Talk:Paracelsus

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KSAN1417.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kp3td, AshleyPruett18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Paracelsus' most important legacy is likely his critique of the scholastic methods in medicine, science and theology. Much of his theoretical work does not withstand modern scientific thought, but his insights laid the foundation for a more dynamic approach in the medical sciences." We need a source for this. 115.87.52.94 (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please also note that regardless of the above, because this is a Chemistry-related article the spelling of "sulfur" uses the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry agreed international form as defined here. Please do not copyedit the spelling back to "sulphur".

The addition that is not at all very helpful

...never settling for more than a year or two due to violent opposition precipitated by his characteristically extreme actions.

Were the words alcohol and zinc indeed coined by him? Aren't they of Arabic origin? Jorge Stolfi 20:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adding some notes on zinc now. Jamesday 15:22, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see the etymology of alcohol and the discussion in Talk:alcohol. Alcohol was discovered by Islamic alchemists (possibly Geber or Al-Razi) in the 8th-9th century. I would think that both the substance and the word were introduced in Europe much earlier than Paracelsus, perhaps in the 12th or 13th centuries when the Islamic works began to be translated into Latin.
Jorge Stolfi 04:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have independently arrived at the same conclusion, and having checked this talk page and found a confirmation I'm removing the reference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I deleted nonsense about his name. Google reveals he didn't have an umlaut "ö". Only four hits use it, all of them in English. Over 5000 hits in German show his name as "Hohenheim". Martg76 23:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The passage states that Paracelsus is credited with the creation of the terms "chemistry," "gas" and "alcohol." This appears to be a direct quote from the foreword to "The Hermetic Writings of Paracelsus, Vol. I" by A.E. Waite (pg. 6). However, this statement is at odds with two other sources who credit Jan Baptista van Helmont for the introduction of the term gas. The first is from "The History of Chemistry" by Sir Thomas Edward Thorpe (pg. 63) and the second is from an article titled "The Dawn of Science" by T Padmanabhan The Dawn of Science. In addition, I did a word search through both volumes of Waite's translation of Paracelsus's writings, and I didn't find a single mention of the word gas. Does anyone have any further research that might clarify this issue? Jdlawlis (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Had to add significant milestones of his work and life. All of it formulated originally based on Swiss/German sources. I have found that English language sources for Paracelsus are often not exact enough and do not separate historical fact from fiction (but I gave some nevertheless). His travels to Asia and Africa are absolutely unproven. It is unlikely that he reached that far but rather was in contact with knowledge maybe transferred through invading armies from the East. What was not mentioned but can be historically verified, is his contact with Erasmus von Rotterdam and Frobenius. That this was not mentioned in his biography was shocking to me. Also, he was very much a folk oriented academic, also with social consequences when he once allied himself with rebellious farmers. He consulted controversial healers at the time, witches, women. That will be added when I have found correct sources. However, the comparison with Luther is indeed a bit sketchy. He was free enough to see Luther's constraints and of course he must have been negatively impressed by the already bloody battles that were fought in the name of religious denominations. In contrast to Luther, P. was a pure humanist and actually a reformed catholic rather than a protestant. Of course, this should not add to the schism of today but it is worthy of reflection. To what extend his contributions had impact on a social level, is very well discussed in the German edition. But nothing I have written was translated word by word. I am an adherent of his philosophies in as far we need to find new combinations, and to merely translate the sources does not serve a purpose. Jung's work on P. is also highly interesting because C.G. Jung studied original texts; a link to his book was therefore imperative. In my opinion, the picture of P. should also be changed. The current image is a romantic depiction of his appearance. There are indeed prints of his time that would reflect his looks in a more realistic way. The bust or statue respectively illustrated herein, which stand in his birthplace in Einsiedeln and Salzburg, are based on this original print. He was certainly not part of the noblesse, even though his name does imply that. Osterluzei (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article seems heavily dependent upon detractors and documents written by people who based their descriptions upon those of detractors. Some seem to be poor translations from German. For example, who called him a "habitual drinker"? What was the original reality that got turned into that English phrase in the article, when everyone still drank alcoholic beverages frequently because they were often safer than water? Was the original accusation more accurately along the lines that he was a drunkard or drank to excess? Should "soon garnered the anger of other physicians" and "gained a reputation for being arrogant" be inverted as to which came first? The very notion of relying on observation as opposed to book knowledge would have gained him that. There is less emphasis on the things he got right than the things his detractors said about him which is also given way too much credit as to its veracity. Hackwrench (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Several etymologies give him as the origin of the word 'bombast', after the middle name of a title of his. Anything to it? 86.128.125.209 (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is most probably wrong. "bombast" means "cotton padding", and "bombastic" came to mean "stuffed" or "inflated" in the 18th century. Paracelsus was never known as "Bombastus". His surname was "Bombastus von Hohenheim", but he mostly just used "von Hohenheim" and the full name would have had little currency, if any, in England, where he was simply known as Paracelsus. German bombastisch is a loan from 18th-century English and has nothing to do with Paracelsus. --dab (𒁳) 07:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

In the 'Philosophy' section, the text reads that Paracelsus "also invented an alphabet called the Alphabet of the Magi, for engraving angelic names upon talismans". This contains a link to the Wikipedia page on 'The Alphabet of the Magi', which contains the text "It is often claimed this alphabet was invented by Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim (known as Paracelsus) for the purpose of engraving angelic names upon talismans. This text is probably not by Paracelsus at all, and the Alphabet of the Magi is not found in any of his writings." I think that, like other aspects of the Paracelsus page cited by other commentators, this needs attention from an expert on the subject. Alistair C. Diamond (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The claim in this article is sourced, the claim in the other article is not. I'm giving exams for the next two weeks and have other stuff on my plate, but I'll try to make the other article more in line with this one and throw in any additional material from The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology and possibly The Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism (p.928 for my own reference or anyone else with a copy). In its current form, the other article is a mess and I'm not sure it can stand on its own. The Alphabet of the Magi may well come from one of the spurious works attributed to him, but I'd have to hunt down what work the Alphabet of the Magi was originally in (which would take a little longer). This can be tricky, as primary sources are often discouraged. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, I created the page for Archidoxis magica now. This cannot be treated as a work of Paracelsus without further qualification. It is at best a "Paracelsianist" merley based on a possible nucleus of genuine Paracelsian writing.

Primary sources are welcome for direct quotations etc., but their assessment must be left to scholarly secondary references. Fortunately, Paracelsus is so well researched that finding these is extremely easy, it's just a lot of work. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Comment: I have removed the (dubious) claim about Paracelsus inventing the alphabet of the Magi. If someone has any information on it which I can't find, please let me know.

Regards, Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Deji Olajide1999: it's pseudo-Paracelsian. As pointed out in Alphabet of the Magi, the alphabet makes an appearance in the spurious work Archidoxis magica. If you want to know more, the sources cited in the latter article are probably a good place to start. Actually, there are a lot of Paracelsian works that were falsely attributed to Paracelsus himself, and I do think that these deserve to be described in a separate section of this article, but your current removal was a good one (Paracelsus did not invent it, and it should not be ascribed to Paracelsus himself anyway). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah I see. Thanks for pointing it out; I was a bit confused because I didn't know where this info came from. (also, I 100% agree on a separate section). Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The revisions of the last two years have been excellent. There were some genuine, academic entries made that are very well placed, and referring to the sources even with his obvious statement "the dose makes the poison" from his 3rd defense. I allowed myself to place a genuine prescription in original for people to enjoy, but please don't try it on yourself, clinical trials at the time were very spotty and much influenced by the "bombast" of the physician. Also could someone mention the "homunculus" that was also used first by him to describe the artificial human at the time? (73.96.63.246 (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC))Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paracelsus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013151336/http://sunny.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de:8080/FAM?PPN=492088861 to http://sunny.biblio.etc.tu-bs.de:8080/FAM?PPN=492088861

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is a discrepancy between the english and german version of this article. The english claims his full name to be "Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim", while the german site calls it a misnomer "fälschlich auch Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim genannt" (fälschlich = wrongly).

I suspect the german Wiki to have more credibility regarding persons of german (also swiss) origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:EB61:A700:C020:3521:FB9A:F629 (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Changed 1493/4 to 1493/1494 because I think it looks better. I also changed "Paracelsus (/ˌpærəˈsɛlsəs/; 1493/4 – 24 September 1541), born Theophrastus von Hohenheim (full name Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim), was a Swiss physician, alchemist, and astrologer of the German Renaissance." to this :Paracelsus(...;1493/1494...)...an alchemist, a lay theologian, and a philosopher ... He was not considered a cosmographer, a mathematician, or an astronomer. AshleyPruett18 (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)AshleyPruett18Reply

Changed He settled in Salzburg in 1524 but had to leave in the following year due to his support of the German Peasants' War. In 1525, he was active at the University of Freiburg.[citation needed] to After visiting his father at Villach and finsing no local opportunity to practise, he settled in Salzburg in 1524. Since 1519/20 he had been working on his first medical writings, and he now completed Elf Tarktat and Volumen medicinae Paramirum, which describe eleven common maladies and their treatment and his early medical principles. In the following year, he had to leave to support the the German Peasants' War. In 1525, he was active at the University of Freiburg.[citation needed]. I think the paragpah has a flow of why he settled and what he did before he went to the war. Kp3td (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)(UTC) Kp3tdReply

I have added more details and reworked some of the sentences to provide more detail about what Paracelsus did in his early life. I am going to first add this sentence (During his return to Villach and working on his first medical writings, "he contemplated many fundamental issues such as the meaning of life and death, health, the causes of disease (internal imbalances or external forces), the place of humans in the world and in the universe, and the relationship between humans (including himself) and God".) after this sentence ("Since 1519/20 he had been working on his first medical writings, and he now completed Elf Tarktat and Volumen medicinae Paramirum, which describe eleven common maladies and their treatment, and his early medical principles".) Kp3td (talk) 3:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)(UTC) Kp3td

I have also decided to change these sentences: Between 1517 and 1524, he worked as a military surgeon, in Venetian service in 1522. In this capacity he travelled widely across Europe, and possibly as far as Constantinople.[25][26]

Changed to: "Paracelsus sought a universal knowledge that was not found in books or facilities" thus, between 1517 and 1524, he embarked on a series of extensive travels around Europe. His wanderings led him from Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, England, Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Croatia, to Rhodes, Constantinople, and possibly even, Egypt. During this period of travel, Paracelsus enlisted as an army surgeon and was involved in the wars waged by Venice (Italy), Holland (Netherlands), Denmark, and the Tartars (Russia). Then Paracelsus returned home, in 1524, from his travels. Kp3td (talk) 3:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)(UTC) Kp3td

I am going to remove the last two sentences of the paragraphs in the early career section because I couldn't find sources to back them up. In the following year, he had to leave to support the German Peasants' War. In 1525, he was active at the University of Freiburg. [citation needed]Kp3td (talk) 9:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)(UTC) Kp3td

I am adding some information about his views on the elements:

He often viewed fire as the Firmament that sat between air and water in the heavens. Paracelsus often uses an egg to help describe the elements. In his early model he claimed that air surrounded the world like an egg shell. The next element in his egg analogy is fire. Fire has a type of chaos to it that allows it to hold up earth and water, and this makes it like the egg white beneath the shell. The earth and water make up a globe which, in terms of the egg, is the yolk. In De Meteoris,Paracelsus says that the firmament is the heavens. He changes the way he thinks of the elements as his life goes on. AshleyPruett18 (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why in the second sentence do we say what he is not regarded as?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

   Borzelleca F. J. Toxicological Sciences, January 2000, Volume 53, Issue 1, Pages 2-4.
   Pagel W., Parcelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance, December 1982, Pages 54-57.
   Jacobi J., Paracelsus - Selected Writings, 1995, Princeton University Press, Pages 71-73.
   Hanegraaf W., Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, 1493-1541), December 2007, Brill, Pages 509-511.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSAN1417 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply 

Britannica and other sources have his birth at 11 November or 17 December 1493. Any reason why we don't show this information? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are many conflicting reports on his birth date. For example the Oxford University Press [1] has his birth at 10 or 14 November 1493. Pagel (1958) says he was born in “in the last third of 1493” [2] while Schaller (1993) give his birth date at “November 1493 (or 1494, or 1490 or 1491” [3]. I believe that a note would be more appropriate. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks for that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Didn't Paracelsus credit some of his discoveries to others or was that someone else? LostInHistoria (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply