Printing History, Manuscripts. Not printed before Sudhoff. Two manuscripts known.
Editions. First published by Karl Sudhoff in 1933 in Paracelsus, Sämtliche Werke, I/14: 305–308.
Relationship between different versions. De mumia is found in two manuscript collections of authentic and semi-authentic theological texts. Both manuscripts present essentially the same text, the Leiden manuscript missing many sentences found in the Heidelberg manuscript. However, the order of paragraphs in the Heidelberg manuscript is distorted, making the text completely unintelligible.
Structure, genre/form, perspective, style.
Relationship to other texts. De mumia is a short text or fragment pertaining to the Volumen primum suae Philosophiae, de Diuinis Operibus & factis, & de Secretis Naturae.
Authenticity, authorship. Both manuscripts are drawn from the same source, which consisted obviously of single slips of paper marked with numbers and signs. This source was also used by Huser for editing some texts in vol. IX. However, Huser did not publish De mumia in his edition of the Bücher vnd Schrifften of Paracelsus, apparently because these specific sheets were unavailable to him at the time (see Huser, 9: 328, #14): “De Mumia. Desideratur totus.” – Held by Sudhoff to be authentic.
Time of writing. Probably written in the 1530s (if authentic).
- Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek: Cod. Pal. germ. 476, f. 251r–253v, 254v–255v
- Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek: Voss. Chym. F.24, f. 351r–352v
First printed: not printed before Sudhoff (1933).
Historical Manuscript Catalogues: Libri Theophrasti (Dresden), fol. 6r; Catalogus (Stuttgart), I, f. 4v n° ; Catalogus Adelwert (Leiden), n° 
Essential bibliography: Sudhoff, Paracelsus-Handschriften, 778 n° I/7; Sudhoff, “Vorwort,” in Paracelsus, Sämtliche Werke, I/14: VI.
Further bibliographical references:
Josef Strebel, “Zur Echtheitsfrage der paracelsischen Geheimphilosophie (Ph. Occulta) und die Philosophia ad Athenienses,” Nova Acta Paracelsica, 4 (1947), 48–54, on 50 [questionable].
Peuckert, Gabalia (1967), 250, 552.
Hartmut Rudolph, “Fragen zum sogenannten ‘Vita beata’-Schrifttum des Paracelsus,” Nova Acta Paracelsica, N.F. 9 (1977), 193–204, on 200.