Paracelsus: the Catholic physician-alchemist

I.Historical context: the Renaissance and the crisis of scholastic medicine

EThe century in which Paracelsus is born is a century of fracture. The Europe of 1493 has received Gutenberg's printing press, has witnessed the fall of Constantinople into Ottoman hands (1453) — with the consequent diaspora of Byzantine scholars towards Italy — and stands at the close of the Middle Ages and the opening of geographical and intellectual horizons without precedent. The universities, however, remain anchored in a Latinised Aristotelianism that the new humanist philology is beginning to call into question.

University medicine at the beginning of the sixteenth century is a medicine of the book, not of the bedside. In the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, the most prestigious in Latin Christendom, the Canon of Avicenna, the Ars medica of Galen and the Aphorisms of Hippocrates are commented upon. The physician is a man of letters who cites authorities in Latin, not a healer who examines bodies. The anatomy of Mondino de' Liuzzi (1316) remains the standard reference, and human dissection is exceptional, regulated and limited in time.

In this context, alchemy — which had reached the West through Arabic translations of the twelfth century — occupies an ambiguous place. Practised in workshops and courts, not in universities, it is at once a medical art (the preparation of drugs), a speculative art (the search for the philosopher's stone) and a spiritual discipline (the purification of the alchemist's soul). The Church has not condemned it wholesale: Pope John XXII, in the bull Spondent quas non exhibent (1317), has forbidden the counterfeiting of gold, but has not prohibited medical alchemy. It is in this space of tolerance that Paracelsus will build his work.

II.Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim: the physician of Einsiedeln

Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim is born on 10 November (or 17 December, according to some sources) of 1493 in Einsiedeln, Switzerland, a Marian pilgrimage settlement whose Benedictine abbey is one of the most frequented spiritual centres of Germanic Christendom. His father, Wilhelm von Hohenheim, a physician and native of Swabia, practises as physician to the abbey. His mother, probably Swiss, dies when Theophrastus is still a child. Around 1502 the family moves to Villach, in Carinthia (present-day Austria), where the father works as a physician in the mines of the Fuggers — the great banking house of Augsburg.

The formation of Paracelsus is deliberately non-university. He receives instruction from his father and from the clergy of the abbey of Villach. He learns mining, metallurgy and botany in direct contact with the workmen of the Fugger mines. He travels to the University of Ferrara (c. 1515–1516), where he probably obtains his doctorate, and where Italian medical humanism (the lessons of Nicolò Leoniceno) introduces him to the critical study of the Greek texts of Galen. After his doctorate, he begins a wandering life of twenty years across Europe: Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, Prussia, Poland, the Low Countries, France, Spain, Portugal, England, Italy and the Holy Land.

In 1527, summoned by the humanist Johannes Frobenius, he settles in Basel as city physician. On 5 June 1527, in an act without precedent, he throws the Canon of Avicenna into the fire during the feast of Saint John — staging that the book of authority is nature, not the inherited texts. He is appointed professor of medicine at the University of Basel with a salary of 200 florins, but he delivers his courses in German, not in Latin, and admits barber-surgeons to his lectures (then regarded as craftsmen, not men of letters). His iconoclastic pride earns him the enmity of the local physicians and, after the death of Frobenius in October 1527, he loses his protector. In 1528 he flees Basel by night, pursued by debts and lawsuits. His last nomadic stage then begins, preaching and healing through Alsace, Swabia and Carinthia until his death at Salzburg on 24 September 1541.

“I have wandered through Germany, France, Italy, Spain, England, and in each land I have learned something different from what the doctors teach. The physician who does not travel is a charlatan who believes his own lie.” — Paracelsus, Labyrinthus medicorum errantium (1538).

III.Position on alchemy: sacred science vs. superstitious magic

Paracelsus is not an alchemist in the vulgar sense of the term. His enterprise is not the transmutation of metals into gold, but the preparation of medicines by alchemical means. What he calls “spagyric” — from the Greek spao (to separate) and ageiro (to gather) — is the art of separating the pure from the impure in each substance, of reuniting the purified in a medicine. This spagyric is for him the true alchemy, a medical alchemy, which has little to do with the search for the philosopher's stone.

The distinction between licit alchemy and superstitious alchemy is clear in his work. Alchemy is licit when exercised as a service to the sick neighbour, in conformity with the evangelical command to heal the sick. It is superstitious — and therefore condemnable — when it seeks riches, when it invokes spirits, when it attempts to dominate nature by sorcery. This distinction is the same that Saint Thomas applied to astrology: there is a naturalis (licit) and a judiciaria (condemned).

In the Opus Paramirum (1530), a mature work that remained unpublished until 1565, Paracelsus offers the most mature formulation of this distinction. Alchemy, he writes, is a gift of God given to man that he may relieve suffering: whoever corrupts it by turning it into a search for gold makes himself guilty of ingratitude before the Creator. Spagyric is a human participation in the divine work of creation: the alchemist creates nothing, but separates and reunites what God has created.

There is in Paracelsus a theology of creation that is clearly Thomistic: matter has been created good by God; evil is not a substance but a privation; the alchemist, in separating the pure from the impure, does not destroy creation but restores it to its primordial order, damaged by the Fall. In this sense, spagyric alchemy is a kind of medicine post lapsum: it applies to the sick body what the sacrament applies to the soul.

The Paracelsian condemnation of necromancy is unequivocal. In the De occulta philosophia (1531–1533, not to be confused with the work of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, published in the same year), Paracelsus distinguishes four kinds of magic: naturalis (licit, based on the hidden virtues of created things), mathematica (licit when confined to astronomy, condemned when it becomes divination), superstitiosa (condemned, it resorts to diabolic invocations) and divina (reserved to God and His saints). The Catholic physician, he writes, may practise the first and must flee from the other three.

This position is rigorously orthodox. It coincides with the Summa Theologica II-II, question 95, where Saint Thomas distinguishes natural astrology (licit) from judicial astrology (condemned). It coincides with the bull Spondent quas non exhibent of John XXII (1317), which condemns alchemists who counterfeit gold but not medical alchemists. It coincides with the Roman Catechism of Trent (1566), which condemns magic but not the medical arts founded upon nature.

What Paracelsus adds to the Thomistic tradition is a practical programme: an alchemy converted into pharmacology. The distinction between the licit and the condemned is no longer a merely theoretical principle, but a division of labour: the spagyric physician prepares remedies, the necromancer invokes spirits; the first heals bodies, the second loses souls. The boundary lies not in the method (both manipulate substances), but in the end and in the source of efficacy: the first has recourse to the virtues inscribed by God in nature; the second, to demonic powers.

This doctrine will be taken up by the Paracelsian medicine of the seventeenth century — Oswald Croll, Jean Baptiste van Helmont, Daniel Sennert — and will be defended in the Catholic medical faculties of Ingolstadt, Bologna and Coimbra against university Galenism. The Paracelsian spagyric, read as a continuation of the Thomistic tradition, will be one of the pillars of the European iatrochemistry of the Baroque.

• Spagyric alchemy (licit): the separation and reunion of natural substances for the preparation of medicines. Service to the sick neighbour.
• Aurific alchemy (condemned): the transmutation of metals into gold for the sake of profit. A violation of the evangelical command of gratuity.
• Natural magic (licit): the use of the hidden virtues inscribed by God in created things (plants, minerals, the stars).
• Superstitious magic (condemned): the invocation of demonic powers to produce extraordinary effects. A veiled idolatry.

✦✦

«Alchemia est donum Dei homini datum, ut per illud medicinam praeparet, non ut aurum fingat. Qui autem aurum quaerit, ingratus est Creatori.»

Alchemy is a gift of God given to man, that through it he may prepare medicines, not that he may fashion gold. Whoever seeks gold shows himself ungrateful to the Creator.

Paracelsus, Opus Paramirum, I, cap. 2 (ed. Sudhoff, 1930).

✦✦

«Sicut in astrologia distinguunt Thomistas inter naturalem et iudiciariam, ita in alchemia distinguendum inter spagyricam et nigromanticam: illa curat corpora, ista perdit animas.»

Just as in astrology the Thomists distinguish between the natural and the judicial, so in alchemy a distinction must be drawn between the spagyric and the necromantic: the former heals bodies, the latter loses souls.

Paracelsus, De occulta philosophia, lib. I, cap. 4 (ed. Huser, 1589).

IV.The philosophical argument: the “Quinta Essentia” and the macrocosm-microcosm analogy

The philosophical foundation of Paracelsian medicine is the analogy between the macrocosm (the universe) and the microcosm (man). This analogy, of Platonic and Stoic origin, had been integrated into Christian theology by the Fathers — especially by Saint Augustine in the De Genesi ad litteram — and by the school of Chartres in the twelfth century. Paracelsus receives it not as a poetic metaphor but as an ontological principle: man is a compendium of the universe, and each part of the universe has its correspondence in man.

It follows from this analogy that diseases are not abstract imbalances of humours — as university Galenism teaches — but specific operations of specific causes. Each disease has its archaeus, its inner vital principle; each archaeus has its correspondence in a substance of the macrocosm. To cure is, therefore, to restore the broken correspondence by means of the suitable substance. The spagyric physician seeks in nature — plants, minerals, animals — the substance whose “signature” (signatura) corresponds to the disease.

The quinta essentia or quintessence is the central concept of this pharmacology. For Paracelsus, every natural body contains, mixed with the impure, a pure portion that concentrates its virtue: the quintessence. The spagyric procedure — distillation, calcination, cohobation — has for its object to separate this quintessence from the dross. The result is a pure medicine, of concentrated efficacy, that acts upon the archaeus without harming the body. This doctrine, a forerunner of modern pharmacology, separates Paracelsus from Galenic medicine, which administered crude substances.

The doctrine of signatures (signatura rerum) is the other piece of the system. God, in creating, has inscribed in each thing a “signature” that indicates its medicinal use: the shape of the leaf, the colour of the flower, the texture of the root. The physician who knows how to read these signatures may prescribe without need of abstract reasoning. This doctrine, of Neoplatonic root, is not in Paracelsus a superstition: it is a hermeneutic of creation, founded upon the conviction that God has ordered the world with a legible wisdom. The Tridentine condemnation of divination does not affect this reading of signatures, because it does not pretend to predict the future but to recognise the present order of nature.

• Macrocosm: the created universe, with its three kingdoms (mineral, vegetable, animal) and its seven planetary metals.
• Microcosm: man, the compendium of the three kingdoms and the recipient of the influences of the seven planets.
• Archaeus: the inner vital principle of each body, the work of God, which governs nutrition and disease.
• Quintessence: the pure and concentrated portion of a substance, obtained by the spagyric procedure, the basis of the medicine.

✦✦

«Homo est microcosmus, id est mundus minor; et sicut in mundo maiore omnia sunt, ita in homine omnia sunt. Quod ergo in caelo est, in homine est; quod in terra est, in homine est.»

Man is a microcosm, that is, a lesser world; and just as in the greater world all things are found, so in man all things are found. Therefore, what is in heaven is in man; what is on earth is in man.

Paracelsus, Philosophia ad Athenienses, lib. I (ed. Huser, 1589, t. I).

V.The exception: the licit (astral medicine) and the condemned (necromancy)

The boundary between the licit and the condemned is not always clear-cut in practice. The most delicate case is astral medicine, which uses the correspondences between planets and organs in order to diagnose and to cure. Paracelsus practises it and defends it; but is this not judicial astrology in disguise?

The Paracelsian answer is nuanced and is inscribed within the Thomistic tradition. Astral medicine is licit when it recognises that the stars incline but do not compel: the planets govern the biological rhythms of the body — the critical days, the humours, the crises — but they do not determine the free acts of man nor the course of grace. When the astral physician prescribes a remedy of Saturn for a disease of Saturn, he does so as one who prescribes a diet: he recognises a physical cause, he does not prophesy a destiny.

What is condemned is something else. Necromancy — the invocation of the dead in order to divine — geomancy — divination by figures of earth — and hydromancy — divination by water — are superstitions that usurp the divine prerogative of knowing the future. Paracelsus enumerates them and condemns them in the De occulta philosophia. Whoever practises them, he writes, “sells his soul to the devil for a vain curiosity; the Catholic physician has no part with them.”

VI.Reception by the Church: from the Catholic hospital to the Faculty of Paris

The ecclesial reception of Paracelsus is more favourable than the romantic historiography of the nineteenth century has suggested. There is no inquisitorial process against him. There is no condemnation of his works by the Index librorum prohibitorum during the author's lifetime. His protectors are Catholic clerics: the abbot Johann Trithemius of Sponheim, whom he visits in 1506; the bishop Christoph von Stadion of Augsburg, in whose episcopal palace he resides in 1536; the archbishop Ernst of Bavaria, to whom he dedicates several works. Paracelsus dies a Catholic in Salzburg, an episcopal city, and is buried in the cemetery of the hospital of Saint Sebastian.

The hostility comes not from the Church but from the Faculty of Medicine of Paris. In 1578, forty years after the death of Paracelsus, the Faculty officially condemns Paracelsian medicine and forbids its members to teach it. The condemnation is academic, not dogmatic: what is reproached in Paracelsus is his rejection of Galenism and his use of German instead of Latin. The Faculty of Paris, a bastion of Latinised Aristotelianism, sees in spagyric a threat to its teaching authority.

In the Catholic faculties of southern and Hispanic Europe, the reception is more nuanced. The University of Ingolstadt (Bavaria, Catholic) teaches Paracelsianism from 1580, with professors such as Johann Jakob Wecker and Ernst Soner. At the University of Bologna, the Calabrian physician Guglielmo Grataroli publishes in 1565 a De memoria reparanda openly Paracelsian. In Portugal, the English physician Thomas Murner defends spagyric at Coimbra around 1570. In Spain, the Inquisition includes some works of Paracelsus in local editions of the Index, but does not condemn the author wholesale: spagyric medicine continues to be taught at the University of Alcalá and at that of Valencia until the middle of the seventeenth century.

• 1506: Visit to the abbot Johann Trithemius at Sponheim — A Catholic protector, theologian of the Benedictine abbey.
• 1536: Residence in the episcopal palace of Augsburg — Protector: Christoph von Stadion, bishop of Augsburg.
• 1541: Death in Salzburg, a Catholic episcopal city — Buried in the cemetery of the hospital of Saint Sebastian.
• 1578: Condemnation by the Faculty of Medicine of Paris — An academic, not an ecclesial, condemnation, motivated by the rejection of Galenism.

VII.Legacy: Paracelsian medicine and the Renaissance hospitals

The legacy of Paracelsus is measured in hospitals, not in libraries. The iatrochemistry — chemical medicine — that he inaugurates develops in the Catholic hospitals of the Baroque: the Ospedale di Santa Maria Nuova in Florence, the Hôtel-Dieu of Lyons, the General Hospital of Madrid. In these establishments, the speziali — apothecaries — prepare spagyric remedies following the procedures of Paracelsus: distillation, calcination, cohobation. The pharmacopoeia of the Hospital of Santa Maria Nuova, printed in 1623, contains 47 Paracelsian preparations.

The doctrine of minimal doses is the most enduring Paracelsian contribution. Paracelsus introduces the idea that a medicine may be curative in minimal doses and toxic in greater doses — sola dosis facit venenum, “the dose alone makes the poison.” This doctrine, taken up by the Swiss Johann Jacob Wepfer (1620–1695) and by the German Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843, the founder of homeopathy), is one of the founding principles of modern toxicology.

The other legacy is the rehabilitation of the mineral as remedy. University Galenism, faithful to the Hippocratic doctrine of humours, prescribes above all plants. Paracelsus incorporates minerals — sulphur, mercury, antimony, iron, lead — into the pharmacopoeia. The use of mercury against syphilis, attested from 1496 in the hospital of Naples, is systematised by Paracelsus in the De morbo gallico (1530). The use of iron against chlorosis (anaemia) and of antimony against fevers, likewise Paracelsian, remain in the European pharmacopoeia until the twentieth century.

• Iatrochemistry: the medical school that applies the Paracelsian spagyric to hospital pharmacology — Bologna, Florence, Lyons, Madrid, seventeenth century.
• Doctrine of minimal doses: the toxicological principle (sola dosis facit venenum), the foundation of modern toxicology.
• Mineral pharmacopoeia: the incorporation of sulphur, mercury, antimony, iron into therapeutics — surpassing Galenic herbalism.
• Astral medicine: the use of planet-organ correspondences for diagnosis and treatment — within the Thomistic limits.

VIII.The counterpoint: Agrippa and the esoteric diffusion

Not all the followers of spagyric remain within orthodoxy. Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim (1486–1535), a contemporary of Paracelsus, publishes in 1531 the De occulta philosophia — a work of the same title as a treatise by Paracelsus, but of very different content. Agrippa, instead of confining magic to natural virtues, opens it to Jewish Kabbalah, to Hermetic theurgy and to angelic invocations. The boundary that Paracelsus had drawn with clarity between natural magic (licit) and superstitious magic (condemned) becomes blurred in Agrippa.

This opening is decisive for the ill repute of alchemy in Catholic Europe of the Baroque. The Roman Inquisition, in its Index of 1559, includes the De occulta philosophia of Agrippa, and the censors, by association, label all spagyric medicine as “Agrippian.” It is a historical injustice: Paracelsus had explicitly condemned the magic of Agrippa. But the confusion of genres — alchemy, Kabbalah, theurgy, necromancy — causes Paracelsianism to be often received as a loose-tongued Agrippianism.

A second counterpoint, more nuanced, is that of the Italian physician Girolamo Cardano (1501–1576). Cardano, a Catholic and a professor at Bologna and Pavia, admires Paracelsian pharmacology but rejects the doctrine of signatures and the macrocosm-microcosm analogy. For Cardano, spagyric is an empirical technique that requires no philosophical foundation. This reductionist reading will be the one that, in the long run, prevails in modern science: what is useful in Paracelsus — the mineral pharmacopoeia, the minimal doses — will be retained; what is philosophical — the theology of creation, the analogy — will be discarded.

“Paracelsus and I differ in everything: he seeks virtue in the signature of things, I seek it in experience; he adores the macrocosm, I interrogate it. Yet I grant him one merit: he has opened the mineral kingdom to the physician.” — Girolamo Cardano, De subtilitate (1550), lib. XVIII.

IX.Paracelsus in literature: from Goethe to Mann's Doctor Faustus

The literary figure of Paracelsus is constructed in the nineteenth century, in the context of German Romanticism. For the Romantics, Paracelsus embodies the Naturphilosophie: the physician who knows how to read the book of nature, the alchemist who divines the secret of life. This reading is selective: it ignores the Catholic orthodoxy of the figure, his condemnation of necromancy, his theology of creation, and reduces him to a pre-romantic visionary.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe dedicates to him in 1789 a brief drama, Paracelsus, which presents him as a physician inspired by genius against sterile academicism. The work is youthful and Goethe, in a letter to Schiller of 17 January 1798, considers it a failure; but the gesture suffices to fix the romantic image of the figure. In 1828, Arthur Schopenhauer cites Paracelsus as one of the three great “illuminati” of history, together with Jacob Böhme and Emanuel Swedenborg.

The Hispanic reception is later and less idealised. Marcelino Menéndez Pelayo, in his Historia de los heterodoxos españoles (1880–1882), dedicates to Paracelsus a nuanced chapter: he regards him as a genial physician but philosophically confused, and he classifies his spagyric as “medical mystagogy” — that is, a mixture of mysticism and technique. Menéndez Pelayo recognises, however, that the condemnation of Paracelsus by the Faculty of Paris was an error and that Catholic medicine of the seventeenth century owes him much.

In the twentieth century, the figure of Paracelsus returns to the novel. Thomas Mann, in Doctor Faustus (1947), cites him as the source of the musical demonism of Adrian Leverkühn: the alchemist physician becomes a metaphor of the Faustian pact. This reading, powerful in literary terms, falsifies Paracelsus historically — who had condemned necromancy — but testifies to the persistence of the romantic commonplace: the alchemist as a liminal figure between science and the diabolical.

More faithful to the figure is the reading of Carl Gustav Jung in Psychologie und Alchemie (1944). Jung, who knows the Paracelsian texts in depth, interprets them as psychic projections: the “signatures” are symbols of the unconscious, the “quintessence” is the symbol of the self. This psychoanalytic reading is reductive — Paracelsus does not project, he reads creation — but it has the merit of taking seriously the philosophical content of the work, instead of reducing it to romantic folklore.

The lesson that the Catholic historian may draw from this literary reception is that the historical Paracelsus has been abducted by myth. To recover him means to restore him to his context: that of the Swiss-German Catholic physician who, in continuity with the Thomistic tradition, distinguished spagyric alchemy from superstitious necromancy, and who died in communion with the Church.

✦✦

«Multi scribunt de Paracelso, pauci legunt Paracelsum; et qui legunt, saepe non intelligunt. Ita fit ut legat populus fabulam, non historiam.»

Many write about Paracelsus, few read Paracelsus; and those who read him often do not understand him. Thus it comes about that the people read a fable, not a history.

Karl Sudhoff, Bibliographia Paracelsica (1894), foreword.

X.Chronology

XI.Sources and bibliography

• Paracelsus, Opus Paramirum (1530). Critical edition: Karl Sudhoff, Theophrastus von Hohenheim genannt Paracelsus sämtliche Werke, I. Abteilung, t. IX, Oldenbourg, Munich-Leipzig, 1930.
• Paracelsus, De occulta philosophia (1531–1533). In: Sudhoff, t. XIV, 1933. [Not to be confused with the homonymous work of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, published in 1531.]
• Paracelsus, De morbo gallico (1530). Latin-German bilingual edition: Huser, Basel, 1589.
• Paracelsus, Labyrinthus medicorum errantium (1538). In: Sudhoff, t. XI.
• Paracelsus, Philosophia ad Athenienses. In: Huser, t. I, Basel, 1589.
• Paracelsus, Sämtliche Werke. Complete edition by Karl Sudhoff and Wilhelm Matthiessen, 14 volumes, Oldenbourg, Munich, 1922–1933. [The standard edition for academic study.]
• Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, question 95 (De divinatione). BAC edition, Madrid. [Theological framework for the spagyric/necromancy distinction.]
• John XXII, bull Spondent quas non exhibent (1317). In: Bullarium Romanum, t. IV. [Juridical framework of Catholic tolerance of medical alchemy.]

XII.Frequently asked questions