Karen Hunger Parshall, Michael T. Walton, Bruce T. Moran, eds.. Bridging Traditions: , , and Paracelsian Practices in the Early Modern Era. Early Modern Studies Series. Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2015. xxii + 311 pp. $50.00, cloth, ISBN 978-1-61248-134-0.

Reviewed by Ute Frietsch

Published on H-Sci-Med-Tech (July, 2017)

Commissioned by Daniel Liu (ICI Institute for Cultural Inquiry)

The essays in Bridging Traditions: Alchemy, inated in particular from colleagues whose felds Chemistry, and Paracelsian Practices in the Early of study were relatively close to Debus’s own ar‐ Modern Era honor the historian of science and eas of interest. Conrad “Kurt” Josten (1912–94), and professor at the University of Chica‐ formerly the curator of the Museum of the Histo‐ go Allen G. Debus (1926-2009). Debus is portrayed ry of Science at Oxford and a scholar of the early as a researcher and mentor who spanned the di‐ and astronomy, and the Ox‐ vide between the history of science and the histo‐ ford historian of medicine Charles Webster ar‐ ry of medicine, and who also established alchemy dently criticized not only Debus’s preference for and magic as genuine topics of interest within the rare books instead of manuscripts but also his se‐ framework of the so-called Scientifc Revolution. lective approach. Nevertheless, in her brief ac‐ In eleven essays, Debus’s colleagues and disciples count of Debus’s biography, Parshall reveals just show how he inspired and advanced their own how systematically he persisted. In addition to work. As indicated by the subtitle, the book is of mentioning his profound studies on English and great value for historians of science and knowl‐ French and more generally on the edge who are working on the history of early “chemical philosophers” (Debus’s own term for modern alchemy and chemistry, a feld of re‐ the early modern alchemists and chemists), Par‐ search established and enlarged by Debus him‐ shall draws attention to further achievements self, subsequent to the work of the historian of that substantiate Debus’s innovative insistence— medicine Walter Pagel (1898–1983). Scholars for example, his own 1968 edition of World’s working in this currently expanding feld will fnd Who’s Who in Science, which for the very frst some solidly constructed essays, though the book time placed the names of chemical philosophers as a whole represents rather more a summary among the other big names in the history of sci‐ than an innovation. ence. In her introduction, Karen Hunger Parshall Bridging Traditions is divided into three outlines the evolving career of the young Debus parts: “Curious Practices and Practices of Curiosi‐ who, even if ultimately successful and providing ty,” “Regional Contexts and Communities of so many connecting points, initially encountered Texts,” and “Evaluations and Perceptions.” In the fervent opposition. Ironically this opposition orig‐ frst and in my opinion the most interesting part, H-Net Reviews the book reveals a new awareness of alchemy’s Moran and Garber both focus on concrete academic status in the , protagonists in medical alchemy as well: for ex‐ which was initially focused in research by Bruce ample Wolfgang Wedel (1645–1721) who succeed‐ T. Moran. Both Moran (chapter 3) and Margaret D. ed his teacher Werner Rolfnck (1599–1673) at the Garber (chapter 4) in particular intensify our un‐ , and who was the frst to hold derstanding of the concrete academic networks in the chair for practical medicine and chymiatria which medical and transmutatory alchemy (medical alchemy) there. He was convinced of the gained ground in the seventeenth century. Garber ontological feasibility of transmutation and inter‐ investigates the use of these alchemies in the ear‐ ested in clarifying principles, language, and sym‐ ly editions of the journal of the Leopoldina Acade‐ bols of chymia. Garber emphasizes this as yet an‐ my of Curiosi, a society that was established in the other example—delimiting anew a thesis of New‐ Holy Roman Empire in 1652. Garber describes man and Principe—that the impetus for simplify‐ how the alchemical topics of new medicine and ing language within chymia was an achievement goldmaking gained full legitimacy through not of the era of Enlightenment but rather of the Leopoldina members’ self-conception as curiosi, transmutatory alchemy of the seventeenth centu‐ i.e., as collectors of curious observations in the ry. tradition of Francis Bacon. Garber also shows that Moran’s and Garber’s prosopographic re‐ the Leopoldina commonly distinguished between search on the academic establishment of medical the terms alchymia and chymia—the former to alchemy gives us a better understanding of the ac‐ describe a wide range of artisanal crafts such as tivities of the followers of Johannes Hartmann glassmaking and the latter for the more specifc (1568–1631), for instance, who held the frst chair arts of making medicaments and . This is in in alchemy at the beginning of the seventeenth contrast to the recent approach by William R. century at the University of Marburg and who Newman and Lawrence M. Principe, who have was for a long time incorrectly viewed as a soli‐ emphasized the synonymity and equality of tary fgure in the history of alchemy. And accord‐ alchymia and chymia in the sixteenth and seven‐ ing to Moran, it was Libavius who intended to es‐ teenth centuries.[1] Garber argues that alchymia tablish chymia as a part of natural philosophy and in the context of this journal was used—just as as a didactically attractive discipline at universi‐ (1555–1616) did—as the broad‐ ties. Zacharias Brendel the Younger (1592–1638) er term, while chymia represented only a subset. and Rolfnck apparently worked on a realization According to Garber, chymia seems to have been of Libavius’s ideas and thus contributed to the driven forward by new progressive and academic combination of chymia and medicine at German ambitions, in contrast to a rather statical use of universities. alchymia. Garber’s investigation thus provides a Ku-ming Chang’s chapter (chapter 5) outlines new meaning to Libavius’s use of the categories the history of Georg Ernst Stahl’s (1659–1734) alchymia and chymia, which was long considered phlogiston theory. Going against the traditional as rather surprising and peculiar. In addition, her stigmatization of phlogiston as a futile narrative investigation shows that the Leopoldina’s habit of in the history of science, Chang investigates publishing short observations led its members to Stahl’s concrete terminological and empirical adopt a more empirical approach to alchemy in‐ work. He demonstrates that Stahl’s phlogiston the‐ stead of relying on secret knowledge allegedly ory was both descended and a sharp break from communicated by unknown adepts, as had been the two Arabic and three Paracelsian principles— the prior tradition. often sulphur (combustion), (volatility),

2 H-Net Reviews and salt (solidity). The diferent concepts of prin‐ Shackelford, Hayne combined , the anal‐ ciple were used by alchemists for theoretical as ysis of tartar, and chemical uroscopy as an inte‐ well as experimental work. Chang argues that, gral approach of etiology, semiotic diagnostics, while chymists like J. B. van Helmont (1580–1644) and therapeutic guidance. Shackelford assumes and (1627–1691) were skeptical that that the analysis of urine at the end of the six‐ any substance could be reduced to its principles teenth century, inspired by ’s lectures by combustion, they also developed new require‐ at the University of , became the preferred ments as to what a principle should in fact do. form of Paracelsian diagnosis while Galenists dis‐ Therefore, Chang argues, Helmont and Boyle, tanced themselves increasingly from the same. To made the concept of “principle” more material conclude, Shackelford portrays the Paracelsian than the relatively abstract Paracelsian principles approach as amateurish and eclectic, which some‐ had been: by seeking and failing to fnd non-com‐ what contradicts his initial intention of describing posite substances, the chymists concluded that the innovative interplay of Paracelsian systems in principles must be considered compounds, rather theory and practice. than rejecting the principles entirely. Stahl no‐ In the following, I will discuss some aspects ticed that not all sulphurous substances were in‐ contained in the second and third parts of the fammable, and thus he defned the principle of book that appear controversial and thus act to infammability with the neologism phlogiston. We stimulate further research. Mar Rey Bueno (chap‐ typically understand the collapse of the theory of ter 6) investigates how alchemy was applied in three principles as a consequence of Stahl’s work Spain in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. on phlogiston. Yet, as Chang continues to follow Contrary to the old narrative (one that was adopt‐ the history of the concept of sulphur, he shows ed by Debus and most other scholars) that Philip how its transformation from an alchemical princi‐ II hindered scientifc progress in Spain by pro‐ ple to a Lavoisieran element in turn improved the hibiting students to leave the country, Rey Bueno image of (Paracelsian) alchemy during the En‐ points out that Philip himself was interested in lightenment. processes. Rey Bueno asserts that the Jole Shackelford (chapter 2) discusses Debus’s situation in Spain was in some ways similar to the term “Elizabethan compromise,” which Debus situation in other European countries: Galenists used to describe how Paracelsian medicaments and Paracelsians coexisted and began to adapt to and practices were applied to Galenic concepts, each other. There was a new Paracelsian chair for especially in England. Shackelford develops De‐ secret medicaments in Valencia and an active bus’s approach by asking whether there were also transfer of knowledge and goods with the Nether‐ Paracelsians who started to create their own sys‐ lands and Italy. Rey Bueno points out that women tems by combining new practices and new played an active role in recording recipes: “In medicaments with older and already well-accept‐ style and content, food recipes and health reme‐ ed theories. As an exemplary source, Shackelford dies refect the knowledge traditions and scientif‐ cites a book written by the German physician Jo‐ ic developments of the early modern period, hann Hayne (f. 1620), whose relevance is under‐ standing as unacknowledged companions of the pinned by the fact that his book was consulted in experimental texts of the ‘new science’” (pp. the United States until the eighteenth century. 150-151). Rey Bueno thus represents a feld of re‐ Hayne corresponded with Leonhard Thurneysser search that has been productive for more than a (1531–1596) who devoted a book on urine to him decade now and will hopefully continue to be de‐ in turn, and referred to Hieronymus Reusner (b. veloped. Her central claim itself seems to argue 1558) who worked on the same topic. According to against a systematic neglect of Iberia’s role in the

3 H-Net Reviews

Scientifc Revolution, a neglect rooted in the infa‐ This is something I cannot agree with. In my opin‐ mous “Black Legend” of Spanish historiography, ion, the paradoxical use of “creatio” in this and dating to the Elizabethan era. This interesting crit‐ other Paracelsian texts, whereby judging single ical consideration, found at the beginning and the passages authentic or non-authentic seems to be end of Rey Buenos’s essay, is unfortunately too impossible, contradict the frst assertion. Contra‐ briefy mentioned for it to be fully comprehensi‐ dicting Daniel’s second assertion: the Astronomia ble. The critical reader will moreover fail to fnd Magna contains diverse categories and interest‐ an exact description of the relevance of such au‐ ing descriptions of magical and mathematical in‐ thors as (ca. 1232–ca. 1315) and Ar‐ struments (of course “mathematics” here is used naldus of Villanova (ca. 1240–1311), as well as diferently from our modern use of the term). I their pseudonymous followers in the history of would even contend that some of the pseudo- alchemy. It is to be hoped that Rey Bueno devel‐ Paracelsian texts and passages of texts are more ops her critique further and in more detail in fu‐ relevant and intellectually demanding for current ture work. The relations of Spanish alchemy to research than their apparently authentic precur‐ the alchemy of other European countries, to Ara‐ sors. Furthermore, only in parentheses does bic alchemy, and to alchemy in the “new world” Daniel mention that it was Pagel’s deliberate, in‐ are very signifcant and demanding subjects, and ternational approach that detached historians’ can be considered as desiderata of research. views of Paracelsus from the nationalistic German Dane T. Daniel (chapter 9) outlines the dispute approach of the 1930s and 1940s. At this point we between the historians Walter Pagel (1898–1983) ought to add that the pseudo-Paracelsian texts and Kurt Goldammer (1916–97) concerning re‐ Pagel worked on were written in the sixteenth search on Paracelsus. Pagel worked with seeming‐ century, just as were the authentic texts of the au‐ ly authentic Paracelsian as well as known pseudo- thor Paracelsus himself. This international net‐ Paracelsian texts, applying the rather mystical tra‐ work of Paracelsus and his followers then under‐ dition of Neoplatonism to explain Paracelsian went concrete analysis by Debus. Ultimately, the philosophical works on nature. Goldammer, how‐ authors of pseudo-Paracelsian texts were none ever, himself an expert on Paracelsus’s unpub‐ other than those Paracelsians who constitute the lished theological works, repudiated any such center of current research. connection between Paracelsus and Neoplatonic Interestingly, Nicholas H. Clulee (chapter 10) ideas. Only toward the end of his life, Goldammer discusses ongoing research on (1527– started to analyze Paracelsus’s magic in relation 1608/9) from the 1950s until the present. In his to Neoplatonism as well as to other more conven‐ opinion, a coherent approach to Dee and his work tional sources, such as Augustinus. Daniel’s analy‐ has yet to materialize. In both early modern and sis of Pagel and Goldammer’s dispute is grounded modern times, Dee was viewed as a magician and on his own experience of reading and writing on political theocrat, images that damaged his histor‐ the Paracelsian book Astronomia Magna (1537/38 ical reputation. In particular, Clulee distances and published in 1571, though this dating is himself from the research of Frances A. Yates among the authentication problems), and he (1899–1981), who emphasized this image of Dee as rightly remarks on how difcult it is to distinguish magician—but, at the same time, Clulee himself between authentic and pseudo-Paracelsian texts. states that Dee cannot be understood unless suf‐ Daniel nevertheless notes that individual traits cient investigation of his quest for an Adamitic document the authenticity of Astronomia Magna, language is undertaken. Thus the task remains to especially the Christian belief in Creatio ex nihilo integrate Dee’s occult philosophy and magical and a disinterest in mathematics (pp. 213, 220). practices into our understanding of him as a polit‐

4 H-Net Reviews ically infuential person in the early seventeenth jects for further research, a future history of the century. state of alchemy at early modern universities The fnal essay is a contribution by Heinz would also certainly beneft from relating it more Schott (chapter 11) concerning the gynephilic ver‐ closely to the histories of such felds as astrono‐ sus the misogynic traditions in conceptions of na‐ my/astrology and theology/theosophy with their ture. In his opinion, the misogynistic tradition is academic destinies. well known and has long been investigated by his‐ Note torians of gender and sexuality (though he fails to [1]. William R. Newman and Lawrence M. provide any names); in fact, he himself claims to Principe, “Alchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymologi‐ have pioneered research of the gynephilic tradi‐ cal Origins of a Historiographic Mistake,” Early tion of nature depicted as feminine. Schott under‐ Science and Medicine 3 (1998): 32-65; and stands the positively connoted female allegories Lawrence M. Principe and William R. Newman, of Nature, Science, Theory, Ethics, and so forth in “Some Problems with the Historiography of Alche‐ text and image as gynephilic, without taking into my,” in Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy consideration that the use of female representa‐ in Early Modern Europe, ed. William R. Newman tions was only possible because these fgures and Anthony Grafton (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, could not be identifed as real persons. He asserts: 2001), 385-431. “From the ffteenth to the eighteenth century— over a period of some four hundred years—there were more writings on the superiority of women than there were explicitly misogynic ones” (p. 289). Although it is certainly likeable when an au‐ thor likes gynephilic texts and images, it is neces‐ sary to discuss just what a gynephilic representa‐ tion actually looks like. Schott’s text would have profted from taking the long, diverse, and pro‐ ductive tradition of gender research here more se‐ riously and putting more efort into positioning himself with respect to it. The book ends with a useful index. The edi‐ tors noticeably abstain from naming current desiderata in the history of alchemy and chem‐ istry as felds for further research. As a reviewer, I would like to take this opportunity to note some desiderata of my own. Current research on early modern alchemy and chemistry could and per‐ haps should progress more systematically by clar‐ ifying the reasons and motives behind the selec‐ tion of materials. Which sources in this immense production of books and images merit analysis and why? While some academic forms of early modern alchemy and their international expan‐ sion are shown by this book to be important sub‐

5 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-sci-med-tech

Citation: Ute Frietsch. Review of Parshall, Karen Hunger; Walton, Michael T.; Moran, Bruce T., eds. Bridging Traditions: Alchemy, Chemistry, and Paracelsian Practices in the Early Modern Era. H-Sci-Med- Tech, H-Net Reviews. July, 2017.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=49293

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

6