Archiv/Paratexts/Other

From Theatrum Paracelsicum

Other Texts

Anonymous

from: Paracelsus, Operum latine redditorum tomus II, 1575
The texts provided are a collection of epitaphs written by the friends of Theophrastus Paracelsus, as a testament to their piety and goodwill towards him. 1. The first epitaph states that under a small mound rests Theophrastus, a man of great renown. He was a prolific healer who could treat various diseases and even alleviated leprosy through his art. He cured incurable dropsy but ultimately succumbed to the inexorable death. The reader is asked to say the final words. 2. The second epitaph affirms that Theophrastus's body rests in an urn, and that even the famed Aristotle was not his equal. 3. The third epitaph remembers Theophrastus as a Swiss physician of unmatched medical skill, integrity, and charity towards the needy. It mentions his age at death but does not specify it. 4. The fourth epitaph commemorates Theophrastus as the only physician who could cure gout, leprosy, dropsy, and humoral imbalances. 5. The fifth epitaph suggests that readers should not be surprised that even people like Theophrastus, who seemed worthy of immortality and had few equals in medical arts, are mortal. Nonetheless, he will be immortal in the eyes of God. 6. The sixth epitaph portrays Theophrastus as a distinguished physician, level-headed in all fortunes, devoted to fairness, kindness to the poor, and religious. His death is mourned by all good people. 7. The final epitaph is for Theophrastus, a highly skilled physician whose death robbed the world of a man of complete learning, who saved many who were on the brink of death. The epitaph is placed by N. Setznagel, a citizen of Salzburg, out of piety. It also mentions his lifespan and death but does not specify them.

Figulus, Benedictus

from: Benedictus Figulus, Carmen Heroicum Insignia Megalandri Lutheri complectens, Stuttgart: Marx Fürster, 1600

Gerhard Dorn

This text is an Apology where the author defends Paracelsus against accusations typically levelled against him by his adversaries. The detractors claim that Paracelsus wrote his books while inebriated and that he wrote in the vernacular because he was ignorant of Latin. The author refutes these accusations and suggests that they are slanderous rumors spread by those who are resistant to the truth that Paracelsus brings forth. He goes on to argue that such criticisms do nothing to diminish the value of Paracelsus' work and that the naysayers, in their attempts to defame Paracelsus, only end up discrediting themselves. The text ends with a plea to the reader to form a fair judgment and not to fall for false rumors and slanders.

Jacques Gohory