obtains among non-mystics, namely, that Paracelsus was a great charlatan, though at the same time it is true that he was a great physician, at least for the period in which he lived. This judgment as little, perhaps less than the other, is derived from any solid knowledge concerning the man or his writings.[1] At the same time it is noticeable that even hearsay condemnations admit that Paracelsus performed notable cures. How it comes about that the application of what would be termed a distracted theory both in medicine and physics enabled its inventor to astound his age by what seemed miracles of the healing art would be a crux for such criticism if the criticism knew anything about it. It is not a crux for the mystics, because by these it would be replied that Paracelsus was a veritable adept, that his Hermetic teachings require to be interpreted, and that the key to their meaning would lay open for those who possess it an abundant treasure of sapience to which the literal significance is only a bizarre veil. Between these views it is unnecessary to make choice here. It is proposed to enable those who are interested in either to judge this matter for themselves by placing completely before them, for the first time, and in an English dress, the Hermetic writings of Paracelsus. It is proposed, also, by way of a brief introduction, to notify a few facts in connection with the life of the author, which may be useful at the beginning of an inquiry.
There are, however, many debateable points in connection with the life of Paracelsus to which a reference in this place scarcely requires to be made. What proportion of his long designation belonged to him by birth or baptism, to what countries he actually extended his travels during incessant wanderings which terminated only with his life, under what circumstances he died and what was the precise manner of his death, all these are points about which there is considerable uncertainty, and they are at this day not likely to be settled. Theophrastus and Bombast seem to have been assumed names, to one of which an unfortunate, and in some respects an undeserved, significance has been since attracted. The surname of Paracelsus was conferred by his father in alchemy, and it signified that he was greater than Celsus, the physician of ancient fame. To the style of Hohenheim it is believed that he had only a doubtful right. His alternative designation of Eremite suggests the monastic state, but the reference is simply to his birthplace, Maria Einsiedeln or Notre Dame des Eremites, a short distance from Zurich. He appears to have been christened Philippus Aureolus, and in his writings he indifferently
- ↑ M. Louis Figuier, the French scientist, who otherwise might perhaps be regarded as exhibiting more than Gallic accuracy, may be cited in this connection. Referring to the fact that Paracelsus has laid some stress upon an opinion not uncommon among alchemists, namely, that astrology and magic are collaterally a help to the seeker after the Great Work, he goes on to affirm that the writings of Paracelsus are filled with foolish invocations to the invisible world, while, as a fact, there is not a single treatise comprised in the great Geneva folio, nor is there any other extant work attributed to Paracelsus, and known to the present editor, which contains any invocations at all. M. Louis Figuier subsequently states, apparently on the sole authority of his intuition as a Frenchman and a man of parts, that the fullginous Swiss physician enjoys only a contested authority among alchemists, which is only partially true; and adds that he was a theoretical writer who did not apply himself manually to the accomplishment of the Magnum Opus, which, so far as it is possible to judge, is not true at all.
