CHANG, Ku-Ming (Kevin) - Toleration of Alchemists As A Political Question PDF

A, Vol. 54, No.
3, November 2007, 245–273
Toleration of Alchemists as a Political

Question: Transmutation, Disputation, and
Early Modern Scholarship on Alchemy
KU-MING (KEVIN) CHANG
Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
In July 1702, Johann Franz Buddeus chaired a disputation with the title, “A Political
Question: Whether Alchemists Should Be Tolerated in the Republic,” in the wake of the
reported transmutational success of Johann Friedrich Böttger just a few months earlier. This
paper begins with this context, and then examines Buddeus’s thesis, analyses its elemental
notions, elaborates the major themes that underlay his thesis, and reviews the contemporary
responses to this thesis. It also investigates a vast body of literature that constituted
Buddeus’s sources, and surveys five kinds of publications that characterised the early
modern scholarship on alchemy.
Introduction
The story of Johann Friedrich Böttger (1682–1719), the first European to produce the white
and translucent body known as China, has been something close to a legend. The secret of
porcelain production had been available exclusively to the Asians until a desperate alche-
mist, Böttger, discovered it independently in Europe in the early eighteenth century. As the
story goes, he accomplished on 1 October 1701, at the age of nineteen, a successful transmu-
tation of imperfect metals into gold in Berlin, the capital city of Prussia.1 The news of his
accomplishment brought him less fortune than trouble. The Prussian king, Friedrich I
(r. 1688–1713, crowned as king in 1701), demanded that Böttger be brought to him at court
immediately, hoping to use him to fill his depleting state treasuries. Fearing loss of his
freedom, the alchemist fled across the Prussian borders to Wittenberg, a Saxon city. To his
dismay, he was caught by the Saxon forces. After diplomatic and military wrangles between
Prussia and Saxony and a number of unsuccessful escape attempts, the alchemist was at
last forced to spend a great part of his short life under house arrest, serving the Elector of
Saxony, August the Strong (r. 1694–1733, king of Poland from 1697), with his gold-making
expertise. Hard pressed with constant threats of capital punishment, the alchemist managed
1
For Böttger, see, for example: Carl August Engelhardt, Johann Friedrich Böttger: Erfinder des
sächsischen Porzellans: Biographie (Frankfurt/Main: Weidlich, 1982); Klaus Hoffmann, Johann
Friedrich Böttger: vom Alchemistengold zum weißen Porzellan (Berlin: Verlag Neues Leben, 1985);
and Klaus Hoffmann, Das weisse Gold von Meissen: ein Zeitgemälde aus der Epoche Augusts des
Starken; Die Geschichte von der Entdeckung des Porzellans, Leben und Abenteuer des J. F. Böttger,
1. Aufl. (Bern: Scherz, 1989). Böttger is also the protagonist of a recent popular book: Janet
Gleeson, The Arcanum: the Extraordinary True Story (New York: Warner Books, 1999).
© Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry 2007 DOI 10.1179/174582307X237047
246 KU-MING (KEVIN) CHANG
to save his life by finding the techniques of making white porcelain, a foreign luxury so
popular that much of the gold in Europe was spent on it. Böttger was put in charge of the
royal porcelain factory that August newly created in Meissen, and this former alchemist is
now remembered as the father of European porcelain and a hero of the German nation.
Böttger’s career was dramatic, and so was the tidal change of the interests in his work.
Historical accounts of his life are among those most favourable to alchemy, as his incontest-
able success in porcelain constitutes one of the few examples in which alchemical knowledge
proved truly useful. Whereas modern historians are more concerned about his legacy in
porcelain production, contemporaneous responses show distinct interest in his transmuta-
tion. It was reported in newspapers, local and afar.2 It was also discussed in high-profile
forums, among which was a public disputation held within months of his transmutation at
the University of Halle, the leading university of Prussia.
Explicitly acknowledging that it was a response to Böttger’s widely reported trans-
mutation, this disputation examined, as its title suggests, a “political question,” namely,
“whether alchemists should be tolerated in the republic.”3 It was presided over by the profes-
sor of moral philosophy, Johann Franz Buddeus (1667–1729), then serving as the pro-rector
of the University.4 Buddeus was a son of a Lutheran pastor, studied at Greifswald and
Wittenberg, was appointed professor of Latin and Greek at the gymnasium in Coburg from
1692, and next year received the chair of moral philosophy at Halle. He left for Jena to join
its faculty of theology in 1705, and later rose to be a prominent Lutheran theologian.
His disputation in 1702 was just a sample of German intellectuals’ interest in Böttger’s
transmutation, and indeed alchemy in general. Influential intellectuals of this time, G. W.
von Leibniz (1646–1716) and Ehrenfried Walter von Tschirnhaus (1651–1708), for instance,
were profoundly interested in alchemy, and both played important roles in shaping the
second half of Böttger’s life. Soon after Böttger’s rumoured disputation, Leibniz was busy
disseminating to various European courts the news of this alchemical wonder.5 In addition,
he, and especially Tschirnhaus, worked as August the Strong’s advisors in putting the
young alchemist to work.6 Also an intellectual, Buddeus, instead of providing rulers with
2
It was, for example, reported in Berlin’s Einkommenden Ordinari- und Post-Zeitungen, and the
Wochenblätter published in Gotha and Jena. See Hoffmann, Johann Friedrich Böttger, 80–82.
3
Johann Franz Buddeus, Qvaestionem politicam, an alchemistae sint in republica tolerandi, respon-
dent Carolus Theophilus Schlitte (Halae Magdeburgicae: Literis Christiani Hencklii, 1702); I also
consult its German translation, Historich- und politische Untersuchung von der Alchemie, und was
davon zu halten sey?” (Nürnberg: Adam Jonathan Felzecker, 1733), which is essentially an offprint
of its German translation collected in Freidrich Roth-Scholtz, Deutsches Theatrum Chemicum,
auf welchem der berühmtesten Philosophen und Alchymisten Schrifften, .. vorgestellt werden durch
Friedrich Roth-Scholtzen, 3 vols. (Nürnberg: bey Adam Jonathan Felsseckern, 1728–32). In the
following, the Latin edition will be referred to as Qvaestionem, and the 1733 German edition as
Untersuchung.
4
The pro-rector, an office rotated among the faculty of the university, was the chief officer who
acted on behalf of its nominal rector, usually a member of the royal family.
5
Hoffmann, Johann Friedrich Böttger, 77–80.
6
For Tschirnhaus’s role, see, for example: Hoffmann, Johann Friedrich Böttger, 204–8, 219–28; and
Kurt Karl Doberer, The Goldmakers: 10,000 Years of Alchemy (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood
Press, 1972), 240–44. Here is not the place to examine the dispute on whether Böttger or
Tschirnhaus was the true inventor of porcelain. The dispute can be seen in, for example,
J. J. O’Connor and E. F. Robertson, “Ehrenfried Walter von Tschirnhaus,” MacTutor History of
Mathematics, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Tschirnhaus.html (1997).
TOLERATION OF ALCHEMISTS AS A POLITICAL QUESTION 247
private counsel, chose to examine alchemy in a characteristically academic venue, a public

disputation.
The objective of this paper is to elucidate the thesis and significance of Buddeus’s dis-
putation, long neglected by historians, in its intellectual and historiographical contexts.
Significantly for historians, Buddeus presented in his own perspective the moral, religious,
legal and political reasons why gold-making, or xrusopoia (chrysopoeia),7 should or should
not be tolerated, and thereby introduced the notion of toleration to the historiography of
alchemy. Also significant were the responses, and the readership they represented, to his
thesis made by important figures in the history of alchemy, including Georg Ernst Stahl and
Friedrich Roth-Scholtz. In addition, this thesis weaved together a web of early modern
scholarship on alchemy, including several special genres or kinds of writings that modern
scholars have lost sight of. I will first situate the genre of the disputation in its institutional
culture, and thereafter present a substantial analysis of Buddeus’s thesis. To make better
sense of this thesis, I will relate important themes and notions in his thesis to his own philo-
sophical works as well as the intellectual climate of his age, so as to analyse the empirical
and social character of Buddeus’s approach to the truth of transmutation, elaborate the
political nature of alchemy, and reconstruct the social and intellectual framework in which
Buddeus introduced the notion of toleration to the consideration of alchemy. What follows
is a section that examines the responses to his thesis and the readership that those responses
represent. The last section investigates the scholarship on alchemy upon which he relied,
elucidates the erudite character of his thesis, and highlights five genres or kinds of works
on alchemy and its related subjects. Thus this paper relates Buddeus’s thesis to the public
concern of its age, investigates his perspective, and studies his sources and responses, to shed
light on the early modern scholarship on and historiography of alchemy.
Buddeus’s Disputation and Its Thesis
Buddeus’s thesis was printed and precirculated for a public disputation that took place in
July 1702. Disputation and dissertation were synonyms, both referring to a formalised oral
debate, as well as to the printed thesis prepared for the debate. Usually, the thesis for a
formal, degree disputation was composed by its chair, known as the praeses. It followed the
medieval tradition, in which the candidate’s work was to play the role of respondent, i.e. to
defend a position that came out of the question assigned by his praeses in response to
questions and challenges. Although the student rarely authored the text, its cover page
7
Buddeus and his contemporaries often used the Greek term xrusopoia to indicate gold-making.
See, for example, Buddeus, Qvaestionem, 19, 24, 25, 32, 35. William R. Newman and Lawrence M.
Principe have recently proposed the same term to solve a semantic problem that they identify, i.e.,
the impossibility of separating the connotations of alchemy from those of chemistry. As alchemy
meant in early modern Europe much more than gold-making, they suggest that historians use
chrysopoeia when specifying gold-making. They also propose the use of “chymistry” to refer to
subjects that combine chemical and alchemical interests as understood in their modern sense. In this
paper, I will follow their proposal. See William R. Newman and Lawrence M. Principe, “Alchemy
vs. Chemistry: the Etymological Origins of a Historiographical Mistake,” Early Science and
Medicine 3 (1998): 32–65, esp. 41–42. For the overlap of the meanings of chemistry and alchemy in
early modern Europe, see also Allen G. Debus, “Alchemy,” in Dictionary of the History of Ideas,
ed. Philip P. Wiener (New York: Scribner, 1973–74), vol. 1, 27–34.
indicated the names of both the praeses and the respondent, as if to confirm the practice that
the two persons shared the credit for the publication. If the respondent of a dissertation
did not rise to prominence afterwards, such as the respondent of Buddeus’s disputation,
Carolus Theophilus Schlitte (dates unknown), the praeses was readily identified as its author
by readers and bibliographers. It is thus customary, and legitimate, to identify this thesis as
Buddeus’s thesis.8
Since, by its nature, the disputation as a debate between opposing parties provokes
different opinions, it welcomes controversial subjects. Buddeus’s famous colleague at
Halle, Christian Thomasius (1655–1728), for example, used student disputations to
challenge dominant views on the nature of magic and witchcraft.9 Alchemy, as it induced
strong opinions from its advocates and opponents, constituted a good subject for dis-
putation. The fervour associated with Böttger’s reputed success in particular, created great
enthusiasm for the examination of alchemy in a public disputation.
Buddeus indeed opened his thesis with a report of the successful transmutation that
took place just a few months earlier, pointing to Böttger’s case. In the opening section, the
author connected this rumoured transmutation with its economic and political consequenc-
es. For example, if transmutation could really be done, there could be a chance that over-
supply of gold would jeopardise the economic order of human society by reducing its value.
Second, once a prince had access to the lucrative art of gold-making, his unrivalled wealth
would almost certainly disturb the balance of power in Europe. The seriousness of its
consequences thus invited a disputation on the uses and dangers of chrysopoeia to the
“republic.”
Buddeus continued with a brief historical overview (Sections 2–7) of the public images
of alchemy by sampling the divided opinions of the church, state rulers and learned scholars
on alchemy. The divided opinions led him to conclude that it was impossible to judge the
veracity of transmutation by a priori philosophical reasoning (Section 8). For him, the only
alternative was to undertake an empirical examination of the accounts of successful trans-
mutations in history. After a section that acknowledged the difficulty of understanding the
obscure styles of alchemical writings (Section 9), Buddeus began his historical examination
on chrysopoetic sources that preceded European alchemy (Sections 10 and 11). He worked
through accounts of transmutations achieved in the Renaissance (Sections 12–18) and
paused at two successful transmutations very recently reported, featuring especially
Böttger’s case (Section 19).
Once the reality of transmutation had been confirmed, the author felt justified in dis-
cussing the toleration of alchemists. Böttger’s transmutation of coins nonetheless directed
the disputant’s attention first to coins minted with the so-called chemical gold, i.e., gold
8
For the early modern disputation, see: Ewald Horn, Die Disputationen und Promotionen an den
deutschen Universitäten vornehmlich seit dem 16. Jahrhundert ... (Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz, 1893);
Donald Leonard Felipe, “The Post-Medieval ‘Ars Disputandi’” (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Texas at Austin, 1991); Ku-ming (Kevin) Chang, “From Oral Disputation to Written Text: the
Transformation of the Dissertation in Early Modern Europe,” History of Universities 19 (2004):
129–87; and William Clark, Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 68–140.
9
Thomasius, Theses inaugurales de crimine magiae, respondent M. Johannes (1701); Thomasius,
Disputatio juris canonici, de origine ac progressu processus juquisitorii contra sagas, respondent
Johannes Paulus Ipsen (1712).
produced by alchemical transmutation (Sections 20 and 21). Thereafter, he classified alche-

mists (Sections 22–26 and 31–36). True alchemists were to be tolerated because their ideas
and practices were licit, based on the opinions of the medieval jurists who had debated the
legality of alchemy (Sections 27–30). Buddeus elaborated at length on the reason for the
republic’s punishment of what he called “pseudo-alchemists,” and for the steadfast repres-
sion of ordinary men’s curiosity (Sections 31–36). The thesis ended with a suggestion on the
appropriate way in which rulers should rein in their interest in alchemy (Section 37). A short
addendum provided more detail of Böttger’s identity and his transmutation, apparently
based on information received when the thesis was already in press.
Buddeus began his overview of the controversial image of alchemy with the well-known
bull of Pope Johann XXII, which denounced the impostures of alchemists and warned the
clerics against practising it.10 The papal bull was joined by an English law, reported by
Martin Antoine Del Rio (1551–1608), which penalised alchemical practice.11 That law,
however, was met by a contrary law of King Henry IV of the same country that encouraged
his citizens to prepare the Philosophers’ Stone, a law whose autograph was said to still
survive in the archive by authors including Daniel Georg Morhof (1639–91), a source that
the author frequently resorted to.12
The disputant then surveyed a remarkable list of the intellectual authorities critical of
and supportive of alchemy. Among the critics were Petrarch (1304–74), Heinrich Cornelius
Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486–1535), Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), Julius Caesar
Scaliger (1484–1558), Natalis Comes (1520–82), Athanasius Kircher (1602–80), and authors
who were well known in the anti-alchemical literature, such as Thomas Erastus (1524–83).
Cited as supporters of alchemy were Andreas Libavius (1555–1616), Gaston de Claves or
DuClo (ca. 1530–?), Quercetanus (i.e., Joseph Duchesne, ca. 1544–1609), Peter Severinus
(1542–1602), Bernard Georges Penotus (d. ca. 1617), and two recent authors who refuted
Kircher’s criticism of alchemy, Valeriano Bonvicino (d. 1667) and Salomon de Blauenstein
(fl. 1667).13 Although alchemy looked forbidding in light of the criticisms, the world’s
10
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § II, 5–6 (Untersuchung, 7–8). This bull was issued in 1317, and was mainly
directed at alchemists with regard to the production of deceits and adulterated coins. See, for
example, Bruce Moran, Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005), 32.
11
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § III, 6 (Untersuchung, 8). Martin Antoine Del Rio, cited by Buddeus as
Martin Delrio, was a Jesuit, author of the encyclopaedic work on magic, Disquisitionum magicarum
libri sex (1599).
12
Johnn Pettus, Fodinae regales, or, The History, Laws and Places of the Chief Mines and Mineral
Works in England ... (London: Printed by H. L. & R. B. for T. Basset, 1670); Georg Pasch, De novis
inventis, quorum accuratiori cultui facem praetulit antiquitatus tractatus (Lipsiae [Leipzig]: sumpti-
bus haeredum Joh. Grossi, 1700); Daniel Georg Morhof, Epistola ad Joelum Langelottum de
transmutatione metallorum ..., first published in Hamburg, 1673, and collected as “De metallorum
transmutatione ad virum nobilissmum & amplissimum Joelem Langelottum,... epistola” in his
Dissertationes academicae & epistolicae ... (Hamburg: sumpto Gottfredi Liebernickel, 1699),
245–301.
13
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § V, 9 (Untersuchung, 12–13). The work critical of alchemy by Kircher that
Buddeus cited was Mundus Subterraneus (1664–65). Valeriano Bonvicino, Lanx peripatetica:
qva vetus arcani physici veritas appenditur et avctoris mvndi svbterranei ... (Patavii [Padua]: typis
Heredum Pauli Frambotti, 1667). Salomon de Blauenstein, Interpellatio brevis ... pro lapide
philosophorum contra antichymsiticum Mundum subterraneum P. Athanasii Kircheri Jesuitae (Biel:
Desiderius Suitz, 1667).
enormous interest in it was well recorded in the great number of alchemical works
catalogued by Johann Daniel Mylius (ca. 1584–1642), Pierre Borel (or Petrus Borellus,
1620?–71), and Olaus Borrichius (or Ole Borch, 1626–90).14
To judge the veracity of transmutation, empirical examinations were ultimately neces-
sary, because theoretical investigations could not reach a convincing conclusion. Opponents
of alchemy asserted on philosophical grounds that no transmutation of metals could occur
in nature. For them, the alchemists’ wish violated the workings of nature. The proponents
of alchemy, on the other hand, compared the alchemists’ work to what gardeners and
husbandmen were accustomed to carry out with their plants. They likewise “cultivate, raise
and adorn” (excolant, augeant, ornent) the seeds (semina) of metal that are prepared by
nature.15 While inimical exchanges on the nature of metals went on endlessly, Buddeus
judged:
In fact the nature and essence of all things, and indeed of metals, is unknown to us. We learn
operations and properties with experience, ignorant of their nature. Whatever philosophers
have fabricated on the essence of things are conjectures, and thereafter nothing; they can be
rejected with the ease with which it was advanced.16
As the theoretical approach failed, Buddeus recommended an empiricist epistemology on
the truth of transmutation. “Therefore all things return to experience: and if in any case only
one example of an ignoble metal can be transmuted into gold: all arguments that deny
[chrysiopoeia] have to be rejected and hissed off.”17
The issue thus became the identification of an account of transmutation either in
history or at present that was empirically proved to be true. Buddeus began his review with
cases that were said to have been accomplished by ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Arabs, and
Chinese. Next, he examined the accounts, some of them testimonial in nature, of Arnold
Villanova (ca. 1238–1310), Raymond Lull (ca. 1235–1315), Pico della Mirandola (1463–94),
and Joan Baptiste van Helmont (1580–1644). Thereafter, he continued with a focused
review of four accounts of transmutations by the Brothers of the Rosicrucian Order, Para-
celsus (1493–1541), Johann Arndt (1555–1621), and Böttger.18 His discussion of Paracelsus,
14
Buddeus referred to the list of chymical works in the preface of Johann Daniel Mylius, Opus
medico-chymicum: continens tres tractatus sive Basilicas ... (Frankfurt: L. Jennis, 1618). Pierre
Borel, Bibliotheca chimica: sev Catalogvs librorvm philosophicorvm hermeticorvm [Paris: apud
Carolvm dv Mesnil (etc.), 1654]; Ole Borch, Conspectus scriptorum chemicorum illustriorum ...
(Havniae [Copenhagen]: sumptibus Samuelis Germanni, 1697).
15
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § VIII, 13 (Untersuchung, 20).
16
“Natura enim rerum omnium atque essentia, adeoque & metallorum nobis incognita est. Operatio-
nem & propreitates experientia addicimus, naturam ignoramus. Quicquid Philosophi de essentia
rerum comminiscuntur, coniectura sunt, praetereaque nihil; quae eadem reiiciuntur facilitate, qua
proferuntur.” Buddeus, Qvaestionem, 15 (Untersuchung, 22).
17
“Omnia ergo ad experientiam redeunt: & si vel vnicum saltem mutate in aurum ignobilioris metallic
exemplum produci posit: omnes hoc negantium ratiocinations, explodendae sunt & exsibilandae.”
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, 15 (Untersuchung, 22).
18
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XVIII, 45 (Untersuchung, 71). Buddeus’s choice of the Rosicrucian
Brothers is easy to understand in the light of their outspoken interest in alchemy, and yet his selec-
tion of Arndt, a Lutheran theologian often considered to be a precursor of the Pietists, is probably
suggestive of his familiarity with the teachings and roots of Pietism.
the most extensive in comparison to the others, is illustrative of his study of these historical
accounts. He examined Paracelsus’s own claims, the defences by Borrichius and the author
of Rosa Florescens (i.e., Johann Valentin Andreae, 1586–1654), and the slighting charges
of Paracelsus’s best-known opponents, Erastus, Conrad Gesner (1516–65), and especially
Hermann Conring (1606–81). For the defendants, what could serve as evidence, at least
indirect, for Paracelsus’s chrysopoetic ability was his one-time assistant Johann Oporinus’s
(1507–68) account that Paracelsus, a squanderer, was often able to emerge with bagfuls of
gold soon after he was found penniless. His opponents, on the other hand, collected differ-
ent accounts of Oporinus, and cited the personal knowledge of a Dr. Georg Vetter, an
alleged student of Paracelsus’s, all to maintain that the master practised magic with the
assistance of the devil. At the heart of these debates lay the credibility of the accounts of
Oporinus and Vetter.19 The lack of Oporinus’s personal witnessing of an actual transmuta-
tion indeed weakened the claim of the alchemist and his supporters, and yet, Buddeus rea-
soned, Paracelsus probably wanted to guard his coveted knowledge against an assistant
whom he deemed unworthy. On the other hand, Michael Neander (1525–95) and Libavius
quoted the letter of an unidentified Franciscan who professed to watch in person Paracelsus
turn a pound of quicksilver into gold.20 As with almost all the cases of Buddeus’s historical
investigations, although at the end it was not proved with certainty that Paracelsus made
gold, nothing sufficiently disproved it.
For Buddeus, the most credible account of a real metallic transmutation was that of
Böttger. Although the name of the alchemist was not found in the body of the text, it was
given in the addendum. The concrete detail in the thesis as well as in the addendum leaves
no room for doubt about Böttger’s identity. Buddeus first indicated that Böttger was born
as the son of a canon founder in Magdeburg; this was corrected in the addendum, which
indicated that the young alchemist was born in Schleiz in the Earldom of Reußen and later
moved with his mother to Magdeburg. Böttger worked as an apprentice at Friedrich Zorn’s
pharmacy in Berlin, where he studied the works of great alchemists and received from a
Swiss a handwritten booklet on transmutation. He planned to study medicine at Wittenberg
or, presumably of great interest to the audience of Buddeus’s disputation, Halle. Before his
departure, he invited his master to observe a specimen of his art, and the master further
invited two “very illustrious and learned” (clarissimi doctissimique) guests to join, a Winkler,
cleric in Magdeburg, and a Borst, minister in Malchon. The observers gave the apprentice
thirteen two-Groschen coins. He smelted the coins, added the Philosophers’ Stone, half
the size of a pepper seed, and transformed the mixture in front of the witnesses into the
best gold whose quality withstood all tests. The young alchemist even gave a piece of his
Philosophers’ Stone to an associate at the pharmacy, who also achieved with this gift a
successful transmutation on quicksilver. The young alchemist’s success, “confirmed by the
testimonies of honest men, is so certain that they will be justly taken as irrational who would
19
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XVII, 42 (Untersuchung, 67).
20
Buddeus cited Neander’s work Geographie, which is his Orbis terrae partium succincta explicatio ...
Libavius is said to incorporate the Franciscan’s letter in his Appendix necessaria syntagmatis
arcanorum chymicorum ... (Frankfurt: Excudebat Nicolaus Hoffmannus, impensis Petri Kopffij,
1615). Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XVII, 43 (Untersuchung, 68).
dare to draw it into doubt.”21 If the truthfulness of the gold-making art needs only one true
case to be proved, Böttger’s case is sufficient.22
The reference to coins in the report of Böttger’s transmutation suggested the necessity
of discussing alchemical coins and medals. Writing in Latin, Buddeus followed the contem-
porary usage of Latin to subsume coins and medals as nummi (or Münzen in German, which
Buddeus spoke), although they can be distinguished as two different species of objects, as is
the case in English. Buddeus reproduced the copperplates of a number of coins and medals
that were struck to celebrate transmutational successes. They were claimed to be made of
products of actual transmutations, and bore alchemical imagery, especially the symbols of
mercury and sulfur, and the images of their sponsoring authorities. Two of these coins had
the imprint of the title of King Gustav II Adolph of Sweden (r. 1611–32) on the obverse, and
his coat of arms on the reverse. The third one had on the circumference an inscription of the
title of Duke Friedrich I of Gotha, the fourth had that of Emperor Ferdinand III, and the
fifth the city of Erfurt. Since minting was usually a privilege of territorial sovereigns,
and medals were often struck on the order of the noble or the powerful, alchemical numis-
matics was used to serve as expressive proof of the rulers’ and the upper classes’ approval of
chrysopoeia.23
For his numismatic study, Buddeus relied to a large extent on Dissertatio de nummis
quibusdam ex chymico metallo factis by Samuel Reyher (1635–1714), professor of law at
Kiel.24 Nonetheless, instead of entirely embracing Reyher’s often credulous reports of the
veracity of alchemical coins, he consulted the works of his contemporary Wilhelm Ernst
Tentzel (1659–1707), who pinned down the spurious elements in Reyher’s accounts of the
dates and sponsoring princes of those coins, and accepted the conclusion of Georg Wolffgang
21
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XIX, 45–47, and addenda, 85–86 (Untersuchung, 72–75, 75–78). The quote
“Hoc optimorum virorum testimonies comprobatum tam certum est, vt rationem eiurasse
censeatur merito, qui illus in dubium vocare sustinuerit” is on 47 (Untersuchung, 74).
22
Buddeus added another account that an alchemist in Frankfurt am Mainz produced 23 carat and
7.5 grains of gold with a brown tincture, whose certainty again was testified to by an honest witness
who recently communicated with Buddeus. Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XIX, 47 (Untersuchung,
74–75).
23
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XIX, leaf between 48 and 49 (Untersuchung, between 78 and 79). I thank
a referee of this paper for pointing out that minting was not an exclusive privilege of the sovereigns
in medieval and early modern Europe. Some noblemen were allowed to strike coins, as in the case
of the well-known “Joachimsthalers” minted by the Schlick family. Some towns (such as Erfurt)
and clergy also had that privilege. Alchemical medals could be struck by individuals. Johann
Joachim Becher, for example, had one produced in 1675. See a photograph of it in Pamela H.
Smith, The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1994), 174. Some medals even bear no personal names. The referee
kindly gives the example of Germanisches Nationalmuseum Med. 5831, of Low Dutch origin, 1666,
mentioned by Gustav Friedrich Hartlaub, Der Stein der Weisen: Wesen und Bildwelt der Alchemie
(Munich: Prestel, 1959), 50, fig. 37.
24
Samuel Reyher, Juridico-philosophica dissertatio de nummis quibusdam ex chymico metallo factis
(Kiliae Holsatorum [Kiel]: Typis Joachimi Reumanni, 1692). Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XX and
XXI, 48–53 (Untersuchung, 82–88).
Wedel (1645–1721), who disproved the attribution of the alchemical coins to King Gustav II
Adolph of Sweden.25
Although sceptical about the alchemical origin of the coins, Buddeus was convinced of
the truth of chrysopoeia. He was aware that its truth would be downright rejected by the
opponents of alchemy, as they would just say: “I do not believe it” (non credo). They were
free not to believe, he conceded, although likewise, “they also will allow me to believe
that the metals can be transmuted until it can be proved to me irrefutably that such
transmutation is impossible.”26
Only on the condition that alchemical transmutation was possible was it meaningful to
ask whether alchemists were to be tolerated. Buddeus put alchemical pursuers into three
classes. The first of them had true knowledge of alchemy and realised their promises. The
second consisted of the pseudo-alchemists, i.e., imposters who deceived in order to fill their
own purses. The third class comprised those who neither knew alchemy nor intended to
deceive. Driven by their curiosity, they would all eventually be trapped in poverty. These
three classes of alchemical pursuers deserved different degrees of tolerance.
For Buddeus, the qualification of the true alchemist depended on his moral character,
which in turn justified the secrecy often associated with alchemical knowledge. It was
natural that God gave the knowledge of alchemical secrets to nobody but the pious and
God-fearing Christians. Since this knowledge, as a divine gift, was hidden to ungodly
people, those who knew the alchemical art ought to guard this knowledge closely. Thus, true
alchemists bound themselves with an oath not to leak this divine gift.27
Just as alchemical knowledge must not be revealed to the unqualified, society ought not
to allow anyone to make as much gold as he wished, even if he had already obtained that
coveted knowledge. Buddeus posed two arguments to support his suggestion, one econo-
mic, and the other religious. First, the value of gold relied on its rarity. If everybody were
allowed to produce gold without limit, its value would fall drastically. Admittedly, little was
intrinsic to the extraordinary value of the “precious” metals. Nonetheless, owing to their
chemical and physical qualities, they were suitable as media of trade and already used in
many objects. Thus, considering the stability of the financial order, a wise ruler must not
allow large-scale production of gold by popular transmutation. On the other hand, speaking
as a Christian, Buddeus maintained that the desire for gold had corrupted society and caused
many vices and miseries — on this point he commended Tommaso Campanella.28 Likewise,
he praised the Spartan leader Lycurgius, who ruled with a law that banned the use of gold
and silver, thus giving his “republic” great stability and felicity.29
25
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XX and XXI, 48–53 (Untersuchung, 82–88). I thank the referee for the
reference to an eighteenth-century numismatic work that includes discussions on some of these
alchemical coins, i.e., Johann Christian Kundmann, Nummi singulares, oder Sonderbare Thaler und
Müntzen ... (Breslau and Leipzig: Michael Hubert, 1734).
26
“Ab illis etiam mihi libertatem credendi, fieri posse metallorum transmutationem, mihi concessum
iri existimo, saltem tamdiu, donec euidenter fuerit probatum, nullo modo talem transmutationem
fieri posse.” Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXII, 53 (Untersuchung, 87).
27
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXIII, 55 (Untersuchung, 88–89); see also Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXV,
57 (Untersuchung, 94).
28
Buddeus cited Campanella, De monarchia hispanica (first published in Italian in 1600). Buddeus,
Qvaestionem, § XXVI, 60 (Untersuchung, 100).
29
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXVI, 61 (Untersuchung, 101).
In spite of the common human desire for wealth, after examining the legal discourses
of medieval jurists on alchemy, Buddeus concluded that alchemy should not be outlawed.
A considerable number of jurists had evaluated the legality of alchemy. The majority of
those who Buddeus surveyed considered alchemy to be licit; the most important of them was
Oldradus de Ponte (1270?–1337?), a professor of law and consistorial counsellor to the pope
in the Roman curia in Avignon. The only one who judged alchemy illicit was Angelo
Carletti di Chiavasio (1411–95), doctor of canon and civil laws, who authored the well-
known Summa Angelica, a dictionary of moral theology. Buddeus obviously sided with
Oldradus, who, on the basis of his scrutiny of the practice and theory of alchemy, considered
alchemy to be useful, natural, and philosophically reasonable, and thus licit.30
The use of the so-called chemical gold understandably concerned the jurists, as the use
of debased metals in coinage had the potential to disrupt the financial stability of a society.
Although the use of “sophistical” gold, i.e., deceptive gold made by fraudulent alchemists,
should be strictly prohibited, Buddeus opposed unconditional prohibition. For example,
Johann Brunnemann (1608–1672), law professor at Frankfurt an der Oder, maintained that
chemical gold, justly prepared by chemists with natural methods, should not be rejected.
Perhaps as a precautionary measure, Buddeus did not suggest its use in coinage.31
Next, Buddeus turned to problematic alchemists, who could be further divided into
downright imposters and those who were difficult to classify. The existence of alchemical
imposters was beyond doubt, as even prominent alchemical authors such as Michael Maier
denounced the falsity of pseudo-chemists.32 Deceitful alchemists were also well recorded. An
example was Marcus Bragadinus, who was executed by order of the Duke of Bavaria in
1610 for his fraud.33 However, there were cases in which the protagonists were not easy to
identify as true alchemists or false. Joseph Francis Burrhus (1626–95), also known as Borri,
was such an ambivalent case. A Milanese, Borri undertook a lavish scale of alchemical
pursuit under the patronage of Queen Christina of Sweden and thereafter under the patron-
age of King Frederick III of Denmark. Although a number of reputable men offered their
testimonies in favour of Borri, his failure to carry out his promises at royal courts seemed
to place his ability in doubt.34 Nicolas Flamel (1340–1417) appeared to be more trustworthy.
Although the credibility of his alchemical work was not unquestioned, his seemingly
inexhaustible supply of wealth appeared to confirm his chrysopoetic ability.35
30
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXVII–XXXI, 61–72 (Untersuchung, 101–20).
31
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXXI, 71–72 (Untersuchung, 119–20).
32
Michael Maier, Examen fucorum pseudo-chemicorum detectorum (first published 1617). Buddeus,
Qvaestionem, § XXXII, 72–73 (Untersuchung, 121). For an analysis of Maier’s Examen, see
Wolfgang Beck, Michael Maiers examen fucorum pseudo-chymicorum: eine Schrift wider die falschen
Alchemisten (Munich: Ph.D. diss., Technische Universität, 1992). I thank the referee for the
reference to Beck.
33
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, 73–74 (Untersuchung, 122–23).
34
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXXIII, 74–77 (Untersuchung, 123–29).
35
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXXIV, 77–79 (Untersuchung, 129–34). Modern historians, especially
Nigel Wilkins, have reconstructed from the archives Flamel’s life and work and the formation of
the legend concerning his alchemy. Flamel was a master scribe and a manuscript dealer in Paris. He
did indeed accumulate some wealth, and used it for pious work. The legend of his identity as an
alchemist, however, did not grow until the late fifteenth century and its growth afterwards was
especially indebted to the publication of Figures hierogliphiques (1612). See Wilkins, Nicholas
Flamel: Des livres et de l’or (Paris: Editions Imago, 1993).
Although it was difficult to identify a true alchemist, it was of interest to the republic
and true religion to prosecute alchemical impostors and repress the attempts of the
ungifted.36 The pseudo-alchemical disease was most obstinate (morbus pseudo-alchemisticus
pertinacissimus), and very often drove those infected to create offences to the republic by
adulterating coins. Several laws of ancient Rome and early modern states rightly stipulated
the punishment of such offences.37 Those who had neither bad intention nor true knowledge
of chrysopoeia must not be allowed to start their plan, first because it mattered to a republic
that its citizens managed their properties (bona) well, and second because it complied with
the Holy Scripture and right reason (Scripturae S. & rationi rectae) that one earned his living
by labour. Without proper control, their enthusiasm (cupiditas) and curiosity (curiositas)
about alchemy would eventually draw them to crime. Therefore, the ungifted must repress
it by true faith in Christ and pious prayers, or had to be “coerced” by rather severe censures
(acriori censura coerceantur).38
Alchemy could also cause a political problem when it directly affected the reigning
princes. Although the alchemical disease afflicted both citizens and rulers, the latter were
more easily tempted — a weakness that pseudo-alchemists knew very well. As a sad exam-
ple, Emperor Rudolf II preferred alchemy to the administration of his empire, thus disgrac-
ing his imperial throne.39 However, if a prince, able to moderate his curiosity, investigated
the arcana of nature through chemistry without neglecting the administration of the repub-
lic, he merited praise. Or better still, Buddeus seemed to suggest, a prince dedicated to
alchemy should just step aside by giving up his throne. For instance, Johann the Alchemist
(1406–64) was so fond of alchemy that he gave up the Electoral title of Brandenburg to his
brother, spending his life in the contemplation and admiration of the work of God.40
Starting with Böttger’s reputed success in chrysopoeia, Buddeus closed with careful,
conditional support for the toleration of alchemists. Judging it hopeless to determine the
truth of chrysopoeia by theoretical investigations, Buddeus proposed examinations of
chrysopoetic accounts that had been reported. The reported Böttger case convinced him of
the truth of chrysopoeia. Its truth then made the question of toleration worthy of consider-
ation. Weighing the conclusions of the jurists, Buddeus determined that chrysopoeia was
not illicit, the legitimacy of alchemy ultimately deriving from the nature of true chryso-
poetic knowledge as a divine gift. It became religiously and politically dangerous when
its investigator, driven by a desire for wealth, transgressed his role assigned by God and
committed frauds and delinquencies harmful to the “republic.” Thus, severe punishments
were necessary to contain the ungifted persons’ curiosity. The factor of international compe-
tition for adepts was lost in the body of the thesis, but was, as will be seen, not forgotten
by its readers.
36
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXXV, 79 (Untersuchung, 134–35).
37
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXXV, 80 (Untersuchung, 136–37).
38
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXXVII, 82–83 (Untersuchung, 141–42).
39
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXXVII, 143f.
40
I thank a referee for referring me to Hermann Kopp’s discussion of Johann the Alchemist in his
Alchemie in älterer und neuerer Zeit: ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: C. Winter,
1886). According to Kopp and his source, the succession arrangement for the Electorship of
Brandenburg was made between Johann’s father Friedrich I, the first Elector of Brandenburg
(r. 1412–40), and Duke Johann I of Sagan (r. 1399–1439). There is no evidence documenting
Johann’s interest in alchemy, although he is given the sobriquet “The Alchemist” in all historical
references.
Empiricism of Transmutation and Toleration of the Republic: Elemental Notions and

Major Themes
Although the arguments of Buddeus were not all original, there were notions and themes
that made his thesis special. The idea that alchemical knowledge was a divine gift was
certainly not new, nor was his justification of alchemical secrecy. Yet what may be
conceptualised as the “social empiricism” of his epistemology is a subject that invites further
analysis. Meanwhile, two keywords in the title of the thesis, republic and toleration, make
modern readers curious. His use of republic appears special, because modern readers no
longer understand this term in his way. His toleration of alchemy, based on its accepted
licitness, shows a significant effort to bring into the discussion on chrysopoeia a notion that
gained great currency around that time. Lastly, Buddeus’s empiricism embodied a problem
of certainty that made his thesis of toleration difficult to put into practice.
Buddeus’s “social empiricism” of transmutation

Buddeus determined — and this is very true to modern readers — that natural philosophers
up to his time had not been able to produce reliable knowledge on the fundamental nature
of material bodies and the principles of their constitutions. Modern readers, however, must
be reminded that early modern believers in alchemy made serious efforts to make sense of
chrysopoeia with a variety of matter theories that were reasonable to their contemporaries
or with formidable experimentation.41 Buddeus’s wide reading of alchemical literature sug-
gests that Buddeus was well exposed to these theories and experimentation. On the other
hand, he was perhaps equally well aware of the literature that rebuked the truth of chryso-
poeia with theories and experiments. In the end, he judged that no theoretical knowledge
available at his time could a priori either validate or invalidate the possibility of true trans-
mutations. For him, the truth of alchemy could only be empirically determined, i.e., by
identifying at least one case of transmutation that had actually occurred.
This occurrence had to be witnessed and reported by credible men. The credibility of
the witnesses is crucial, because, for Buddeus, direct observation of transmutation was not
absolutely necessary, and because, as his argument implied, it was inappropriate to repro-
duce successful transmutation in public. He argued that, although most people did not visit
or see America themselves, the truth of its existence need not be doubted.42 Since direct
experience was not a requirement for accepting a truth, one could accept metallic transmu-
tation as true as long as it was reported by credible persons who had empirically observed
it. Second, because chrysopoetic knowledge was special knowledge that God granted
only to a select few, and because the public availability of this valuable knowledge implied
political risks, a public demonstration of transmutation was not appropriate. Without
personal observation and public demonstration, one eventually had to resort to credible
witnesses. That explains why the credibility of Oporinus and the conflicting accounts of his
41
Recent good reminders are, for example, the articles by William R. Newman, Lawrence Principe
and Antonio Clericuzzio in Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, ed.
Christoph Lüthy, John E. Murdoch and William R. Newman (Leiden: Brill) and Lawrence
Principe and William R. Newman, Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of
Helmontian Chymistry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).
42
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XV, 37 (Untersuchung, 59).
personal experience became critical, so that Buddeus examined them at great length when
considering the veracity of Paracelsus’s chrysopoetic ability.
As credibility is socially determined, this way of judging the truth gains a social dimen-
sion. In the Böttger case, its credibility depended on the witnesses’ reputation (Zorn was a
respected apothecary), or, perhaps better, their clerical status (Winkler and Borst were
Lutheran ministers), which seemed to confer moral quality. Perhaps even more important,
the credibility of a report is reinforced by a collection of respectable persons, as the collectiv-
ity of trustworthy men excludes the possibility that a particular one is making a false
claim.
This understanding of the collective credibility of witnesses may help to explain why
Buddeus held the account of Böttger’s transmutational success as superior to the testimony
of, for example, van Helmont, a reputable author for many students of alchemy in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Buddeus quoted the Flemish alchemist’s text at some
length, and doubted the truth of the widely held belief that van Helmont knew the secret of
making the Philosophers’ Stone.43 Buddeus did not explain why van Helmont’s testimony
was not decisive proof of the truth of chrysopoeia. One can, however, reason that Böttger’s
case had greater credibility because his success was witnessed and reported by socially
credible persons other than the performer himself. In comparison, van Helmont’s account
cannot be confirmed by any other identifiable witness, for he was the reporter, performer
and sole witness of the transmutation.
This social empiricism shared a common feature with the experimental philosophy pro-
gramme that the virtuosi at the Royal Society advocated, although fundamental differences
existed. What was common is that both of them presumed the credibility of the witness, and
both brought in the personal qualities that a society employed to judge a person’s credibil-
ity. In so doing, they connected the judgement of the truth of natural studies to social norms.
Among the differences, probably the most fundamental was that Buddeus’s model assumed
no public institution such as the Royal Society that was able to confer authority on the result
of its joint examination. Second, the qualities of the judge also differed. The personal qual-
ities that stood out for the virtuosi at the Royal Society were those that were modelled on
the gentleman, a member of the noble class who was intellectually motivated but materially
disinterested.44 In Buddeus’s thesis, the accomplished alchemist and the respectable
witnesses were an apprentice, an apothecary, and two Lutheran ministers, all commoners
by birth and profession. Another difference concerns the consequences of Buddeus’s prefer-
ence for the secretive handling of chrysopoeia. This secrecy prevented chrysopoetic knowl-
edge from being demonstrated, circulated or repeated in public forums or media. The only
plausible form of investigation was verbal or textual examination of the details in available
accounts.
Buddeus’s empiricism, premised on his assessment of the state of human knowledge,
was consequential. It is unclear whether Buddeus meant that knowledge of the fundamental
43
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XIV 36 (Untersuchung, 57). While refraining from challenging the truth of
the transmutation that van Helmont reported, Buddeus referred to the presumably critical exami-
nation of this and other similar accounts in Philip Jacob Sachs von Löwenheim’s contribution to
Miscellenea curiosa medico-physica (1670).
44
For an elaboration of the genteel civility at work in the Royal Society, see, for example, Steven
Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1994), 42–125.
constitution of matter could never be achieved (thus making him agnostic) or that it just had
not been acquired. What is clear is that he saw no good intellectual authority for either the
truth or falsity of transmutation. Therefore, unlike common Renaissance proponents of
alchemy, Buddeus resorted to no Hermes Trismegistus or other mystical authority. His
reason for not resorting to Hermes was, it appears, not just that he was aware of Conring’s
attacks against the authenticity of the Corpus Hermeticum, but also that he was convinced
that nothing but experience could determine the truth of transmutation.45 It was also this
empiricism that made his thesis far removed from the esotericism or mysticism that often
characterised early modern alchemical writings.
The meaning of republic and the political nature of alchemy

To understand what Buddeus meant by the republic’s toleration of alchemists, one has to
understand what he meant by republic. The German lands at the time of Buddeus’s disputa-
tion consisted of dynastic states, ecclesiastical territories, and imperial cities, all ultimately
subject to the dominion of the Holy Roman Empire, at least nominally. Even though the
imperial cities were, to a considerable degree, republican in nature, the state in which
Buddeus lived at the time, Prussia, was far from a republic as usually defined. Indeed,
Beddeus’s use of the word republic differed from today’s definition. For example, in the first
section, he purported to hold a disputation on “the benefits and harms which can overflow
into the republic [rempublicam] from [chrysopoeia].”46 The republic here by no means
excluded Prussia, a monarchy. Elsewhere, he noted that adulterators of coins created an
offense to the republic (in rempublicam peccant), and that the ruling prince was responsible
for the administration of the republic (reipublicae). Buddeus also used republica to identify
Sparta under the leadership of Lycurgus, which ordinarily is not seen as a republic.
Obviously, he did not understand republic as a specific form of state in which the governing
power was shared by its citizens.
By republic in these usages, Buddeus clearly meant state or polity in general. Indeed,
respublica was consistently rendered as das gemeine Wesen in the 1730 German translation
of his thesis. Das gemeine Wesen literally meant the common nature or being, to some extent
recalling the original sense of res publica, things that involve public interests. Das gemeine
Wesen, in fact, is an early modern variation of das Gemeinwesen, namely, commonwealth,
community, or polity, and this sense is confirmed in Buddeus’s textbook of practical
philosophy, Elementa philosophiae practicae, in which he indicated that respublica and
civitas were interchangeable notions.47 Also, in this textbook Buddeus identified three forms
of respublica, i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, another proof that Buddeus used
republic as a generic noun for state or government. The conceptual translation of republic
45
Conring’s denouncement followed Isaac Casaubon’s historical criticism of the forgery of the
Corpus Hermeticum. See, for example, Anthony Grafton, “Protestant versus Prophet: Isaac
Casaubon on Hermes Trismegistus,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 46 (1983):
78–93.
46
“Commode incommodave, quae ex arte ista redundare in rempublicam possent.” Buddeus,
Qvaestionem, § I, 5 (Untersuchung, 5).
47
Buddeus, Elementa philosophiae practicae, 4th ed., priori correctior (Halae magdebvrgicae [Halle]:
Apud Joh. Fridericvm Zeitlervm, 1707), chap. IV, sec. XIII, “De officiis svmmorvm imperantivm
et civivm,” § I, 345.
to state or polity was also adopted in the great reference work of eighteenth-century
Germany, Zedler’s Universal Lexicon.48 Thus, whether the alchemists should be tolerated
by the republic meant whether they should be tolerated by the polity.
This understanding of republic also makes clearer why alchemy was a political
question, as the title of Buddeus’s thesis suggested. The enthusiasm for chrysopoeia had the
potential to affect the economic, monetary, moral and political order of the republic, i.e.,
the polity. It could give rise to mismanagement of personal properties, cause devaluation of
gold, indirectly induce coinage adulteration, corrupt the human mind or a society, and
intoxicate a reigning prince so as to neglect the governance of his state. These consequences
were political in nature, as they constituted damage to the proper order of the polity. It is
important to note that these threats were not exclusive to any particular form of polity (such
as republican, in its modern sense), but instead could occur to any of them (monarchic,
aristocratic, democratic, etc.).
The idea of toleration

Although Buddeus did not elaborate his idea of toleration in this thesis, it is noteworthy that
he introduced the idea in its title. The question of toleration, especially religious toleration,
concerned many in the wake of the excessive religious wars. Locke, for example, published
his famous Letter Concerning Toleration in 1689, and Leibniz also wrote on toleration in the
1690s.49 Even though toleration or tolerance was applied to different objects (such as false
teachings or delinquents), it usually appeared in the discussions on dissenters, nonconform-
ists, sectarians, fanatics (Schwärmer), Jews, unbelievers, and, of course, other religions.50 It
is thus of interest first to investigate whether, and in what way, Buddeus’s view of religious
toleration was related to his toleration of alchemy, and second to analyse other elements
that could have supported it.
The faculty of the University of Halle (founded 1694) in the first decade of its history
was marked by a particular interest in religious toleration. The Calvinist ruling house of
Prussia, the Hohenzollerns, had been endeavouring to make room for its own denomination
in its Lutheran-dominated territories. It had recently worked hard to attract the Huguenots
displaced by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), and, much to the dismay of the
Lutheran Church, it opened the new university in Halle to students of the Reformed Church.
Instead of putting orthodox Lutherans in charge of the theology faculty of the university,
the Elector invited August Hermann Francke (1663–1727) and his fellow Pietists, who, as
a new Lutheran force, had been recently oppressed by the orthodox Lutheran Church in
Saxony. The Pietists found Halle a shelter and the Prussian court an ally with which to
48
“Republick,” in Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste ... (Halle:
J. H. Zedler, 1732–1750), 31: 656–65. This article preserves the sense of republica that is common
today, namely, a state or polity such as Venice, Genoa, the imperial cities of the Holy Roman
Empire, and the Dutch or the Swiss states. See 665.
49
J. Locke, Epistola de tolerantia ad clarissimum virum T.A.R.P.T.O.L.A. (Goudae [Guida]: Apud
Justum ab Hoeve, 1689); for Leibniz on toleration, see Maria Rosa Antognazza, “Leibniz and
Religious Toleration: the Correspondence with Paul Pellisson-Fontanier,” American Catholic
Philosophical Quarterly 76 (2002): 601–22.
50
For a survey of the applicable objects of tolerance, see “Tolerantz,” in Universal-Lexicon, 44:
1115–18.
withstand the intolerance of orthodox Lutherans. In Halle they also found among their
colleagues an ally in their early development, namely Thomasius, who was one of the most
outspoken theorists on religious toleration in Protestant Germany at the time.51
Buddeus, in general, supported religious toleration. Here is not the place to delve into
the complexity of his position on religious toleration. Suffice it to say that while Buddeus
proposed no tolerance for atheism, and in fact composed a dissertation condemning
Spinoza,52 he advocated the toleration of heresies. Believers in a heresy, he suggested, should
not be punished as long as they did not disturb the peace (tranquillitas) of the state and
public order.53
The toleration of true alchemists can be related to religious toleration according to two
lines of reasoning. First, insofar as alchemists presented no harm to the republic, they were,
by analogy, entitled to toleration just as the followers of religious heresy were. Second,
as true knowledge of chrysopoeia was a divine gift, only true Christians could be its
recipients.
Other elements that supported the toleration of alchemists included the licitness
or legality of alchemy as judged by medieval jurists. Oldradus de Pointe, for example,
advanced an extensive argument in favour of alchemy. For him, the production of gold
from zinc or lead was in fact praiseworthy as long as it involved no magic or anything that
violated the law. Second, metal-workers produced benefits to the republic. Third, although
the alchemists acknowledged that it was impossible to change one species into another, they
did not consider the transmutation a trans-specific transformation. Fourth, just as living
things could grow from a dead body, and a dye (woad) from herbs, things could be made
from metals that shared much conformity and likeness (convenientia & similitude) with one
another. Fifth, all metals came from the same principles, namely, from sulfur and quicksil-
ver (argento vivo). They diversified into zinc, silver, gold, etc., depending on the “virtues” of
the elements in the locations where they took form. Sixth, as art imitated nature, chryso-
poeia merely imitated nature to make silver from zinc through the virtue found in the ele-
ments, stones, or herbs. Finally, apparently defending the belief in the Philosophers’ Stone,
Oldradus resorts to St. Augustine’s theory of seminal reasons (seminales rationes), innate
seminal substances that gave natural bodies forms and lives appropriate to their species.54
Overall, alchemy was, for Oldradus and for the majority of medieval jurists whom Buddeus
examined, productive and natural, and theoretically reasonable, and therefore lawful.
51
For the Pietists’ alliance with the Hohehzollern, see Klaus Deppermann, Der hallesche Pietismus
und der Preussische Staat unter Friedrich III. (I.) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1961).
For Halle’s place in the history of religious toleration in Germany, see Walter Grossmann,
“Religious Toleration in Germany, 1648–1750,” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 192
(1980): 115–41, on 130–31, 133–35.
52
Buddeus, Theses theologicae de atheismo et svperstitione variis observationibvs illvstratae et in vsvm
recitationvm academicarvm editae (Ienae [Jena]: apud I. F. Bielckivm, 1717); Buddeus, Dissertatio
philosophica de spinozismo ante Spinozam, resp. Ioannes Fridericus Werder (Halae Magdeb. [Halle]:
typis Chr. Henckelii, 1701).
53
Buddeus, Elementa philosophiae practicae, part III, chap. V, sec. VIII, “de prvdentia statvs circa
commercial, et rem monetariam,” § VIII, 535–36. Buddeus, as Matthias J. Fritsch points out in his
recent work, advocated religious toleration in terms of natural law and political prudence. Fritsch,
Religiöse Toleranz im Zeitalter der Aufklärung (Hamburg: Meiner, 2004), 103–17.
54
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, XXVII, 62–63 (Untersuchung, 103).
Buddeus’s attitude towards magic could well be another line of his reasoning in favour
of the tolerability of alchemists. He was well aware of the accusations made by Erastus
and Gesner that identified alchemy with demonic magic. Some believers in alchemy had
followed the defenders of magic in differentiating between white magic and black magic, or
Christian magic and demonic magic.55 This was, however, not the approach of Buddeus’s
defence. He shared his colleague Thomasius’s important positions on magic.56 For instance,
he rejected in his major philosophical works the possibility of making a pact with “evil spir-
its,” and affirmed the naturalness of natural magic.57 In addition, he argued in this thesis
that, if the suspected pact were true, the alchemists should enjoy riches instead of suffering
from poverty. Empirical observation evidently cleared them of demonic magic, and made
them easier to tolerate.
Tangible in the local context and visible in his philosophical works, the idea of tolera-
tion was therefore readily available to Buddeus when he deliberated on alchemy. Admit-
tedly, it cannot be inferred that one who is tolerant of alchemists is necessarily tolerant of a
different religion, or vice versa. It is important to note, however, that this tolerant image
differs sharply from the stereotyped view of him as a conservative theologian, due to his
polemic with Christian Wolff on the eve of the latter’s banishment from Halle. After all, it
was Buddeus who brought the idea of toleration into discussions on alchemy in the context
of heightened consciousness of toleration at the turn of the eighteenth century.
Toleration and the question of certainty

Uncertainties remained for Buddeus’s thesis. Although proposing toleration of true alche-
mists, Buddeus himself condemned the frauds of pseudo-alchemists so harshly and the tone
of his warning against common people trying chrysopoeia was so earnest that one wonders
if he would, in practice, allow anyone to attempt chrysopoeia. In deciding to allow this or
not, the key would logically lie in the certainty in identifying who the select were. This
certainty was not easily achievable in Buddeus’s scheme of thought.
If the true alchemists ultimately received their knowledge from God, then the work of
identifying the select recipients would be somewhat equivalent to the identification of the
elect. Although the question of election, well known as a source of agony for the Calvinists,
concerned Christians of different denominations to different degrees, it is almost self-
evident that no theologian can offer a believer certainty of salvation, or even a definite
criterion for it. If no elect could be known for certain before the Day of Judgement, no select
alchemist could be known to the human intellect until his identity was revealed following
God’s plan.
55
For the differentiation of white and black magic, see, for instance, D. P. Walker, Spiritual and
Demonic Magic: from Ficino to Campanella (University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 2000).
56
For Thomasius’s position, see, for example, Martin Pott, “Aufklärung und Hexenglauge: Philoso-
phische Ansätze zur Überwindung der Teufelspakttheorie in der deutschen Frühaufklärung,” in
Hexenverfolgung: Beiträge zur Forschung, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des südwestdeutschen
Raumes, ed. Sönke Lorenz and Dieter R. Bauer (Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 1995),
183–202.
57
Buddeus, Elementa philosophiae theoreticae, seu Institvtiovm philosophiae eclecticae tomvs secvndvs,
8th ed. (Halae saxonvm [Halle]: Impensis orphanotrophii Glaucha-Halensis, 1724), part 6, chap. I,
§ XVII and XVIII, 335–36, and part 4, chap. V, § XVIII, 297.
Another theory of divine selection popular at the time was that of the king’s divine
right. The divine right theory of kingship only justified as rightful what a king already
possessed. It hardly helped to identify a true king among a group of contenders. Likewise,
Buddeus’s thesis of selection could also justify an alchemist who had already been confirmed
as such. Yet it would become problematic if used to differentiate true alchemists from
false ones, not least because who holds the throne thanks to its publicity seems to be a ques-
tion much easier to judge than who owns alchemical knowledge, if chrysopoeia remains
secretive.
The difficulty of differentiating true and false alchemists puts Buddeus’s thesis into a
difficult position. Without some certainty, it is virtually impossible to draw a line at which
the repression of pseudo-alchemists ends and the toleration of true alchemists begins. There-
fore, at some times he seemed to suggest that any citizen’s chrysopoetic attempts be
resolutely repressed, although his general conclusion was that true alchemists should be
tolerated. This difficulty probably explains why Buddeus chose the notion of toleration. As
the rhetoric of toleration implies, its object is accepted by the majority of the population
with concession, not with a proud affirmation of self-evident right.58 Alchemy is destined to
be controversial, if not downright heretical or dangerous, if the fundamental uncertainty
in identifying true and false alchemists remains. Thus, although for Buddeus the truth
of transmutation was confirmed, the population of its practitioners could at best be
tolerated.
Responses to Buddeus’s Thesis
Public responses to Buddeus’s thesis may not be comparable in number and degree to the
prompt and tremendous reactions to Böttger’s transmutation. Yet the thesis entailed
responses from important figures who either scrutinised Buddeus’s thesis, exposed its
embedded ambivalence, or appropriated it for their own causes.
One of the first responses was an article, “De metallorum emendatione fructu profu-
tura” (On the Emendation of Metals to Be Useful for Profit), published anonymously by
Buddeus’s colleague Georg Ernst Stahl (1659–1734) a year later in a journal that they
co-edited with Thomasius, Observationum selectarum ad rem literarium spectantium.59 The
title was suggestive enough of chrysopoeia by relating “emendation” of metals for benefit.
Although referring neither to Böttger’s transmutation in Berlin nor to Buddeus’s disputa-
tion, this article revisited important themes that were examined in the moral philosopher’s
thesis, thus making it easy for the readers to perceive the relevance between the two. Stahl
shared Buddeus’s sentiment on the truth of chrysopoeia and the frauds associated with it,
while he introduced different positions on two subjects.
Differing from Buddeus’s judgement, Stahl postulated that alchemy had originated
in China. Buddeus had considered in his thesis the possibility of China as a precursor of
58
On the issue of toleration as a concession, see, for instance, Ronald B. Flowers, “Toleration Is a
Concession; Religious Freedom Is a Right,” American Baptist Quarterly 19 (2000): 298–306.
59
Georg Ernst Stahl, “De metallorum emendatione fructu profutura,” Observationum selectarum ad
rem literarium spectantium 8 (1703). It was included in 1715 in a collection of Stahl’s early works,
Opusculum chemico-physico-medicum ... (Halae Magdeburgicae [Halle]: Typis & Impensis
Orphanotrophei, 1715), 268–76. I cite the page number in the 1715 edition.
European chrysopoeia as suggested by Morhof, but concluded that it was false and attrib-
uted this falsity to the mendacious Chinese.60 Stahl, on the other hand, reasoned that the
Chinese, being the inventers of printing, gunpowder, and paper, were well qualified to be the
people who first practised alchemy. Although providing no firm evidence, Stahl registered a
different opinion concerning the origin of chrysopoeia.61
For qualified chrysopoetic pursuers, Stahl excluded reigning princes and the populace.
It was too dangerous for the rulers to attempt the costly pursuit of chrysopoeia, especially
when the cash flow of their states was already precarious. It should instead be left to those
who had estates (fundo) without administrative responsibilities. The propertied persons
were able to absorb the sometimes exorbitant cost of initial investments, and were thus not
compelled to seek funds by committing frauds, which resourceless commoners often did. As
many money-thirsty European states competed for the knowledge and its adepts, it was
good for one’s home state that chrysopoeia was studied safely at home.62
Thus, Stahl’s thesis, in no serious conflict with Buddeus’s, refined the qualification of
the true alchemists. Buddeus had also hinted that it was unwise for a state ruler to try
chrysopoeia himself, and indeed referred to Johann the Alchemist as an admirable example.
Yet for him the true alchemist in principle could be anyone, as long as he was gifted with the
divine knowledge. Böttger, for example, was just a commoner without great assets. By
contrast, Stahl advised reigning princes and commoners with limited means against practice
or investments. In spite of the differences, Stahl confirmed the veracity of chrysopoeia, and,
like Buddeus, pointed to international competition as the justification for alchemical study,
and thus on the whole supported his co-editor’s tolerant tone with regard to alchemy.
In contrast to Stahl’s anonymous, implicit reaction, Erdmann Uhse’s “Was von der
Alchimie zu halten sey?” in his Der gelehrte Criticus (The Learned Critic) made its relation
to Buddeus’s thesis explicit.63 The third volume of the Criticus published the critiques of
Uhse (under the pseudonym Hermann Suden) on eighty-six subjects that covered, as its long
title suggests, political, ecclesiastical and literary history as well as geography, philology,
and morality, almost every subject connecting to a recent publication on the particular sub-
ject. It was an example of the book digests or reports, or historia litteraria, which consti-
tuted a quite popular form of publication on the reading market in the late seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.64 The critique on alchemy in this volume was specifically a digest of
Buddeus’s thesis published four years earlier.
To start, Uhse put Buddeus on a par with “the famous Morhof and Wedel” as a
defender of alchemy. He then selectively recounted the reports of alchemical transmutation
60
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XI, 26 (Untersuchung, 40f.).
61
Stahl, “De metallorum emendatione,” § 2–4, in Stahl, Opusculum chemicu-physico-medicum, 269–
70. Stahl previously taught in his chemistry courses in the mid-1680s that alchemy was of Egyptian
and Arabic origin. See his Philosophical Principles of Universal Chemistry ..., trans. Peter Shaw
(London: John Osborn and Thomas Longman, 1730), 394.
62
Stahl, “De metallorum emendatione,” § XIII–XXIV, 273–76.
63
Erdmann Uhse, “Was von der Alchimie zu halten sey?, ” in Erdmann Uhse, Der gelehrte Criticus
über allerhand curieuse Dubia und Fragen aus der historia politica, ecclesiastica und literaria, inglei-
chen aus der Geographie, Philologie und Moralitè, abgefasset von Hermann Suden, dritter und lezter
Theil (Leipzig: Im Verlag Johann Ludwig Gleditsch, 1706), 26–38.
64
For historia litteraria as a genre of scholarly publication, see Martin Gierl, “Compilation and the
Production of Knowledge in the Early German Enlightenment,” in Wissenschaft als Kulturelle
Praxis, ed. Hans Erich Bödeker, Peter H. Reill and Jürgen Schlumbohm (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1999), 69–104, on 94f.
that Buddeus had reviewed, including those of Paracelsus and Arndt. He then went into
some detail on the recent transmutation in Zorn’s pharmacy in Berlin, identifying the alche-
mist’s name as Bötticher, as commonly known to his contemporaries. Uhse ended the first
half of his article with the faithful interpretation of Buddeus’s judgement that alchemical
transmutation was plausible.
Uhse’s reading of the second half of Buddeus’s thesis exposed its ambivalence. The
remainder of his “critique” was filled with examples of ill-fated alchemists who either regret-
ted their lifelong pursuits on their deathbeds, such as Samuel Duclos (1589–1685), or were
deservingly executed by the princes who they attempted to deceive, such as Bragdinus,
Honauer, and E. G. Happellius.65 Closing somewhat abruptly without a distinct conclusion,
Uhse impressed his readers with the overwhelming frauds that alchemy caused. Skipping
Buddeus’s justification of true alchemists, he seems to have seized on the repression of pseu-
do-alchemists that Buddeus had stressed. Uhse’s negative impression shows that Buddeus’s
ambivalence could give rise to very different interpretations.
Instead of an independent piece of work, the third response of interest was a translation
that brought the disputation of Buddeus, largely an alchemical outsider, into the long tradi-
tion of alchemical literature. Friedrich Roth-Scholtz (1687–1736) commissioned a German
translation of Buddeus’s thesis and placed it as the opening piece of his Deutsches Theatrum
Chemicum, well known in the history of alchemy as an eminent collection of alchemical
texts.66 Although not the first Theatrum Chemicum to be compiled by Germans,67 Roth-
Scholtz’s was the first one published in the German language, and was thus not unlike Elias
Ashmole’s Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum in giving his collection a national character.68
Previously he had published monographs by famous alchemists,69 and begun the publica-
tion of a new and updated Bibliotheca Chemica (1725–29), which followed the precedent
of the catalogues of Borel and Borrichius. By publishing monographs, collections, and a
catalogue of chymical works, Roth-Scholtz established himself as a prominent figure in the
tradition of alchemical publications.
Roth-Scholtz’s selection of this thesis as the opening piece of his Theatrum Chemicum
may have had manifold significance. First of all, the rich bibliographical information in
65
Uhse, “Was von der Alchimie zu halten sey?,” 35–38.
66
It collected, for example, Eirenaeus Philalethes, “Euphrates oder die Wasser vom Aufgang,” Basil
Valentine, “Triumph-Wagen des Antimonii, mit Theodori Kerckeringii Anmerckungen,” Arnold
Villanova, “Erklärung über den Commentarium Hortulani,” Johann Joachim Becher, “Oedipus
Chymicus, oder Chymischer Rätseldeuter,” and Joannes d’Espanes (Jean d’Espagnet), “Geheimes
Werck der Hermetischen Philosophie. ” See Roth-Scholtz, Deutsches Theatrum Chemicum, n. 3.
67
Lazarus Zetzner, for example, produced a four-volume Theatrum Chemicum in 1602, and Johann
Jacob Heilmann expanded this Theatrum into six volumes and republished it in 1659–61. See: Laza-
rus Zetzner, Theatrum chemicum, praecipuos selectorum avctorum tractatus de chemiae et lapidis
philosophici antiquitate ..., 4 vols. (Ursellis [Ursel]: ex officina Cornelij Sutorij, sumptibus Lazari
Zetzneri, 1602); Jacob Heilmann, Theatrum chemicum, praecipuos selectorum auctorum tractatus de
chemiae et lapidis philosophici, 6 vols. (Argentorati [Strasbourg]: sumptibus Heredum Eberh.
Zetzneri., 1659–1661).
68
Elias Ashmole, Theatrum chemicum britannicum (London: printed by J. Grismond for Nathaniel
Brooke, 1652).
69
Basil Valentine, Via veritatis, bound with Michael Sendivogius, Chemische Schrifften (1718), and
Becher, Chymischer Rosen-Garten (1717), Opuscula chymica rariora (1719), and Tripus Hermeticus
Fatidicus (1719).
Buddeus’s thesis offered Roth-Scholtz a roadmap, so to speak, for identifying important

alchemical writings. Indeed, he incorporated in his Theatrum Chemicum many works of the
authors whom Buddeus cited. Second, thanks to Buddeus’s status in the republic of letters,
a citation in his thesis lent special value to Roth-Scholtz’s own alchemical publications.
Hence, this publisher inserted in his German translation an anachronistic reference to his
own Bibliotheca Chemica in a place where the author had originally only referred for
alchemical bibliography to Borel’s Bibliotheca and Borrichius’s Conspectus.70 This added
citation was definitely a “forgery,” considering that Roth-Scholtz’s Bibliotheca was
published after Buddeus’s death. In addition to changes to the text, this entrepreneurial
publisher took the liberty of making references to his own publications with footnotes, and
even modified Buddeus’s references to advertise texts that he included in the Theatrum
Chemicum itself.71
The value that Buddeus contributed was scholarly and moral as well as commercial. He
and the author of the second work in the Theatrum Chemicum, Georg Philip Nenter (d. 1721),
late professor at Strasbourg, in a sense personally testified that alchemy was embraced
not only by vulgar practitioners, but also by the learned. Furthermore, Buddeus’s argument
in support of alchemy was essentially reproduced in Roth-Scholtz’s short foreword to
the Theatrum Chemicum. Positioned as the opening work of the Theatrum Chemicum,
Buddeus’s thesis served as the publisher’s learned voice organ that promoted the value
of his collection by vindicating the moral and scholarly value of alchemy as well as of his
publishing enterprise.
The three publications examined above do not exhaust eighteenth-century responses to
Buddeus’s thesis. His account of Böttger was summarised in the foreword to a German
translation of Pierre-Jean Fabre’s work, Die hell-shceinende Sonne am alchymistschen
Firmament des hochteutschen Horizonts (1705), as the twenty-third example of successful
transmutations. Johann Conrad Creiling quoted excerpts from Buddeus’s text in his Die
edelgeborne Jungfer Alchymia (1730). In these two cases, Buddeus’s thesis became the source
that perpetuated the belief in Böttger’s alchemical gift and in chrysopoeia in general.72
70
Compare Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § V, 10, and Untersuchung, 14.
71
For instance, Buddeus noted that, because both the two previous editions of Borel’s Bibliotheca had
become very rare, he would reprint it with his own Bibliotheca. Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § V, 10
(Untersuchung, 14). He also advertised three texts collected in the Theatrum: Johann von Tetzen,
Antonius de Abbatia, and Edward Kelly, Johannis Ticinensis, eines Böhemischen Priesters, Anthonii
de Abbatia, eines in der Kunst erfahrnen Mönchs, und Edoardi Kellaei eines Welt- berühmten
Engeländers vortreffliche und aussführliche Chymische Bücher (Hamburg: Gottfried Liebezeits,
1691). Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXXIV, 77 (Untersuchung, 130).
72
Pierre-Jean Fabre, Die hell-shceinende Sonne am alchymistschen Firmament des hochteutschen
Horizonts, trans. C. Horlacher (Nuremberg: W. M. Endter, 1705). Its Vorrede is unpaginated.
Johann Conrad Creiling, Die Edelgeborne Jungfer Alchymia, oder, Eine durch Rationes: viele
Exempla und Experimenta abgehandelte Untersuchung (Tübingen: Bey denen Gebrüdern Cotta,
1730). This book was published anonymously. I thank a referee for these two very valuable
references. Creiling’s immediate source may well have been Roth-Scholtz’s translation, which was
published two years previously. The two men had a close relationship. Roth-Scholtz considered
Creiling to be his “best friend and patron,” and had known of the manuscript of Die Edelgeborne
Jungfer before it was published. Creiling quoting Buddeus’s account in German instead of in Latin
seems to suggest that he relied on Roth-Scholtz’s translation. For their relationship, see John
Ferguson, Bibliotheca Chemica, a Catalogue of the Alchemical, Chemical & Pharmaceutical Books
in the Collection of the Late James Young of Kelly & Durris, 2 vols. (Glasgow: Maclehose, 1906),
vol. 1, 182–83.
The publications by Stahl, Uhse and Roth-Scholtz form an interesting array of

responses to Buddeus’s disputation. Stahl’s response concerned the political and economic
consequences of the investment in alchemy by inappropriate persons. Uhse’s response
highlighted the impostures of the alchemists. Roth-Scholtz appropriated Buddeus’s text to
justify his publication enterprise. These authors displayed the ways in which Buddeus’s
thesis could be interpreted and used. No less significantly, the authors of these responses,
Stahl, Uhse, and Roth-Scholtz, represent three distinct audiences: chymists, editors (reflect-
ing the interest of their potential consumers) of historia litteraria, and publishers (and thus
readers) of alchemical texts. It was perhaps fateful that Buddeus, although not practically
connected to the alchemical world, was embodied as a part of the alchemical tradition when
his thesis was included in Deutsches Theatrum Chemicum.
Buddeus’s Erudition and Early Modern Scholarship on Alchemy
Buddeus’s knowledge of the literature on alchemy was remarkable, especially considering

that he never formally studied chymistry. One is easily impressed by the great number and
detailed documentation of his references. A close study of this impressive documentation
will disclose his sources, illuminate the learned character of his writing, and resurrect a
number of important genres or kinds of writings that reflected the serious interest of the
early modern intellectual and political world in alchemy.
With regard to the sources of Buddeus’s alchemical knowledge, one has reason to
suspect that Stahl might have been one of them. Stahl and Buddeus had been colleagues at
Halle from 1694, and collaborated from 1700 to 1703 with Thomasius on the publication
of Observationum selectarum ad rem literarium spectantium,73 a journal that was modelled
on the better known Acta eruditorum, published in Leipzig from 1682. If Buddeus had not
had much knowledge about alchemy, it would be reasonable to suspect that he consulted a
close colleague who was trained and interested in chymistry. It was at least more likely that
he consulted Stahl than Hoffmann, another chemist at Halle who does not seem to have had
a close working relationship with him at the time. Buddeus, however, cited neither Stahl nor
Hoffmann in his thesis.
The lack of references to his chemist colleagues, however, does not undermine Budde-
us’s formidable knowledge of alchemy. The bibliographies of chymical works by Borel
and Borrichius must have served as ready references for Buddeus. Instead of Stahl and
Hoffmann, he consulted the works of the well-known proponents and critics surveyed in
a previous section, as well as those by famous seventeenth-century savants such as Pierre
Gassendi and Jean le Clerc. His reading of alchemical literature must have gone far beyond
secondary sources, as he never hid in his thesis his precise knowledge of the chapter and
sometimes page numbers of his references, which even erudite works of his age did not
usually furnish.
The most important sources for Buddeus’s historical criticism of transmutational
accounts are Borrichius, Conring and, especially Morhof, all active in the second half of the
seventeenth century. At many points, Morhof’s view on the history of alchemy in his De
transmutatione metallorum served as the ultimate conclusions of Buddeus’s examinations. In
73
This journal ran through ten volumes and a supplement until it was discontinued in 1705. The
editors of the first generation, Buddeus, Thomasius, and Stahl, withdrew in 1703.
addition, the style of the Halle professor’s analysis appears to follow closely that of Morhof’s,
which, as Lawrence Principe points out, treated the claims of chrysopoeia in a way that first
juxtaposed various claims against one another, and then gave the author’s critical analyses
and conclusions.74 Buddeus likewise checked the sources of his primary readings against
one another. When it was necessary to resort to secondary literature on transmutational
accounts, he most often compared the historical criticisms of Conring, especially his
De hermetica medicina (1669), and Borrichius, De ortu et progressu chemiae (1668), a work
that Conring criticised, and his Hermetis, Aegyptiorum, et chemicorum sapientia (1674), a
polemical work against Conring that aimed to vindicate the “chemists’ wisdom” (sapienta
chemicorum).75 The conflicting views of Borrichius and Conring were presented side by side
in the consideration of the veracity of Paracelsus’s chrysopoetic work. The close examina-
tion of both the critical and defensive claims shows the careful character of Buddeus, who,
not easily giving credibility to spurious accounts, made efforts to be an impartial umpire.
For the examination of chemical coins, Buddeus’s sources were Tentzel, Wedel, and
Reyher. Buddeus, to a large extent, reproduced Reyher’s description of alchemical coins,
and his survey of the juridical discourses on alchemy was basically composed of excerpts
from Reyher’s discussion. However, as seen above, instead of accepting Reyher’s judgement
on the authentic identities of the princes in whose names the coins were minted, Buddeus
turned to the historical criticisms of Tentzel, a famed numismatist, and of Wedel, an influ-
ential chemico-medical author who produced remarkable numismatic works, although long
neglected.76
The erudite style of Buddeus’s thesis was characterised by these sources, academic
authors who flourished across disciplines in recent years. His style forms a contrast to that
of his chemist colleague Stahl, for example, which never featured meticulous documenta-
tion. Stahl cited, for the most part, works of practical chemists, such as Johann Rudolph
Glauber, Johann Kunckel, and, most frequently, Johann Joachim Becher.77 In contrast,
Buddeus’s authorities were Borrichius, Conring, Morhof, Borel, Reyher, Wedel, and
Tentzel, almost all academics. Borrichius had a chair in chemistry at Copenhagen. Wedel,
former teacher of Buddeus’s colleagues Stahl and Hoffmann, was a professor at Jena. Borel,
74
Lawrence M. Principe, “Daniel Georg Morhof’s Analysis and Defence of Transmutational
Alchemy,” in Mapping the World of Learning: The Polyhistor of Daniel Georg Morhof, ed.
Françoise Waquet (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), 139–53, on 146.
75
Conring, De hermetica medicina libri dvo ... (Helmestadii [Helmstedt]: H. Mvlleri, 1669), which is
the second edition of his De hermetica Aegyptorum vetere et Paracelsicorum nova medicina liber
unus (1648). Borrichius, De ortu et progressu chemiae dissertatio (Hafniae [Copenhagen]: typis
Matthiae Godicchenii, sumptibus Petri Haubold, Reg. Acad. Bibl., 1668); Borrichius, Hermetis,
aegyptiorum, et chemicorum sapientia ab Hermanni Conringii animadversionibus vindicata (Hafniae
[Copenhagen]: sumptibus Petri Hauboldi, Reg. Acad. Bibl., 1674).
76
Tentzel published Saxonia numismatica siue nummophylacium numismatum mnemonicorum et
iconicorum ... (Dresden: typis Iohannes Riedelii typogr. aul., 1705). Buddeus cites his Monatliche
Unterredungen einiger guten Freunde ... (Leipzig: in Verlegung Johann Christian Laurers, 1689–
98), volume of 1692. Wedel published more than ten works on numismatics. Buddeus cited his
Propempticon inaugurale de nummis caduceatis (Jena: Krebs, 1692).
77
Glauber and Kunckel, well known in Stahl’s age, were neither academic by profession nor consid-
ered learned authors. Becher, MD and briefly professor at the University of Mainz, was one of the
few well-known practical chymists of the generation preceding Stahl’s who had a learned image.
Yet when Stahl cited Becher, he always referred to points of interest to practical chymists.
although not a professor, had a seat in the French Academy of Sciences in chemistry. The
others had chairs in different subjects: Reyher had a chair in law, and Morhof in history,
both at Kiel; Tentzel was first a professor of the gymnasium in Gotha and later a court
historian of Saxony; Conring taught, at Helmstedt, natural philosophy, politics, and medi-
cine. Perhaps to match the erudition of the academic authors whom he cited, Buddeus filled
the margins of his thesis with dense references. Unlike chymical authors, who envisioned
a readership of practical chymists, Buddeus was an erudite author writing for a learned
audience.
The erudition embodied in Buddeus’s academic thesis enlivens five special genres
of works that shed light on the contemporary interest in alchemy. The first is a genre
characteristic of early modern academic publications, namely, the dissertation. Morhof’s
De transmutatione metallorum epistola, a letter in appearance, was considered by its author
a dissertation,78 and indeed it followed the style of the doctoral thesis. On the other hand,
Borrichius’s De ortu et progressu chemiae, Reyher’s De nummis quibusdam ex chymico metal-
lo factis and, of course, Buddeus’s An alchemistae sint in republica tolerandi were squarely
defined academic dissertations. In fact, there were a remarkable number of dissertations
that dealt directly or indirectly with alchemy.79 This number represents the intensity of inter-
est in the truth or falsity of alchemy in early modern academia, although the significance of
their collective existence has been much neglected.
The second important genre of alchemical literature is the published bibliography of
chymical works. Borel’s Bibliotheca chimica (1654) and Borrichius’s Conspectus scriptorum
chemicorum (1697) constituted two of the first printed products of the efforts to compile
comprehensive bibliographies of chymical works.80 They inspired a long tradition of chymi-
cal scholarship. Roth-Scholtz’s Bibliotheca Chemica was a close offspring, and this scholar-
ship probably culminated with the annotated catalogues by John Ferguson and Denis
78
Principe, “Morhof’s Analysis,” 143.
79
To mention just a few: Johann Rhenanus, Solis e puteo emergentis; sive, Dissertationis chymiotechnicae
libri tres totius operationis chymicae methodus practica materia lapidis philosophici ... (Frankfurt:
Impensis Antonii Hummi, 1613); Johann Conrad Brotbeck, Proteus, sive De corporum naturalim
transmutatione dissertatio ..., resp. Georgius Gebhardus Keppelmann (Tubingen: Excudebat
Gregorius Kerner, 1659); Johann Gabriel Drechssler, Disputatio I & II. De metallorum transmuta-
tione, et imprimis de chrysopoeia oder Goldmachen ... (Leipzig: Vypis-Tiduae [sic] Joh. Wittigau,
1673); Caspar Cramer, Dissertationem de transmutatione metallorum, resp. Johanne Christiano
Calckhoff (Erfurti [Erfurt]: Literis Kirschianis, 1675); Rudolf Wilhelm Crause, Disputatio
inauguralis, sistens theses medico chimicas de principiis & transmutatione metallorum ..., resp.
Heinrich Friedrich Conrad (Jena: Literis Krebsianis, 1686); Borrichius, Dissertatio de lapidum
generatione in macro & microcosmo (Ferrara: Typis H. Filonj, 1687); Johann Christian Lehmann,
Disputationem physicam de transmutationibus corporum extraordinariis, resp. Andreas Bretag
(Lipsiae [Leipzig]: Stanno Christophori Fleischeri, 1697); Johann Thomas Hensing, Dissertationem
de vitriolo, an sit materia lapidis philosophorum ..., resp. Friedrich Ludwig Rencker (Giessen: widow
of J. R. Vulpius, 1723); Johann Konrad Creiling, Dissertatio academica de aureo vellere aut
possibilitate transmutationis metallorum ... (Tubingen: Litteris Roebelianis, 1737); Peter Gerike,
Dissertatio inauguralis medica de lapide philosophorum ceu medicina universali vera an falsa ..., resp.
Justus Friedrich Haupt (Helmstedt, 1742); and Friedrich Joseph Wilhelm Schroeder, De alchemia
medicinae necessaria et medicamento chemicorum panchresto, dissertatio medica ..., resp. Heinrich
Ferdinand Hoepfner (Marburgi Cattorum [Marburg]: Typis Mülleri, 1776).
80
John Ferguson identifies Borel’s Bibliotheca as the first of this kind. See Ferguson, Bibliotheca
Chemica, vol. 1, 116.
Duveen.81 Rightly consulted, these catalogues served as excellent reference works for
Buddeus and any students of alchemy in later ages.
The third kind of work, Theatrum Chemicum, was also a form of chymical scholarship.
As pointed out above, Roth-Scholtz’s Deutsches Theatrum Chemicum was not unprece-
dented. Lazarus Zetzner had published a Theatrum Chemicum as early as 1602, and Johann
Jacob Heilmann added an expanded edition to it. These editors collected, edited and
printed (or republished) important alchemical texts that were either never published or
had become rare. Collections of this kind could also be entitled Bibliotheca Chemica, as
bibliotheca meant literally collection of texts. An early example was the Bibliotheca chemica
by Nathan Albineus (1653).82 An especially fine collection was published in the very year
of Buddeus’s disputation by Jean-Jacques Manget (1652–1742), who was serving as First
Physician to Friedrich I of Prussia in Berlin! A good Theatrum or Bibliotheca, such as
Manget’s, could receive almost immediate attention in learned journals across Europe, and,
thanks to the rare alchemical tracts that it collected, could be “indispensable for historical
reference.”83
The fourth kind of writing is the medieval and early modern juridical discourse on
alchemy, which seems to have been little studied by the historians of alchemy until William
Newman paid attention to Oldradus in his recent works.84 Buddeus’s source for this genre
of work was again Reyher. In addition to Oldradus and Reyher, Buddeus studied Nicolaus
de Tudeschis (Panormitanus) (1386–1445), canon lawyer and Archbishop of Palermo,
Andrea d’Isernia (d. 1316), professor at the University of Naples, and Angelo Carletti di
Chiavasio, or, as cited by Buddeus, Angelus Clavasius (1411–95?), doctor of canon and
civil laws, who authored the well-known Summa Angelica.85 For the legality of the use of
81
Ferguson, Bibliotheca Chemica, and Denis I. Duveen, Bibliotheca alchemica et chemica: an
Annotated Catalogue of Printed Books on Alchemy, Chemistry and Cognate Subjects in the Library
of Denis I. Duveen (London: Weil, 1949).
82
Nathan Albineus, Bibliotheca chemica contracta ... (Geneva: J.A. & S. de Tournes, 1653).
83
Jean-Jacques Manget, Bibliotheca chemica curiosa, seu rerum ad alchemiam pertinentium thesaurus
instructissimus ... (Geneva: sumpt. Chouet G. De Tournes Cramer Perachon Ritter & S. De
Tournes, 1702). It was reviewed in Acta Eruditorum (1702): 233–36, and in Journal des Savans
(1703): 499–504. For the significance of Manget’s collection, see Ferguson, Bibliotheca Chemica,
vol. 1, 71.
84
William R. Newman, “Technology and Alchemical Debate in the Late Middle Ages,” Isis 80 (1989):
423–45; William R. Newman, Promethean Ambition: Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 56–57. The first historian of science who paid atten-
tion to this literature was probably Lynn Thorndike in his encyclopaedic History of Magic and
Experimental Science, 8 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1923), in vol. 3, 28–51, and vol. 4, 354–55.
85
Buddeus, Qvaestionem, § XXVII–XXXI, 61–72 (Untersuchung, 101–20). Reyher and Buddeus also
considered other jurists, including: Giovanni d’Andrea (1270–1348), professor of canon law at
Bologna; Baldus de Ubaldus (ca. 1326–1400?), a J. D. who taught and practised in Perugia, Pisa,
Florence, Padua and Pavia; and Gerolamo Zanettini (d. 1493), professor of civil and canon law at
Bologna. Oldradus seems to be the best studied of the medieval jurists on alchemy. For works by
legal historians, see, for example: Francesco Migliorino, “Alchimia lecita e illecita nel Trecento:
Oldrado da Ponte,” Quaderni Medievali 11 (1981): 6–41, on 34, 37; Tilman Schmidt, “Die Konsilien
des Oldrado da Ponte als Geschichtsquelle,” in Consilia im späten Mittelalter: zum historischen
Aussagewert einer Quellengattung, ed. Ingrid Baumgärtner (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1995),
53–64; Brendan McManus, “The Consilia and Quaestiones of Oldradus de Ponte,” Bulletin of
Medieval Canon Law 23 (1999): 85–112; and Chiara Valsecchi, Oldrado da Ponte e I suoi consilia
(Milan: Giuffré, 2000).
chemically prepared gold, they consulted Albericus de Rosate (1290–1360) (or cited by
the disputant as Alberticus de Rosate Bergomensis), de Ponte’s student and author of the
well-known legal dictionary, Dictionarium iuris tam ciuilis, quam canonici, Fabianus de
Monte Sancti Sabini (d. ca. 1500), author of De emptione et venditione et quae ad eandem
materiam pertinent, Alberto Bruni (1467–1541), doctor of law and author of De augmento
et diminutione monetarum, Arnold Reyger (1559–1615), professor of canon, civil and Saxon
laws at Jena, Joachim Scheplitz (1566–1634), doctor of jurisprudence and judge at
Wittstock, and the above-mentioned Johann Brunnemann (1618–72), law professor at
Frankfurt an der Oder. The significance of these legal writings is two-fold. On the one hand,
they demonstrate the jurists’ impressive knowledge of the theories and practices of alchemy,
and on the other, they show that across centuries some of the best minds in the legal
profession invested great interest in alchemy, and not a few considered it to be licit.
The works by Reyher, Tenyzel and Wedel on alchemical numismatics represent the last
kind of literature on alchemy, which attested to the vigour of European rulers’ involvement
in alchemy. By the alchemy numismatist Henry Carrington Bolton’s count, there can be
found at least forty-four such coins or medals that date from the fourteenth to the eigh-
teenth centuries, with the great majority of them from the seventeenth and early eighteenth
centuries.86 Excluding a small number that Bolton identifies as talisman medals, each of the
others was supposed to represent a successful transmutation, for the most part at court.
Understandably, the “successful” alchemists are outnumbered by those who were also
employed at court but never achieved the “great work,” either in truth or in disguise.
Although this must not be interpreted as meaning that all courts believed or sponsored
chrysopoeia, the number of the successful and unsuccessful combined shows that a host of
princes considered it in accordance with their status to patronise alchemists. Indeed, they
used the alchemical coins and medals to celebrate the successes of their investment, and to
promote their images as patrons of arts and sciences. Admittedly, these successes, as judged
from a modern scientific viewpoint, were spurious, if not outright fraudulent. Nevertheless,
the number of alchemical coins and medals reflects the remarkable frequency and intensity
of alchemical investments at the centre of the early modern political arena, the court. The
courts of Prussia and Saxony were by no means isolated cases in pursuing the adepts.
Conclusion: Character of Buddeus’s Thesis
Böttger’s reported transmutational success created a sensation in Germany and incited

public responses, including Buddeus’s disputation held at the University of Halle. Intended
to examine the political question of the tolerability of alchemists, Buddeus’s thesis rested on
the premise that the issue of toleration could be considered only if the truth of metallic
transmutation was empirically confirmed. Böttger’s success came at last, to serve for
Buddeus as an empirical case that verified the reality of transmutation.
Characteristic of Buddeus’s epistemology was his “social empiricism.” Giving up
theoretical investigations, Buddeus took up an epistemology that featured the empirical
86
Henry Carrington Bolton, “Contributions of Alchemy to Numismatics,” American Journal of
Numismatics 24 (1890): 73–83, and 25 (1890): 1–16. This series of articles was then published as
Contributions of Alchemy to Numismatics (New York: Author’s Edition, 1890). Bolton added one
more coin to the previous list of 43 coins and medals examined in the serial articles.
verification of transmutation. This epistemology relied on the accounts, historical and

contemporary, of successful transmutations. Lest public knowledge of chrysopoeia would
endanger the social and monetary stability of the republic, namely, the polity, it required
neither open demonstration nor public verification. The truth of transmutation rather relied
on the credibility of the accounts, and ultimately on the credibility of their witnesses and
reporters. As the credibility of persons was socially determined, this empiricist approach to
the truth of natural studies eventually depended on the social norm that determined men’s
credibility, thus giving the epistemology a social dimension.
The question of the tolerability of alchemists was political because the enthusiasm for
chrysopoeia could have effects on the economic, monetary, moral and political order of the
republic. It was this political concern that led to various decrees against alchemy per se
or the frauds that it induced. For Buddeus, there was no doubt that imposters must be
severely punished. True alchemists, however, were tolerable if their work presented no harm
to the public order, an argument in parallel with Buddeus’s thesis on the toleration of
heresies. They were also tolerable because true alchemists were select recipient of divine
knowledge, as jurists considered it licit, and, last, because it involved no demonic magic.
Buddeus left unaddressed the question of how to distinguish between true and fraudulent
alchemists. Presumably, this was because the identification of a divinely selected alchemist
was as difficult as the identification of the elect, a problem perpetually perplexing Christian
theologians. Despite this difficulty, rational, empiricist reasoning, religious toleration and
dismissal of demonic magic altogether characterise Buddeus as an early Enlightenment
thinker.
The responses to Buddeus’s thesis suggest the composition of his readership and the
ways in which his thesis may have been interpreted and appropriated. A respected chymist,
Stahl, agreed with much of Buddeus’s thesis, although he suggested a different country for
alchemy’s origin and proposed a modified qualification for appropriate alchemical pursu-
ers. An editor of book digests for general readers, Uhse produced a summary of Buddeus’s
thesis that gave his readers the impression that the impostures and frauds constituted its
major theme. An entrepreneurial publisher of alchemical texts, Roth-Scholtz, appropriated
Buddeus’s thesis to promote and justify his publication project in alchemy. These three
persons represented a readership that consisted of chymists, consumers of popular book
digests, and readers of alchemical publications. Paradoxically, Roth-Scholtz’s appropria-
tion integrated Buddeus, an alchemical outsider, into the long tradition of alchemical
authors, and indeed gave the thesis a semi-canonical status by placing it as the opening piece
of his Theatrum Chemicum.
For historians of alchemy, one of the most important aspects of Buddeus’s thesis
consists in its incorporation of a vast body of early modern literature on alchemy. Works by
erudite authors such as Conring, Borel, Borrichius, Morhof, Reyher, Wedel and Tentzel
represent the latest scholarship on alchemy at the time of Buddeus’s disputation. This
register of authors shows that alchemy engaged not merely practical pursuers, who are often
characterised as eccentric, but also well-respected learned scholars. They wrote works in
several genres or kinds of works that are important for studies of alchemy: dissertation,
Bibliotheca Chemica, Theatrum Chemicum, legal discourse, and numismatic writing. Their
works testify to the serious interest, supportive as well as critical, of the academic and legal
professions in the examination of alchemy and the fascination of courts with chrysopoeia in
early modern Europe.
While there are obvious difficulties in Buddeus’s thesis, one cannot rush to judge that
his idea was groundless. His “social empiricism” left little room for public, open verification
of the truth of chrysopoeia, and thus did not fit in the dominant epistemological norm for
natural studies in the age of reason, which stressed either mathematical precision or experi-
mental demonstration. The uncertainties in the identification of true alchemists made it
difficult for political authorities to determine the boundary between repression and tolera-
tion of alchemists. Yet, as Buddeus pointed out, the opponents’ discrediting of alchemy was
hard to maintain as long as a successful transmutation was empirically confirmed. Even
his endorsement of the secrecy of alchemy, although apparently against the ideal of public
science, was not necessarily outdated at the time. As Lawrence Principe recently pointed
out, although Boyle denounced secrecy as an enemy of true science in his public writings, he
in fact guarded alchemical secrecy throughout his life.87 Indeed, in spite of abundant fierce
criticisms of alchemy, heroes of the Scientific Revolution, Boyle, Newton, and Leibniz, did
not cease to believe in alchemy.
Buddeus retained his tolerant view of alchemy throughout his career. Although noth-
ing is known about whether he kept track of Böttger’s fate, it is undeniable that he held on
to the instructions on philosophical mercury and the seeds of metals until the last years of
his life.88 He continued to maintain that “it cannot be proved with philosophical methods
that metallic transmutation cannot be made.”89 That is quite remarkable, considering that
his former colleague Stahl, once a believer in and practitioner of chrysopoeia, had became
outspokenly critical of chrysopoeia in the 1720s.90
One is tempted to ask whether the later development of Böttger’s career had any impact
on his contemporaries. Modern readers may assume that, after having been closely watched
over by August the Strong for almost two decades, Böttger’s ability to transmute metals
would prove to be a joke. Astonishingly, however, August remained a believer in chryso-
poeia throughout the alchemist’s life. In 1713, after he had discovered the secret of
porcelain, Böttger performed in front of August and his confidents a transmutation that
convinced the observers, and as proof for later ages, the transmutation left behind a 170-
gram piece of gold, which is an exhibit in the Staatlichen Porzellansammlung in Dresden.
As late as October 1723, August still tried to uncover the arcana in his residence by reading
the sketches and letters that Böttger had once submitted to him.91 To judge from August’s
87
Lawrence Principe, “Robert Boyle’s Alchemical Secrecy: Codes, Ciphers and Concealments,”
Ambix 39 (1992): 63–74; Lawrence Principe, The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical
Quest: Including Boyle’s “Lost” Dialogue on the Transmutation of Metals (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1998), esp. 143–51.
88
See the eighth edition of his Elementa philosophia theoreticae (1724), part II, chap. III, “De metallis,
mineralibvs, et cognatis corporibvs,” § VII, 162, and § XI, 164.
89
“Ex rationibus philosophicis probari non posse, quod eiusmodi transmutation fieri nequeat.”
Buddeus, “De metallis, mineralibvs, et cognatis corporibvs,”, § XIII, 165.
90
Stahl openly criticised the belief in alchemy in his Billig Bedencken, Erinnerung und Erläuterung uber
D. J. Bechers Natur-Kündigung der Metallen (Frankfurt: Verlegts Wolffgang Christoph Multz,
1723), and “Bedencken von der Gold-Macherey,” preface to [the republished edition of] Johann
Joachim Becher, Chymischer Glücks-Hafen, oder, Grosse Chymische Concordantz und Collection
(Halle: Verlegts Ernst Gottlieb Krug, 1726).
91
Hoffmann, Johann Friedrich Böttger, 8.
response, Böttger’s career and alchemy apparently gave hope, not despair, to his age and his
country.
Buddeus’s thesis thus may serve as a thermometer of the political and intellectual
climate of early eighteenth-century Europe with regard to alchemy. This age continued the
traditional concern about alchemical impostures, a concern voiced not only by Buddeus,
but also by those who responded to his thesis, namely, Stahl, Uhse, and Roth-Scholtz. Yet,
beyond repeating the traditional concern, Buddeus’s thesis, and no less importantly Stahl’s
response, addressed a timely issue, namely, the international competition for alchemical
adepts. The competition was real because contemporary princes August the Strong of
Saxony and Friedrich I of Prussia and their subjects earnestly wanted to win the adept, and
because their intellectual counsellors, Leibniz and Tschirnhaus, for example, firmly believed
in the benefit of chrysopoeia. Thus, in spite of the downturn of alchemy in the century of the
Enlightenment, the Böttger incident and Buddeus’s disputation illustrate European princes’
continual investment and intellectuals’ resilient interest in chrysopoeia at the dawn of the
century.
Acknowledgements
The research for this paper was supported by Taiwan’s National Science Council, Grant
Numbers 93-2411-H-001-062 and 94-2411-H-001-063.
Notes on Contributors
Ku-ming (Kevin) Chang received his Ph.D. in 2002 in history at the University of Chicago,
specialising in early modern science and medicine. He has since been Assistant Research
Fellow at the Institute of History and Philology at Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. He is
currently completing the revision of his dissertation, “The Matter of Life: Georg Ernst Stahl
and the Reconceptualizations of Matter, Body, and Life in Early Modern Europe,” and has
begun a new book project that investigates the transformation of the dissertation from
the medieval form of oral disputation to a written text. Address: Institute of History and
Philology, Academia Sinica, 130 Academia Road, Section 2, Nankang District, Taipei City
11529, Taiwan; Email: kchang@sinica.edu.tw.

CHANG, Ku-Ming (Kevin) - Toleration of Alchemists As A Political Question PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHANG, Ku-Ming (Kevin) - Toleration of Alchemists As A Political Question PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A, Vol. 54, No.

3, November 2007, 245–273

Toleration of Alchemists as a Political

private counsel, chose to examine alchemy in a characteristically academic venue, a public

Buddeus’s Disputation and Its Thesis

produced by alchemical transmutation (Sections 20 and 21). Thereafter, he classified alche-

Empiricism of Transmutation and Toleration of the Republic: Elemental Notions and

Buddeus’s “social empiricism” of transmutation

The meaning of republic and the political nature of alchemy

The idea of toleration

Toleration and the question of certainty

Responses to Buddeus’s Thesis

Buddeus’s thesis offered Roth-Scholtz a roadmap, so to speak, for identifying important

The publications by Stahl, Uhse and Roth-Scholtz form an interesting array of

Buddeus’s Erudition and Early Modern Scholarship on Alchemy

Buddeus’s knowledge of the literature on alchemy was remarkable, especially considering

Conclusion: Character of Buddeus’s Thesis

Böttger’s reported transmutational success created a sensation in Germany and incited

verification of transmutation. This epistemology relied on the accounts, historical and

You might also like