial of witchcraft, see Hunter M. Witchcraft and the Decline of Belief/ / Eighth-Century Life. 1998. Vol. XXII. P. 139 - 147.

page 67
The Uki, who saw magic as the antithesis of science, were wrong to ignore these changes in the interpretation of the essence of magic. They wanted to see early Modern magic as basically identical to what magic became after the Enlightenment. But in reality, ideas about magic have undergone a radical change. This was mainly due to the fact that a significant part of the original tradition was incorporated into natural philosophy, as well as reinterpreted by the historical figures themselves (who were fully aware of the opposition between religion and magic) in such a way as if it had always been a part of it and represented a completely legitimate way of knowing the natural world.36 Accordingly, I do not agree with F. L. Borchardt's opinion that sooner or later, magicians themselves expressed "disillusionment with magic", recognizing that it inevitably leads to devil worship, and abandoned it, returning to religious orthodoxy. It seems to me that it is more about trying to find compromises with faith (both in one's own faith and in that of the leading members of the Church) and incorporating certain elements of magic into one's philosophical systems, while the more religiously dangerous aspects of the magical tradition were left to what was increasingly associated with magic. demonology (as opposed to what was previously defined as natural magic)37. One of the main reasons why the influence of magic on science (if we allow ourselves an anachronism for the sake of argument from historiography) What was denied is precisely that those elements of magic that clearly exerted this influence were now regarded simply as part of the history of science and were no longer considered part of the history of magic. At the same time, those elements of the history of magic thatThey were not included in science, and which, in the early Modern era, were largely regarded as the antithesis of a true understanding of natural phenomena, but were regarded as representing magic as such; and although this was not the case until the end of the seventeenth century, this view was carried over to the entire history of Western culture. This is just a disorienting misconception.

36. См. Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance/Ed. Vickers B. P. 1 - 55.

Borchardt F. L. 37. The Magus as Renaissance Man//Sixteenth Century Journal. 1990. Vol. 21. P. 59, 72.

page 68
Selective assimilation of elements of the magical tradition

This is not to be taken to mean that natural philosophers have suddenly decided to look for something in the magical tradition that they can then incorporate into their natural philosophy. It was not the case that the natural philosophers of the sixteenth century wanted to see what the masters and artisans were doing there, hoping to find something useful for them. Nevertheless, it is quite possible to say that natural philosophers became more and more knowledgeable in the arcane sciences and arts, and that since the Renaissance, scientists and masters began to interact more actively - as never before - with each other.38 In some cases, of course, the reformers praised the deliberate borrowing of knowledge from a craft or magical tradition, and no doubt some readers followed their advice. Thus, in 1531, Juan Luis Vives encouraged his readers to "enter a workshop or workshop, seek the advice of artisans, and gain knowledge of the details of their work"; similarly, Francis Bacon encouraged readers of his New Organon (1620) to systematically investigate the magical tradition:

For though such things are deeply buried under a mass of lies and fairy tales, they are still worth studying... for some of them may be based on some natural action, as, for example, in charming, in strengthening the imagination, in sympathetically connecting things at a distance, in transmitting impressions both from spirit to spirit and from body to body, and so on.39
For the most part, however, we are dealing with a very vague movement of a pan-European nature that developed during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and included thinkers who adopted theories, ideas, and techniques that might previously have been considered too occult or too vulnerable to accusations of devil worship, and adapted them to the current situation.,

38. For the thesis "scientist and master", see: Zilsel E. The Social Origins of Modern Science. Dordrecht, 2000; Smith P.H. The Body of the Artisan: Art and Experience in the Scientific Revolution. Chicago, 2004.

Watson 39. F. Vives: On Education. Cambridge, 1913. P. 209. About Vives, see: Norena C. G. Juan Luis Vives. The Hague, 1970. Bacon F. Novum organum. II, aph. 31.

page 69
which then came to be seen as a new philosophy. Again, different aspects of this vague movement should be understood differently. William Gilbert, who developed a theory to explain the constant motion of the Earth (as required by Copernicus ' theory) and based on the arcane properties of the magnet, may not have originally set out to do so, but after reading Pierre of Maricourt's Epistle on the Magnet, he realized that he could provide such an explanation. Robert Boyle turned to alchemy not because he was disillusioned with Descartes ' mechanistic philosophy - he had been an alchemist before; and perhaps he was able to see the shortcomings of Cartesianism precisely because he had alchemical knowledge.40 Magical ideas have been incorporated in various ways into the mainstream of philosophical thought, but only in a few cases have they been the result of conscious efforts to appropriate elements of the magical tradition.

Accordingly, the way in which various aspects of the occult arts and sciences were introduced into natural philosophy was not uniform and was affected by different historical accidents. It is impossible to imagine a general model for the introduction of occult elements into the main directions of philosophy, since each individual case was unique. The process was not systematic and encompassed all aspects of occultism, but it was certainly quite extensive. I do not set out to give a complete picture of this process in the remainder of this section; I am only concerned with preliminary sketches, which should show how some elements of at least some of the secret sciences were incorporated into early Modern philosophy, while others were considered a similar possibility, but, in the end, it was rejected.

So-called mathematical magic, for example, has been associated with what can be achieved with the help of mechanisms. Machines, after all, were made to do wonderful things that couldn't be done in the ordinary way; and they did them in ways that were completely incomprehensible to most people.

40. О Гильберте см. Henry J. Animism and Empiricism: Copernican Physics and the Origins of William Gilbert's Experimental Method // Journal of the History of Ideas. 2001. Vol. 62. P. 99-119; For Boyle, see Princip L. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest. Princeton, 1998; Newman W.R. Atoms and Alchemy.

page 70
an outside observer. Thus, their actions were secret by definition. This can be partly understood by the example of A. Clark's "law", according to which"any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." However, it would be a mistake to think that this means that Renaissance thinkers believed that machines were powered by demons.41 The ignorant were superstitious, of course, and might have some such ideas, but those who were well educated knew that machines worked by ingeniously constructed mechanical devices. Here, for example, is how Guillaume du Barthe described the "iron fly", supposedly created by the mathematician Regiomontane and able to fly around the room:

O divine mind, that in the tiny womb of an Insignificant fly has found a place For all the springs, chains, gears-Instead of all the impulses of life 42.

It might seem to some that this iron fly functions with the help of some secret forces: after all, the mechanical device that" replaced life " was hidden, could not be perceived by the senses, and, moreover, could not be explained within the framework of Aristotelian natural philosophy, and therefore some might think that this device works with the help of secret forces. forces by analogy with the action of secret qualities in natural bodies 43.

The mathematization of the worldview has always been seen as an essential element of the scientific revolution, but researchers who have analyzed this critical historical process have not paid enough attention to the undeniable connection between mathematics and magic in the Renaissance. Historians of mathematics were interested in humanists, astronomers, mathematicians-

Clarke A. C. 41. Profiles of the Future. London, 1962.

Bartas G.S. du. 42. His Divine Weekes and Works. London, 1606. p. 221; cit. по: Zetterberg J.P. The Mistaking of "the Mathematicks" for Magic in Tudor and Stuart England//Sixteenth Century Journal. 1980. Vol. 11. P. 93.

43. См. Thorndike L. History of Magic and Experimental Science; SherwoodM. Magic and Mechanics in Medieval Fiction // Studies in Philology. 1947. Vol. 41. P. 567 - 92; Zetterberg J. P. The Mistaking of "the Mathematicks"; Eamon W. Technology as Magic in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance//Janus. 1983. P. 171 - 212; Molland G. Cornelius Agrippa's Mathematical Magic//Mathematics from Manuscript to Print/Ed. Hay C. Oxford, 1988. P. 209 - 219.

page 71
Some Jesuit mathematicians and practical mathematicians of a more pragmatic type (gunners, surveyors, accountants, engineers of various kinds), but generally ignored those intellectuals of the period who worked more with mathematical magic. 44 This is undoubtedly the result of positivist tendencies in the history of science, aimed at eliminating all that is left behind in the history of science. which has a taste of magic. If mathematical magicians were studied at all, it was only as one of the cultural aspects of the Renaissance, and their possible connection with the subsequent development of mathematics was not taken into account. So, J. P. Zeterberg considers it self-evident that what was then called mathematics, in fact, unfortunately, too often turned out to be magic. It never occurred to him that pre-Modern thinkers might have considered mathematics (and did, in fact, consider it) as part of a magical tradition 45. For most of them, to say that a person was a mathematician was equivalent to saying that he was a wizard; and this was true in the case of, for example, John Napier and John Deere.

By the time John Wilkins, one of the founders of the New English Philosophy, published his Mathematical Magic (1648), he already had to apologize for the title. Now educated people were convinced that mathematics had an important place in natural philosophy (which was always denied by Aristotle), and mechanics was increasingly perceived as a science dependent on natural phenomena; therefore, the functioning of machines also began to be perceived as non-scientific.-

44. See, for example, Rose P. L. The Italian Renaissance of Mathematics. Geneva, 1975; Westman R. S. The Astronomer's Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Survey // History of Science. 1980. Vol. 18. P. 105 - 147; Jardine N. Epistemology of the Sciences // The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy/Ed. Schmitt C. B., Skinner Q. Cambridge, 1988. P. 685 - 711; Biagioli M. The Social Status of Italian Mathematicians, 1450 - 1600 // History of Science. 1989. Vol. 27. R41-95; Dear P. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution. Chicago, 1995.

Zetterberg J. P. 45. The Mistaking of "the Mathematicks".

46. For Nepera, see Shennan F. Flesh and Bones. Neper's alchemy is practically not studied, but see Small J. Sketches of Later Scottish Alchemists/ / Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1874-1876. Vol. 11. P. 410-38. The literature on Di is quite extensive. См: Clucas S. Recent Works on John Dee (1988 - 2005): A Select Bibliography // John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies in English Renaissance Thought. Dordrecht, 2006. P. 345 - 350. The best monograph is Clulee N. H. John Dee's Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion. London and New York, 1988.

page 72
what is considered by natural philosophy, and, accordingly, it became possible to get rid of earlier associations with magic 47. The process of incorporating mechanics into natural philosophy began with the discovery in the Renaissance of Voprosy Mekhaniki, a work attributed (falsely)to Aristotle and the first Latin translation of Vittore Fausto in 1517, the author of the treatise demanded that mechanics be transferred from the category of arts to the category of mixed mathematical sciences-even before Descartes declared in 1644 that "there is really nothing in mechanics that does not also apply to physics as a certain part or kind"48. Although historians of mathematics have been even less interested than historians of science in the question of the possible influence of occultism, this fact seems, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to show that the change in attitude towards mathematics, the change in its intellectual status, was to some extent connected with the revaluation of the occult tradition that took place during the Renaissance.

The generally indisputable role of alchemy in the development of modern science should also be considered with caution, taking into account all the nuances. An important article by L. Princip and W. Newman recently showed that our current understanding of alchemy is seriously distorted by various reconstructions originating in the occult movements of the nineteenth century, and has no real historical basis in the alchemy of previous epochs.49 The historiographical glitch occurred when Enlightenment thinkers made a very controversial distinction between chemistry (in the modern sense) and alchemy (which was limited exclusively to the transmutation of base metals

Wilkins J. 47. Mathematical Magick, or, the Wonders That May Be Performed by Mechanical Geometry. London, 1648. The most comprehensive study is still the book by Shapiro B. John Wilkins: An Intellectual Biography. Berkeley, 1969; тем не менее, см. Alfonso-Goldfarb A.M. An "Older" View about Matter in John Wilkins' "Modern" Mathematical Magick//Reading the Book of Nature/Ed. Debus A. G., Walton M.T. St Louis, 1998. P. 133 - 146.

Descartes R. 48. Principia philosophiae. IV, §203. On the influence of pseudo-Aristotelian "Quaestiones mechanicae", see Hattab H. From Mechanics to Mechanism: The Quaestiones Mechanicae and Descartes' Physics // The Science of Nature in the Seventeenth Century/Ed. Anstey P. R., Schuster J.A. Dordrecht, 2005. P. 99 - 129.

Principe L.M., Newman W.R. 49. Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy. См. также Principe L. M. Reflections on Newton's Alchemy in Light of the New Historiography of Alchemy//Newton and Newtonianism/Ed. Force J. E., Hutton S. Dordrecht, 2004. P. 205 - 219.

page 73
in gold)50. This division itself can be understood as part of a trend still active in the eighteenth century to separate natural philosophy from magic. The need for such a distinction between chemistry and alchemy became even more urgent for later propagandists of science, because various occultists of the nineteenth century appropriated the alchemical tradition for themselves.51 Newman and Princip are in the vanguard of historians who are now trying to clear the real history of alchemy of all such distortions and show convincingly what alchemy was incorporated into modern science and what was left behind (or, in our case, it is more correct to say: "subsequently entered the falsified history of alchemy invented by later occultists"). In this connection, Newman and Princip point out that not all alchemists shared an animistic or even vitalistic view of matter, and such divergences led to the fact that alchemical ideas were perceived differently by representatives of reformed philosophy. Similarly, they mention modern research that shows that alchemical theories of matter were often corpuscular, even mechanistic, and that this undoubtedly had some impact on the new theories of matter of the scientific revolution.52
Just as alchemy split into two parts, one dealing with general chemical interactions and processes, and the other with the transmutation of metals, and only the first part became part of the new science, we can also observe exactly the same processes in the assimilation of herbalism and the tradition of medieval bestiaries. Research on flora and fauna in the pre-Modern era was overwhelmed by ideas about the religious, moral, and symbolic significance of God's creations, as well as their potential for obtaining materia medica. Many of these representations, which historians refer to as the so-called "symbolic vision of the world",

Principe L.M., Newman W.R. 50. Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy. P. 386. См. также Principe L.M., Newman W.R. Alchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Origins of a Historiographic Mistake // Early Science and Medicine. 1998. Vol. 3. P. 32 - 65.

Principe L.M., Newman W. R. 51. Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy. P. 418.

52. Ibid. P. 413 - 415. The leading researcher in this field is Newman himself. For this case, see Newman W. R. Atoms and Alchemy.

page 74
They are based on the belief in correspondences existing in the Great Chain of Being, which include various secret associations based on divine "signatures". However, once botany and zoology were incorporated into the new science, most of these magical and mythological legends, which were once perceived as essential information about plants and animals, were discarded.

To understand this change in our knowledge of natural things, we need to consider the implications of the discovery of the New World. The plants and animals found there were devoid of any symbolic associations for Europeans: they had no religious or moral significance based on historical or religious legends and folk lore. Naturalists could confine themselves to collecting facts about this new flora and fauna. Accordingly, in later compendiums on natural history, there was a noticeable shift towards treating all plants and animals in the same purely descriptive sense. Just as creatures unknown to European culture could only be described in terms of actual observations, so well-known plants and animals were gradually stripped of their old folklore associations. The result tends to be a worldview with less magic, but it would be wrong to view this as a continuous series of triumphs of science over magic.53
Despite this new emphasis on direct observation, the belief in the secret qualities of plants and animals related to materia medica was not shaken - in any case, it was believed that this belief was based on the experience of past generations. Moreover, the explorers sought to bring home exactly those plants that the natives considered most effective in treating diseases. As a rule, European doctors could not understand how these unknown drugs affect (and whether they affect at all) the four main "juices" that made up the body. Without the relevant comments of Aristotle, Dioscorides, or other ancient authorities, it was often impossible to tell whether a plant acts by heat, cold, or some other manifest quality. Accordingly,

Ashworth W.B. jr. 53. Natural History and the Emblematic World view // Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution/Ed. Lindberg D. C., Westman R. S. Cambridge, 1980. P. 303-332.

page 75
the further, the more often doctors said that the new tool works with the help of alternative, i.e. secret, qualities. This could lead to a revision of medical and therapeutic theories, in which some diseases were considered not as the result of an imbalance between the "juices", but as damage to the entire substance of the body. Therefore, medicines for such diseases could only be those that affected the entire substance of the body, and not just this or that "juice" 54. Thus, the secret qualities of materia medica, as opposed to the revealed qualities such as heat, cold, dryness, and humidity, were increasingly recognized and incorporated into the new natural philosophy.

I believe that if we continue in this vein, we can show how certain aspects of the magical tradition have been partially passed on to natural philosophy, and partially discarded. In all cases (as in the examples above), the story will be similar: historical difficulties are caused by a set of random circumstances. So, for example, it is quite obvious that the ways in which alchemy (or at least part of it) was incorporated into natural philosophy were different from the ways in which so-called "mathematical magic" (the use of mechanisms to improve human abilities)was incorporated into it55. Further, some well-known aspects of the natural magic tradition (such as the belief in the natural power of words) did not fit into the new framework at all. In other cases, elements of tradition were perceived in a very limited way, as in the case of numerology, which seems to have led Kepler and Newton (if we speak only of these two famous figures) to certain conclusions about the natural world, but hardly had any general influence on them.56 If we also keep in mind that

54. On these new occult movements in medicine, see: Henry J., Forrester J. M. Jean Kernel and the Importance of His De abditis rerum causis / / Jean Kernel's On the Hidden Causes of Things: Forms, Souls and Occult Diseases in Renaissance Medicine. Leiden, 2005. P. 37 - 44.

55. In this respect, one can compare Wilkins ' Mathematical Magick, for example, with Peter Severin's Idea medicinae philosophicae.

56. См. Westman R.S. Nature, Art, and Psyche: Jung, Pauli, and the Kepler-Fludd Polemic; Field J. V. Kepler's Rejection of Numerology//Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance/Ed. Vickers B.Cambridge, 1986. P. 177 - 229; 273 - 296. Кроме того см.: McGuire J.E., Rattansi P.M. Newton and the "Pipes of Pan"//Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London. 1966. Vol. 21. P. 108 - 143.

page 76
While the magical tradition was undoubtedly an important source for the experimentalism of new philosophies, as well as for the idea that knowledge of the natural world can be useful to humanity, it would be very difficult to deny that the new philosophies owe much to the magical tradition. 57
The reason for the changes?

Accordingly, the question arises: why did all these changes occur? Why did the knowledge map change so much between the end of the Renaissance and the beginning of the Enlightenment? Why was there a redefinition of boundaries - in such a way that natural magic lost its identity, becoming largely part of the new natural philosophy (which now, thanks to the experimental method, the comprehensive use of mathematics, and the pragmatic approach to knowledge, was much closer to our modern understanding of science than the earlier tradition of speculative natural philosophy), while symbolic magic has come to be perceived, at least by the educated public, as superstitious nonsense, 58 and demonology, which was previously a borderline discipline linking religion and natural philosophy, has become an entirely religious category and has been completely discarded in the course of secularization. 59?

57. The main support for the thesis that the experimentalism and utilitarianism of the new philosophies have their origin in the occult tradition can be found in Francis Bacon. См. Rossi P. Francis Bacon; Henry J. Knowledge is power. См. также, например: Henry J. Occult Qualities and the Experimental Philosophy: Active Principles in pre-Newtonian Matter Theory// History of Science. 1986. Vol. 24. P. 335 - 814; Animism and empiricism; The Origins of the Experimental Method - Mathematics or Magic? // Departure for Modern Europe: Philosophy between 1400 and 1700/Ed. Busche H., Hefibruggen-Walter S. Hamburg, 2011. P. 702 - 714.

58. On the decline of faith in symbolic magic, see Vickers B. Analog versus Identity: the Rejection of Occult Symbolism, 1580 - 1680//Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance/Ed. Vickers B. Cambridge, 1986; Critical Reactions to the Occult Sciences during the Renaissance//The Scientific Enterprise/Ed. Ullmann-Margalit E. Dordrecht, 1992. P. 77-79. See also Copenhaver B. The Occultist Tradition and Its Critics//The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-century Philosophy/Ed. GarberD., Ayers M. Cambridge, 1998. P. 454 - 512.

Walker D. P. 59. Spiritual and Demonic Magic. P. 84; Thomas K. Religion and the Decline of Magic; Clark S. The Rational Witchfinder: Conscience, Demonological Naturalism and Popular Superstitions//Science, Culture and Popular Belief in Renaissance Europe/Ed. Pumfrey S., Rossi P., Slawinski M. Manchester, 1991. P. 222 - 248.

page 77
As with many other historical problems, there are many answers to these questions. We have already considered some of them (for example, the discovery of pseudo-Aristotelian "Questions of Mechanics" contributed to the change in the status of mathematics), but it is impossible to specify all the other probable factors in this article. It is clear, for example, that the picture will be incomplete if we do not carefully consider the social and political context of the Renaissance and the Reformation, as well as how the development of these spheres affected the intellectual life of 60. So in this article, I want only to briefly address the more immediate reasons why the boundaries between magic and natural philosophy have shifted the way they have. At the same time, by" direct " I mean those reasons that were associated with the attempts of Renaissance and early Modern thinkers to improve their knowledge of the physical world.

Perhaps the first thing to mention in this context is the change in the intellectual status of magic as a result of the discovery of essentially religious writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus. In connection with the widespread idea of "Adam's wisdom" in the previous period, it was believed that knowledge should be sought in the past. Adam knew everything, but because of the fall, this knowledge was gradually lost. Therefore, it was believed that the older the thinker, the more extensive his knowledge, because he remembered much more than his descendants. Historians of science are well aware of these ideas in the Copernican theory, which has usually been described as Pythagorean.61 The Copernicans knew that even if they had a chance, they would have to

60. The literature on this topic is very extensive, but the starting point is certainly Thomas K. Religion and the Decline of Magic. See also Clark S. Thinking with Demons. On the sociopolitical dimension of alchemy, which is well reflected in the literature, see, for example: Rattansi P. M. Paracelsus and the Puritan Revolution / / Ambix. 1963. Vol. 11. P. 24-32; Trevor-Roper H .The Paracelsian Movement// Renaissance Essays. London, 1985. P. 149 - 199; Mendelsohn J. A. Alchemy and Politics in England// Past and Present. 1992. Vol. 135. P. 30 - 78; Newman W. From Alchemy to "Chymistry"//The Cambridge History of Science/Ed. Park K., Daston L.Vol.3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge, 2006. P. 497-517. See also, as another example, Zambelli P. Magic and Radical Reformation in Agrippa of Nettesheim / / Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. 1976. Vol. 39. P. 69 - 103.

61. See, for example: Digges T. A Perfit Description of the Caelestiall Orbes, According to the Most Auncient Doctrine of the Pythagoreans. London, 1576. См. Scfom'ff C. B. Prisca theologia e philosophia perennis: due temi del Rinascimento italiano e la loro fortuna// Atti del V Convegno internazionale del Centro di Studi Umanistici: Il pensiero italiano

page 78
to convince contemporaries of their correctness, then only by showing that the Copernican theory was already known in the past. The ancient sage Hermes Trismegistus was considered a contemporary of Moses, responsible for transmitting Adam's knowledge to the pagan Greeks (just as Moses was responsible for transmitting it to the Jews). Such views were easy to adhere to, since the newly discovered texts of Hermes anticipated Christian beliefs, including Trinitarian ones. As we now know, this supposed anticipation was in fact an echo of Christianity, since in reality these writings were written by Neo-Platonists in the first centuries of the Christian era.

The first translator of the hermetic corpus (or at least part of it) There was Marsilio Ficino, who clearly admired neo-Platonic theurgy and developed in his treatise On the Acquisition of Life from Heaven (1489) his own theory, which D. P. Walker called "spiritual magic". Ficino's work became highly influential and helped spread the notion that Hermes Trismegistus was primarily a magician.62 This identification of Hermes as a magician was also helped by the fact that, along with neo-Platonic theistic writings, a significant number of astrological, alchemical, and natural magical treatises were attributed to him. If we take into account the idea of the "wisdom of Adam" and the general belief in the extreme antiquity of the writings of the hermetic corpus, then it becomes clear that magic seemed to be one of the oldest forms of knowledge, and, accordingly, it was treated with great reverence. Now, after centuries of humiliation and persecution by the Church, magic was presented as a significant part of the"wisdom of Adam." Accordingly, as suggested by E. Garin, for some (short) time after the opening of the hermetic case, it was quite acceptable to be called a magician and admit to practicing magic (although, as we have already noted, usually the connection with magic was denied)63. Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that

del Rinascimento eil tempo nostro. Florence, 1970. P. 211 - 236; Walker D.P. The Ancient Theology. London, 1972.

62. The treatise On the Acquisition of Life from Heaven was the third part of Ficino's De vita triplici (Florence, 1489). See Walker D. P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic, p. 58.

63. See Garin E. The Philosopher and the Magus // Renaissance Characters/Ed. Garin E. Chicago, 1997. P. 123-153. See also Borchardt F. L. The Magus as Renaissance Man. We should remember, however, that even highly educated magicians, such as Agrippa, could call themselves magicians and at the same time be uneasy.-

page 79
the natural philosophers of the Renaissance and early Modern periods looked at the magical tradition with fresh eyes and took the question of what it had to offer more seriously than before.64
Another reason why the boundaries of the realm of magic have been redefined is due to the rapid growth of knowledge about the early magical tradition due to the humanities of the Renaissance. In particular, the new discovery of the works of ancient Neo-Platonists, such as Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus, and others, provided knowledge about the theory of magic, in which "spiritual and demonic magic" played a greater role than natural magic. This alternative to the Aristotelian tradition was first made known by the work of the already mentioned Florentine philosopher and translator Marsilio Ficino, whose treatise "On the Acquisition of Life from heaven" was a complete exposition of the theory of magic, which was based not only on the Aristotelian concept of secret qualities, but also on the theurgic theories of late Neoplatonism. Although Ficino himself seems to have managed to stay within the framework of natural magic in its traditional sense (with an emphasis on the word "natural"), his treatise drew attention to the fact that the later Neoplatonists apparently believed that the secret qualities that reside in matter were clear signs of the divine and demonic presence in it. In other words, for the neo-Platonic pagans, the secret but natural effects that were considered within the framework of traditional natural magic were actually supernatural effects caused directly by gods or demons. And although such ideas were pagan, and it was quite easy to show that they were incompatible with Christian Aristotelianism, they led to the question of the boundaries between

and to raise concerns about the religious implications that this status may have entailed. See: Keefer M. H. Agrippa's Dilemma.

64. The best edition of the Hermetic corpus's religious treatises, which also contains an excellent introduction, is Copenhaver B. Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius. Cambridge, 1991. For the so-called "technical works", see Festugiere A.-J. La revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste. Vol. 1: L'astrologie et les sciences occultes. Paris, 1950. A brief assessment of the historical significance of Hermetic writings is given in: Copenhaver B. Astrology and Magic/ / The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy / Ed. Schmitt C. B., Skinner Q. Cambridge, 1988. P. 264 - 300; Natural Magic, Hermetism, and Occultism in Early Modern Science // Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution/Ed. Lindberg D. C., Westman R. S. Cambridge, 1990. P. 261 - 302; Magic//The Cambridge History of Science/Ed. Park K., Daston L. Vol. 3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge, 2006. P. 518 - 540.

page 80
the natural and supernatural, as well as the power of demons, was put on the agenda of scientific research. Thus, secret qualities that were previously very rarely studied in the scholastic tradition are now at the center of discussion.65
One of the most important aspects of these discussions was the controversy involving the infamous secular aristotelian Pietro Pomponazzi. He was, according to B. Kopenhaver, "a representative of a complete and aggressive naturalism"; in 1520, he wrote a treatise "On the causes of amazing natural phenomena, or on sorcery", in which he unequivocally stated that demons were superfluous to explain nature. One of his arguments was that even if demons knew better than humans all the secret qualities of objects, as well as how to create a particular thing by combining active and passive elements, nevertheless, due to the fact that demons are spiritual disembodied entities, they are completely unable to manipulate matter to put your knowledge into practice 66. Pomponazzi's book, like Ficino's, stimulated a debate about secret qualities, demons, and the distinction between them. By eliminating the possibility of demon interference, Pomponazzi significantly expanded the function of the supposed secret qualities of matter. The discussion of these qualities could have stimulated speculation about the nature of matter itself and, accordingly, could have been relegated to the realm of natural philosophy. At the same time, skeptical philosophers have developed a new set of arguments to eliminate demons from natural philosophy as superfluous elements and, ultimately, as nothing more than superstitious beliefs.67
Another important incentive for a detailed examination of secret qualities appeared within the walls of medical faculties. We have already noted that the development of botany and other disciplines related to the production of materia medica led to the creation of a significant number of new medical products, which were defined as "secret" in terms of their effects-

Copenhauer B. 65. Astrology and Magic; Did Science Have a Renaissance?; Walker D. P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic.

Copenhaver B. 66. Astrology and Magic. P. 273.

67. Newman W. R. Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature is an important study of the role played by the discussion of the natural powers and abilities of demons. Chicago, 2004.

page 81
their strength did not depend on the effects they produced on the apparent qualities of the patient's "juices". This situation coincided with the realization of the need to reform medical theory in another respect. Epidemics of infectious diseases were becoming more frequent in Europe: bubonic plague became endemic, syphilis affected all segments of society. All this created problems for traditional medical theory: it was difficult to understand how a theory of diseases based on the individual physiology of bodily "juices" could explain infectious diseases. Contrary to ancient authorities, epidemic diseases showed that diseases live a life of their own, that they are real, separate entities that can pass from one person to another, as well as simultaneously attack a large number of people, regardless of their personal characteristics. A new understanding of the nature of diseases required new approaches to them, and in the sixteenth century Europe saw three significant attempts to reform medical theory. All three would-be reformers, Paracelsus, Girolamo Fracastoro, and Jean Fernel, drew on the occult tradition in their proposed reforms. Paracelsus turned to alchemy - for help not only in preparing new medicines, but also in understanding the nature of the physiology and nature of the disease; Fracastoro developed the idea of" seeds " of the disease," seeds "that can develop in the body and destroy it; Fernel was sure that infectious diseases do not affect the bodily "juices" but on the substantial form of the body (which he called the "full substance" of the body), and with the help of some secret forces, and not by influencing the revealed qualities.68
The works of Ficino, Pomponazzi, Paracelsus, Fracastoro, and Fernel were, of course, highlights in the rapidly changing intellectual landscape. In the course of the sixteenth century, the nature and role of secret qualities became increasingly the subject of natural philosophy discussions. This led to very sad consequences-

68. On Paracelsus, see, for example: Pagel W. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. Basle, 1958; Weeks A. Paracelsus: Speculative Theory and the Crisis of the Early Reformation. Albany, 1997. О Фракасторо см.: Nutton V. The Seeds of Disease: An Explanation of Contagion and Infection from the Greeks to the Renaissance//Medical History. 1983. Vol. 27. P. 1-34; The Reception of Fracastoro's Theory of Contagion: The Seed That Fell Among Thorns? // Osiris. Second Series. 1990. Vol. 6. P. 196 - 234. О Фернеле см.: Henry J., Forrester J. M. Jean Fernel and the Importance of His De abditis rerum causis.

page 82
This is a good example for traditional Aristotelianism, because although scholasticism allowed for secret qualities, and traditional natural magic throughout the Middle Ages was based mainly on Aristotelian propositions (for example, alchemy, even going beyond everything that can be found in the writings of Aristotle, still accepted the doctrine of the four elements and the four elements). In fact, Aristotle made virtually no mention of secret qualities. 69 Moreover, during the Renaissance (when Aristotle was studied in the original Greek), it became increasingly clear that the tradition of natural magic owed a great deal to Arabic and medieval interpolations, such as those of Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Avicenna, and al-Quds.- Kindy 70. In addition, in the Aristotelian tradition, the ideal of science was based on a form of logical syllogism (deductive reasoning), but the prerequisites, i.e., the starting points, for this reasoning had to be indisputable, obvious truths that anyone could freely agree with. Thus, it is not surprising that the main emphasis in natural philosophy argumentation was placed on supposedly revealed qualities that met the criterion of certainty and evidence for all 71. Under this system, it was one thing to refer to secret qualities in individual cases to explain a particular phenomenon, but it was quite another to observe how secret qualities began to play an increasingly important role in explaining an increasing number of natural phenomena. There was a crisis of Aristotelianism, which consisted in the fact that now in the framework of philosophy based on human feeling, it was assumed to deal with imperceptible properties and entities. Authors like Pomponazzi, Jean Fernel, and Daniel Sennert, who placed increasing importance on secret qualities within the framework of Aristotelianism, could be quite justified

69. A brief assessment of the nature of alchemy is given in: Moran B. T. Distilling Knowledge; Newman W. R. Atoms and Alchemy. On occult qualities, see Hutchison K. What Happened to Occult Qualities in the Renaissance? / / Isis. 1982. Vol. 73. R 233 - 253; Millen R. The Manifestation of Occult Qualities in the Scientific Revolution//Religion, Science and Worldview/Ed. Osler M.J., Farber P. L. Cambridge, 1985. P. 185 - 216; Henry J. Occult Qualities and the Experimental Philosophy.

Copenhaver B. 70. Astrology and Magic.

71. On this aspect of Aristotelianism, see, for example: Dear P. Discipline and Experience; The Meanings of Experience//The Cambridge History of Science / Ed. Park K., Daston L.Vol. 3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge, 2006. P. 106 - 131.

page 83
ask whether it is an eclectic Aristotelianism or a renunciation of Aristotelianism. But whatever the truth of the matter, we can say that the development of the idea of secret qualities during the Renaissance led to these qualities playing a significant role in the reformed versions of natural philosophy and eventually entering the mainstream of new philosophies that completely supplanted Aristotelianism.72
Finally, whatever it may seem to us (or at least to those of us who, like David Brewster, still regard magic as a product of stupidity and fraud), there is every reason to believe that, as far as Renaissance thinkers are concerned, the occult sciences were the most likely source of the reform of natural philosophy, as well as the development of a new approach to understanding the divine creation. Moreover, to a large extent, they were the only alternative source for natural science. Although secret qualities were generally considered real, scholastic philosophers were generally reluctant to talk about them; accordingly, these insufficiently researched qualities seem to be the most likely source for potential reformers of the obsolete Aristotelian natural philosophy. As Aristotle's theory of substantial forms and the related hylemorphism were increasingly viewed as inadequate, natural philosophers began to turn to alchemy as the most appropriate alternative way to understand the relationship between the body and its properties.73 As Galen's medical theory, which was based almost exclusively on the balance (or imbalance) of the four qualities of the body in understanding the nature of diseases and treatments, became increasingly perceived as inadequate, medical reformers (such as Fernel, Fracastoro, and Paracelsus) began, in one way or another

72. On Pomponazzi, see: Walker D. P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic. P. 107-111. О Фернеле см. Henry J., Forrester J. M. Jean Fernel and the Importance of His De abditis rerum causis. For Sennert, see: Newman W. R. Atoms and Alchemy. General research on the topic: Millen R. The Manifestation of Occult Qualities in the Scientific Revolution; Henry J. The Origins of the Experimental Method.

73. Garber and Joy recognize the role of chemical ideas in the changes that took place in early Modern natural philosophy. См. Garber D. Physics and Foundations; Joy L.S. Scientific Explanation from Formal Causes to Laws of Nature// The Cambridge History of Science/Ed. Park K., Daston L. Vol. 3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge, 2006. P. 29 - 33, 70 - 105.

page 84
otherwise, turn to the secret qualities as an alternative 74. Similarly, any of the Renaissance thinkers who tried to develop a new system of philosophy sought to completely replace Aristotelianism, relying heavily on elements of the magical tradition: to the extent that each of the creators of such systems could also be considered as a person who contributed to this tradition itself.75
The situation when potential reformers of natural philosophy turned to the occult tradition as a way to solve all difficulties persisted even at the end of the XVII century, until the moment when the rapid decline of magic began. Robert Boyle, recognizing the inadequacy of strict versions of mechanistic philosophy (including the Cartesian concept that there is no new movement in nature, but movement passes from one part of the system to another due to collision), again, like the opponents of Aristotelianism before him, turned to alchemy. Newton, realizing the absurdity of the Cartesian theory of vortices as an explanation for the motion of planets and the force of gravity, preferred to rely on the assumption that bodies can attract each other at great distances in empty space. 76
Thanks to Newton's example, it is hard to deny that if the reformers of natural philosophy considered the occult sciences the most suitable alternative to Aristotelianism, they were right. Descartes prided himself on having eliminated all the secret qualities from his system and, consequently, succeeded where Aristotle could not succeed (because Aristotle could not completely eliminate them). But in the end, many people found the Cartesian system unworkable, and instead of eliminating the arcane qualities, they tended to rely on them as the only realistic alternative to reality; and thus the arcane qualities were introduced into the mainstream.-

74. См. Henry J., Forrester J. M.Jean Fernel and the Importance of His De abditis rerum causis; Matton S. Fernel et les alchimistes // Corpus. 2002. Vol. 41. P. 135 - 197; Mifforc V. The Seeds of Disease; The Reception of Fracastoro's Theory of Contagion. As a follower of Paracelsus, you can take, for example, Severin: Shackelford J. A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine: The Ideas, Intellectual Context, and Influence of Petrus Severinus (1540/2 - 1602). Copenhagen, 2004.

Henry 75. J. The Origins of the Experimental Method.

Henry J. 76. Gravity and De gravitatione.

Henry J. 77. Occult Qualities.

page 85
travel philosophy. Thus, the triumph of Newtonianism, with its basic principle that all phenomena can be explained in terms of the attraction and repulsion of particles that can act at a distance, proved not only that Newton was right, but also that the early hypothetical reformers of natural philosophy, who tried to rely on the magical tradition, were not so wrong.

Translated from English by Alexey Appolonov

Bibliography

Agrippa C. De incertitudine et vanitate omnium scientiarum et atrium. [Б. м.,] 1531.

Alfonso-Goldfarb A. M. An 'Older' View about Matter in John Wilkins' 'Modern' Mathematical Magick //A. G. Debus, M. T. Walton (eds). Reading the Book of Nature: The Other Side of the Scientific Revolution. St. Louis, 1998. P. 133 - 146.

Arnold K. Johannes Trithemius (1462 - 1516). Wurtzburg, 1971.

Ashworth W.B. jr. Natural History and the Emblematic World View// D. C. Lindberg, R. S. Westman (eds). Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, 1980. P. 303-332.

Bacon F. Novum organum. London, 1620.

Barnes B., Bloor D., Henry J. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London and Chicago, 1996.

Biagioli M. The Social Status of Italian Mathematicians, 1450 - 1600//History of Science. 1989. Vol. 27. P. 41 - 95.

Borchardt F.L. The Magus as Renaissance man//Sixteenth Century Journal. 1990. Vol. 21. P. 57 - 76.

Brewster D. Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1855.

Casini P. Newton, a Sceptical Alchemist? // M. L. Rhigini Bonelli and W R. Shea (eds). Reason, Experiment, and Mysticism in the Scientific Revolution. London, 1975. P. 233 - 238.

Clark S. The Rational Witchfinder: Conscience, Demonological Naturalism and Popular Superstitions//S. Pumfrey, P. Rossi, and M. Slawinski (eds). Science, Culture and Popular Belief in Renaissance Europe. Manchester, 1991. P. 222 - 248.

Clark S. The Scientific Status of Demonology//B. Vickers (ed.). Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge, 1986. P. 351 - 374.

Clark S.Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. Oxford, 1997.

Clarke A. C. Profiles of the Future. London, 1962.

Clucas S. Recent Works on John Dee (1988 - 2005): A Select Bibliography//Idem (ed.). John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies in English Renaissance Thought. Dordrecht, 2006. P. 345 - 350.

Clulee N.H. John Dee's Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion. London and New York, 1988.

page 86
Copenhaver B. Astrology and Magic//Schmitt and Skinner (eds). The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy. Cambridge, 1988. P. 264 - 300.

Copenhaver B. Did Science Have a Renaissance?//Isis. 1992. Vol. 83. P387 - 407.

Copenhaver B. Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius. Cambridge, 1991.

Copenhaver B. Magic// Park and Daston, The Cambridge History of Science. Volume 3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge, 2006. P. 518 - 540.

Copenhaver B. Natural Magic, Hermetism, and Occultism in Early Modern Science// D.C. Lindberg and R. S. Westman (eds). Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, 1990. P. 261 - 302.

Copenhaver B. The Occultist Tradition and Its Critics//D. Garber and M. Ayers (eds). The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-century Philosophy. Cambridge, 1998. P. 454 - 512.

Cotta J. The Triall of Witch-craft. London, 1616.

Davies O. Cunning Folk: Popular Magic in English History. New York and London, 2003.

Deacon R. John Dee, Scientist, Geographer, Astrologer and Secret Agent to Elizabeth I. London, 1968.

Dear P. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution. Chicago, 1995.

Dear P. The Meanings of Experience//Park and Daston (eds). The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge, 2006. P. 106 - 131.

Dee J.A True & Faithful Relation of What Passed for Many Yeers Between dr. John Dee... and Some Spirits/Ed. M. Casuabon. London, 1659.

Delia Porta G.B. Natural Magick... in Twenty Books. London, 1658.

Descartes R. Principia philosophiae. Amsterdam, 1644.

Digges T. A Perfit Description of the Caelestiall Orbes, According to the Most Auncient Doctrine of the Pythagoreans. London, 1576.

Dobbs B.J. T. The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy. Cambridge, 1975.

Dobbs B.J. T. The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought. Cambridge, 1991.

Ducheyne S. The Main Business of Natural Philosophy: Isaac Newton's Natural-Philosophical Methodology. Dordrecht, 2012.

Eamon W. Science and the Secrets of Nature. Princeton, 1994.

Eamon W. Technology as Magic in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance // Janus. 1983. P. 171 - 212.

Festugiere A. - J. La revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste. Vol. 1: L'Astrologie et les sciences occultes. Paris, 1950.

Ficino M. De vita triplici. Florence, 1489.

Field J.V. Kepler's Rejection of Numerology//Vickers (ed.). Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge, 1986. P. 273 - 296.

Garber D. Physics and Foundations // Park and Daston (eds). The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge, 2006. P. 29 - 33.

Garin E. The Philosopher and the Magus//Idem (ed.). Renaissance Characters. Chicago, 1997. P. 123 - 153.

Gieryn T.F. Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists // American Sociological Review. 1983. Vol. 48. P. 781 - 95.

page 87
Giuntini F. Speculum astronomiae. Paris, 1573.

Hall A.R. Magic, Metaphysics and Mysticism in the Scientific Revolution //M.L. Rhigini Bonelli and WR. Shea (eds). Reason, Experiment, and Mysticism in the Scientific Revolution. London, 1975. P. 275 - 282.

Hansen B. Science and Magic//D. C. Lindberg (ed.). Science in the Middle Ages. Chicago, 1975. P. 483 - 506.

Harkness D.E. John Dee's Conversations with Angels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Hattab H. From Mechanics to Mechanism: The Quaestiones Mechanicae and Descartes' Physics // P. R. Anstey, J. A. Schuster (eds). The Science of Nature in the Seventeenth Century. Dordrecht, 2005. P. 99 - 129.

Henry J. Animism and Empiricism: Copernican Physics and the Origins of William Gilbert's Experimental Method//Journal of the History of Ideas. 2001. Vol. 62. P. 99 - 119.

Henry J. Gravity and "De gravitatione": The Development of Newton's Ideas on Action at a Distance //Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 2011. Vol. 42. P. 11 - 27.

Henry J. Knowledge is Power: Francis Bacon and the Method of Science. Cambridge, 2002.

Henry J. Occult Qualities and the Experimental Philosophy: Active Principles in Pre-Newtonian Matter Theory// History of Science. 1986. Vol. 24. P. 335 - 381.

Henry J. Robert Hooke, the Incongruous Mechanist//M. Hunter and S. Schaffer (eds). Robert Hooke: New Studies. Woodbridge, 1989. P. 149 - 180.

Henry J. The Origins of the Experimental Method - Mathematics or Magic?//H. Busche, S. Hefibruggen-Walter (eds). Departure for Modern Europe: Philosophy between 1400 and 1700. Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 2011. P. 702 - 714.

Henry J. The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of Modern Science. Basingstoke, 2008.

Henry J., Forrester J. M.Jean Fernel and the Importance of His De abditis rerum causis// Idem. Jean Fernel's "On the Hidden Causes of Things": Forms, Souls and Occult Diseases in Renaissance Medicine. Leiden, 2005. P. 37 - 44.

Hooke R. Micrographia. London, 1665.

Hooke R. Of Dr Dee's Book of Spirits (1690)//R. Waller (ed.). The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke. London, 1705. P. 203 - 210.

Hunter M. Witchcraft and the Decline of Belief // Eighteenth-century Life. 1998. xxii. P. 139 - 147.

Hutchison K. What Happened to Occult Qualities in the Renaissance?//Isis. 1982. Vol. 73. P. 233 - 253.

Janiak A. Newton as Philosopher. Cambridge, 2008.

Jardine N. Epistemology of the Sciences // С. В. Schmitt and Q. Skinner (eds). The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy. Cambridge, 1988. P. 685 - 711.

Joy L.S. Scientific Explanation from Formal Causes to Laws of Nature // Park and Daston (eds). The Cambridge History of Science. Volume 3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge, 2006. P. 70 - 105.

Kassell L. "All Was That Land Full Fill'd of Faerie", or Magic and the Past in Early Modern England//Journal of the History of Ideas. 2006. Vol. 67. P. 107 - 122.

Keefer M. H. Agrippa's Dilemma: Hermetic Rebirth and the Ambivalence of "De vanitate" and "De occulta philosophia"//Renaissance Quarterly. 1988. Vol. 41. P. 614 - 653.

Keynes J.M. Newton, the Man//The Royal Society, Newton Tercentenary Celebrations. Cambridge, 1947. P. 27 - 34.

page 88
Kochiras H. Gravity and Newton's Substance-counting Problem//Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 2009. Vol. 40. P. 267 - 280.

Matton S. Fernel et les alchimistes//Corpus.2002. Vol. 41. P. 135 - 197.

McGuire J.E., Rattansi P.M. Newton and the "Pipes of Pan"//Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London. 1966. Vol. 21. P. 108 - 143.

Mendelsohn J. A. Alchemy and Politics in England//Past and Present. 1992. Vol. 135. P. 30 - 78.

Mill J. S. Collected Works/Ed. J. M. Robson. Vol. VIII. Toronto, 1974. P. 754.

Millen R. The Manifestation of Occult Qualities in the Scientific Revolution //M.J. Osier and P. L. Farber (eds). Religion, Science and Worldview Cambridge, 1985. P. 185 - 216.

Molland A.G. Roger Bacon as Magician//Traditio. 1974. Vol. 30. P. 445 - 460.

Molland A. G. Cornelius Agrippa's Mathematical Magic // C. Hay (ed.). Mathematics from Manuscript to Print. Oxford, 1988. P. 209 - 219.

Moran B. T. Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA, 2005.

Muchembled R. Popular Culture and Elite Culture in France, 1400 - 1750. Baton Rouge and London, 1985.

Newman W. From Alchemy to "Chymistry" // K. Park and L. Daston (eds). The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge, 2006. P. 497 - 517.

Newman W.R. Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution. Chicago, 2006.

Newman W.R. Promethean Ambitions: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature. Chicago, 2004.

Newman W.R., Principe L.M. Alchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Origins of a Historiographic Mistake//Early Science and Medicine. 1998. Vol.3. P. 32 - 65.

Newton I. Letter to R. Boyle, February 28, 1679 //1. B. Cohen (ed.). Isaac Newton's Papers and Letters on Natural Philosophy. Cambridge, 1958. P. 251.

Norena C. G. Juan Luis Vives. The Hague, 1970.

Nutton V. The Reception of Fracastoro's Theory of Contagion: The Seed That Fell Among Thorns?//Osiris. Second Series. 1990. Vol. 6. P. 196 - 234.

Nutton V. The Seeds of Disease: An Explanation of Contagion and Infection from the Greeks to the Renaissance//Medical History. 1983. Vol. 27. P. 1-34.

Pagel W. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. Basle, 1958.

Perkins W. Discourse of the Damned Art of Witch-craft. Cambridge, 1610.

Principe L. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest. Princeton, 1998.

Principe L. M. Reflections on Newton's Alchemy in Light of the New Historiography of Alchemy//J. E. Force and S. Hutton (eds). Newton and Newtonianism. Dordrecht, 2004. P. 205 - 219.

Principe L.M., Newman W. R. Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy// W.R. Newman and A. Grafton (eds). Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, MA, 2001. P. 385 - 431.

Rattansi RM. Paracelsus and the Puritan Revolution//Ambix. 1963. Vol. 11. P. 24 - 32.

Rose R. L.The Italian Renaissance of Mathematics. Geneva, 1975.

Rossi R. Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science. London, 1968.

Salluste du Bartas. His Divine Weekes and Works/Trans, by J. Sylvester. London, 1606.

page 89
Schmitt C.B. Prisca theologia e philosophia perennis: due temi del Rinascimento italiano e la loro fortuna//Atti del V Convegno internazionale del Centro di Studi Umanistici: Il pensiero italiano del Rinascimento e il tempo nostro. Florence, 1970. P. 211 - 236.

Schofield R.E. Mechanism and Materialism. Princeton, 1970.

Severinus P. Idea medicinae philosophicae. Basle, 1571.

Shackelford J. A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine: The Ideas, Intellectual Context, and Influence of Petrus Severinus (1540/2 - 1602). Copenhagen, 2004.

Shapiro B. John Wilkins: An Intellectual Biography. Berkeley, 1969.

Sherman F. Flesh and Bones: The Life, Passions and Legacies of John Napier. Edinburgh, 1989.

Sherwood M. Magic and Mechanics in Medieval Fiction//Studies in philology. 1947. Vol. 41. P 567 - 592.

Shumaker W. Renaissance curiosa. Binghampton, 1982.

Small J. Sketches of Later Scottish Alchemists... // Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1874 - 1876. Vol. 11. P. 410 - 438.

Smith P. H. The Body of the Artisan: Art and Experience in the Scientific Revolution. Chicago, 2004.

Thackray A. Atoms and Powers. Cambridge, MA, 1970.

Thomas K. Religion and the Decline of Magic. London, 1971.

Thorndike L. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. 8 vols. New York, 1923 - 1958.

Tillyard E.M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. London, 1943.

Trevor-Roper H. The Paracelsian Movement//Idem. Renaissance Essays. London, 1985. P. 149 - 199.

Vickers B. Analogy Versus Identity: The Rejection of Occult Symbolism, 1580 - 1680//Idem (ed.). Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge, 1986.

Vickers B. Critical Reactions to the Occult Sciences during the Renaissance // E. Ullmann-Margalit (ed.). The Scientific Enterprise. Dordrecht, 1992. P. 43 - 92.

Vickers B. Introduction // Idem (ed.). Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge, 1986. P. 1 - 55.

Walker D. P. Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella. London, 1958.

Walker D. P. The Ancient Theology. London, 1972.

Watson. F. Vives: On Education. Cambridge, 1913.

Webster C. From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science. Cambridge, 1982.

Weeks A. Paracelsus: Speculative Theory and the Crisis of the Early Reformation. Albany, 1997.

Wellman K. Talismans, Incubi, Divination and the Book of M*: The Bureau dAdresse Confronts the Occult//A. G. Debus and M. T. Walton (eds). Reading the Book of Nature: The Other Side of the Scientific Revolution. St Louis, 1998. P. 215 - 238.

Westman R.S. Nature, Art, and Psyche: Jung, Pauli, and the Kepler - Fludd Polemic//Vickers (ed.). Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge, 1986. P. 177 - 229.

Westman R. S. The Astronomer's Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Survey // History of Science. 1980. Vol. 18. P. 105 - 147.

page 90
Wilkins J. Mathematical Magick, or, the Wonders That May Be Performed by Mechanical Geometry. London, 1648.

Zambelli P. Magic and Radical Reformation in Agrippa of Nettesheim//Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. 1976. Vol. 39. P. 69 - 103.

Zetterberg J. P. The Mistaking of "the Mathematicks" for Magic in Tudor and Stuart England//Sixteenth Century Journal. 1980. Vol. 11. P. 83 - 97.

Zilsel E. The Social Origins of Modern Science. Dordrecht, 2000.

page 91

Permanent link to this publication: