Preface, no date (1569/70), Pierre Hassard to the Reader (BP114)

Author:	Pierre Hassard
Recipient:	Reader
Type:	Preface
Date:	1569/70
Place:	Bruxelles
Pages:	7
Language:	French

Quote as:

https://www.theatrum-paracelsicum.com/index.php?curid=2107

Editor:	Edited by Julian Paulus
Source:	Paracelsus, De la peste, et de ces causes et accidents, ed. Pierra Hassard, Antwerpen: Christophe Plantin 1570, p. 10-16 [BP114]

CP:	Not in Kühlmann/Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum

Translation:

Raw translation see below

Abstract:

In this text, the author defends his translation of a work and addresses criticism from an individual named Leo Suauius or J.G.P. The author argues that their critic lacks understanding of the original language and the intentions of the original author, leading to inaccurate and baseless criticisms. The author also mentions other scholars, like Adam von Bodenstein and Gerhard Dorn, who have defended the translation against the critic's accusations. The author emphasizes the complexity and difficulty of translating the original work, as it deals with deep philosophical and medical principles, and asks the reader to consider these challenges. He expresses frustration with the critic's delicate and easily offended nature, arguing that they should first learn the original language and understand the intentions of the original author before making judgments. In response to specific criticisms, the author provides examples to demonstrate his understanding and proper translation of the original work. He advises the reader to beware of ostentatious philosophers who, due to their lack of judgment and knowledge, corrupt and obscure the works of good philosophers. (generated by Chat-GPT)

Back to Paratexts Back to Texts by Pierre Hassard

[p. 10] Le translatevr av lectevr.

En la presente traduction (ami Lecteur) i’ay vsé, comme pourras veoir, de la plus grande facilité qu’il ma esté poßible; desirant affectueusement que chacun y proufitast: & s’il te semble que ie n’aye abserué si diligemment la loy & proprieté de bien traduire comme beaucoup d’autres qui en font profeßion, ie te prie entre autres choses considerér que la phrase du langaige Alleman, & les liaysons sont bien fort differentes du François.

Si donc tu trouues mescontement en quelque periode mal sonante, veuille supportér mon imbecillité; t’aduertissant touteffois que ie ne me suis asserui, iusques a faire conscience, de voulloir rien perdre de l’intention de l’auteur.

Considere encores que la difficulté d’iceluy est de tant plus grande qu’il traicte chose plus ardue & difficile que nuls autres Philosophes & Medecin, soyent ils anciens ou modernes, d’autant qu’il accede plus à la diuine philosophie & vray but des choses naturelles & de leurs principes: comme amplement pourras veoir en ce traicté.

Ce que ie dis pource qu’auiourdhuy se trouuent tant de detracteurs & mesdisantz, voire des choses que iamais n’entendirent, que ce n’est chose seure de rien met- [p. 11] tre en lumiere soit par traduction ou aultrement: car ilz ont les aureilles tant delicaces que quasi à chacune lettre ou syllable ilz trouuent à s’offenser, & oultre cela ces pourparleurs sont farcis de beaucoup d’enuie & vaine gloire, & qui est le pis, se montrent par trop hardis à syndicquér, taxér, & reprendre les hommes bien renommez, tant pour leur sçauoir que pour leur vertu.

Comme il est aduenu d’vn entre les aultres, qui n’osant declarér son nom propre, s’est faict nommér, ou plust ost surnommér Leo Suauius, I. G. P. en son Abregé ou Compendium de Philosophie, comme il le baptise sur les œuures de Paracelsus: lequel semble plustost derision ou deprauation la oò non seulement il s’attache à moy en la traduction que i’ay faicte de la grande Chirurgie dudit Paracelsus: mais außi aux tresdoctes, & tressçauantz docteurs & Philosophes, discipes, & imitateurs dudit Paracelsus. Le Seigneur Adam Bodenstein, & Girard Dorn Allemanz, lequel Dorn a bra e nent respondu en son Apologie latine aux faulses accusations & calomnies de cest Alleman de Paris incogneu, ce que moins n’a faict ledict Bodensteinen vne epistre sur le liure des Degrez, Compositions, & doses de Paracelsus. De sorte que ce deburoit suffire pour conuaincre les friuoles de ce Philosophe neuf qui trouueroit à tondre sur vn œuf. Et me fusse passé d’embrouiller le papier, & perdre mon temprà luy respondre, n’eust esté que i’ay bien voulu monstrér á luy & a ses semblables qu’il [p. 12] deburoit premier apprendre la langue des Auteurs, sans qu’il fallut qu’il s’aidast de truchement ou interprete, peult estre encore de sa sorte, & de mesme qualibre. Secondement entendre l’intention & fondements d’iceux. Et außi que ie ne suis si ignare & stupide que ie ne me resnte bien de ses calomnies.

Pour venir donc à ce Suaue Zoile, delaissant beaucoup d’ineptes & friuoles propos qu’il ameine, & qui ne meritent qu’on en face lecture: ie respondrey seulement à deux ou trois poincts principaux (delaissant la reste bien defendue par le deuant-nommé Dorn) lesqueles autant s’en faut qu’il aye entendu, qu’il ya de difference entre les deux elementz Eau & Feu: außi ces choses n’ont esté escrites par Paracelsus, & aultres vrais Philosophes, sinon pour les enfantz de doctrine & Philosophie, comme dict Raimond Lulle en son Apertoire, & non pour les auares ambitieux & præsumptueux, desquelz faict souuent mention en diuers lieux nostre auteur Paracelsus.

Le premier point doncques ou erreur que nostre maistre corrigeart faict, en voulant reprendre tant Paracelse que ses imitateurs, est quand il s’esmerueille, comme il dict en son-dict Abregé, que nous n’auons entendu, que circultation doibt ensuiure, & non estre premiere. S’il regarde bien le texte, lequel comme vn Francois (& non Alleman) en nostre traduction il deburoit bien entendre, ou il est dict en la grande Chirurgie dudict Paracelsus en la premiere partie [p. 13] de la curation des vlceres au deuxiesme chapitre de l’extraction de l’esprit du vin: que le vin soit mis en vn vaisseau circulatoire en baing Mariæ &c. sans faire autre mention de circulér: mais s’entdend qu’illec se doibt preparer, digerér, & putrefiér, qui sont les operations qui doibuent precedér la Circulation, comme vn chacun bon esprit facillement pourra voir au chapitre ia allegué. Ce que nostre Alleman de Paris eust bien entendu s’il n’eust eu l’esprit si aliené de ce dequoy il se vante, sçauoir est, d’auoir traicté les distillations, & separé les selz &c.: comme il monstre plus amplement quant il veult niér que la distillation dudict esprit ne se peult faire au froid: il s’esmerueilleroit donc boen d’auantage, so on lui disoit d’extraire l’esprit du vin par la neige & glace, ce que nous auons plusieurs fois experimenté: & le monstrerons en nostre Hydromantie.

De l’autre poinct & difficulté ou il s’est offensé ie n’en suis esmerueillé, attendu que c’est le principal du mystere & secret de ceste philosophie, lequel ne peult estre comprins d’vn tel cerueau, car en cest endroict il monstre qu’il n’est Philosophe, Alchimiste, ne Medecin, mais semble mieux qu’il face profeßion de l’art d’Orfebure: voulant corrigér le texte de Paracelse au lieu præallegué, nous taxant d’ignorance que n’auons entendu (comme il dict) que ces trois nombres ainsi escritz 2. 4. 0. & distinguez par poinctz se doibuent prendre pour 24. asscauoir Caratz qu’il dict estre [p. 14] le plus hault degré de l’or fin selon le mestier d’orfebure, & qu’il y a faulte au texte. Chose la plus ridicule qui se pourroit ouir.

O grand Philosophe! certes tes escritz te declarent homme tresignorant des choses desquelles tu veux reprendre & criminér les autres: qui est l’enfrant d’escole si ignorant, qui vouldra prendre ces trois nombres distingués (selon l’art d’Arithmeticque) pour vn nombre des 24 constitué de deux figures? certes nul.

Nous disons doncques que Paracelsus au lieu preallegué entend par cela l’entiere perfection de l’œuuvre, c’est à dire, que la teincture paruient à telle parfection que l’esprit du vin se reduict à neant, & est transsubstantié en la vraye teincture de l’or: pourtant disent les philosophes que l’or ne teint poinct s’il n’est teinct, &c.

Et nous disons que l’esprit du vin se peut reduire en quelconque choses que l’on voudra, de sorte qu’il ne sera plus ce qu’il est oit &c. ce que Paracelsus a voulu monstrér par cest Enigme. 2. 4. 0. pource que apres ne sera nul &c. & ce ´sont les graduations des Philosophes, assçauoir quand la chose n’est plus ce qu’elle estoit, mais vne autre.

Ie declarerois ces choses plus amplement: sed digito compesco labellum; d’autant qu’il ne fault iettér les marguerites aux pourceaux.

Ces choses n’a entendu nostre Philosophastre I. G. P. Car Paracelsus a voulu occultér & couurir [p. 15] vn si grand arcane & mystere, comme il fait d’autres en plusieurs lieux, selon la coustume de tous bons Philosophes, affin que ne fussent entendus par les ineptes & idiotz, mais seulement des enfantz de vraye Philosophie: car telz secretz, comme dict Lullius, ne se doubuent reuelér aux ignares & insipientz. &c. D’ailleurs nous scauons que lesdictes trois figures ou nombres 2. 4.&nbsp.0. d’Arithmeticque doibuent ainse estre escritz & leus sans les prendre selon ta fabuleuse opinion pour lesdictz 24, que tu veux referér à caratz: car quelle conuenance peut auoir la Medecine auec tes caratz ou affinement de l’or s’il n’est reduit &c.

I’ay außi veu les exemplaires de la premiere, seconde, & tierce edition, & dauantage vn exemplare escrit, & dicté par ledit Paracelsus, lesquelz ont tout les mesmes nombres, & mis par tel ordre.

Tu dis encore en ton Abregé qu’il n’est poßible de bruslér l’or: regarde le vingtquatriesme chapitre de Vlstadius au Ciel des Philosophes, où il dict que l’or ne se peult corrompre par les quatre qualitez sinon par artifice, & non par nature. Et pource dict il, Celuy qui manifeste ceste science aux ignares, est mauldict &c.

Nous auons außi veu & cogneu vn Philosophe qui nous a monstré l’or reduict iusques à lea qu’il brusloit comme vne chandelle: ne s’esmerueille donc plus ce nostre corrigeart des choses qu’il n’entendit oncques.

Voile, ami lecteur, comme celuy qui se mesle de reprendre les autres, s’est oblié & esgaré en descouurant son [p. 16] ignorance, mais le vertuezx en son parles se dompte, et l’ignorant iamais ne se peult taire.

Il y a encore beaucoup d’autres menus & friuoles propos, ou ce Suaue Philosophe nous taxe & reprend de n’auoir bien traduict ladicte grande Chirurgie, dont ie ne m’esmerueille, veu que luy ne son truchement ou interprete n’ont entendu ladicte langue Allemande: mais le lecteur en lisant pourra facilement cognoistre son ineptie & futilité.

Außi le dessusdict Dorn nous a assez purgés & deffendus de ses calomnies en l’Apologie Latine qu’il a facite contre ce mesdisant .I.G.P. ou il respond si amplement à tout qu’on ne pourroit mieux.

Parqouy ie m’en deporte, & me suffit, amy lectuer, de t’auoir admonesté que tu te gardes de luy & de ses semblables Philosophes d’ostentation, lesquels soubs vmbre de vouloir explicquer & elucider les bons Philosophes, par faute de bon iugement & doctrine, les corrumpent, mutilent & obscursissent, au grand detriment de tous bons esprits desireux de paruenir à la cognoissance de la parfaicte & vraye Philosophie & Medecine.

Te suppliant qu’il te playse lire ce liure d’vn &oeilg;il bening & fauorable, sans recercher en iceluy grande eloquence, pour les causes deuant dictes. A Dieu te recommande.

Apparatus

Sources

Corrections

English Raw Translation

Generated by ChatGPT-4 on 20 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.

The translator to the reader.

In the present translation (dear Reader), I have used, as you will see, the greatest ease that was possible for me; wishing affectionately that everyone would profit from it. And if you think that I have not observed as diligently the law and propriety of good translation as many others who make it their profession, I ask you, among other things, to consider that the phrasing of the German language, and the connections, are very different from French.

If, therefore, you find dissatisfaction in some poorly sounding period, please bear with my weakness; however, be aware that I have not constrained myself, even to the point of conscience, to want to lose nothing of the author's intention.

Consider further that the difficulty of this work is all the greater as it deals with a more arduous and difficult subject than any other philosophers and physicians, whether ancient or modern, insofar as it approaches more closely the divine philosophy and true purpose of natural things and their principles: as you will be able to see extensively in this treatise.

I say this because today there are so many detractors and slanderers, even of things they never understood, that it is not safe to bring anything to light, either through translation or otherwise: for they have such delicate ears that they almost find offense in every letter or syllable, and in addition, these talkers are filled with much envy and vain glory, and what is worse, they show themselves to be too bold in criticizing, assessing, and reproaching well-renowned men, both for their knowledge and for their virtue.

As it happened with one among others, who, not daring to declare his own name, called himself, or rather nicknamed himself, Leo Suavius, I.G.P., in his Abridged or Compendium of Philosophy, as he baptizes it on the works of Paracelsus: which seems more like a derision or corruption where not only does he attach himself to me in the translation I made of the great Surgery of the said Paracelsus: but also to the very learned and very knowledgeable doctors and philosophers, disciples, and imitators of the said Paracelsus. Lord Adam Bodenstein, and Girard Dorn Germans, the latter of whom Dorn has vigorously responded in his Latin Apology to the false accusations and calumnies of this unknown German from Paris, which was no less done by the said Bodenstein in a letter on Paracelsus's book on Degrees, Compositions, and Doses. So this should suffice to convince the frivolous of this new philosopher who would find something to shear on an egg. And I would have passed on entangling paper and wasting my time responding to him if it had not been that I wanted to show him and his like that he should first learn the language of the authors, without having to rely on an interpreter, perhaps still of his kind, and of the same caliber. Secondly, understand their intention and foundations. And also that I am not so ignorant and stupid that I do not feel well his calumnies.

To come, then, to this Suave Zoilus, leaving aside many foolish and frivolous statements that he brings up, and which do not deserve to be read: I will only answer two or three main points (leaving the rest well defended by the aforementioned Dorn) which are as far from being understood by him as there is a difference between the two elements Water and Fire: also these things have not been written by Paracelsus and other true philosophers, but for the children of doctrine and philosophy, as Raymond Lull says in his Apertoire, and not for the greedy, ambitious and presumptuous, of which our author Paracelsus often makes mention in various places.

The first point, then, or error that our correcting master makes, in wanting to criticize both Paracelsus and his imitators, is when he wonders, as he says in his aforementioned Abridged, that we have not understood that circulation should follow, and not be first. If he looks closely at the text, which as a Frenchman (and not a German) in our translation, he should understand well, where it is said in the great Surgery of the said Paracelsus in the first part of the healing of ulcers in the second chapter on the extraction of the spirit of wine: that the wine should be placed in a circulating vessel in a water bath, etc., without making any other mention of circulation: but it is understood that here it must be prepared, digested, and putrefied, which are the operations that must precede Circulation, as anyone of good spirit can easily see in the chapter already mentioned. This our German from Paris would have understood well if he had not been so alienated from what he boasts of, namely, having treated distillations and separated the salts, etc.: as he shows more extensively when he wants to deny that the distillation of the said spirit cannot be done cold: he would then be even more amazed if someone told him to extract the spirit of wine with snow and ice, which we have experimented with several times: and will show in our Hydromancy.

Of the other point and difficulty where he has taken offense, I am not surprised, given that it is the main mystery and secret of this philosophy, which cannot be understood by such a brain, for in this respect he shows that he is not a Philosopher, Alchemist, or Physician, but seems more like he makes a profession of the art of Goldsmithing: wanting to correct the text of Paracelsus in the aforementioned place, accusing us of ignorance that we have not understood (as he says) that these three numbers written thus 2. 4. 0. and distinguished by points should be taken for 24, namely Carats which he says is the highest degree of fine gold according to the goldsmith's trade, and that there is an error in the text. This is the most ridiculous thing that could be heard.

O great Philosopher! Indeed, your writings declare you to be very ignorant of the things about which you want to criticize and accuse others: who is the schoolchild so ignorant, who would want to take these three distinguished numbers (according to the art of Arithmetic) for a number of 24 composed of two figures? Certainly none.

We say, therefore, that Paracelsus in the aforementioned place means by this the complete perfection of the work, that is to say, that the tincture reaches such perfection that the spirit of wine is reduced to nothing and is transubstantiated into the true tincture of gold: therefore, the philosophers say that gold does not tint unless it is tinted, etc.

And we say that the spirit of wine can be reduced to any thing that one wants so that it will no longer be what it was, etc. This is what Paracelsus wanted to demonstrate with this Enigma. 2. 4. 0. because after it will be nothing, etc. These are the graduations of the Philosophers, namely when the thing is no longer what it was but something else.

I would explain these things more extensively: but I hold my tongue; because pearls should not be thrown to swine.

Our pseudo-philosopher J. G. P. did not understand these things. For Paracelsus wanted to hide and cover such a great arcane and mystery, as he does in other places, following the custom of all good Philosophers, so that they would not be understood by the inept and idiots, but only by the children of true Philosophy: for such secrets, as Lullius says, should not be revealed to the ignorant and foolish, etc. Furthermore, we know that the said three figures or numbers 2. 4. 0. of Arithmetic must be written and read in this way without taking them, according to your fabulous opinion, for the said 24 that you want to refer to carats: for what relevance can Medicine have with your carats or refinement of gold if it is not reduced, etc.

I have also seen the copies of the first, second, and third editions, and in addition a written copy, dictated by the said Paracelsus, all of which have the same numbers and arranged in the same order.

You also say in your Abridged that it is not possible to burn gold: look at the twenty-fourth chapter of Ulstadius in The Sky of Philosophers, where he says that gold cannot be corrupted by the four qualities except by artifice and not by nature. And therefore, he says, He who reveals this science to the ignorant is cursed, etc.

We have also seen and known a Philosopher who showed us gold reduced to the point that it burned like a candle: our correcting friend should no longer be amazed at things he never understood.

See, dear reader, how this person who meddles in criticizing others has forgotten and strayed in revealing his ignorance, but the virtuous in their words are subdued, and the ignorant can never be silent.

There are still many other minor and frivolous points where this Suave Philosopher criticizes and reproaches us for not having translated the said great Surgery well, which does not surprise me, given that neither he nor his interpreter understood the said German language: but the reader, while reading, can easily recognize his ineptitude and futility.

Also, the aforementioned Dorn has sufficiently cleansed and defended us from his calumnies in the Latin Apology that he made against this slanderer .I.G.P., where he responds so extensively to everything that one could not do better.

Therefore, I refrain from it, and it is enough, dear reader, to have warned you to beware of him and his like ostentatious Philosophers, who, under the guise of wanting to explain and elucidate the good Philosophers, due to a lack of good judgment and doctrine, corrupt, mutilate and obscure them, to the great detriment of all good spirits desirous of attaining the knowledge of perfect and true Philosophy and Medicine.

I ask you to please read this book with a benign and favorable eye, without searching for great eloquence in it, for the reasons mentioned above. I commend you to God.