Books of marvels
have not always been the abode of the useless as they
have been in the 20th Century. Earlier they aided some
earth shattering changes, like the creation of modern
science. I have taken most of this essay from William
Eamon's Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of
Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture (1994).
Books of marvels aided modern science as books of secrets. In certain ways, the books of secrets seem less promising as the source of science than our books of marvels. For one thing, over time many of these secrets have been disproven. Some common secrets certainly seem especially odd to us: chasing off dogs by carrying a dog's tongue in our pockets or shoes, taming bulls with fig trees, de-witched witches' salves. It appears irrelevant that many of our 'facts', both odd and otherwise, may eventually be disproven and seem equally odd to future generations.
One reason many books of secrets seem unpromising as science is science is supposed to be open. Yet earlier writers of books of secrets were true to the name. They claimed their readers were part of the deserving elite and should keep the contents of their books from the vulgar masses. This was not a problem with many books of secrets written in the 16th Century and after. Their writers claimed they were bringing what had previously been secrets to the light of day so the masses could read them.
Another reason these books seem unpromising is their sources. In the earlier works, the source of the secrets were supposedly the secret works of famous authors, the best known being Aristotle and Solomon. In modern times, we have regarded these as clumsy forgeries. Later, again in the 16th Century and after, things became more egalitarian. The ostensible sources were often old wives, gypsies, Arabs, village mages, wandering surgeons. These would still not qualify as the experts we go to for science.
In only one way do the books of secrets seem more scientific than our books of marvels. Their secrets were practical: they discussed medicines, housekeeping and crafts, among other matters. The virtue of our books of marvels for their readers is that they give us useless information. For once, we seem less scientific.
One particular book of secrets, which marked a milestone in the history of science, seems even less promising than the run of the mill. It appeared in 1555 and was attributed to Alessio Piedmontese, or Alexis of Piedmont. That it was popular would make it a less likely catalyst for science to most of us. Alexis' book went through 104 editions between then and 1699. By the end of the 16th Century, it has been translated into Italian, Latin, French, German, English, Dutch, Spanish and Polish. In addition, works attributed to Alexis were forged; for instance, the Venetian printer Giorgio de'Canalli brought out one. Alexis' self-description makes him an even less likely to candidate for the role of scientist. Alexis claimed to be a Piedmontese of noble blood who devoted his life to finding secrets, traveling from place to place to get them, including the Middle East. The old fashion truth seeker, not considered a source of science these days.
Also, how Alexis came to reveal his secrets seems more religious to us than scientific. Alexis claimed he did indeed keep his secrets secret until his eyes were opened. A surgeon in Milan, knowing his reputation, asked him to give him a secret so he could cure a artisan tormented by a painful bladder stone. Alexis refused because he feared the surgeon wanted to steal his secret. Instead, Alexis wanted to administer the secret himself. This does not accord with the cold reason of a man of science, but neither does the behavior of the surgeon. The surgeon did not want it to get out the cure was not his own. When Alexis finally relented, the man was dead. Then Alexis had his semi-religious experience. He felt so guilty that he decided to devote his life to revealing his secrets.
If Alexis' persona seems unscientific, his cures seem less so. One of Alexis' more publicized, and disgusting, secrets was Oil of Red Dog. You boil the dog, apparently alive, until it falls to pieces. Then combine it with scorpions, worms and the marrow of an ass and a hog. Yecch. We get a respite from nausea only when the ingredients become a number of plants in definite order. Alexis claimed that he treated with his oil a monk's arm which was withered like a stick and a Portuguese man with gout. Such testimonials don't help him either. Alexis had his testimonials, but so does every quack. Alexis used other disgusting substances as cures: wild boar's teeth, skin of a dog, dung of a black ass. Or, if you cannot find a black ass, you can always use the dung of a white ass. According to him, these cured burns, bites, discomfort of the eyes, toothache, sores, abscesses, stomachs, rabies, warts, the plague and other afflictions of the general populace.
That these were disgusting probably on purpose makes these cures seem even less scientific. That they were a reaction to the orderly, rational conventional medicine does not help in the least. This shows the imp of perversity, and seems very far from the science of a Newton or Einstein. It does not even help that this was the first strike against an orthodoxy that had held medicine in its thrall for centuries; it seems a strike in the wrong direction.
On the other hand, some of Alexis' secrets were the real McCoy and seem very scientific indeed. He told the secret of making ultramarine azure, a much prized color. And artificial vermillion. He gave a great deal of detail on these. However, his biggest coup was an important trade secret of the City of Venice, for the refining of borax. This was needed in the making of metals.
The secrets here sound more like science when they don't sound like acts of industrial espionage.
Alexis would be considered more unscientific yet from the company he kept. Later on, Alexis would be regarded as the stereotype "professor" of secrets, with a reputation more akin to a sensationalistic journalist than a scientist. Also, Alexis resembled the contemporary visionary/mystic/physician Parcelsus all too much. We consider him the prince of fakers today although the historical record shows that he was indeed a primitive scientist, who was responsible for some leaps forward in scientific method and applied science, if not scientific discoveries.
However, our view of Alexis should go by the boards completely: it is now known that Alexis never existed. We probably should have no view of Alexis. Instead we should concentrate on the real author, a Venetian professional writer, a poligrafo, called Girolamo Ruscelli. Girolamo did not let the world know this until after his death when his nephew published his Secreti nuovi. There, Ruscelli made this revelation in addition to presenting some new alchemical, medical and technological 'secrets'.
He presented a further secret, a real one, which fit his secrets into the history of science. They had been tried out by an experimental academy in the kingdom of Naples some years before, the "Accademia Segreta" or Secret Society. It had a house with an herb garden, bird cages and a laboratory. Also, the society hired a number of artisans to assist them: apothecaries, herbalists, goldsmiths, gardeners This, the society could afford due to a generous endowment from the local prince. Probably Ferrante Sanseverino, Prince of Salerno.The idea was to test secrets found in old books and spread by word of mouth. Three successful trials were needed before the society would give a secret its stamp of approval. They did not test hypotheses like Galileo did fifty years later; which has proven the royal road to discovery. However, they used a technique known as evaluation in government and industry, which sees what works and what does not work. It is considered a handmaiden of science. Thus the Segreti were scientific. And, according to the historian William Eamon, the Segreti were the world's first scientific academy.
But was Ruscelli's tale true? Men have been known to lie, even on their deathbed. Eamon gives some independent confirmation. Francesco Sansovino and Girolamo Muzio verify Ruscelli's story. Furthermore, Giambattista Della Porta, the famed advocate of natural magic, gave indications he was a member. Later he started a society with a similar name, Accademia dei Secreta. Also, he wrote his book of secrets not long after the disbandonment of the Segreti, Magia naturalis (1558). He was very young when he did, in his twenties. Which makes one wonder whether he didn't acquire many of his secrets from the Segreti. The historian William Eamon presumes he did. And so will I for reasons more literary than historic: it strengthens the irony of a connection between books of secrets and modern science.
That Ruscelli kept his involvement with the Segreti secret is not the mark of modern science but, as I said, a demerit.. However, Ruscelli had very good reason to hide it.: the fate of the Segreti's probable patron, Prince Ferrante. In 1552, Ferrante entered the service of the King of France and led an expedition to take Salerno away from the Spanish and into French hands. It ended in defeat and Sanseverino returned to France, converted to Protestantism. and ultimately died in Avignon. Thus, any member of the Segreti was tainted with both heresy and treason. No wonder Ruscelli waited until after his death to reveal his involvement with the Segreti. And in life revealed their secrets under the aegis of the pseudonymous Alexis of Piedmont. We cannot fault him for being unscientific: his life was on the line.
The connection between the Segreti and science is much stronger than this even. Giambattista Della Porta expanded on the testing of the segreti and has a great claim to achievements in his own right. He was known for his own experiments in verifying 'secrets.' In that capacity, he was patronized by the nobles of Europe.
However, he is in addition connected to the most powerful engine of scientific discovery, the testing of hypotheses. Albeit, this connection is via a roundabout route. In 1604 the Marchese di Monticello came to him and told him of a society he wanted to found, the Accademia di Lincei, the Academy of Lynxes. It was inspired by Della Porta in the 1589 edition of Magia naturalis. There Della Porta had said that the natural philosopher should examine with Lynx-like eyes those things which manifest themselves, so having observed them, he may zealously put them in operation." Unfortunately, the Marchese's father had it disbanded. But it resuscitated itself so the connection between testing hypotheses and secrets could be made. When the Marchese's father died in 1610, he acceded to the Dukedom of Aquasparta and was free to develop his academy. Della Porta became a member.
In 1611 the connection was finally made. A new member displaced the aging Della Porta as the Duke's favorite, Galileo Galilei. The discoveries he had made with the telescope, announced in his Sidereus Nuncius were what did it. More and more, the Lincei tended to test hypotheses rather than secrets ancient and folk. Della Porta bucked at this. He believed more than ever in the superiority of testing secrets. He dismissed the telescope as being unimportant. What he considered important, he said, was his experiments in telepathy where he would prick one person and, he hoped, another would feel it some distance away.
However, the telescope revealed secrets far more exciting than these pricking experiments. A year later Della Porta lamented that his preoccupation with pricking had cost him credit for the invention of the telescope.