Postface 2, no date (1581), Gerhard Dorn to the Reader (BP185)
| Author: | Gerhard Dorn |
| Recipient: | Reader |
| Type: | Postface |
| Date: | no date |
| Place: | 1581 |
| Pages: | 6 |
| Language: | Latin |
| Quote as: | https://www.theatrum-paracelsicum.com/index.php?curid=2054 |
| Editor: | Edited by Julian Paulus |
| Source: | Gerhard Dorn, Fasciculus Paracelsicae medicinae, Frankfurt am Main: Johann Spieß 1581, f. 145r-147v [BP185]
|
| CP: | Not in Kühlmann/Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum |
| Translation: | Raw translation see below |
| Abstract: | The author argues that Paracelsus' writings offer a valuable resource for anyone interested in maintaining and restoring their health, as well as for doctors and other professionals. The text also defends Paracelsus against his critics, who accuse him of being a heretic and an infidel. The author explains that Paracelsus used figurative language and that his critics misunderstood his teachings. The author urges readers to approach Paracelsus' work with an open mind and philosophical modesty. The text concludes by arguing that Paracelsus' teachings are relevant to the present day and can help readers achieve a deeper understanding of the nature of life and the universe. (generated by Chat-GPT) |
| Back to Paratexts Back to Texts by Gerhard Dorn |
[f. 145r] Conclvsio.
Compendiolo hoc omne comprehenditur, quod ex Paracelsi scriptis hactenus extare scimus, ad medicinam chemicam necessarium, vt ex eo tanquam ex promptuario quodam habere Lector optimè valeas, quicquid in vsum tibi ac alijs venire posse iudicabis, vt semper opus non sit ad quoslibet autoris libros concurrere, sed vbique locorum ad manum habeas, & quocunque etiam ieris, leue pondus hoc minimè pœnitendum deferre queas. Thesaurus est enim thesauro nullo vnquam redimendus, ad vitam longam sanam tuendam & recuperandam vberrimus & non exhaustibilis. Qui nedum ipsos medicos, verumetiam quoscunque & cuiuslibet professionis viros, suæ sanitatis ac aliorum studiosos oblectare debeat, cùm ob raritatem & soliditatem doctrinæ, tum etiam vtilitatem, quæ hinc obtingere cuiq́ue potest, nulla vel pauca saltem impensa, his qui sumptibus supplere nequeunt, opulentis verò satis ampla materia datur, & occasio charitatem in pauperes ægros exercendi, dum, quæ his ob indigentiam denegantur, illi suis opibus parare studuerint, ac egenis subuenire necessitatibus ægrotantium. Nec in tam honesto prorsumq́ue philosophico studio, iucundi minus exercitij reperient, quàm in ociosis horis, vel alio mundano quouis oblectamento falsis, imò longè plus deleciarum in animo sentient, quàm credere valeant. Quò faciliùs & alacriùs proinciam hanc aggrediantur, cuncta quæ difficiliora paratu vel intellectu videbantur, pro viribus exposui, vt nulla sit ansa conquerendi inposterum, quod olim de obscuritate rei, tum etiam in vnum ex multis redegi, quò singula singulis comparari queant, præsertim quòd vnum per aliud exponatur, id facilè factu non erat, si dispersa varijs locis, & interserta multis, tanquam in confusione permansissent. Verùm admonitum Lectorem velim interim, ne voces peregrinas passim occurrentes, [f. 145v] aliter quàm definitæ sunt interpretetur, quod multi facere consueuerunt, alioqui si ad Græcam phrasim exponat, (cui etsi consonare quodammodo videantur) toto cœlo aberrare continget ab autoris sententia, qui nihil vnquam in vita magis detestatus est, quam Græcas traditiones, nulla (vt opinor) alia de causa, quàm vt passim ex eius scriptis apparet, sibi persuasum esset, Græcos fuisse mendaciorum primos inuentores, & bonarum artium omnium corruptores. Et quia istorum, ac aliorum infidelium errores, ab his per vniuersum dispersos, reprehendit, sectatores Græcorum ne infidelitatis aut falsitatis dicantur discipuli, conantur sophisticis argumentationibus reddere Paracelsum infidelem, ad hunc modum: Paracelsus (inquiunt) creationem factam esse asserit in momento, & per separationem ex mysterio magno increato, ac si aliquid extitisset priùs ex quo Deus omnia condidisset, quod pugnat cum sacris scripturis omnibus, item deos somniat vicarios vt infideles, imò detestabiliùs: concludunt inde ex non probatis propositionibus, ipsum esse peiorem illis. Sed vnde constat Paracelsum talia protulisse? Extrant verba (inquiunt) interim fatentur se non aliter quam ex verbis intelligere iuxta literam. Paracelsus omnia sua fermè tradit per ænigmata, quæ quicunque non intelligit, etiam non taxet priusquam intelligat, ne fortè reprehendat, quod illi postmodum cedat in maximam ignominiam. Hac de causa volui nonnulla declarare, quò videant æquo preaditi iudicio Lectores, quanta præter omnem æquitatem inuidi Gigantes hunc virum afficiant iniuria, qui minùs prudenter impium, sacrilegum, ardelionem, sycophantam, hæreticum, & si quid peius dici valeat, appellant, etiam post mortem, cui viuenti ne minimum istorum ausi fuerunt vnquam, ita mortuis bellum parant, quos respondere posse non credunt. Interea tamen turpiter sese produnt hoc ipso non esse bonos, neque meliores quàm illum fuisse volunt, qui sic in conuitia mox, etiam in mortuos erumpunt, quæ hæc est pietas, quæ religio, quæ probitas, quæ sapien- [f. 146r] tia, quæ philosophica continentia? Sed quid obstabit quò minùs talia perpetrent in homines, qui nec Deo nec disciplinæ Ecclesiasticæ morem gerunt, quantò minùs Philosophicæ? Videant isti quid Paracelsus doceat in expositionibus Euangeliorum, Psalterij, aliorumq́ue sacrorum librorum, si tamen intelligant, si mereatur ab impudico ac temerario ore vocari hæreticus. At vereor ne seipsos condemnent. Si conuitijs conuitia refellere decorum esset apud doctos viros, putant ne calamos reperiri posse suis multò petulantiores, vt pro vnico mille retribuerent maiore cum temeritate. Verùm quid aliud hoc est, quàm seipsum ridendum ppræbere etiam idiotis, eisq́ue ansam dare iudicandi non alia ratione, nisi quia deficerent argumenta veritatis, ad calumnias diuertere sophistas omnes? Agant verbis Philosophia dignis & sapientia, non argutis. Si mentem Paracelsi non intelligant, en pro viribus ingenij declaraui in mysterio magno increato, libro quem de luce naturæ inscripsi, pariter hoc loco quæ sit homunculi sui generatio. Audiamus quidnam ad eam opinionem adferant vel opponant, cum philosophica modestia, si quam habere putant, vel didicerunt. Nec deesset voluntas, modò non otium, cuncta quæ magnis voluminibus implicarunt figmenta, in Paracelsum perperam excogitata, simplici admodum ac facili sermone haudquaquam sophistico refellere, sed quis tempus inutiliter, ac in vanis potissimùm argutijs refutandis sibi deperijsse cupit[c1]? Satis conuicti sunt hoc vnico mysterio magno Athenienses, & homunculo gigantes adhuc, donec impetum faciant in hoc mysterium adeo magnum, ac maius quàm ferre valeant eorum ingenia. Siccine decet non intellecta carpere, vt momento labatur omnis arguta sapientia tanto tempore comparata? Tacendum potiùs quàm præcipiti lingua debacchandum, & meritò tandem audiendum quod inferre conatum est alteri. Non libenter in alium spontè feror, qui priùs nominatim non aggreditur, maioremq́ue mihi in retundendis iniurijs modestiam optarem. [f. 146v] Sed quis vel Angelus hæc audiat, cui non commoueatur bilis? Ardelionum, sycophantarum, hæreticorum appellationes, non nisi à similibus hominibus vsurpatæ sunt, qui nimirum, vel idiotarum more, vel ebriosorum iracundia quicquid in buccam venit, effutiunt. Quid verò de his qui talia committere prælo non erubescunt, iudicandum est? Interea docti videri ac dici volunt, sed qua doctrina potiore quàm idiotarum? Non ardeliones neque sycophantas Paracelsus vocauit priscos medicos Græcos & infideles, at solummodo pseudomedicos, & erroneos, ac talia quæ tolerari quadantenus possent, causis tamen redditis veris, non argutis, cur idipsum fecerit, Si quæ duriora, protulit non tam in ipsos, quàm in sectatores, qui sic in verba suorum magistrorum iurarunt, vt reluctari veritati studiose malint, quam sui præceptoris manifestum errorem confiteri: tales sunt in quod potissimùm inuehitur, & quos videbat suam patriam, in Græciam transinutare proprijs neglectis atque reiectis, imò ex varietate rerum intricatum contexere labyrinthum. Non quod varietatem rerum contemnat, quæ summè propter eum qui condidit veneranda est: In ea siquidem nobis vbertatem suæ liberalitatis erga nos maximè relucere voluit, idq́ue magis quò attentiùs ac diligentiùs scrutaremur. At in hac vniuersitate quis vnum abditum videre nititur? quis operam dare vt intelligat? Deum autrem esse pacis, vnionis, & concoriæ, tum in multitudine confusionem esse nullam velle? Non ideo multa variaq́ue largitus est nobis, vt confunderemus, at potiùs vt profunditatem immensæ multitudinis, ex vnico simplissimoq́ue fonte consideraremus ortam, ac intelilgeremus, quò gratiæ donum hoc omne ipsi soli & vni feramus acceptum. Quicunque igitur vnum omnia vnum, intellexerit esse vitam omnium, & econtrà duo multa duo, mortem adferre cunctis, perfectus erit philosophus physicus atque medicus. Quid multis igitur est opus in medicina, cuius finis & scopus est vnum videlicet, vt à morte vita protegatur per vnum, & non per multa? Quo [f. 147r] tandem medio inquies? Si putas id per multitudinem in dualitate fieri posse, falleris, quia per inimicum pacem quæris, quæ solùm consistit in vnione multitudinis. Hanc verò non priùs intelliges, quàm mysterium magnum increatum probè cognitum habeas, quod adhuc tam enormiter in Paracelso persecutus es. Verùm quid inde rediturum ad te speras emolumenti, præterquam contra stimulum veritatis calcitrasse quandoque perciplas? Non videmus quid te remoretur aliud ab amplexu veræ medicinæ præter vanam ambitionem. Vereris enim ea semel retractare, quæ per totam vitam professus es, etsi maximè scias inutilia, ac in perditionem exitum facere. Honestus pudor ab errore desistere, diabolicus honor, qui cum errore cinseruatur. Multi vestrum mutarunt sententiam, attestante veritatem conscientia, nec priusquam tamen experientia didicerint. Verùm adhuc veritatem detinent, vel quòd cum cæteris vereantur fateri palam, quod olim publicè detestati sunt, vel quia suos collegas offensos nolunt: in summa detinet omnes, quòd ex doctoribus fieri discipuli nolint, cùm tamen optime sciant, quantumcunque sapientibus in foueam vsque discendum esse, quia sapientiæ nullus est finis. Fatentur Paracelsum fuisse excellentissimum repurgatorem medicamentorum, non inuentorem, at medicum esse non patiuntur neque physicum eum qui medicinam & physicam pudefecit. Quid mirum? non est amicus noster, qui nostra palam facit, quæ contecta volumus. Nunquam inuentorem se protulit fuisse eius artis quam professus fuit, quin potiùs honorem hunc detulit Arabibus & Aegyptijs. Audio quid vellent, Paracelsum nempe sibi fore famulum in repurgandis medicamentis, at benè soli tantisper domum à visitationibus redibunt, donec id fiat. Sed ipsimet inseruiant potiùs illi, quo metallicas virtutes elicere discant, suis Græcis ignotum doctoribus, alioqui hac de re etiam disseruissent, vti de vegetabilibus, quorum vires vnà cum corruptis corporibus, non aliter quàm alimenta deuorare docent [f. 147v] in sua medicina. Sed quis vel mediocriter physicus ignorat veram medicinam præcipuè vitam alere debere, coquinam verò maximè corpus? Hac ratione Paracelsus Galenum longè superat, quòd iste teneris edulijs ac potibus solidum corpus ægri nutriat, ille verò contra duris metallis spiritus vitæ raros instauret ac foueat. Totius huius disputationis conclusio est. Quia Græci sibiipsis medicinæ munus atque totum officium adscripserunt, naturea verò nihil, euanuerunt in suis cogitationibus. Contra Paracelsus hoc omne tribuit naturæ, & medicum huius ministrum facit, vnde super petram fundatus, violentos aduersariorum suorum impetus non metuit.
English Raw Translation
Generated by ChatGPT on 5 April 2023. Attention: This translation is a machine translation by artificial intelligence. The translation has not been checked and should not be cited without additional human verification.
Conclusion.
This small book, known to us so far from the writings of Paracelsus, comprehends everything necessary for chemical medicine, so that the reader can have it as a kind of compendium and have at hand whatever they judge to be useful for themselves and others, without the need to consult any other books. This is not only useful for doctors, but also for anyone interested in their health and that of others. Due to the rarity and solidity of the doctrines presented, as well as the potential benefits that can be obtained, this book should not only entertain, but also educate and provide ample material for the wealthy to exercise charity towards the poor and sick.
Moreover, this philosophical pursuit is not only rewarding, but also more enjoyable than any other worldly pleasure, and the author has presented even the most difficult aspects of the subject matter in a way that is accessible to all. However, the reader should be warned not to interpret foreign words that may be encountered in a different way than their defined meaning, as many are prone to do. If one attempts to translate them into Greek, it may lead them far away from the author's intended message, as he detested Greek traditions and believed them to be the creators of lies and corruptors of all good arts.
And because Paracelsus reproves the errors of these and other unbelievers scattered throughout the world, the followers of the Greeks try to argue with sophistical arguments that Paracelsus is an unbeliever, so as not to be called disciples of unbelief or falsehood. They say in this way: "Paracelsus asserts that creation was made in a moment and by separation from the great uncreated mystery, as if something had existed before from which God created all things, which conflicts with all sacred scriptures. He also dreams of vicarious gods like an unbeliever, or rather more detestably. From these unproven propositions, they conclude that he is worse than those (the Greeks)." But from where is it evident that Paracelsus put forth such things? They extract words, they say, but they admit that they understand them only literally. Paracelsus delivers nearly all his teachings through enigmas, which whoever does not understand should not criticize before understanding, lest they later fall into great ignominy. For this reason, I wanted to clarify some things so that readers may see with an unbiased judgment how much injustice envious giants afflict this man, who less wisely call him impious, sacrilegious, a charlatan, a sycophant, a heretic, and anything worse, even after his death, to whom they never dared to say the least of these things while he was alive. Thus, even in death, they wage war on the dead whom they do not believe capable of responding. Meanwhile, they shamefully show themselves not to be good, nor better than the one they want to call such names, who immediately burst into invectives even against the dead, what kind of piety, what kind of religion, what kind of honesty, what kind of wisdom, what kind of philosophical restraint is this? But what will prevent them from committing such things against men who do not behave according to God or the discipline of the Church, much less according to philosophy? Let them see what Paracelsus teaches in his expositions of the Gospels, the Psalms, and other sacred books, if indeed they understand and if he deserves to be called a heretic by a shameless and rash mouth. But I fear that they will condemn themselves. If it were fitting for learned men to refute insults with insults, do they think that their pens could not be found much more audacious to repay a thousand for one with even greater rashness?
This is nothing but to make oneself ridiculous even to idiots, and to give them a reason to judge only because they lack arguments of truth, to divert all sophists to calumnies. Let them act with words worthy of philosophy and wisdom, not with clever arguments. If they do not understand Paracelsus' mind, behold, I have explained to the best of my ability in the "Great Uncreated Mystery," a book I have titled "The Light of Nature," and also in this place what the generation of his homunculus is. Let us hear what they bring forth or oppose to that opinion with philosophical modesty, if they think they have it or have learned it. And there is no shortage of willingness, only leisure. I would easily and plainly refute all the fabrications that have been mistakenly concocted against Paracelsus, which have entangled great volumes, not at all sophistically but rather in very simple language. But who desires to waste their time in useless and especially vain arguments to refute such things? Athenians were sufficiently convicted by this single "Great Mystery," and giants by the homunculus, until they launch an attack on this mystery so great and larger than their own intellects can bear. Is it fitting to criticize things not understood so that all clever wisdom acquired over so much time falls apart in a moment? It is better to remain silent than to babble with a hasty tongue, and finally, to listen to what the other has attempted to infer. I am not willingly inclined towards another who does not first approach me by name, and I would rather have greater modesty in blunting insults. But who, even an angel, could hear these things without being stirred to anger? The appellations of impious, deceitful, heretical, etc., are used only by similar people who, either like idiots or in the anger of the drunken, spew out whatever comes to their mouths.
What then is to be judged of those who do not hesitate to commit such things in print? Meanwhile, they want to appear and be called learned, but by what doctrine more worthy than that of fools? Paracelsus did not call the ancient Greek and infidel doctors "dunces" or "sycophants", but only "pseudo-doctors" and "erroneous", and such things as could be tolerated to some extent, but with true reasons given, not clever ones, why he did so. If he brought up anything harsher, it was not so much against the doctors themselves as against their followers, who swore so studiously to the words of their masters that they would rather resist the truth than confess their teacher's obvious error. Such people are those against whom he inveighs most, and whom he saw leaving their own country and crossing into Greece, weaving a tangled labyrinth out of their own confused ideas. Not that he despises variety, which is highly venerable for the one who created it, since in it he wanted us to see more clearly and carefully the abundance of his generosity towards us. But who tries to see one hidden thing in this universality? Who tries to understand it? Does not God want to be the God of peace, unity, and harmony, and not to have confusion in the multitude? He has not given us many and various things so that we may be confused, but rather so that we may consider the depth of the immense multitude that has arisen from a single and simple source, and understand that we alone and only we should receive all this gift of grace. Therefore, whoever understands that one is the life of all and, conversely, that two is the death of all, will be a perfect philosopher, physicist, and physician. What, then, is the need for many things in medicine, whose end and goal is only one, namely, to protect life from death through one means, not many? What means, you ask? If you think it can be done through a multitude in duality, you are mistaken, because you seek peace through an enemy, which can only be found in the union of the multitude.
But you will not understand this until you have a thorough understanding of the great uncreated mystery, which you have so greatly persecuted in Paracelsus. But what profit do you hope to gain from this, except to sometimes kick against the goads of truth? We do not see what else besides vain ambition is holding you back from embracing true medicine. For you fear retracting what you have professed throughout your life, even though you know it to be useless and leading to ruin. It is an honest shame to cease from error, but a diabolical honor to be surrounded by it. Many of you have changed your minds, attesting to the truth of your conscience, but not until you have learned from experience. But they still hold on to the truth, either because they are afraid to openly confess what they once publicly detested, or because they do not want to offend their colleagues. In short, they all hold on to the fact that they do not want to become students from their fellow doctors, even though they know very well that even the wisest must learn continuously, because there is no end to wisdom. They acknowledge that Paracelsus was an excellent purifier of medicines, not an inventor, but they do not allow him to be called a physician or a physicist because he has stained both medicine and physics. What is surprising about this? He is not our friend who exposes what we want to keep hidden. He never claimed to be the inventor of the art he professed, but rather attributed this honor to the Arabs and Egyptians. I hear what they wanted, namely to have Paracelsus as their servant in purifying medicines, but they will return home alone until it is done. But they should rather learn from him how to extract the metallic virtues, which are unknown to their Greek teachers, otherwise they should also discuss this matter, as they do with plants, whose powers they teach to nourish the body, along with corrupted substances, in their medicine. But who, even moderately skilled in physics, does not know that true medicine should mainly nourish life, while the kitchen mainly nourishes the body? In this way, Paracelsus far surpasses Galen, because the latter nourishes the sick person's body with tender food and drink, while the former restores and nourishes the rare spirits of life with hard metals. The conclusion of this entire discussion is that the Greeks assigned the task and entire function of medicine to themselves, while nature was forgotten in their thoughts. On the other hand, Paracelsus attributes all of this to nature and makes the physician her servant, and thus founded on a rock, he does not fear the violent attacks of his adversaries.
