Difference between revisions of "Theophrastia (De archidoxis, Parasarchum, Carboantes)"
(Created page with "<b>Printing History, Manuscripts</b>. Not printed, no manuscripts known. The <i>Theophrastia</i> may or may not have existed at some time. <i>Theophrastia</i> was the title of a “book” (<i>librum</i>) mentioned by Valentius de Retiis (in a text of uncertain dating, first published in 1562). It consisted of three works: <i>De archidoxis</i> (§ 3.4), <i>Parasarchum</i> (§ 1.20), and <i>Carboantes</i> (§ 4.22). <b>Editions</b>. Not edited by Huser or Sudhof...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Heading|level=3|align=left|before=1|family=serif|bold=0|text=I. Basic information}} | |||
<b> | <b>Printing History, Manuscripts.</b> Not printed, no manuscripts known. The <i>Theophrastia</i> may or may not have existed at some time. <i>Theophrastia</i> was the title of a “book” (<i>librum</i>) mentioned by Valentius de Retiis (in a text of uncertain dating, first published in 1562). It consisted of three works: <i>De archidoxis</i> (§ 3.4), <i>Parasarchum</i> (§ 1.20), and <i>Carboantes</i> (§ 4.22). | ||
<b> | <b>Editions.</b> Not edited by Huser or Sudhoff. | ||
<b> | <b>Relationship between different versions.</b> It is not certain if the book existed at all. | ||
<b> | <b>Structure, genre/form, perspective, style.</b> A “book” consisting of three “works.” | ||
<b> | <b>Relationship to other texts.</b> See <i>De archidoxis</i> (§ 3.4). | ||
<b>Time of writing</b> | <b>Authenticity, authorship.</b> Gerhard Dorn and Michael Toxites both believed in the existence of <i>Theophrastia</i>, Sudhoff denotes it as “more than legendary,” Gilly doubts its existence while Kühlmann and Telle reject any such doubts as “unjustified.” | ||
<b>Time of writing.</b> Further study required. | |||
{{Heading|level=3|align=left|before=1|family=serif|bold=0|text=II. Sources}} | |||
<b>Manuscripts:</b> no manuscripts known | <b>Manuscripts:</b> no manuscripts known | ||
<b>First printed:</b> not printed | <b>First printed:</b> not printed | ||
{{Heading|level=3|align=left|before=1|family=serif|bold=0|text=III. Bibliography}} | |||
<b>Essential bibliography:</b> Sudhoff, <i>Bibliographia Paracelsica</i>, 142, 171, 172, 189–194, 198–199, 271, 338, 390–391; Sudhoff, <i>Paracelsus-Handschriften</i>, 635; CP 1: 585, 587, 590–596, 617; CP 2: 152, 156, 165, 984, 1003; CP 3: 116, 121, 129, 170, 388. | |||
<b>Historical Manuscript Catalogues:</b> <i>Libri Theophrasti</i> (Dresden), fol. 5vb | |||
<b>Further bibliographical references:</b> | |||
Peuckert, <i>Pansophie</i> (1956), 325. | |||
Gilly, <i>Paracelsus in der BPH</i> (1993), 37, 38. | |||
Gilly, <i>Adam Haslmayr</i> (1994), 97, 103. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:48, 2 July 2022
Printing History, Manuscripts. Not printed, no manuscripts known. The Theophrastia may or may not have existed at some time. Theophrastia was the title of a “book” (librum) mentioned by Valentius de Retiis (in a text of uncertain dating, first published in 1562). It consisted of three works: De archidoxis (§ 3.4), Parasarchum (§ 1.20), and Carboantes (§ 4.22).
Editions. Not edited by Huser or Sudhoff.
Relationship between different versions. It is not certain if the book existed at all.
Structure, genre/form, perspective, style. A “book” consisting of three “works.”
Relationship to other texts. See De archidoxis (§ 3.4).
Authenticity, authorship. Gerhard Dorn and Michael Toxites both believed in the existence of Theophrastia, Sudhoff denotes it as “more than legendary,” Gilly doubts its existence while Kühlmann and Telle reject any such doubts as “unjustified.”
Time of writing. Further study required.
Manuscripts: no manuscripts known
First printed: not printed
Essential bibliography: Sudhoff, Bibliographia Paracelsica, 142, 171, 172, 189–194, 198–199, 271, 338, 390–391; Sudhoff, Paracelsus-Handschriften, 635; CP 1: 585, 587, 590–596, 617; CP 2: 152, 156, 165, 984, 1003; CP 3: 116, 121, 129, 170, 388.
Historical Manuscript Catalogues: Libri Theophrasti (Dresden), fol. 5vb
Further bibliographical references:
Peuckert, Pansophie (1956), 325.
Gilly, Paracelsus in der BPH (1993), 37, 38.
Gilly, Adam Haslmayr (1994), 97, 103.
