Sun and Salt, 1500-1700
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3895529 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Hillel Schwartz (0000-0002-7731-031X, San Diego State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1982 |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue | 117 |
| Pages | 26-41 |
| Publication date | 1982-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Diogenes (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0392-1921 • E-ISSN: 1467-7695 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/039219218203011703 |
| OpenAlex | W1966327923 |
| Language | EN |
During the Renaissance, the su was regarded primarily as a source of light which gave form to all things*; during the Enlightenment, paradoxically, the sun was regarded primarily as a source of heat. Paracelsian chemistry of the 1500s introduced salt as a third principle which embodied the other two, mercury and sulphur; salt was that universal mediating presence which represented earth. By the late 1700s salt was no longer a metaphysical principle but an acid-base compound, and volatile salts aroused most interest. These changes in scientific perceptions of sun and salt ran parallel to one another: beginning as transcendent sources of form, sun and salt came to be considered manipulable sources of energy. Our r-;odern approach to energy derives from a period during which Europeans gradually lost their belief in the creative agency of two essentials to human life
Chemistry · Environmental Science · Historical and Architectural Studies · Latin American history and culture · Maritime and Coastal Archaeology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|