Preface, no date (1571), Thomas Erastus to the Reader (BP.Erastus.1571-01)
| Author: | Thomas Erastus |
| Recipient: | Reader |
| Type: | Preface |
| Date: | no date [1571] |
| Place: | no place |
| Pages: | 2 |
| Language: | Latin |
| Quote as: | https://www.theatrum-paracelsicum.com/index.php?curid=2754 |
| Editor: | Edited by Julian Paulus |
| Source: | Thomas Erastus, Disputationum de medicina nova Philippi Paracelsi pars prima, Basel: Pietro Perna [1571], sig. β1r-β1v [BP.Erastus.1571-01]
|
| Translation: | Raw translation see below |
| Abstract: | Erastus explains his intent to refute Paracelsus' doctrines, not out of complete condemnation, but in an effort to distinguish the plausible from the absurd. Despite criticizing Paracelsus' concepts as often false or contradictory, Erastus commends his dedication to preparing medications. He states his intention to discuss these remedies further and defends the skillful preparation of treatments. Erastus also asserts that Paracelsus' writings are self-refuting, and he only addresses the most intolerable aspects. He concludes with an assurance that his critique aims to eliminate doubt and is guided by Philosophy and Sacred Scriptures. (generated by Chat-GPT) |
| Back to Paratexts Back to Texts by Thomas Erastus |
[sig. β1r] Aeqvo candidoq́ve lectori s[alvtem] d[icit] Thomas Erastvs.
Noli putare, candide Lector, nos, dum absurda, inaudita, pernitiosa, & impia Paracelsi dogmata refellimus, simul etiam condemnare, & vituperare, quæ rectè ab eo scripta dictáue perspeximus. Quanquam[c1] enim in eius scriptis perpauca nobis inuenire licuit, quæ probari possint, studium tamen & diligentiam, quam in præparatione medicamentorum certorum adhibuit, nequaquam reprehendimus, sed vehementer commendamus. Præclarè scimus, ipsum artis Distillatoriæ inuentorem non esse. Scimus non minus, remedia, quibus vsus est, ab eo excogitata non fuisse. Laude nihilominus eum sua frustratum non velmus: dum artem Præparandi & distillandi quasi reuocare ad vsum conatus fuit. Quod si hoc solum tentauisset, immortalem sibi apud omnes bonos laudem comparauisset. Dum verò & aliena & non intellecta iniustè, inscitè, impiè conuellere voluit, & pro veris falsa, pro certis incerta, pro rebus somnia, pro pijs & concessis impia scelerataq́ue substituere studuit, tolerari amplius non debuit. Sed de artis Distillatoriæ vsu, & remedijs Paracelsi tum vtilibus, tum noxijs, suo deinde loco, adiuuante Christo Domino, disseremus: in præsentia hoc solum te monere voluimus, nos remediorum artifiosam præparationem non solum non damnare, sed vehementer laudare & prædicare: modo & naturæ corporum nostrorum non aduersentur nimium, & recta veraq́ue methodo vsurpentur. Alterum, quod te rogo, Lector candide, hoc est, ne putes me adeo desipere, quasi Paracelsum vel mea, vel abiectioris ho- [sig. β1v] muncionis refutationis dignum censeam. Tam sunt enim falsa, imò fatua & insulsa, quæ scripsit, vt se ipsa confutent saits. Taceo quod ita secum author vbique pugnat, vt intelligentes non opus habeant oppugnatore alio. Ego quoque non refello omnia, quæ ab eo inscitè falseq́ue sint scripta, sed ea solum examino, quæ prorsus intolerabilia videntur: & ex quorum explicatione fructus aliquis ad Lectorem rediturus videatur. Equidem multa in eius libris reperies, quæ refellere pudens homo nullus velit. Et dubitatum iam olim fuit, vter sit absurdior, qui ridicula & absurda dicit, an qui oratione longiore impugnat. Operam in hac parte prima diligenter dedi, vt ex veris Philosophiæ fontibus propositum demonstrarem, atque Sacrarum literarum euidentibus testimonijs, quibus contradicere nil est alius, quam contra stimulum calcitrare, corroborarem. Sententias aliquando plures ex Paracelsi libris transscripsi, non sine nausea: verum ob id feci, vt, qui adhuc ambigunt, hæsitare desinant. Vale.
English Raw Translation
Generated by ChatGPT-4 on 11 July 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.
Greetings to the fair and candid reader, says Thomas Erastus.
Do not think, kind Reader, that while we refute the absurd, unheard of, pernicious, and impious doctrines of Paracelsus, we simultaneously condemn and criticise what we have clearly seen to be rightly written or spoken by him. Although we have found very little in his writings that can be approved, we do not denounce the dedication and diligence he demonstrated in the preparation of certain medications, but strongly commend it. We know well that he was not the inventor of the art of distillation. We equally know that the remedies he used were not conceived by him. Nevertheless, we do not wish to deny him his due praise: he tried to bring back the art of preparation and distillation to practical use. If he had only attempted this, he would have earned immortal fame among all good men. However, when he unjustly, ignorantly, and impiously wanted to criticize and replace both what is foreign and what he did not understand, as well as to substitute falsehoods for truths, uncertainties for certainties, dreams for realities, and sacrilegious and wicked things for pious and accepted ones, he could not be tolerated any longer. But of the use of the art of distillation, and of Paracelsus' remedies, both beneficial and harmful, we will, with the help of Christ the Lord, discuss in their proper place: at present we only wanted to warn you that we not only do not condemn the skillful preparation of remedies, but strongly praise and advocate it: provided they do not excessively oppose the nature of our bodies, and are used in a correct and true method. The other thing, I ask of you, kind Reader, is this, do not think that I am so foolish as to consider Paracelsus worthy of refutation by me, or a more insignificant man. For his writings are so false, in fact foolish and insipid, that they refute themselves. Not to mention that the author fights against himself everywhere, so that intelligent people do not need another opponent. I too do not refute everything he has ignorantly and falsely written, but only examine those things that seem utterly intolerable: and from whose explanation some benefit seems to be returned to the Reader. Indeed, you will find many things in his books that no decent man would want to refute. And it has long been doubted whether it is more absurd, the one who says ridiculous and absurd things, or the one who contests them with a long speech. I have diligently given my efforts in this first part to demonstrate my proposal from the true sources of Philosophy, and to confirm it with the clear testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures, to oppose which is nothing else than to kick against the goad. I have sometimes transcribed several sentences from Paracelsus' books, not without disgust: but I did it so that those who are still doubting, may stop hesitating. Farewell.
