Tanah Tay2 ® 2. 2. 8 rs 8 7. ero Andres Mato or Natio (1500-1 M Mearére op. A GeBetan eat 8) G Ded ey Cheniy a he Jno Rn? Jao Ci En, 8 0), ENC 90 Si Bane sb oh 1), p37 TT Ks of Play mere 7), atin boca and mel doctor known, By camera on cre bled oscories surmanedPedanivs (it entry AD), author of the Moe Mie [segue Delechampe (155-1888), French doco and botanist, thor of te ie nae de Bene gon, 18), ME Meuaeac op (Ds p58 See ied fle 56-1170 i nie Hy of Mag nd sin Si (tna ery Fem Ney Vr 5 ok gp Naeger Bae Nl Carat Lane Poe by Ep dor, Sse nna Se ae) en en rg a Sa 65D, F. Poa cen Bare inca some Pare 1670), MMerarae. op. (1,48, ee Bid, p38. id, Cicada, op (0), p68 AG. Debus (1) . 99. M.Mieurden, oh (1), 5 espe 1 Cir a cop 50 : Sc Ley eine en nf fa hein 1050 97 HE eu, 62 pies p. 353, a Slr, Th Mid aS on ithe vgs Maden Ser Canby Harard Unc Pes 198, pate, Tw ete contnporn of Mate Mente BILIU wo bo miata bel ied bok seadng Bae tay neni ee mepualon aches Marne Se Benrne Bxone dees ppens is tehes Cita egeesedin the sro epg mich vag el gra Gracin War scans Dance ata vosoe Sanson me aaa mrpee, seen Cratertin chet Uamaneieaes eamerede iTaspltnede ans (ibn kaa rep do ey ig Algo ich Steet ask lace eaten tence liga ree sp S08 or Boers eo Se et Meine Cars ue eae Oni sie 9 See eae been oreo [Fandes. que celles de tories Princ Chressens,e less les pl eur defo let Frit: ‘i 13, nome mn Soe Fouges piss tod rae et TiS ei Sprite oppor sohsh ectionph see oe eek Shee teats Eglin Caria sd foes alfoepes d prea Ocean oa gett neuro cm re ras Spies AT wk kbc, Fs Coceage ei) he hoc ba cutee ot ps tine aie etn bel cick we compet ace sages the enumeration of drugs a quandbes tobe wed, the procedure tobe fallowed to ‘sin the remedy and, lly te mayt ree Bur there sno desrpion af te methodaogy og mate ene ton ae he ees Sa unr, Vol. 48, Pare 2. July 2002 JESUITS AND ALCHEMY IN THE EARLY SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: FATHER JOHANNES ROBERTI AND THE WEAPONSALVE CONTROVERSY By Cantos ZiLuer CAMENIETZRI® “Tar Society of Jens was founded in 1541 in order to expand the Catholic faith ial combat the Protestant Reformation. From the first itfocused on direct jntellecunt confrontation; the Jesuits took great care to prepare their verentere for religious disputation, The militancy of the Jesuits was also Taerciged in philosophical disputes, In the decades around the turn of the SNomteenth century, members of the Society produced numerous works of Saunt philosophy from the perspecive that reflection about che natural arid could nos go against the principal theses of Catholic cheology, above all Phlowphia ancile Thelogice™ This acl isan analysis of a specific medical ‘hilocophial controversy a debate over the weapon save betgeen the Jesuit FReclogan, Johannes Raberti (1568-1651), and the Calvinist physician, odolpus Gocleniys (1572-1621). Their debate reveals ina particulary clear Jhanner dhe theologial foundations underlying the participation of members rahe Society of Jesus philosophical éicourse. The debate over the weapon Give revoked around two opposing notions of Divine Providence which ded the respective arguments. whe Bain has investigated the extent © which Jesuits studied alchemy? While many alchemical methods and even Fundamental concep- sent ore inconporated ino the Jesus’ own relectons, they banned certain shone and proporals outright for philosophical and theological reasons. Thit xa the cate with the weapon sale. The dspute rapidly ook on a European mension, Tereached the Low Countries, chen England and France, and later became general throughout the Continent unt! waning during the second Jha ofthe seventeenth cencary, and finally diappearing n the ist decades of the eighteemh century. Sarprisingis, other than commentaries about 2 ‘pmpathede magi eure for wounds, which were recorded in varying degrees of Teck in parscipans’ biographies, litle was written by contemporaries about the "watever the weapon sake. However, due to the fact that the controversy plyed am imporant role in the destiny of some prominent natural Enosophess of the period, aspects of the debate guined contemporary prominence.* ‘Tue Wearon Save. ‘The description of a potion capable of curing wounds by its application to something other than the wounds themselves, even serious ones, rapidly and sathout pain tothe wounded individual, isatributed to Paracelsus. Ths feat of 090, + Museu de Astronomia ies Afing/ MCT, Rua Genera Brace 586, So Cristorbo—2 ode Jasco, asl ema allerBomeyslnce brcuring wounds ata distance does not appear to have conflicted with sixteenth- century conceptions of man and of God. Amongst physicians and natural philosophers, Paracelsus’ proposition had great success. At the close of the ‘cencury, Giovanni Batista Della Porta gave the weapon salve considerable publicity by means ofa brief description in his famous Magia Naturalis. In 1608, the physician and alchemist Oswald Croll presented the marvel in his well. Known Basilica Chymica, and recommended its use, These v0 books had 2 large following in Europe, having numerous Latin editions and various translations into vernacular languages, which ensured the spread of Para celsus" ideas. Paracelsus had proposed his marvellous unguent with the following formulation: .- collect the mea formed upon the cranium or upon the bones of dead bodies exposed to te sir, take Unree ounces, ke three more gunce of hua fa anoter te of mura om human blood, oof oil of roses, bal armenione-and dhen gring the ingredients for some Sime and dhus make avery ible unguentes ‘The essensial elements of all versions of the potion remained approximately the same unl the middle ofthe seventeenth cencury. Human waneeand mumia were the most important components, although they did not always have precisely the same description. Usnes was material, sich 38 maggots or fing, formed upon the human cranium when exposed to intemperate weather for some time Later authors proposed the ‘harvesting’ of usea from the craniaof ‘men who had been hung or who had had a sudden and violent death. Mumia could be found in blood or in human flesh that had been mortified and processed. While Della Porta remained reasonably faithful to Paracelsus’ formula Croll added various other sources: bear and boar fa, maggo!s reduced to powder, dried boar brains, red sandalwood, Particularly important, Croll advised harvesting of the ustee when there was a crescent moon, preferably in the house of Vents” ‘The suggested method of treatment aso varied. Paracelsus proposed that the potion should be applied, nocto the weapon, which had caused the wound, but to piece of wood dipped in the victim's blood Keep the unguent in a phial until a wounded person appears. Dip a piece of wood in the wound una es covered in blood afd when dy Eppiy the unguent to the wood and leave it fora while. Then, Keep te vwound covered with a cloth bandage and molstening Wt daly with Tigoids (win) from the aetal pater In this manner the woud wil close and become cured, even if large one, without any outer plaster and without pain. With this method, one can cure ata distance Bt ten co oven) mils provided one has the vit Blood Della Porta referred only vaguely to the use ofthe potion, but Groll developed its use in more dewail, altering Paracelsus’ method, This difference perhaps [RSUFTS AND ALCHEMY: ROBERTI AND THE WEAPONSALVE CONTROVERSY arose Decne Dela Pore was wing ina context that wasnt affected by ay react plosophieal dpe Cel by eonuasepublahede 2608, when the sens bad agadyatracted considerable oppesion. Furthermore, Crll’s Meena was alchemical : “According to Croll, the unguent was to be applied to the eat oe had caved one mound, fom ene ts poune The weapon wa thes to vere da whie clo and ptm emperte pace. Any Beeding at 9 erehthevand te wound leaned wih te pants urine and coveredao aaa tale luk Ihe wounds ery deep. could be sched up without a ser preparadon, Coll suggested another pienesque deal "at dae rotiving the unguent refs from lovemaking.” As for an planation of the unguent action, Croll suggested ‘There are three causes that are provoked by the unguent and which provide such s marvelous result: 1. sympathy with nature; 2 the Mifuence of the heavenly bodies carrying out their operations by means OL the elements; 3 the vital balsars chat hgs the curative virme an ‘which is naturally present in whatever man. : cht hgh ent the mares of he gen: ne pred Ce he arguments nan exceed eine cael ya sand aboe al did nt deal wih he means TL eee andthe wound werd Sie ee eeation well spore in 159% ae een ies ho, Pies goed spun the ur a or tine hor of ciemny and medicine Fea eae eadon rom aeny i the weament ae agin Parco ad the sunt ofeerain lnc, ore guenc of presi Setnce of a et re os yee Pcie Te ti py oc or men fe nen gr and See a oe eiaeoylick oom Cen ae th mound woul ste 9 be understood a eonting Lis ay cat ete pore i tisncon beeen aaa ee Nene noon na, ermal ses nana nd ate mon Nout nec depend pon the a a atic ef rnging stout he care. With te cen a are ald bereponble forthe espa a et had ae ben applied to he Sn eo Dan had been coved Ths sabence woul spon, one ee epee deny hath eet demon Senay vo thems that they are simpletons and should work with greater we sede of a eton Cad be the ol See a oeeaae Pe the poms of magical curs, ibaa: oppoted the Pape Eo id and eevee of occultforces Laser wounds would cure shemsehes narra with 2 ican rugron Theses operons magne ame od ‘magic words were vague. To those who supported the natural cha as ‘weapon salve, Libavius said: " Cae wee ern and one ira rcp Teese are magical or illusory or even faked by chance to encourage the acti Lech 8 SAP te thot about ihe cure fan cP tne posters oes Not only di Litavus condemn che pifsophical principles upon which th ‘weapon sahe's defenders based their arguments, he also’ rejeced the ttfectnenes of the potion because the element which possesed the poet to Soe dues dot tenet He oped he veg co oie curative virte, since even Paracelsus suggested the we oa pee of wod in he operation rather tan the weapon le Nor could ib the Boo for wens as dtnce woud be fale bean lod ase ound in the body ofthe wound ad therefore it would be beter to spp the unguent direcy'on the mound As tothe posit of tengo el posssing cae vie he contested this capaci ue to the mare fy proposed components: - os fromiand io conti the observed ete There does norneccuay exist a relationship between cause and effect, and of : nich this could occur. Thus, by deductic . er aan Sci se tea sae ere a Mow cou maggos and fig that gew on the Red of dead body concentrate se so bin! Hom could the muta the ie 30 ths Ths, ia cncad at thee ws ata "We a hat 1€ cure is not natural, then it is diabolic and it come ae tere ora atic and tomes about by chance or y ving. definitely discarded th scarded the posibiliy of natural action for the sanguert, there remained for Liban only the theses tat aey selon we Giabotel oF that the potion nas a toa impostor = In this way, nether God nor nature has 2p 7 or nature has apace in this. The unguentis altickandirony of the deol We conclude thtif tere Banying of ure ip the urgent i fle or magic or i ces by tal oF 8 broughe byanoter, hich corals an mpostare. or opeited by ae, of even happens by chance OF" the frat of sponte combined wits cue — ‘The criticisms levelled by Libavius against the unguent were referred to oF |]SUITS AND ALCHESN ROBERTI AND THE WEAPONSALVE CONTROVERSY adopted by several later polemicists, He did not however develop the problem ff action ata distance, which would be a later focus of discussion. ‘Tae Controversy Bris “The remedy, both its formulation and its method of use, was discussed in & particular context of philosophical culture during the passage from the Eereenth to the seventeenth centuries, While the authors mentioned thus far {Gid not refer to the principal cultural question of the times, the religious tension which radically divided European intellectuals, it was not long before thi question entered into the controversy In 1608, the same year that Orval Crolls book was published, the phssician Rodolphus Goclenius, son of an important Humanist, published a work on the weapon salve. His Orato qua ‘ulus non applicatn etiam remedio, ctr wllum dolorem cxrarinatwraliter posse was & ‘iscourse that had been given in Marburg in April of that same year.” As well Ss discussing the weapon salve, Goclenius proposed various theories about the Gffects of amulets, the conformation of the world, etc. This work had a second, Conected and amplified edition, which appeared in 1613 with a new tide, “Tracatus mows de magnetica vuinerum curatione® . ‘In the first derailed discussion in the text, Goclenius tried to refute dhe accusation that the unguent was mere ‘superstition’ by elevating the notion of Superson. However, this tactic opened up an apparently unnecessary flank in philosophical discourse. Goclenius mentioned diverse examples of ‘super~ ‘tions’, including some practices common to the Catholic Church in orthern Europe: there is no need of superstition and vanity for those that Grink holy water to counter illnesses and spread it (holy water] upon the fields to give fer, .. those that do not eat meat at Christmas to counter fevers." raven, those that take a cross to the Bields in stormy weather, exorcisms, etc." Ta fact, Goclenius had sympathy for Reformation circles in Geneva, in an era when Calvinism was spreading rapidly in the Holy Roman Empire, parciculatly jn the Palatinate. Certainly, Goclenius’ publications suggest a link between the propagation of Calvinism in Germany and the contemporary interest in Hermetic and the Paracelsian matters, of which the weapon salve is a good example” "The Oratio, especially ts second edition, the Tractatus Novus, was in fact a thorough defence of occult philosophy. Itdisplayed an eclecticism that united NeoPlatonie elements of the Renaissance, with Hermeticism, and also with iverse propesitions for harmony in the world, as well as sympathetic and Slchemical theories developed throughout the seventeenth century. In some ‘ne hundred small pages of text, we can clearly identify propositions about the Soul of the world, about the spirit that governed transformations in the Universe, about the correlation berween all creatures, about corresponding ‘universes, astral virtues, the microcosm and the macrocosm, etc. In Goclenius version, the weapon salve was nothing more than a practical explanation of the Tonelation between worldly things, operated by the spirit of God. Thus, preoccupied in affirming and defending a principle about the organization of 87the Universe, Gocienius devoted alarge part of is discourse to presenting and explaining the virtues of amulets and the marvellous operations of plants, snes and other objects ‘Goclenits’ world was a vel ofsympathetic and antipathetic relationships * “Things were connected one to another by diverse means, such aby the earthly element by light bythe astral sprie and even by the proper spirit of God, Such connections sympathies and antipathies explained occult operacions swell s the effecveness of amulets and magic seals. The proper manipulation ofthese element allowed forthe elaboration of various remedies and als for marvels Such as the weapon salve. The philosophy that allowed Goclenius to tunderstand these links between ching and the proper acon ofthe heavenly bodies on sublunary beings most certainly was not the empiricist one of AAnstoue or the Scholastic, but another that was more sublime, more spiritual Gocienis referred to this philosophy asthe daughter ofthe mystic eclecicism of the Renaissance. However, of most relevance to this present Study is his vision of relations between divinity and the created world. The physidan from Marburg explained the effectiveness of the weapon salve by Teference to the action of a spiritual substance, the vecor spin, whieh transported the proper curative vie from the unguent to the wound. ‘What permited this argument was the concept of Divine Providence. Goclenius' version ofa ‘more sublime’ philosophy ~ especially what he said about the relationship between God and dhe world of creation ~ appears to have been taken from one of Cardinal Nicolau de Cusa's most important books, Goclenius, reedited the old Neo-Platonic and Hermetic maxim ‘Deus ‘omnia in omnibus es: In this sense itis better to revert to the ancients: God is spread by nature and all things are completely God's, who, by his divine virte remains Seep within al tinge although differently in Heaven and in the lowest things where virtue isa lot darker. Io Heaven, however, virtue is most proper for growth. By whatever means, God sows as much in Heaven 25 fv ear uti and governing all things. Inthe celestial bodies, be does this by himeelf and much closer, che animals, the plants and other ‘moral by ntemedaris and heaven york, so that he can een is ‘wm laws of creation and conservation." Goclenius sought to find in this an explanation for the unguent’s action. Spiritual substances, which permeated al creation, operated the links benween ‘sympathy and antipathy and therein lay an explanation for heliotropism, for ‘magnetism and for the action ofthe famous Paracelsian potion. In this way, the celestial “species were spread throughout the world by means of a spirit that, in the final analysis, was responsible for the transmission of ll of the vires. Regarding the unguent, the curative virtue was of astral origin and was concentrated in the potion; then it was transported from the weapon to the ‘wound by this spirit ‘The quality or celestial virte is magnetic inthe unguent, by means of “anD THE WEAPONSALNE CONTROVERSY {esUrTS AND ALCHESN ROSERTT wearon 1 cure,and she spirits the the conductor an director spi itcauses espriahe sch tice ingen nde ne mae {9 BAppen ote interposesbenneen the weapon involved and viroc tha nero moves or directs the wre to give conse to its effect soctenias Inchided spitital substances in his concep Goctenins facade, ie weapon av with that ofmagpes was simple Ee 2c FN weeps reaches che woud immediatly nos Se aces A ‘of an even more sublime virtue ce nian 7 core ae Impostors are cerainiy those that insist har all magic is superstitious and false.” a vse Tent Con compe pcan os. Tadeed the wenteenth centuries was 2 sa ee ike oe Sangha parca nent egg agus common people's supersidons against rian rg ee ag mae, cca yagi lack agi ee rode Oe Tan aus nant oh a et Seen we ee an come ee ont Re ence 1 a een Tecan Nant Fab ey tes Re a ein i es uy oe eS en te In whatever ay arrender, do the knw wel hae has dedaced? Tp wate) Dear eae 40 hes acon less ia degurtion Te pe oe never Tash Sone ne to predic be Feaway the, weapon unguent cures wounds without aay theyeapon unguc ids without the application of a Acconting to Rober, Goclenivs didnot in fact explain how the unguent worked. Hemerelyrepeated thats acon was natural and thet is effentnenes ‘es magne but gave no saison when explaining how the cara te ‘might be attracted to the wound, S Marelots tales but Ik thee, what moves? Whats moved? How does it ‘move? You have no rep iT askwhat manner it mote? Or what thingy help ito move? Your reply bythe infuence of heavenly bodies, carrying ot the operons ih ton ofthe cement Tol ese nd ee tell me what are, and how are these influences? What operations? What elements? To me you speak not.*! bie bia Glen ution war vague and unahcryteee i mas concentration af heavenly vires, moving spiny, ets According © Raber thet ns ating red nthe work Rober nth eur ad in he ‘moving spit of Gocenius nothing tare than the work of te enemy humankind, the devil: * " Thus, he could not avoid the obvious conclusion: ‘All ofthe bookiis Tos could ng book is pernicious ‘Throughout his Brevis Anatome, Roberti suggested that Cal suggested that Calvinism was the ‘theological source of Goclenius' belief in the effectiveness of amulets Certainly, what the good Calvinists d o \ fo not grant to good actions, which geil well mere the ten of dvi race, even they have bea mored thro grace tis divine grace gen eal by them tothe ge ak acock to free young ino the mage of crowned ay oF 0 ‘Aries, oF 0 Leo, of to Sagitarus. An easy and happy tieology. On completing his analsis of Goetenus text, Rober sought to riicule the phsican from Marburg beease he had argued that the effets of mules ‘ere ‘miraculacainisie’ In this context, the reference to the eae as 4 Iirale to the cxcunon of mara phenomena led Rot ena led Robert to sugges that Catnism interpreted the actons ofthe demon ascivne operations ‘Tue Coxsiuarion oF THe DewaTe ‘The publication of Robert's Brevis Anatome marked the beginning of a long dispute between Roberti and Goclenius. Their respective published contribu tions followed one another in a rhythm of more or less one book per year JESUITS AND ALCHEM(: ROBERTI AND THE WEAPONSALVE CONTROVERSY bemeen 1616 and 1619. As might be expected, the books published in the Content ofthis dspute did not alter the arena of the debate, nor did. they present many nowities Instead, there was @ continuous perfecting of the Efguments, an expansion of erticam around peripheral elements of the Controversy and, i has tobe said, a squandering of rhetorical resources. The Sequence of te publications was the following: Tracazs Novus, by Gocenius, 1613: Bevis Anatome, by Rober, 1816: Smarthrsis Magne, by Goclenius 1617! Maamoyptoss Magneca CavinoGaeleiana, by Robert, 1618; Goce thus Heoutontinotumenos by Roberti, 1618>" Moaophia loonnis Robi, by Gocienus, 1619" and finaly, in 1821, a work by Roberd against Van Helmont’ views on the weapon salve, Citations Magntica a Unguents Armani Magic Fmpstura®™ SKimough they repeated the basic arguments, these publications did develop some important problems in fae greater detail ~ such as crits of Panacea, the elecavencs ofthe movingsparitand the theological questions. Ins Metamorphosis Moguetica Caine Gocensana, Rober didnot dispute any of te arguments put fara by Goclenivs, bot rather riled agains ‘Calvinist. Seresies and thei use in the explanation given by Goclenins ofthe operations Gf the pire of te world. or moving spirit This accusation of Calvinism Sesously harmed Govlenius, He did ot deny it but argued dat Calvin had Sovhing todo withthe casein hand because he had never pronounced upon the weapon salve and was completely ignorant about “magneic philoso hv. The religous question remained mevertheles very much im discus Goclenius, in an important and revealing manoewee relating to the religious problem, defleced the accusation back not only to bis Jesuit ‘opponent but also to the entire Church of Rome: Look, idolatry is the worship of idols, and idolaters are all those that devote themselves to the worship of divinity in nature. Doth thy notsee, Doctor Robert, how these things come about? Whosoever wants to illustrate worship of divinity towards creatures is an idolater. Doctor Robert and his partners do just this when they venerate the Saints, the Feliquaries, the tmages, the consecrated things, etc. The word of the Hol Seripaures is clears it deals with idolaters that proffer divine “worship t6 an idol, oF properly speaking, to an imitation of a calf or ‘ven figuratively speaking, to money. Evidently this isa practice similar to that of Robert and his co-brethren. In fac, the Holy Scriprures teach ‘one that faith, that invocation, thatthe vows, tha the saenfices and the Sdoration are divine worship. Many of these characteristics are in the Confession, in the canonisation of Saints, the reliquaries, and the mages, in the sacrament of the Eucharist and the consecrated objects ‘Thue Doctor Robert is an idolater, as he shows reverence to imitations, whieh is something that is due only to God. As we can see, the themes associated with the debate over the weapon salve ‘went well beyond what might be thought to be the limits of a strictly medical fF philosophical dispute about the effectiveness of a therapy. In his reply aGoclenius did not hesitate 10 enter into religious discourse, atacking his ‘opponent over questions that were crucial for the time — he argued thatthe sacrament of the Eucharist was idolarous. There could be nodhing worse to the eats of a Jesuit Indeed, the religious themes underlying this dispute involved important contemporary political and intellectual questions. From 1604 until 1623, Marburg was under the rule ofthe Calvinist Prince of Hesse Kassel, which led to flight of Lutheran teachers and students from the Universiy. This was the context in which Goclenius lived and worked his dispute wth Robert took place precisely during the years of Calvinist control of the Universi of Marburg" In relation specially tothe weapon save, Goclenius' MorsophiaJohannis tes more deed mongs argument in tour of ne cece of the remedy, Gocienius proposed that the moving spirit was the entity capil of cring the crave ref the wound I the spi, be represented the spirit asthe universal agent that guaranteed the connection Teowecn cing inthe word sense gms This piri of the word isnot determined regarding the genus in ise in'trulnitsindiferent as regards the enuf the aubstnce o of he Accident Is natures more pewerfl because icuntes Gee two gener inthis way, fs an accident im the accidents anda subwanee in the Stostance is aimost an intermediate partespant in dhe nature oF he tho extremes, This the transcendental nicure by which parscles Sithdraw and inves themseies with ther own nature or tac which i {learn tings created. This spit conserves the connection and the Shordination ofall he part of tae Uniwers. les the cass ofall order nd the connecton beeveen a. Thus, no case given for neces Of the effect, without the connection of all chings."™ ‘ As his peuage ladles, the pilowphlcl confronsion underyng the “Gent war wa the conmspear tension between th Aristotelian shoal tard ie erlou dds of Herma ond Neo Panic hough, Aner adeiting tia Word aa i petcanePns paca ar Sa pmedag EETT Oe Schone, Gockalse Gcltimed “Poor mntind that & mowed more by authori than by the truth RSaTYappronch became vet clearer Téa tree tn the unguent ea hs Gore Hewtninramenao 1618 The plan ofeanpalgn vat the sume a ln the Bosker of 1616, bor the lier work developed te Tepes amare crpac ie ond made more hndiiacna wean. Rober wied oleate Cocleniusin the wider context of contemporary magi Recording Robert, Gocleni wa ike the Reruns, Hike Paracel and Tike al ofthe who practed black magic. Thus Rober inveighe agai the thle of the alchemist tempting to totem the dices by comeing the master Abo in the debate the Jesu stacked the Roscrucan brotherhood, accusing if being a great perl fore Sate and for people relia. Robert's arabs was fom an erhodox Caole porpecane Wh arguments deaing more special wih tc weapon sve, Rober ee Jesurms AND ALCHEMY: ROBERTI AND THE WEATONSALVE CONTROVERSY ished his ctiiism, He once again denounced Goclenius’ illogicallit Fann eee rmerey a ty Goce and donot plague those that do hoc beligne in fay miraces."” Robert argued chat Goclenius had demonstrat ‘i tothing more than something arising from effects, rather than causes, and sear this could not have the value ofa proof Moreover, Robert responded aa ais filam that he had no knowledge of the phenomenon of magnetism 1p dadicang an entre section of his work so the proposition she action of Breen of cannot be sen as similar tothe action of a magnet. The Jest Sofninea ina he only had to deny that the potion acted by more magnaicnin Tedet wo shift to its defenders the onus of proof of the supposed magnetic crater ofthe cure and, with this, also its natural character. None he les Spare defenders ofthe Parscesian unguent sometimes used the analogy hin perfume, Roberti compared the respective dtancesof dhe ation ofthe WeaBe abe and that of smells and concluded that i¢ was an ined comparison: If the magnetic doctors defend the cure by talking of the proximity Hone eRe unguent and the wound, probably they could persuade us aettor could se from the wound (as we sense in our noses the odor Sr pebumed tings) and by ts ntermediary the cue could ake place, uPitis unolerable to condemn as inexperienced all those chat do not fully believe thatthe unguentan spread its igor by up ro one thousand yards Further, Robert insisted on the distinetion that the magnet was a natural body hile the unguent was a work of art. He also argued that the magnetic effect Nourved directy, needing only proximity berween a magnet and a piece of fon. On the other hand, the effect of the weapon salve presupposed weemoniesand doubtful proceedings. Finally, there was another problem that Gnade the atribusion of a magnetic effect to the weapon all but unfeasible - the Thagnet was applied tothe iron in order co atract it, the unguent was applied toa weapon in order to react upon a third thing. ‘Av this point in the debate, the contenders accused one another of being liags and fisifiers. Roberti asked that the Academy of Marburg take steps against Goelenius. In his final book, Morsophia Tohannis Raber, Goclenivs TEumed the accusation: ‘Johannes Robert, Jesuit, Doctor of Theology, Tommits the crime of ving and falsyy in the clearest possible manner."! He said that Roberti had falsely accused him of Paracelsianism and of having bad fluke with the Rosicrucian movement, As evidence of this falsehood, Goclenius tGued ovo of his own texts, one against the Swiss alcheristand another against see Motherhood, both of which had been shown to the Academy earlier.” Furthermore, Goclenius suggested that Iving was common among Roberti and his colleagues. : ‘Aithough the mutual criticism covered a Tot of ground, the problem of Divine Providence wat always central to the controversy. The action of a spirit Tateanied a curative virtue could only be possible in a context ofa particular 93theology one which admiued the presence of created sii and in whi tatu opradons vere under te command of Gods On the oer hands theologian om the Sociey off could nox cs acep chat natural net tad no ale. For Roberd, Cod ensured general reglauons according seh ml opt oe eed ou atc hey wee mie oF femonintenenont. Th dea of one God gorering alan happenings serene nth de ll Pons on Tams se Robert's nal sabo in the dspute, Curation Magnet, was writen in opposon tthe ideas Johannes Bapisa Van Helmer Arsoon at it inkings ofthe disputes hetyeen Robert and Coens had become know Van Helmont tens young phan in Beuscl, wrote tresinesbout ti weapon she, De Mops Vneun Curate Dipptate demain suneem natura legtina Stns, cra Re P. Tanne Reber Thee Doren Stat nu rym nr mas, gana Radlpacn Gate pfasoem imdcinan The work had problems obuning the’ imprinaner anes oxy publaheda 162, in Parise This was Van Heimon¢’s Ra publican, but hi ier tial under the Inquson was du to this work wich highligh the importance ofthe problem ofthe weapon salve athe start of the seventeenth entry In G85 the Inqtiion condemned erentyactenpropoisons om the work and is aur was considered spect of Perey splantsnmncs noth cnn bevecn Goce ad Raber rough ote fore elements ofthe dope ahd ae oie meets er emnmeentone Beween the theologian and the physician there is not a question facts Bow concede at theresa caret the woud. The dace arses because. the phisican suwsine that the care is natural andthe theologian dees that the cure daboical, ru ofa pact between the Van Helmont adopted acral atinde wo both contend atitude to both contenders, but ered them fr diferent reson He summary domised Gocleniu"The pian ‘rong confses spat (athe de wth ie conatingand bos) wth agri aoe sings esc af mage ses he enone tier= ere erp, The Wetinca gven to Roberta complately diferent ‘The Jesuit, Van Helmont argued, upheld the diabolical nature of the cure, becnse he dd not undersand anything abou magnet and een let bu This magnetic remedy cannot in any way be suspect. It does Bt doe ot demand woe chars of mu eal doesnt ‘ith ceremonies oan deference des not presuppose speci ines Dresuppose imagination, sctsels or fa an dts not demand fons of The wound: whichis always asocated with supersuous cues. ‘Van Helmont was thus concerned about competence. Theology was not the JESUITS AND ALCHEMY ROBERTI AND THE WEAPONSALYE CONTROVERSY best verain in which to debate natural phenomena, and so he disallowed Robert's interventions, ‘De Deo theologus, naturals vero de natura in- guirat'™ Van Helmone appears not to have noticed the imporance of the ‘igious question associated withthe debate and this was his eventual undoing ‘ince he was proposing the loosening of the historical dependency between patural philosophy and theology. For a believer from the Society of Jesus, this josition was reckless. Peeip fact, the arguments presented by Van Helmont in favour of the cedecuvencss of the weapon salve were not very different from those of Goclenius, Though Van Helimont condemned Goclenivs' sympathies, he proposed instead a mach wider interpretation of magnetism, which ended up eng confused with the propositions of Goclenivs. Van Helmont’s central thesis was the agitation ofthe vital spirit ofthe wound by means of magnetism ‘of astral origin. However, his manner of studying the problem was quite {istince from that of Goclenius. Inthe second part of his treatise, Van Helmont Carefully discussed varied examples of magnetic action at a distance and sGught a common explanation for them. He proceeded like ap experimenter Snaljring information collected by other investigators. By contrast, Goclenius hoped to convince his readers of the unguent’s sympathetic action by @ narrative of the supposedly analogous effects of talismans, amulets, etc. ‘A polemical thealogian from the Society of Jesus such as Roberti could not overtook such an intervention by a Catholie physician, published and debated ina land governed by Catholics. Roberti set the tone from the start of his Curaiivnis Magnatice The dedication tothe Archbishop of Mechelen, treated Van Helmontas a lost lamb and asked for his punishment "Thy knows, as itis written, ‘strengthen the weak, cure the sick, enjoin that which has parted, convert the contempable.” Thus itis done. Itishow thy hath lways proceeded, and that the extremely etrant Helmont, having tried thy humanity and thy gentleness, is teaching the worst and the most miserable things that there are, and once more is straying from the path of the Good Shepherd. Even content, defeated and beaten by trickstershe recites the verse: "Thy rod and Thy stall, they comfort me’ (Psalm 28.4), thus desired, thus hoped for? "Roberti included in his conclusion a short document containing vigorous condemnations of Van Helmont's and Paracelsus’ positions by ix physicians from the Douai and Louvain medical faculties, Views expressed in this document were similar to those which determined Van Helmonts fate at the hands of the Inquisition, Elsewhere in the book, Roberti refuted Van Helmoats interpretation with the same substantive arguments that he bad tused 0 attack Goclenius. Theology was central to bis discussion of the probless of natural philosophy, especially when dealing wich problems such as Phether the acon of the weapon salve was natural or demonic. As Roberti commented on Goclenius ‘Understand, if thee understands, that this and other similar questions can be deat wih in three ways: medical, physical and theological, The medical 95cantos muse cavewteraae considerations belong to thee and other professors. As to Theol fessors. As (0 Theology, there iso obs, because cat one linger on an acon which hot tatu Foraeaul the principle of Philampiaancila Peis had to be obeyed sesthout question, The mest imporant shing was to safeguard an orthodox oon of God, of spiral agents and their relations with the word of ‘Tue Jesurrs wy rie Disruve 4s ha already Been pointed out fom the eaty decades of dhe seventeenth century, the controversy over the weapon salve spread throughout e ober was deed not the ony Joo pronounce on te mearen ee, ‘aerous Jesuit pronouncements asses the posion canbe fund in sal lean some academic theses defended within ther schools Indeed, soe ofthe mos nporan Jeu aural pilsopher ale condemned the weapon salve, for example: Juan Eusebio Nieremberg, Nicola weapon se for example: Nieremberg, Nicola Cabeo and ‘Nieremberg was an important member ofthe So member ofthe Sociewin Spain, An endite suitor of naira, he published his es om the unguent in 1680, aos teen eas afer the erly work of Robert The Spanih philosopher summarized the dispute, highlighting the participation of the Luxembur Jesuit and concluded: —ee Ik understood as being of a moral characterization, a caused ya determined weapon, ths, gave fost nara and Phisieal ve in onder co cute the wound that hal cased and of {ther wounds that are closer to itis ut ofthe question. On the other hand, even fichada natural rte, thiscould note so great aso each allthat is betwixt heaven and earth, Finally Paraclss vase author oF is deception, ora eat he who spresd fe about and iiss sulfcent tobe suspect, becase for many centuries there has not existe sich author of such a bastard philosophy.” = His prncpal condemnation ofthe weapon ae as tha the medicine applied tothe weapon woul have to recognise the exact wound tatithad cased. He so pointed out the excesive distance over which the cure was purported '9 ‘operate, which shows Nieremberg’s limited view of the problem Atroughly the same tie, Nicola Cabeo published in Ferrara his great work on magnetism, Phisiophia Magnetica” This was a general stay of magnetism and became the principal Jesuit souree on the subject. Cabeo alluded only briefly tthe possible action of Paracelsus’ weapon salve. For Cabeo, it was important not to confuse magnetism with sympathy. . Regarding this unguent, sid to be weapon or sympathetic, consider ita Pronk The simplex wound, which require th remedy, eure themseer naturally; fone keeps the wound feee from any dirt, and above all washin them fequeny wh ne they cue themeciesperecdye™ ‘After Robert, the most substantial diseussion ofthe weapon salve from the LRSUITS AND ALCHENR: ROBERTI AND THE WEAPONSALVE CONTROVERSY Jesuitperspectve was thatby the illustrious German Jesuig, Athanasius Kircher He discused it in detail in his work about magnetism, Mogues sive de Arte Maguctca which appeared only in 1641." His was a detailed analysis. In a section referring to the use of magnetism in medicine, Kircher attacked Robert Fhudd and his conceptions of the world and of nature, Fudd was the principal defender of the weapon salve in England. The background problem for Kircher was Fludd’s proposition that the government of the world was ‘operated by the sprit of God, The weapon salve was a key component in this Giscussion.” Kircher’s principal sources were Robert's and Goclenius polemical tex. Kircher deployed against Fludd his full arsenal of philosophical and theological arguments, the first and most important of which was that Fladé ‘assumes that no apparent effectin things arises from a natural agent, but from the cental spirit of divinig.”" This point, as we have seen was crucial for the thinking of the Society of Jesus and for most Catholic intellectuals. Ie was mnatter of acceptance or nonvacceptance of 2 rule of the natural world and whether it might be possible to accept this without limiting the Divine ‘Omnipotence. From one perspective, Kircher's intervention in the ‘unguent ‘war’ was an effort to fine tane the concept of nature, eliminating spinal Subsanecs while allowing it to be a wansforming agent in the work Kircher, with his solid Knowledge of magnetic philosophy, put Forward a novel argument regarding magnetism and the weapon salve. A magnet, he {trgued, would act upon iron whatever the circumstances, respecting the limits of its sphere of activites, but the weapon salve required other manipuls- “Thus, the magnet cannot be stopped from atracting the iron even ifthe quinty’ lide, during cayome, of nightome, the cold, or heat, hethe applied from below or rom above: Burthousays that the blood Spink fuel cormmuncates wth the ron aroused bythe unguent, and spit present in the sstral mum orn the wounded man aracts i Imaghetclly And what is the result If attracts magnetically, then Tider thc blood may attracted to i fellow creature or another ting was Stracted tothe wound by the environment, What i unheard-of up 0 ‘tom, since healing comes from a benefical fores, tbe unguent heals ‘hat has not joined. This acuon is not magnetic. Concluding his condemnation of the potion as defended by Fludd, Kircher scorned what was purportedly the strongest argument by the English physician: ‘As he (Fludd] said, experience teaches us that the use of this tinguent always brings a cure, And being thus, it does not follow chat this cure ‘comes from the unguent working at whatever distance from the patient." The cure eoilld be provoked by an implicit or explicit pact withthe demon, or even, by the normal action of nature, “There being a reasonably strong consensus within the Society of Jesus bout the demonic character of the magnetic cure, in 1651 the question was ‘brought to a close in the most important document affecting the education ofthe Jesuits in those years, the Ordinatio ro Studi Superionbus: Though an internal document seeking to guide its own profestom, this document indiates the principal topics of philosophical reflecdon inside the Order ~ and the weapon she was explicitly excluded from thin domain. The Propositions tht there coud be action atadlsance by natural virtue’ and that "ures could be made to wounds oillnesses applied ata distance or bythe so- called weapon unguent were condemned. ”*The Society of Jesus condemned the remedy as abnormal. Concuesio ‘The weapon sae's treatment by the Jesuits highligh an importan aspect of dhe cultural life of dhe Socet. Asis wellknown, members ofthe Society of Jesus considered the principal philosophical and scienic problems ofthe petiod ‘but always within the context ofa set of clearly defined limits established by their theology. And this contexts important for interpreting their participa tion in paricular scientific controversies. Inte dispute oer the weapon salve, the Jest lined up behind Johannes Robers, combating the theological thesis of an absolute government of the world. In fact, the Jesuits defended the “Avistotelian idea of nature as reorganized by Saint Thomas Aquinas. In the dispute, a conception of nature that originated from NeoPlatonic and Hermetic sources was close to Calvinist theology, thus making this conception {dependent upon a dangerous enemy of the Catholie Church. This i fet, ‘what the Society of Jesus found it necesary to oppose about the weapon salve. For this reason, unl dhe middle ofthe seventeenth century, the Jesus did ot, discus the problem in terms of the acs’ ofthe cute. The almost complete absence of reference to empirical verification om the part of the Jesuits as due, above allt the rejecuon « pron of a remedy astociated with Calvinist, {theological theses. The debate bescen the Jesuits~ Robert in particular~and the defenders ofthe weapon salve contributes to our understanding of the importance of the religious dimension of the philosophical clashes of the seventeenth century, when i was sll posible to argue forthe action of pris, demons or easy miracles. Nores aNp Rerenences 1 Qo i pe of pnp eet of he fi Le Gl ie 8 rat (Par 1983), Regarding probes Ofna pilosophy se Ugo Bei Topo Sas Ram, 195) penis ie in ‘ra Balin, “Alchemy in the Socey of Jess” in Alen Reed Pding of te Thurmatioal ojo te Hie of AL a he rise of Cig 17-9 p18 e. Zee von Mar ctor rl 1580) pp, and cache a he Soi of een the Seventeenth Cnr: Seange Belem” Anis 40 (193), 4-64 ‘5, Some fir sear ago, Lynn Thornes monumental too Mage and Experimental Sect Gxow You Tos) vo Vl and Vi, Shctned eis iporant pecs of ie conor, ‘Alen Dens analocd te dpe ver the weapon save in Engin Allen Deb, “Rober ‘oda and the Use of Certs De Mapua inthe Weaponealve Conver Jowea fhe ‘toy of Mens lt See, 9 (LO, SOb-T7 Wa Dy me tn tn ‘est ofthe impacto the agsmene within te wider phere of Engh ulus fe dung therint i of tre sceneenthceneay Wilam Boum. Tie Weapon sen Severe {Scay Engh Drs femal of Hoy of Maan Ad een 1 (190), 5-23. nie JeSUmS AND ALCHEMY ROBERTI AND THE WEAFONSALVE CONTROVERSY «omnes et a Ta econ ie Robe Ha Henan” Aedoae miirh oe copa wth egg rte Te Nae tc a aaa ae eis tee bic aag met e a te er ca a om ie egeeer eee teers ee Oe remeron 9 ree ae oe Tae Feces Goctenius, Ori que vats non spin tom matic, liom dlrs ren Ssh ee aon ec Si er ome a einen ar as, Renee Tas ws de Magna Var Cart a un dare, i a eee eens ec tiara oat Cp 8. Fern a pelican of te Rsrucian maniet Frances Yates rained the counts Seite interme to Enghrenre (London: Role Rega Pau 1972) ee os ee eG A rm a, Seen on Sol ores malin adv en ne aa boric a8 See aus i sente Cosei h pp = Eemcoae Molnabs monies mma eat, se coven, abt, ae ek sagan 2 tm, eet tem pesos ae oats Seen cnccteni ame eect Me Nese a eteraeeRtt isbbea Sh map 29. ; 32 Raalon Coens, Smosh, Sai! ae ins ejecta dr mages nor cont SANT, YO17) ee abcess Magnets Cavino-oacenana qua Caine Dogma Fo aaa rer edenta Supendo Magee, oesiae mga (ee, Join gut omar 5 es Rters, Gemi Heoimamena i uate mau gs Hee nsemboug, 118.438, Rodolphus Gocenln Momnpie funni Rai D. faite, i vate Sarvs pices ran th a foanves Robert, Ceratons Magma Ung Arma Maga Ppa clave denonstata “Luxembourg 152), a eeepc a 4 otis work Rober drew on all ofthe Jeu accurate experience in disputing wih heretics He meas of Baling, of Bel Ru, of Caton and eer great contre figuces tom the Soe who all ighlighed ie rl fae cone of Dine Proidence and the const between Catholic ana Calis thesis. With respect othe weapon ae, the Explanations for the unguent supplied oy Godenios mee founded on ap inportant theologial penile Robert, recognized the problem and counveonsacied excel nota now, lecion 8 qu unquam seat, qu Qranve st cabiiclarum Devs" Rober oa (30).p 13, ‘Goce, nan nial ealuaon of B, comments: Verum Hoel gens (quem into er ane sspicebae) perteco, tot deter. to eum, tot fos Loria ‘racatum meum projet ese deprehens tne dole quiets puter lua ae Geert pose eructare Nec mihi Solu eram als tam pris nwo pepe anata, fm in Cainum esque aes malitone Lene cuss tsetse: Covkeni G5).5. 12 - 42h, p, 1528. Cores recy auacked the Pope". Roba & poms dem facia (quod Wolarae prc. qu in suis ser huerar acendere sleban cum mere Foi ey eats cera ta ahi ci 18 43, The Surament ofthe Eucharst occupied 3 funeson ofthe grea imperanee in Cabo ‘eligi at tat ine ad the clgeusconfontatons between Lutrans and Cais {atsemphasied ts quston. On the imparance of thi Sacrament er ae Raman Ce, Se Bewo Redon Gali Bs (Turn 1083). ‘4. On te relipour and cura project of Pence ort, ee Bruce Moan, Te hei Wind fle Coma Ca Papier Cel sir nh or i of ees ST Gocenan 9 (38), p88 ‘Quid ner Raber! Rie: pial ame pst, lagu: usd quia. aon sum mata ‘Sie i to oe selon pe oan so sole aucune tagcat epee Soe Phlesophics nuts hominis imperim aghosco, Orne arn ons poster, ss ‘igen expendendae. Now ergo docedum & dacencum i olum ea quad Aral le lla habe i, plars ors, in quis pum ample esp. 4 Raber eT. Me Te po a eens gp eee Ham. gun pret a Ba pat s Goce, oc (38.5 Ki Condo about thee themes could not have been sewer “ad Theophrstum ncn vei) Guess & age thenmince fhe aes, Biapemam i Oram in mara tarsus se demons pri es fea mune a ce feeemer va sep pratense 158) Bees eat ‘burners en no echoes pe ni time ic 5, A etl ana of tissue can be found ina recent work abou itcheratand demonoiogy in Europe Sat Crk Ting oh Doon (Oxfor 187) pp iBT. On te esas tthe cans been igor ater andthe coho scenes cat Soden ems Marge: } xc ed) Rent ie Sse Ron came 5 Tnorked tom the 1652 edition Johannes Bap Van Helont, Om Malicnae it ite Phyo Iau (Amster, 1852), pp. 39930, See t Haleus. op (2), pp. 50-3, Van Helmont op (3). i p58, ome ‘a. 2900. Van Helmone song condemned the en vewpoineSatage eno unde sci, ‘Deum jad sem magecary non dextrin vlneatfume Ose tees 100 LJESUFTS AND ALCHEMY: RORERTI AND THE WEAPONSALVE CONTROVERSY nce Des scons secretuium elegeri! sane utcungue ager aro tandem epeies on Sis adones apd vow se ctram eiolca,o us tonite tocabo ve um Boe ‘agit i a, pp 08-20 BL Robert, oc (39), np. . 2 Robert gp. (3) 9 306 15. See daconsion ofthe Engish eve by Debus, opi (3). fac he “ungent alte ittothe eighteenth cont iene Rares, Pat pate out 1652, (2) [Satllecuon of ese by renee auhow about te mpathesc cure. Severo the works ‘amined inthis paper an be fun ints publctiom. Rates took reat eaten choosing [etude pubheg sons rom varus European nabons ad fom illerentvewpatas ‘Thereat san extemcy etl volume about the urgent a 64, See for example: Laurent ore, Vor Ppt, (ings 1823) 'h,Jung Busco rember. Canny Oat nf Pre) Sunda Pte des Morais de Natura (Alcs de Henan, 184, Theft edison of hs Dook was 168. 6, tsp 258 15, Nicos Caco, Ppt Maretce (Ferrara, 162), 5. np. 308 (8. Thest were thee eons of ths work The third edition was used fortis dy, Athanasios ‘reer Mapu se dene Maree (Rote, 164) archer explored the quexion Boe Fis et pulluned worn Magna (Wuraburg, 16) In ts work, Kircher aecased the ‘Eiendel of te ungueat of syperson and veered o Raber for 9 Dever explanation, 70, Richer, 1688 op at (6), Book I, Pat 7, chapter ‘She se Debus (3) 1-85-41, On Fudd andthe weapon 1 Ines 7 mae 58 7A. Imorked with the nineteenth century eon by. M. Pacer, Rati Sura sitions ‘Stace Sass ow (Bet, 187-3), wo, pp. 7, 101