The Alchemical Patronage of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley

Chapter 2: Alchemical Medicine
Cecil‘s patronage of chemical medicine provides one of the best examples of his
belief in alchemical principles. Increasingly in the second half of the sixteenth century
medicines based on an alchemical understanding of the human body began to challenge
established medical techniques. In order to examine Cecil‘s interest in these new chemical
medicines this chapter first considers the background of medical practice in the
Elizabethan period. It then analyses a number of case studies, both of Cecil‘s medical
patronage, and attempts by practitioners to attract Cecil‘s benefaction through promises of
effective alchemical medicines.
While recent scholarship has helped place chemical medicine within the context of
sixteenth century medical practice, studies on medical patronage in the period are
conspicuous in their scarcity. Those studies which do exist tend to focus on continental
European examples, such as Didier Kahn‘s study of King Henry IV of France‘s patronage
of Paracelsian physicians. 1 One of the few English examples, Elizabeth Furdell‘s The Royal
Doctors 1485-1714 (2001) reveals the complex relationship between the royal patronage of
chemical, or ‗irregular‘, practitioners, and the royally sanctioned London College of
Physicians. 2 The patronage role of leading nobles and politicians, however, has been
largely overlooked.
Perhaps the primary reason that historians have ignored Cecil‘s patronage of
chemical medicine is the lack of easily accessible sources. Whilst there is some evidence of
Cecil‘s consultation with orthodox physicians, his interactions with unlicensed practitioners
left far fewer traces. With few exceptions, even successful irregular medical physicians left
1 Didier Kahn, ‗King Henry IV, Alchemy, and Paracelsianism in France (1589-1610), in Lawrence M. Principe
(ed.), Chymists and Chymistry: Studies in the History of Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry, Sagamore Beach, 2007,
pp. 1-12.
2 Elizabeth Furdell, The Royal Doctors, 1485–1714, Rochester, 2001.
52