DID PARACELSUS DEVELOP MEDICAL CHEMISTRY OUT OF ALCHEMY?

DID ANY
OF HIS OTHER WORK HAVE ANY MERIT?

By Martin Huncovsky

Introduction
In 1527, when medics in Basel were celebrating St Johns day, a special ingredient was added to
the bonfire. Paracelsus (1493-1541), burned Avicennas Canon, the Bible of learned medicine, and other
Galenic texts (Porter, 1997, p. 203). This was unheard of, but Paracelsus was different from the others.
Some portrayed him as living like a pig ... being constantly drunk, whereas others called him
the German Hermes and our dear Preceptor and King of Arts (Brock, 1992, p. 44). Nonetheless, his
message was clear: remove all the old books of learning and practice medicine as I have learnt in the real world
(Crone, 2004, p. 57). Ever since, Paracelsus has been remembered as breaking away from the traditions
of Galenic medicine and Aristotelian philosophy. Bud did he also abandon the old alchemical theories, as
Vogt (1956) suggested, or just shifted the boundary of alchemy a little further to create medical chemistry?
What were his other achievements and how is it so that popular culture recognises his bust near
the common room of Harry Potters dormitory (The Economist, 2006)?

Outline
First, I will analyse the developments of alchemy and medicine to describe the scene in which Paracelsus
contemporaries were operating. Then, I will argue that there were substantial links between gold-making
alchemy and iatrochemistry to claim that Paracelsus based his theories on the long-lived practices
of transmutation of metals. He had just given them different goals. Nonetheless, in the third part of this
work I will show that iatrochemistry would have been developed even without the input of Paracelsus.
Scholars had already been cementing alchemy and medicine and reacting against Galen. Also, it is different
to say that alchemy contributed to medical chemistry and to argue that it was developed from it.
Finally, I will scrutinise if the plethora of titles Paracelsus has been given, such as the father of
homeopathy and occupational health, is justified.

Alchemy and medicine

The origins of alchemy could be traced to Egypt, where chemistry was essentially a practical craft, used
for making metals and cosmetics (Ball, 2006, p. 152). This is contrasted with the theoretical bias of
ancient Greece where the Empedoclean elements were born. Those two movements crossed
in Alexandria, where the practical chemistry collided with the mystical strands of Plato and Pythagoras
(Ibid). Arabs lent it the rationality of quantification and spread it to Europe (Ibid, p. 157). This traditional
picture includes the attempts to transform base metals into gold (Motherby, 1791 in Hajdu, 2005, p. 105),
the secrecy and mystery codes, and the dreams of immortality (Al-Khalili, 2010). Taylor (1974, pp. 190-1)
identifies differences between alchemy and our chemistry in purpose and practice of these disciplines.

1
In the sixteenth century medicine, there were three categories of practitioners: the practical surgeon,
the academic physician, and the village herbalist (Crone, 2004, p. 23). Doctors held that the body is
composed out of three fluids and four humours, and it was the imbalance of the latter that caused illness,
not some external entity (Bynum, 2008). Bloodletting, altering diet/regimen, or medicines composed from
up to 60-70 (mainly herbal) constituents (Mason, 1953, p. 180) were used for treatment. Thus we have
a great deal of occultism, secrecy and gold-focus in alchemy; and division of labour, humoural theory
and polypharmacy in medicine. How much was Paracelsus different from that picture?

Dissent of Paracelsus
Paracelsus was dissatisfied with medicine: When I saw that nothing resulted from [doctors] practice but killing and
laming, I determined to abandon such miserable art and seek truth elsewhere (Porter, 1997, p. 202). He considered
doctors as wilful deceivers (Ball, 2006, p. 169) and was against bloodletting and purging: these are not
good for you; they give you stroke, headache, and dropsy (Crone, 2004, p. 170). He used his background in mining
and alchemy to ameliorate this situation: Many have said of Alchemy, that it is for the making of gold and silver.
For me such is not the aim, but to consider only what virtue and power may lie in medicines. Here we can see that
Paracelsus is referring to alchemy but he is extending its meaning (Taylor, 1974, pp. 196-7). The previous
goal of producing precious metals was supplanted by remedy-making. This is not to say that he
abandoned the gold-making framework. Quite the contrary, it allowed Paracelsus to replace the humoural
theory by principles of mercury, sulphur and salt (Multhauf, 1993, p. 234; Wear, 1995, p. 313). This was
another connection with the past since these three principles were hidden powers (Porter, 1997, p. 202).
Other examples of continuity between alchemy and Paracelsian medical chemistry follow.

Paracelsus stressed that both should be only practised by gifted individuals (Mason, 1953, p. 185;
Cunningham, 2009). This meant that the alchemist must be able to achieve a proper mindset,
establishing concordance between the outer and his inner universe, also known as
the macrocosm/microcosm analogy. Likewise, the iatrochemist was to prepare medicines through magical
techniques (Fara, 2010, p. 125), since the true medicament consists of mysteries. In this was Paracelsus
reviving Hermetic magic (Fara, 2010, p. 125). Furthermore, Paracelsus repeatedly stressed the role of
experience (Ball, 2006, p. 166) and boosted himself for having done a great deal of experiments (Debus,
1965, p. 34; Wear, 1995, p. 315; Ball, 2006, p. 161). This again implies that there was a connection with
the practical side of alchemists rather than to bookish learning of humanists (Wear, 1995, p. 315).
Moreover, there are still components of secrecy in Paracelsus works: we shall endeavour to shut off our secrets
from [the common people] by strong wall and a key, and in his final book of Archidoxa he says: we have concealed
our doctrine according to ancient philosophic method and cabbalistic practice. The secrecy is familiar in esoteric
writings and Paracelsus, by indulging in it, unveils the extent to which he inherited the view that some
knowledge should not be revealed to the uninitiated (Ball, 2006, p. 170).

So far I have outlined the features indicating that Paracelsus was heavily indebted to both exoteric and
esoteric parts of alchemy. Yet we would be mistaken to leave it there. Although he operated within

2
the alchemical framework, he was filing off the most protruding parts of alchemical mysticism.
As a practical clinician he described the normal and pathological without resorting to [...]
the incomprehensible mythological and numerical symbolism of alchemy (Webster, 1993, p. 597).
Although Archidoxa sometimes conceals the meaning of the text, Paracelsian medical chemistry is not
coded in terms of dragons and eggs ... and instructions are written in a mechanically-plain language (Ball,
2006, pp. 171-189). Besides, no later sceptic exceeds Paracelsus in the vehemence of their attack on
judicial astrology or humoural pathology (Webster, 1982, p. 11). So, although there is still a great deal of
continuity, there are deviations indicating a birth of a new discipline. Such fresh vision of alchemy turning
to medicine is offered in his Archidoxa.

The goal of this work is that rather than curing disease by readjustments of humours through Galenic
treatments, the doctor can heal by harnessing the virtues of chemical remedies (Ball, 2006, p. 168).
Paracelsus urged doctors to liberate the mysterious powers of nature by alchemical process of separating
pure from the impure (Ibid, p. 169). He saw the body as a chemical system, having an Archeus that was
fighting with the invading Archeus of the disease. The latter could be in turn quelled by the Archeus
of the mineral providing a specific remedy1 (Mason, 1953, p. 183). In here we can see that disease became
external to the human body, specific disease required specific remedy, and that health was to be restored
by minerals and not organic multi-potions (Mason, 1953, p. 182; Multhauf, 1993, p. 219; Fara, 2010, p.
126). Furthermore, Paracelsus stressed the chemical analysis of urine as opposed to the qualitative
assessment of Galenists (Wear, 1995, p. 315), and he is credited with the introduction of many minerals
as medications for internal use (see Castiglioni, 1931 in Hajdu, 2005, p. 106).

Thus, although Paracelsus exploited the Hermetic and Neoplatonic philosophy, he worked in the chemical
laboratory, stressed experience, devised new methods and prepared new medicines, drew up a skeleton of
inorganic chemistry, gave disease an ontological nature and replaced the traditional system of pathology
with a new one, resembling modern pathology (Pagel, 1958, p. 344). We could conclude that Paracelsus
was a proto-scientist establishing chemistry at the expense of alchemy (Hajdu, 2005, p. 105) and that Le-
Clerc was correct in assigning Paracelsus an indispensable role in constructing new medicine (Webster,
1982, p. 4). Combining those two, we could agree that Paracelsus developed medical chemistry out of
alchemy. Nonetheless, below I will analyse such view and argue that it is an over-exaggeration to assert
that alchemy led to medical chemistry and that Paracelsus input was essential for this development.

Dissent of others
Prior to Paracelsus, there were many alchemical physicians who launched an independent school of
therapy (Multhauf, 1993, p. 210). In the twelfth century, Salemian physicians prescribed alcohol as
medicine (Multhauf, 1993, p. 205). Roger Bacon suggested much broader application of alchemy
to healing (Debus, 1965, p. 23; Webster, 1979, p. 302; Multhauf, 1954, p. 360). Arnold of Villanova is seen

1
Remedy was consisting of quintessences classified in Archidoxa according to the chemical rather than
mineralogical tradition (Multhauf, 1993, p. 216)

3
as Paracelsus predecessor. They shared similar personalities, both placed value on experience
and connected medicine with alchemy (Multhauf, 1993, p. 178; Ball, 2006, p. 180). Although Arnolds
medicine has been criticised as Galenic, in fact he practised two types of medicine, one for the benefit
of his colleagues, and the other more radical without the strictures of contemporary scholarship (Ball,
2006, p. 179). Other figures, such as Raymond Lull (Pagel, 1958, p. 83), Vitalis of Furno (DeVun, 2009, p.
105), Brunschiwg (Thorndike, 1938; Webster, 1979, p. 303), and John of Rupescissa, already proposed the
idea of medical quintessences to be prepared by the alchemical purification of mineral sources (Multhauf,
1954, pp. 366-7; Multhauf, 1993, p. 218). Thus, despite Paracelsus claim that Arnold and John contained
nothing of value, an intellectual stream linking alchemy and medicine was clearly there (Ball, 2006, p.
181).

Moreover, these were the times of change. Columbus, Copernicus and Leonardo were Paracelsus
contemporaries. Epidemics of syphilis led many Galenic physicians to an unprecedented level of
experimentation. Moran (2007 in Ball, 2007, p. 788) shows that there were many
Hippocratic hermeticists, Galenochemists, and hermetic chymiatrists. Neoplatonism was popular
(Webster, 1979, p. 316). Reformation provided an impetus for the maturing alchemy (Wear, 1995, pp. 325-
340) and a precedent for restoring the purity of medicine (Mason, 1953, p. 183). New economic elite of
German-speaking lands was able to provide patronage that occultists needed (Webster, 2008, pp. 2-3).
Conversely, alchemists were welcomed by monarchs to explore mineral sources as the rulers were looking
for ways to diversify their economies (Webster, 1979, p. 303). Paracelsians were especially welcomed at
royal and prince courts ranging from France, Denmark, Austria, to Russia (Evans N. , 1969; Webster,
1979; Multhauf, 1993; Porter, 1997; Trevor-Roper, 1998; Fara, 2010). Paracelsus was able to exploit these
conditions because of the practical, religious, mystical, and academic strands that were uniquely combined
within his mind and personality (Sayre, 1918, p. 49; Cranefield & Federn, 1967; Webster, 1993; Porter,
1997, pp. 201-2; Wear, 1995, pp. 311-2). Given the turbulent times, however, it is quite unlikely that
a similar figure would not be created if it were not for Paracelsus.

Paracelsus not so original

Furthermore, Paracelsus innovations are magnified. Archidoxa is not an expansion of medicines already
advocated by John (Multhauf, 1954). Al-Kindi (800-870 AD) had a list even more varied than Paracelsus
himself (Crone, 2004, p. 163; Ball, 2006, p. 171). Dierbach (1824) found that Hippocratic physicians
recommended simple minerals. Paracelsus might have emphasised the three principles, but they were
already known since the time of Jabir (c. 776 AD) and it was again an increase and decrease from their
normal amounts what caused illness (Sayre, 1918, p. 50). Even if Paracelsian ontological theory of disease
sounds very modern, his essentia of the disease was a spiritual essence (Wear, 1995, p. 313).
Above all, Paracelsus was not the only one deviating from Galenism. Argentinus, working independently
of Paracelsus, was already against humoural theory and stressed local nature of disease: some at least are
local deposits of material that has not flowed from elsewhere, but has slowly accumulated in a certain part which was unable

4
to deal properly with its nutriment, (Pagel, 1958, p. 304). Similarly, he questioned authority of Galen: Neither
Aristotle nor Galen hesitated to censure and correct their predecessors. Why then should we remain in a state of blind
submission to these...? (Pagel, 1958, p. 303). Mazinus applied these criticisms to the four elements (Pagel,
1958, pp. 305-8). Agrippa also held a poor view of Galenic medicine: there is more danger in the physician and
medicine, than in the sickness itself (Crone, 2004, p. 31).

Next, Paracelsus is known for stressing experiments, but it is unlikely that he used any to test his ideas.
He used them to prove that he was right and in this he was not different from his contemporaries (Ball,
2006, p. 166). Furthermore, Fracastoro (1484-1553) also put forward a seed-like theory of disease, where
the seeds reproduced themselves and were transferred from person to person by contact or through
the air (Mason, 1953, p. 183). So, Paracelsus did not introduce mineral remedies, he was not the first
person combining alchemy with medicine, questioning Galen or considering disease as an entity on its
own. That would imply that medical chemistry would develop without his input. Others argue that to label
anything as medical chemistry prior to Libavius, who rejected mystical speculations, and before Van
Helmonts reinterpretation of Paracelsus (Cunningham, 2009), is simply wrong because iatrochemistry
offered only pseudo-explanations of vital forces (Mason, 1953, p. 188). Paracelsus was lucky in reaching
conclusions that some consider as the origins of medical chemistry. Thus, attention devoted to Paracelsus
is out of his real achievement and importance (Titley, 1938, p. 167). Yet he is still remembered.
Below I will show what other of his works might contribute to his legacy.

Paracelsus legacy and historiography

In medicine he has been claimed as the first psychiatrist as he denounced the contemporary witchcraft
(Galdstone, 1950; Tan & Yeow, 2003, p. 6). He is also credited for writing the first treatise on
occupational health (Strebel, 1948a; Debus, 1965, p. 15), proposing the concept of toxicity (Crone, 2004),
and for developing a technique of artificial ventilation, later improved by John Hunter (Hajdu, 2005, p.
106). Jung saw him as the first psychoanalyst (Cunningham, 1998). Strebel (1948b) called Paracelsus as
the father of balneology and Davis (1993), Bellavite (2005) and Hamlin (2009) titled him as the first
homeopath. Robinson (1929) highlighted Paracelsus involvement in industrial chemistry in making
enamels whereas Taylor (1974) stressed Paracelsus theory of matter as being essential for Bechers and
Stahls physical chemistry. Webster (1993, p. 597) even argued that Paracelsus idea of the new medicine
and chemistry was biblically sanctioned and served as basis for the theoretical ideology of Royal society.
Clearly, a tremendous amount of importance is given to Paracelsus here.

But he was never regarded as purely medico-chemical writer (Webster, 1982, p. 4). Although he regarded
his practical goal as the reform of medicine, his religion, use of the microcosm-macrocosm, and
recognition of the effects of the celestial environment on man, constantly threw him back into the fields
of cosmology (Ibid). His emphasis on comets was shared by Kepler and Brahe (Ibid, p. 30),
and Paracelsus was famous for his prophecies (Ibid, p. 26). Nonetheless, highly esteemed by Paracelsus
were his general religious writings (Ball, 2006, p. 109). He believed that spiritual knowledge was to be

5
found in nature that was full of Gods signs and in oneself (Wear, 1995, p. 312). So, although nominally
Catholic, he was certainly not a very mainstream one. Despite the dedicatory letter to Luther, whom he
apparently admired (Mason, 1953, p. 181), Gilly (1998, p. 152) showed that Paracelsus criticised both
the Pope and the reformers for replacing one set of dogmatisms for another, for being divisive (Wear,
1995, p. 312; Hamlin, 2009, p. 1294), and he even said that Luther and the Pope were two whores
debating chastity (Stoddart, 1911 in Ball, 2006, p. 122). It seems that Paracelsus was involved in many
different endeavours but is this correct? Finally, I will focus on historiography accompanying Paracelsus
case.

First problem is about the quality of sources. The most formative years of Paracelsus (1509-1525) are
unrecorded (Crone, 2004, p. 37). Many of Paracelsus works were published after his death and thus he
might have been books he had never written. This was common for new translations of Aristotle and
Pliny, so why not for Paracelsus? (Ball, 2006, p. 155). And finally, many secondary sources were serving
specific political agenda, such as Sillis-Fuchs plays, portraying Paracelsus as a precursor of Nazism
(Crone, 2004, p. 181). Second problem is about the quality of historians. Some have strong mathematical
preference, and therefore find it difficult to comprehend the climate where magic meant
the experimental study of the unexplained natural forces (Debus, 1965, pp. 13-21). Those historians are
likely to suffer from a condition what Lewontin (2003) called the Newtonian ideal. Passages are selectively
chosen to show that the investigated subject had a single universal law. Thus, Paracelsus is seen as father
of homeopathy for his law that like cures like. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Resemblance of Paracelsus writings to homeopathy is merely superficial (Ball, 2006, p. 183) and he would
dismiss the idea that the most effective dose is no dose at all (Crone, 2004). This leads me to my last point
about historiography, identified by Cunningham (1998) as a fat-and-thin categorisation.

Multiple reputations of Paracelsus are due to our desire to find founding fathers. He is simultaneously
described as the first occupational physicians, although Ellenborg wrote on occupational hygiene
of miners as early as 1473 (Crone, 2004, p. 178); depicted as the first psychoanalyst, despite the circular
argument as Jung thinks he finds in Paracelsus truths about psychoanalysis he is in fact projecting onto
Paracelsus (Cunningham, 1998, p. 71); portrayed as an occultist, even if the only justification of this is
based on the translations done during the occult revival of 19th England (Ibid, p. 64-66). Of course,
the existence of fat Paracelsus-es raises the question of why he was fattened-up at a particular time by
particular people, but these are questions about society that created him (Ibid, p. 62). Prior to the Yates
thesis (see Yates, 1964), scholars had become too accustomed to that sense must oust nonsense.
As they separated medieval and modern, alchemy and chemistry, magic and science, so they split
Paracelsus in two. This has been exemplified in Newtons case too. Others, as noted, had political agenda.
Distinguishing the fat-and-thin Paracelsus-es is essential for avoiding absurd questions derived from
historical reputations Paracelsus was given rather then from the historical figure of his own time
(Cunningham, 1998).

6
Conclusion
To conclude, I have shown that Paracelsus was different from many of his contemporaries. His
significance lay in questioning the authorities and speeding up the process of importing natural philosophy
and remedies based on chemical principles into the new kind of medicine. Nevertheless, he was neither
the first, nor the last person in the series of events leading to medical chemistry. Considering the turmoil
of his age, another person was likely to place a bomb under the orthodox medicine and blew it if it
werent for Paracelsus. When we read his books as they were written, we would find a lot of rambling
rubbish. This allows various people with own vested interests to assign Paracelsus fatherhood of various
disciplines, despite the fact that those did not exist when Paracelsus was alive.

Martin Huncovsky, 2012

BSc History and Philosophy of Science
Department of Science and Technology Studies
University College London

Humour Associated with Quality Element Origin

Yellow bile Summer diseases, diarrhoea Hot Fire Liver
Phlegm Winter colds Wet Water Brain
Blood Ruddy, cheerful Dry Air Heart
Black bile Melancholy Cold Earth Spleen

Table 1: The four humours of the early physicians, together with the associated qualities, elements and
supposed origins (Crone, 2004, p. 199)

A successful physician A failed physician

A practical physician A spiritual physician
A chemist An alchemist
A magician or magus A scientist (or someone turning magic into science)
A prophet A madman
An opponent of the ancients A humanist (that is, a Renaissance follower of the Ancients)
The high point of medieval natural The beginning of modern science (or the bridge between the
philosophy two)
A fully politicised social revolutionary An other wordly mystic
A man of his time A man for all times

Table 2: Andrew Cunninghams overview of the contradictory roles Paracelsus has been assigned by the
articles in the history of science journal, Isis (Cunningham, 1998, p. 55)

7
Paracelsus, father of: Actual origin of the discipline in modern
standard:
Mineralogy Early nineteenth century
Biology Early nineteenth century
Anthropology Early nineteenth century
Psychiatry End of the nineteenth century
Biochemistry Twentieth century

Table 3: A. Cunninghams list of Paracelsus presumed discipline fatherhoods (Cunningham, 1998, p 56).

Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von
Hohenheim (Paracelsus). 1493 - 1541. Alchemist,
physician and astrologer.
Engraving 1572 By: Augustin Hirschvogel, Wellcome
Images
Thin, hatless, bald simply dressed, mortar
Portrait of Paracelsus, half-length wearing fur hat,
with biographical text in English. After the painting
in the Louvre (or a copy of it).
Engraving By: W.C. Marshall, Wellcome Images
Fat, hated, long hair, richly apparelled, book

Table 3: An illustrative example of reality and reputation. In the picture on the left, Paracelsus is holding a
mortar, indicating he was a man of practical craft, plainly dressed, a true alchemist. In the picture on the
right, he is having a book in his hand, richly dressed, a person of high status, indicating perhaps a proto-
scientist (Cunningham, 1998).

8
Bibliography
Baveystock, S., Al-Khalili, J. (Producers), & Stephens, J. (Director). (2010). Chemistry: A Volatile History
[Motion Picture].

Ball, P. (2007). From alchemy to chemistry. Nature , 449, 788.

Ball, P. (2006). The devil's doctor : Paracelsus and the world of Renaissance magic and science. London: William
Heinemann.

Bellavite, P., Conforti, A., Piasere, V., & Ortolani, R. (2005). Immunology and Homeopathy. 1. Historical
Background. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine , 2 (4), 441-452.

Brock, W. (1992). The Fontana History of Chemistry. London: Fontana Press.

Bynum, W. (2008). The History of Medicine: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Castiglioni, A. (1931). Histoire de la Medicine. Paris: Payot.

Cranefield, P., & Federn, W. (1967). The begetting of fools: an annotated translation of Paracelsus' De
generatione stultorum. Bulletin of the History of Medicine , 41, 56-74, 161-74.

Crone, H. (2004). Paracelsus: The Man Who Defied Medicine. Melbourne: Albarello Press.

Cunningham, A. (Composer). (2009). Paracelsus and people's medicine. On The Making of Modern Medicine
[Audio CD]. United Kingdom: BBC.

Cunningham, A. (1998). Paracelsus Fat and Thin: Thoughts on reputations and realities. In P. Grell,
Paracelsus : the man and his reputation, his ideas and their transformation (pp. 53-77). Leiden: Brill.

Davis, A. (1993). Paracelsus: a quincentennial assessment. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine , 86 (11),
653-656.

Debus, A. (1993). Paracelsus and the Medical Revolution of the Renaissance: A 500th Anniversary
Celebration. Paracelsus, Five Hundred Years: Three American Exhibits (pp. 3-17). Bethesda, Maryland: Friends
of the National Library of Medicine.

Debus, A. (1965). The English Paracelsians. London: Oldbourne Book Co.

DeVun, L. (2009). Prophecy, alchemy, and the end of time : John of Rupescissa in the late Middle Ages. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Dierbach, J. (1824). Die Arzneimittel des Hippokrates. Heidelberg: K. Gross.

Evans, N. (1969). Dr Timothy Willis and his mission to Russia. Oxford Slavonic Papers , 2, 39-61.

Evans, R. (1997). Rudolf II and his world : a study in intellectual history 1576-1612. London: Thames and
Hudson.

Fara, P. (2010). Science: A Four Thousand Year History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Galdstone, I. (1950). The psychiatry of Paracelsus. Bulletin of the History of Medicine , 24, 205-18.

Gilly, C. (1998). 'Theophrastia Sancta' - Paracelsiansim as a Religion in Conflict with the Established
Churches. In P. Grell, Paracelsus : the man and his reputation, his ideas and their transformation (pp. 151-186).
Leiden: Brill.

9
Hajdu, S. (2005). Two Pioneering Chemists, Three Hundred Years Apart. Annals of Clinical and Laboratory
Science , 35 (1), 105-107.

Hamlin, C. (2009). Review: Paracelsus: Medicine, Magic and Mission at the End of Time by C. Webster.
JAMA , 301 (12), 1293-4.

Hubicki, W. (1972). Paracelsists in Poland. In A. Debus, Science, medicine, and society in the Renaissance : essays
to honour Walter Pagel (pp. 167-75). London: Heinemann.

Kocher, P. (1947). Paracelsian medicine in England (1570-1600). Journal of the History of Medicine , 2, 451-80.

Lewontin, R. (2003). Science and simplicity. New York Review of Books , 50, 39-42.

Lindroth, S. (1943). Paracelsismen i Sverige Till 1600 - Talets Mit. Uppsala.

Mason, S. (1953). A History of the Sciences. London: Routledge.

Moran, B. (2007). Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical
Fire. Sagamore Beach: Watson Pub. International LLC.

Motherby, G. (1791). Medical Dictionary or General Repository of Physic. London: Johnson, Robinson, Hamilton
and Murrey.

Multhauf, R. (1954). John of Rupescissa and the Origin of Medical Chemistry. Isis , 45 (4), 359-367.

Multhauf, R. (1993). The Origins of Chemistry. Langhorne, PA: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

Pagel, W. (1958). Paracelsus : an introduction to philosophical medicine in the era of the Renaissance. Basel: Karger.

Porter, R. (1997). The Greatest Benefit to Mankind. London: Harper Collins Publishers.

Robinson, V. (1929). Pathfinders in Medicine. New York: Medical Life Press.

Sayre, L. (1918). The Early History of Pharmaceutical and Medical Chemistry. Transaction of the Kansas
Academy of Science , 29, 49-53.

Sigerist, H. (1923). Studien und Texte zur fruhmittelalterlichen Rezept-literatur. Leipzig: Barth.

Stoddart, A. (1911). The Life of Paracelsus. London: John Murray.

Strebel, J. (1948b). Paracelsus als Begrunder der allgemeinen und speziellen Balneologie. Acta Nova Paracels
, 5, 121-134.

Strebel, J. (1948a). Paracelsus als Begrunder der Lehre von den Gewerbekrankheiten und der Gewerbe-
Hygiene. Acta Nova Paracels , 5, 86-96.

Tan, S., & Yeow, M. (2003). Paracelsus (1493-1541): The Man Who Dared. Singapore Medical Journal , 44
(1), 5-7.

Taylor, F. (1974). The Alchemists. Salem, N.H.: Ayer Co. Publishers.

The Economist. (2006, January 19). The Uses of Enchantment. The Economist .

Thorndike, L. (1938). Alchemy during the first half of the sixteenth century. Ambix , 26-37.

Titley, A. (1938). Paracelsus. A resume of some controversies. Ambix , 166-183.

10
Trevor-Roper, H. (1998). Paracelsianism made political 1600 - 1650. In P. Grell, Paracelsus : the man and his
reputation, his ideas and their transformation (pp. 119-133). Leiden: Brill.

Vogt, A. (1956). Theophrastus Paracelsus als Arzt und Philosoph. Stuttgard.

Waite, A. (1992). Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus the Great. Edmonds: Alchemical Press.

Wear, A. (1995). Medicine in Early Modern Europe, 1500-1700. In L. Conrad, M. Neve, V. Nutton, & R.
Porter, The Western medical tradition : 800 BC to AD 1800 (pp. 215-362). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Webster, C. (1979). Alchemical and Paracelsian medicine. In C. Webster, Health, medicine and mortality in the
sixteenth century (pp. 301-334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Webster, C. (1982). From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the making of modern science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Webster, C. (2008). Paracelsus : medicine, magic, and mission at the end of time. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Webster, C. (1993). Paracelsus, and 500 years of encouraging scientific inquiry. British Medical Journal , 306,
597-598.

Webster, C. (1975). The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform 1626-1660. London: Duckworth.

Yates, D. (1964). Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition. London: Routledge & K. Paul.

11