Paracelsus, the Man and His Natural Philosophy (I)
There is hardly a more controversional figure in the history of ideas than Paracelsus, by his real name Theophrastus Bombast of Hohenheim (1493-1541). He was many things to many people: a hero to some, a quack to other, a devil’s doctor, a German nationalist or a drunkard. Perhaps he was all these things, because, by comparison to most other historical figures, he was impossible to frame. In fact, Paracelsus created a world of his own and a mythology that has never ceased to fascinate since his premature death at 47.
Inevitably, any scholarly analysis of Paracelsus is bound to reduce something from his larger-than-life self. Scholars simply do not have the tools to tackle his complexity. The same is the situation of his works. He wrote a wondrous amount, and another wondrous amount was added unto him by his faithful followers. Like a religious figure, he created a veritable ‘tradition’ of writings that were attributed to him. This huge compendium is still awaiting a contemporary analysis, despite efforts in this direction (notably Kurt Goldammer).
Paracelsus was a religious figure of sorts; many people called him ‘Lutherus Medicorum’, the Luther of physicians. He didn’t like it; even though he lived during the turmoil of Luther’s Reform, he remained a faithful, if unorthodox Catholic. Instead, he proposed his own version of the world, a peculiar mixture of natural philosophy, alchemy, magic and Christianity. He was in fact the quintessential representative of the Renaissance; a man convinced of his mission of reforming people’s views of the world and of Christianity. He believed there was no inherent contradiction between the analysis of the natural world (we now call this ‘science’) and religion; in fact, Christianity was the very basis of this analysis.
More than many other figures, Paracelsus’ life cannot be easily segregated from his works. He was a lonely person, a medical hermit that spent his entire life traveling from place to place. Despite his medical degree and training, his unorthodox approach to medicine did not earn him any friends. Back in that day, physicians were adepts of the Late Antique philosopher Galen, who was himself a follower of Aristotelian doctrine. There were two basic tenets to the Galenic-Aristotelian paradigm. One, the theory of the four elements: air, water, fire and earth; the second, the four bodily humors, the melancholy, the choleric, the phlegmatic and the sanguine. The combination of these created the healthy body, while their unbalance produced disease. For instance, too much black bile created the illness of melancholy. In other words, diseases were produced internally and did not have any external reason.
The problem in Paracelsus’ day was that this theory failed to explain some of the gravest diseases in existence at the time: the plague and the syphilis. The ‘internal’ theory did not explain how so many people could develop spontaneous internal unbalances and in such rapid fashion. Disarmed physicians blamed the diseases on ‘God’s will’ and the sins of people (which was a form of unbalance, albeit very general). In any case, they had no solutions and no ideas how to tackle the plague, for instance, and the appearance of the ‘new disease’, syphilis complicated matters. There were already voices concerned about the validity of the Galenic-Aristotelian paradigm.
None became stronger than that of Paracelsus himself. From an early rather tolerant stance, he grew more and more convinced that the whole Galenic medicine was completely wrong, and Aristotle too. Having procured a teaching position at the University of Basel, in Switzerland, he made himself famous by burning the books of Galen in public and condemning his doctrines. His uncompromising stance ended up with him being thrown out of the university.
From then on, Paracelsus traveled around central Europe, mainly Germany, practicing his medical craft but finding no avenues to publish his ideas. In spite of this, he wrote a lot, much of which a strange sort of shorthand that is hard to understand, often ambiguous or contradictory. The reason for this partially rests in the progressive nature of his works, as he learned more and more and refined his doctrine. Another reason is that in his time there was simply no defined language for what he was trying to say. You see him struggling with words and introducing strange new terms like yliaster, archeus, magnale or cagaster, which he often did not take the time to explain properly.
Another aspect that does affect our ability to understand him is his verbal violence. Undoubtedly frustrated by the aggressive reception of his ideas, he did not shy away from using strong invectives. He calls his detractors ‘dirt’ and seems to provoke them to duels. Sure, this is a ‘fun’ portion to read, because it gets tabloid-like qualities, but it does sometimes obscure from his message. Indeed, many intellectuals of his age were put off by some of this cacophony and dismissed him as an incoherent drunkard. He had a rather uncouth personality, got into barroom brawls and appeared fond of his drink; yet it is also true that he was a creative genius with a mission and message for reform. Ironically, it was perhaps this uncompromising and belligerent attitude of Paracelsus that earned him celebrity, a loyal following and led to the eventual demise of Galenic medicine in a hundred years from his death.
In the next installment, I will investigate more closely Paracelsus’ ideas and worldview.
If you want to get more into the studies of Paracelsus, the bad news is that, unless you know German, there are only a few partial translations of his works. The best are:
Paracelsus (2007), Essential Theoretical Writings, ed. and trans. with commentary and introduction by Andrew Weeks, Aries Book Series 5. Leiden: Brill.
Waite, A.E. (1894). The Hermetic And Alchemical Writings of Aureolus Philippus Theophrastus Bombast, of Hohenheim, Called Paracelsus the Great. London: J. Elliott.
For secondary sources in English, the best are:
Pagel, Walter. (1960). ‘Paracelsus and the Neoplatonic and Gnostic Tradition’, Ambix 8, 125-166.
Pagel, Walter. (1958). Paracelsus: an Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. New York: S. Karger.
Weeks, Andrew. (1997). Paracelsus: Speculative Theory and the Crisis of the Early Renaissance. New York: SUNY Press.
Tags: Alchemy, galen, humors, magic, medicine, Neoplatonic, neoplatonism, Paracelsus, renaissance
