Abstract

One of the seventeenth century’s most prominent medical reformers, Johannes Baptista van Helmont (1579-1644) was also one of the most controversial figures of his time, thanks to the wide­spread public censure inspired by his 1621 treatise on the magnetic cure of wounds. Van Helmont defended his work by claiming that it had been illicitly published, without his permission, by a member of the Society of Jesus, Jean Roberti (1569-1651). This paper will attempt to place Van Helmont’s accusation against Roberti within the wider intellectual and cultural context of the period, which saw the definition of nature become increasingly more fluid and open to a variety of novel interpretations. Since its inception, the Society of Jesus had embraced a variant of the long-lived Scholastic philosophy as its primary focus in both natural philosophy and pedagogy. At the same time, a wide­spread movement against Scholasticism prompted the creation of entirely new philosophies of nature. Van Helmont’s work on the magnetic cure of wounds advanced a philosophical system at odds with the Scholastic physics codified in the institutional and pedagogical practices of the Society, and simultaneously challenged the Society’s right to participate in the natural philosophical culture of the time. Though direct proof for Roberti’s illicit publication of Van Helmont’s work is lacking, an examination of the rich context surrounding this particular encounter can better explain Van Helmont’s accusation of interference levelled against a member of the Society.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.