The Alchemical Patronage of Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley

Alongside these official groupings, there existed a large number of unlicensed
medical practitioners. Charles Webster and Margaret Pelling estimate that towards the end
of the sixteenth century there were approximately 250 irregular practitioners in London,
similar to the total number of physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries in the city. 24 Once
written off by historians as quacks or empirics, more recent studies have revealed the
importance and diversity of these medical outsiders. 25 Despite the best efforts of both the
College of Physicians and the Company of Barber-Surgeons, these practitioners probably
remained the source of most medical treatment in London. 26 While many were
uneducated, a few had qualifications matching those of members of the College of
Physicians. 27 Often these men and women were immigrants, helping to disperse the new
medical ideas that were spreading throughout Europe. These unlicensed practitioners were
therefore the first to utilise Paracelsian treatments. 28
*
Cecil, like most courtiers, took an active interest in the medical developments of
the period. Never in vigorous health, from his early thirties Cecil suffered terribly from
gout. 29 As his wealth and prominence increased, Cecil was bombarded with offers of cures
and treatments for his gout from a variety of medical practitioners. A high proportion of
these remedies involved the use of alchemical and Paracelsian medicines. While many
offers were unsolicited, they do suggest that Cecil had gained a reputation for being
sympathetic to alchemical ideas. On other occasions not only did Cecil accept offers of
chemical medical assistance, he even appears to have actively sought out and defended
alchemical medical practitioners.
24 Pelling and Webster, ‗Medical Practitioners‘, p. 183.
25 Pelling, Medical Conflicts
26 Pelling and Webster, ‗Medical Practitioners‘, p. 183-85.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., p. 9.
29 W. S.C. Copeman, ‗The Gout of William Cecil–First Lord Burghley (1520–98)‘, Medical History, Vol. 1,
1957, p. 262.
56