Sermo ad filios

also:
Gmeine philosophei Paracelsi Magni

I. Basic information

Printing History, Manuscripts. One manuscript in Hannover.

Editions. Not edited so far.

Relationship between different versions. Only one known version.

Structure, genre/form, perspective, style.

Relationship to other texts.

Authenticity, authorship. The Sermo ad filios was first pointed out by Weimann as a work of Paracelsus (Weimann, “Der pseudoparacelsische Sermo ad filios,” 1963). However, the term “philosophei Paracelsi Magni” in the heading is not to be read as “philosophy by Paracelsus” but “philosophy of Paracelsus.” The manuscript is in the hand of Adam Haslmayr, who is also seems to be the author.

Time of writing. Further study required.

II. Sources

Manuscripts:

• Hannover, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek/Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek: Ms. IV 370; 16 pages

First printed: not printed

Historical Manuscript Catalogues: Widemann, Verzeichnisse (Kassel), n° IX, 67

III. Bibliography

Essential bibliography: Sudhoff, “Einleitendes,” in Paracelsus, Sämtliche Werke, I/1: XXII.

Further bibliographical references:

Karl-Heinz Weimann, “Der pseudoparacelsische Sermo ad filios,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 54 (1963), 234–237.

Carlos Gilly, “Iter Rosicrucianum. Auf der Suche nach unbekannten Quellen der frühen Rosenkreuzer”, in Das Erbe des Christian Rosenkreuz (Amsterdam, 1988), 63–89, on 87 n. 22.

Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta” (1994), 459 n.73, 483.

Gilly, “Theophrastia Sancta” (1998), 175 n. 52.

Gilly, Adam Haslmayr (1994), 14, 199 n. 7, 200 n. 9, 206.