Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Marco Sgarbi

Weapon Salve in the Renaissance

  • Sietske FransenEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_1109-1

Abstract

The weapon salve claimed to be a cure for the healing of wounds at a distance. On the basis of sympathetic or magnetic powers, the salve supposedly could heal a wound in a clean and painless manner. Attributed to the Swiss physician Paracelsus, this cure was widely discussed in medical and theological circles throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Several disputes over the weapon salve in the early seventeenth century made the alleged cure widely known and widely discussed. The disputes did not revolve around the efficacy of the cure but rather concerned the question of whether the nature of the cure was natural or demonic. As such, these disputes had an impact on the ideas of natural philosophy of the time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

Primary Literature

  1. Charleton, Walter. 1650. A ternary of paradoxes. The magnetick cure of wounds. Nativity of tartar in wine. Image of God in Man. London: James Flesher for William Lee.Google Scholar
  2. Digby, Kenelm. 1658. A late discourse made in a Solemne assembly of nobles and learned men at Montpellier in France … touching the cure of wounds by the powder of sympathy. London: Printed for R. Lownes and T. Davies.Google Scholar
  3. Gilbert, William. 1600. De magnete, magneticisque corporis, et de magno magnete tellure; physiologia nova, plurimis & argumentis, & experimentis demonstrate. London: Peter Short of Bread Street.Google Scholar
  4. Goclenius, Rodolphus. 1613. Tractatus novus de magnetica vulnerum curatione, citra ullum et dolorem, et remedii applicationem, et supertitionem, mirandarum et in naturae maiestate abditarum rerum causas patefaciens. Frankfurt: Petrus Musculus and Rupert Pistorius.Google Scholar
  5. van Helmont, Jan Baptiste. 1621. De magnetica vulnerum curatione: Diputatio contra opinionem D. Joan. Roberti, presbyteri de Societate Jesue, Doctoris Theologi, in breve sua anatome sub censurae specie exaratam. Paris: Victor Leroy.Google Scholar
  6. Kircher, Athanasius. 1641. Magnes, sive de arte magnetica opus tripartitum. Rome.Google Scholar
  7. Libavius, Andreas. 1597. Tractatus duo physici: prior de imposteria vulnerum per unguentum armarium sanatione Paracelsicis usitata commendataque. Frankfurt: Joannes Saur.Google Scholar
  8. Rattray, Sylvester. 1662. Theatrum sympatheticum. Nuremberg: Joannes Andreas Endter.Google Scholar
  9. Roberti, Johannes. 1618. Goclenius Heautontimorumenos: id est curationis magneticae, et unguenti armarii ruina. Luxembourg.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Camenietzki, Carlos Ziller. 2001. Jesuits and alchemy in the early seventeenth century: Father Johannes Roberti and the weapon-salve controversy. Ambix 48: 83–101.  https://doi.org/10.1179/amb.2001.48.2.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, Stuart. 1997. Thinking with demons: The idea of witchcraft in early modern Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Debus, Allen G. 1964. Robert Fludd and the use of Gilbert’s ‘de Magnete’ in the weapon-salve controversy. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 19: 389–417.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/xix.4.389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hedrick, Elizabeth. 2008. Romancing the salve: Sir Kenelm Digby and the powder of sympathy. British Journal for the History of Science 41: 161–185.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007087407000386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Müller-Jahncke, Wolf-Dieter. 1993. Magische Medizin bei Paracelsus un den Paracelsisten: Die Waffensalbe. In Resultate und Desiderate der Paracelsus-Forschung, ed. Peter Dilg and Hartmur Rudolph. Sudhoffs Archiv 31, 43–55.Google Scholar
  6. Pagel, Walter. 1982. Joan Baptista van Helmont: Reformer of science and medicine. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Pumfrey, Stephen Philip. 1987. William Gilbert’s magnetical philosophy 1580–1684: The creation and dissolution of a discipline. Ph.D, The Warburg Institute, University of London.Google Scholar
  8. Stolzenberg, Daniel. 1998. The sympathetic cure of wounds: A study of magic, nature and experience in seventeenth-century science. M.A. Thesis. Indiana University.Google Scholar
  9. Thorndike, Lynn. 1958. History of magic and experimental science. Vols. VII and VIII. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Waddell, Mark A. 2003. The perversion of nature: Johannes Baptista van Helmont, the Society of Jesus, and the magnetic cure of wounds. Canadian Journal of History 38: 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Waddell, Mark A. 2016. Jesuit science and the end of Nature’s secrets. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH)University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Hiro Hirai
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the History of Philosophy and ScienceRadboud Universiteit NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands