Alchemy and University – Alchemie und Universität Alchemy and University – Alchemie und alchemy into the medical faculty. Moran Universität nonetheless emphasized that calling them the first professors of chemistry wouldn’t be cor- Veranstalter: Ute Frietsch, Herzog Au- rect. As Andreas Libavius (c. 1555-1616) gust Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel / Humboldt- had rightly excoriated, the capacity of making Universität zu Berlin; Volkhard Wels, Freie things alone didn’t make an academic disci- Universität Berlin pline. Datum, Ort: 20.11.2019–22.11.2019, Wolfen- UTE FRIETSCH (Wolfenbüttel/Berlin) con- büttel centrated on the University of Helmstedt. Bericht von: Sergei Zotov, Humboldt- Duke Julius of Brunswick-Lüneburg, its Universität zu Berlin founder, as well as his son, Duke Henry Julius, its first rector, are good examples of The history of alchemy tends not to be under- powerful regents involved in alchemy and researched in the past decades. Nowadays the Paracelsism. Even with their support how- historiography of alchemy offers a wide range ever it was complicated to establish the con- of approaches, from philological and socio- troversial subject officially as an academic historical to ones of history of science, history topic. Some professors, such as Franciscus of technology, and history of ideas. All the Parcovius (1560-1611) or Jacob Horst (1537- more important to stress areas of research that 1600), built a network of alchemical contacts. have hardly been studied yet. One of them is Though modern chemistry in fact was estab- the relation between alchemy and early mod- lished on empirical grounds, older positions ern universities. This subject lacks new edi- of alchemy nonetheless deteriorated. Thereby tions of source texts, as for example alchem- Gottfried Christoph Beireis (1730-1809), who ical disputationes, as well as intensive anal- claimed to be a possessor of the philosophers’ ysis: In early modern times close but diffi- stone, became a symbol of the alleged scien- cult relations between faculty chairs and al- tific failure of Helmstedt University. Frietsch chemical knowledge existed that were long- concluded that early modern university had time overlooked by research. to change as much as chymistry did in or- The conference held at the Herzog August der that both could come to terms with one Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel intended to cover another and that both eventually ended with these issues. 15 conference-speakers and one another. about 30 colleagues of various academic back- VOLKHARD WELS (Berlin) described that grounds from all over the world gathered to in the early modern period, logical knowl- exchange knowledge of the connections be- edge was more important than empirical data, tween alchemy and university in analyzing and science was based on logic as a method- selected cases of the 16th to 18th centuries. ology of knowledge. Thus, chemistry, before BRUCE T. MORAN (Reno) gave a keynote the 17th/18th century, was not considered as speech on alchemy as an instrument of cre- a true science, but as something mere sup- ating networks of knowledge among courts, plementary. After Francis Bacon’s Novum universities and intellectuals. We know about organum scientiarum (1620), chemistry be- alchemical recipes and experiments of creat- came more important and incorporated into ing chemical medicines in the circle of William the university life. Therefore, we can under- IV (1567-1592) and his son Maurice (1572- stand the famous dispute about Paracelsus 1632), Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel. These at the University of Basel as a struggle be- noblemen established an alchemical network tween two opposing paradigms, logical and that involved many significant Paracelsians, experimental. Alchemists as Johann Kunckel such as Johannes Hartmann (1568-1631) and (1630-1703) and Leonhard Thurneysser (1531- Jacob Mosanus (1564-1616). The first profes- 1596), however, modified the secret language sors of chymistry, Johannes Hartmann and of alchemy making secret recipes transparent Heinrich Petraeus (1589-1620), tried to find a and public. Despite the fact that this was compromise between their Hermetic alchemy largely done for commercial purposes (in or- and the Galenic medicine, thus integrating der to sell their books at a better price), these © Clio-online, and the author, all rights reserved. processes stimulated the alchemical knowl- financed by Landgrave Maurice of Hesse- edge and integrated it into academia. Kassel. Due to him and his followers unprece- DIDIER KAHN (Paris) discussed the flour- dented academic experience was created: a ishing alchemical tradition of French and Ital- cutting-edge program dedicated to the prepa- ian early modern universities. He presented ration of drugs in laboratories. It resulted Parisian scholars interested in alchemy: Pierre in a brand-new culture of alchemical thera- Paulmier (1568-1610), doctor of the faculty peutics. Other scholars criticized Hartmann: of medicine of Paris, Jean Ribit de la Rivière Galenist physician Petrus Severinus (1542- (1546-1605), first physician of King Henry IV, 1602) also promoted the institutionalization of Joseph du Chesne (1546-1609) and Theodore alchemy and the creation of laboratories, but Turquet de Mayerne (1573-1665), physicians- criticized the religious approach of Hartmann in-ordinary, and others. Some of them were and his Paracelsian ideas. Andreas Libav- against chemical medicines; others, however, ius and Daniel Sennert (1572-1637) considered produced them for the king’s court. Even af- Paracelsian philosophy merely as a source ter the prohibition of Paracelsian medicine, for the preparation of chemical medicaments. they continued to do alchemical experiments The chair in Marburg went through financial and, moreover, addressed the theory of the troubles until its closure in 1620. tria prima as well as hermetic remedies in HIRO HIRAI (New York) discussed the al- their books. Parisian Paracelsians tried to es- chemical views of Daniel Sennert, professor tablish iatrochemistry beyond the books of of medicine at the University of Wittenberg. Galen and Aristoteles and introduced com- Sennert considered alchemy and Paracelsian pletely new theories. Some scholars, such as philosophy not as a science, but as an art Étienne de Clave (1587-1645), even delivered of making medicines and refinement of met- university courses on alchemy and chemistry als. He relied on the positions of Joseph in Paris. du Chesne, Petrus Severinus, Andreas Libav- THOMAS HOFMEIER (Basel) demon- ius, and Thomas Erastus (1524-1583). He strated the connection between university believed that the tria principia were estab- and alchemy in 16th century Basel. Besides lished by God through the mixing of the Paracelsus, who taught as a professor at the four elements. Johannes Freitag (1581-1641), University of Basel in 1527/28, there was a professor of medicine in Groningen, argued big alchemical community in the city. Felix against Sennert in favor of Aristotelians and Platter (1536-1614) was elected six times Galenists. In spite of Sennert’s distance to rector of the university. He didn’t practice Paracelsus in language and philosophy, they alchemy and officially disapproved transmu- considered him as a follower and called him tation, but in fact provided unprecedented heretic. support to his alchemist friends. One of them, KASPAR VON GREYERZ (Basel) focused Theodor Zwinger (1533-1588), was professor on 17th century English translations of Sen- of medicine in Basel, and not only practiced nert’s works. In 1637, the year of his death, alchemy, but even openly taught courses on the first translation in English was published, alchemy and Paracelsism. He illegally helped and in 1662, Sennerts’s fundamental works on in obtaining doctorates to alchemist friends – practical medicine were translated and pub- with secret and private defenses of doctoral lished. These books were popular among theses on alchemy. Among them were Joseph physicians who did not know Latin, but were du Chesne (doctorate in 1575), Hieronymus well educated and partly interested in her- Reusner (1581/82), Heinrich Khunrath (1588), metic knowledge. Andreas Libavius (1588) and Michael Maier GEORGIANA HEDESAN (Oxford) placed (1598). the alchemical philosophy of Jan Baptist van ELISABETH MOREAU (Princeton) gave an Helmont (1580-1644) in the context of univer- overview of the history of the chair of chem- sity teaching in Leuven. Cornelius Gemma istry in Marburg, where the tradition of new (1535-1577), professor of medicine in Leuven, Paracelsian alchemy had flourished. The formed van Helmont’s view on Paracelsus. chair was led by Johannes Hartmann and As a Neoplatonist and follower of Severinus, © Clio-online, and the author, all rights reserved. Alchemy and University – Alchemie und Universität Gemma believed that Paracelsus had revived sity of Jena gives us a wonderful example of a the true medicine of Hippocrates. In the Je- successful establishment of this science in the suit College in Leuven, van Helmont attended academic environment. lectures of the prominent theologian Martin MARIEKE HENDRIKSEN (Utrecht) pre- Delrio (1551-1608) who discussed the topics sented the chemistry of Herman Boerhaave of magic and witches. For Delrio, magic was (1668-1738) at the University of Leiden. Boer- demonic, but alchemy was natural and there- haave didn’t deny alchemical transmutation, fore not forbidden. Van Helmont tried to visit but was against alchemical interpretations of every alchemical experiment that was held in the Bible or alchemical panaceas such