Customer Reviews

The Devil's Doctor: Paracelsus and the World of Renaissance Magic and Science

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The voluminous study written by P. Ball bears evident mark of his profession, that is of his being physicist. One has to appreciat how many historical topics he was able to cover in his book, less impressive is, nevertheless, his ability to discover the most important ones and to explain Paracelsus thought on the ground of the historical context so carefully described. Author's basic despise -- at least that's what I feel in his book -- for questions of theology and religion that, according to him, have at best a historical importance seems to prevent him from better understanding of real problems of Paracelsus, and even of real meaning of his "magic". Well, according to the title, Ball wanted to describe Paracelsus in the context of the "renaissance magic and science", yet this picture would be, and is, distorted if the effort is not made to understand the complex of his thought from his perspective, to find out what for him is important.
Another thing is that Ball works only with english anthologies and even, if I'm not mistaken, only with english written sources in general. Sure, it's not very easy to read Paracelsus in the original Swiss German dialect, yet to me it seems inevitable if one wants to get out of beaten tracks of long rooted, sometimes superficial opinions, and to get inside the text and thoughts.
So, if you want to read a reliable and better balanced study on Paracelsus' natural philosophy as well as on his theology (and you are not craving for an "esoteric" interpretation) read rather Andrew Weeks' nicely short monograph on Paracelsus and keep reservation about Ball's book: historically he seems to have found the proper sources to use, but systematically he's then not going deep enough to discover the "real" Paracelsus. If you read in German check the brand new and very valuable, although a little difficult-to-read, book by M. Bergengruen (Meiner 2007). Or just reach for the old, eventhough also partly one-sided "Introduction" by W. Pagel to add some more insights in the paracelsian thought.

I very much looked forward to reading this book, as I have been interested in Paracelsus for many years. But it does not strike me that Ball is interested in Paracelsus. Quite the contrary--throughout the book, he evidences his disdain for Paracelsus. As I read along, I found myself wondering why he had chosen to write the book at all.

Important ideas that Paracelsus is credited with developing or originating are missing in Ball's treatment. For example, the Doctrine of Signatures, which Paracelsus developed and which was taken up by later medical Paracelsians and became widespread, gets hardly any attention. In fact, I learned more about Paracelsian ideas from Principe's recent book on Boyle as alchemist, which I happened to read at the same time. Principe did not feel obliged to sneer at Paracelsus at every turn.

I also found that the organization of the book was problematic. For instance, a chapter might be named for the time Paracelsus spent in Ingolstadt, but that chapter does not actually discuss it.

If you are interested in Paracelsus, this is not the book for you. If, in contrast, you are interested in snickering at the past from what you imagine to be the exalted heights of scientific rationalism, this book will very much gratify your sense of self-importance.

Philip Theophrastus Bombast von Hohenheim came from the time of Erasmus, Luther, and Copernicus, and was in his way as influential as those giants, but he is hardly remembered now. Even by the name Paracelsus, which he took following the fashion of the humanists of his day to Latinize their names, he is unknown to most, though he makes personal appearances in the writings of Browning, Borges, Jung, and even A. J. Rowling, and his personal characteristics have been encompassed in the characters of Faust and Prospero. He wrote many books, almost none of which appeared during his lifetime, full of weird attempts to connect everything in the universe with everything else. He understood that matter was permeated by spirit, and that there were influences on both by astral bodies. His writings of occult science and theology are full of secret signs and symbols and neologisms that have defied any subsequent explanation. You don't have to try to get through his books; Philip Ball has done so, and seems to have absorbed every other aspect of medieval and Renaissance thought, to produce _The Devil's Doctor: Paracelsus and the World of Renaissance Magic and Science_ (Farrar, Straus and Giroux). A big, generous, and detailed look at this alchemist's life and times, and importantly his way of thinking, Ball's book is continually surprising about the man, the reactions to him, and his influence.

One of Paracelsus's biggest achievements is that he did renounce the reliance on Aristotle and Galen; he insisted on finding out for himself what was true and not being bound by the prior abstract arguments of what had to be true. He was thus skeptical of the main currents of thought in cosmology and medicine, and in favor of learning from experience. Without a systematic methodology, however, he assimilated magical and alchemical thought in his own idiosyncratic way, taking what he fancied and fitting it in to his grand scheme. Even Ball admits that Paracelsus made no major discovery that is still part of science. So what is the fascination (and to be sure, the subject of this fine biography comes across as a fascinating man)? It turns out that he had some good ideas and useful practical applications. He emphasized the power of natural remedies, rather than the moribund concepts of balancing humors that were the standards of his age. Much of his success as a doctor was due to his advocacy of minimal treatment, rather than the phlebotomy, cautery, or amputations by which other doctors could turn even minor ailments into mortal injuries. He evaluated the sicknesses of miners and wrote the first manual of occupational health. At risk to himself, he investigated the plague. He believed that chemical processes, not demons, were responsible for madnesses of different kinds. When other medics considered the illnesses of women beneath their attention, he wrote specifically about them. At a time when it was unusual for anyone to venture more than a few miles from home, Ball chronicles Paracelsus's travels to Germany, Spain, Britain, Russia, Egypt and Greece. He was from time to time a military surgeon or royal physician, depending upon what the needs were and how his luck held out. Sometime he had to travel because a city or university expelled him; he never avoided disputes or criticism.

Paracelsus died in 1541. Not only were most of his books printed after his death, the interest in his way of looking at the world increased, and he never lost fame as a healer. In the waves of cholera in the early nineteenth century, crowds came to the churchyard in Salzburg where he is buried, seeking the intervention of the secular saint. His specific teachings are still valued by those who believe in "magick", but they have given way to more scientific explanations and cures. Ball's fine biography not only shows how this remarkable man with often loony ideas helped break away from blind reliance on past theories, but how the break was the spark that eventually led to modern chemical and medical thought. It is thus not only the story of Paracelsus's life but of an important change in human understanding.

I was very excited when I first learned that this biography was going to be published, because there is really not much out there about Paracelsus, and only a small portion of his vast number of works have been published in english. I read Manly P. Hall's small but masterful work, but there is not too much else, in print anyways and easy to obtain.

On the plus side, Mr. Ball does a great job of capturing the historical background to Paracelsus, and he includes many detailed descriptions of life during the Renaissance into the 17th century, and he also illuminates the personalities of many figures that I either have never heard of, or have found only brief information on. In many ways, this is a kind of travel book, and I was fascinated by the amount of traveling Paracelsus did throughout his life, and how many different and exotic places he visited. This portion of the book reads like the movie "Forest Gump", as Paracelsus seems to be at every great event and happening during the height of the Renassaince.

That said, Mr. Ball misses the mark in elucidating the true genius of Paracelsus, and does not explain very well, many of his revolutionary and profound ideas. This is because Mr. Ball either does not understand them himself, or he is just not sympathetic to them. In my opinion, it is a combination of both. At the end of the book, he devotes a mere paragraph for his conclusion, which only highlights where he missed the mark.

He claims that Paracelsus would have been pleased with where science has ended up today, giving us, "sober professionals whose aspirations were typically modest and mundane.. a medicine that works, and understanding of the chemical composition of the macrocosm and microcosm, and (liberation) from the tyranny of the stars.. (putting) our fate into our own hands." Paracelsus would approve of scientists like Heisenberg and Einstein, but what the author is referring to is the athiestic, deconstructionist type scientists who rely on hyper-rationality as a means of "discovering" scientific facts. In fact, he does not even discuss physics in the 20th century as a bridge to Paracelsus, which is a big miss in my opinion. He does not grasp the healing theories of Paracelsus, nor does he discuss the real legacy of his ideas which are not modern medicine, which he seems to point too. If anything, modern medicine is just the old galenic medicine that has been repackaged for our time. Yes, modern medicine uses some of his ideas, but they have selfishly made them to conform to their own ways of thinking and doing. I am sorry Mr. Ball, but it is not "a medicine that works", when the number one killer in this country is iatragenic medicine (doctor induced). Alternative medicine such as homeopathy, naturapathy and polarity therapy would be more what Paracelsus was pointing to. He also does not grasp the real meaning behind astrology which is really about magnetics, polarity and energy theory, not fortune telling or superstition. We are influenced by the stars, the sun and moon via magnetics, and that is what Paracelsus was trying to convey. Again, this book is a great storehouse of historical facts and figures, but very weak on comprehending and elucidating Pracelsus' ideas and theories.

I read the *The Devil's Doctor* in conjunction with *Renaissance Magic and the Return of the Golden Age: The Occult Tradition and Marlowe, Jonson, and Shakespeare* by John S. Mebane. I read them to learn what magic meant to people in the sixteenth century - so that I could better appreciate Shakespeare's play, *The Tempest*.

In the *The Devil's Doctor*, Philip Ball gives a fascinating portrait of a man who believed in both science and magic. In fact, in his medical practice he did not distinguish the two. Paracelsus used both in his attempts to cure diseases and to gain mastery over the external world - which, of course, includes other human beings.

While I cannot judge the accuracy of Dr. Ball's historical and biographical claims about Paracelsus, his misunderstanding of fairly basic Christian teachings surprised me. Here are three examples:

1) Ball states that it was not "his (Paracelsus') intention to say anything that ran contrary to the established position of the church - he was indeed intent on defending the divinity of the mother of Christ, against suggestions that she was mortal." Hello. The Catholic Church does not and did not teach the "divinity" of Mary. Nor does the Church teach that she was not mortal. (The doctrine of the Assumption does not mean she was immortal like a goddess.)

2) In describing how people at that time viewed the spirit world, Ball asserts: "Christian dogma insisted that supernatural beings were universally evil." It did? What about St. Michael and the other angels, not to mention the Communion of Saints?

3) Regarding demonic influences, Ball states: "Paracelsus briefly mentions the *Obsessi*, who are obsessed (possessed) by the devil." Paracelsus, like any sixteenth century Christian, would have known that obsession and possession refer to two very different conditions.

I don't want to make a big deal out of these errors, as if there was something unique about Philip Ball. When reporters, university professors and others write about the Catholic Church, their IQ seems to drop 20 or 30 points. It's hard to know exactly why since today we have this great thing called the Internet. A simple Google search would have enabled Dr. Ball to avoid the above errors.

I think some of the other reviews, especially those by Haines and Hardy, describe very well what is contained in the book. So I'll review the book more than the actual material in it.

I came to this topic not knowing anything about the Renaissance and the movement at that time from "magic" to science. So, on the one hand, the book was incredibly interesting. However, on the other hand, while Ball is a good researcher he is not a great author. Thus it is really tough for a novice, such as me, to gain a good general grasp of Paracelsus from this book. For instance, Ball never presents a general guide to help put everything in perspective. If you already have some knowledge of Paracelsus and/or his world, such a guide isn't necessary. But if you are a neophyte, such as me, this omission makes the book very hard to follow, especially because of two traits of Ball's writing. First, on virtually every page Ball introduces 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or ... more people, most of whom show up for a paragraph or two and then wonder off stage, never to be seen again. A few, however, emerge as more important. But without any general guide, it's impossible to know in advance who will be important and who will be a flash in the pan. Second, this fact combines with the point that Ball frequently goes off on a tangents. But, once again, without any general guide it is impossible to determine if the topic is a tangent that will, indeed, be tangential or if the topic is a tangent that will be a major factor in Paracelsus' life and/or importance. As a result, if you are a novice to the Renaissance it is a constant struggle to see and to grasp the "big picture" about Paracelsus' life and importance. Instead, you will read many very fascinating small points about Paracelsus, the Renaissance, medicine and doctors in the 16th century, and alchemy. But the big picture is, at best, elusive. It takes literally until the last chapter, where Ball writes about Paracelsus' followers and the eventual replacement of Paracelsus' beliefs with modern science, for the general picture to start to emerge. And even then, it's a struggle to put together the pieces that are being presented.

If the key material in last chapter had been presented and expanded upon in the first chapter, I'd happily give the book 5 stars. Alas, however, it was not. And so the book gets 3 stars. If you want a source of really neat trivia about Paracelsus or the Renaissance, this is your book. If you want an understanding of the importance of Paracelsus and do not already have a good foundation on this topic, prepare to work.

The Devil's Doctor is a remarkably well written biography of Paracelsus as well as social history of his life time, that period in European History when the Scholastic mindset of the Medieval was being challenged by the coming Enlightenment. Ball, who writes with great clarity and skillful organization shows Paracelsus as a unique individual in the middle of this social revolution, not seeing the whole picture, but living on both sides of the split.

An alchemist who grew up in a mining region of Switzerland where the manipulation of metals was prevelant he received a scolastic education in medicine. He left early because he realized that the medicine of the Greeks no longer served. He sought out the best teachers and herbalists to educate himself and was recognized as one of the best doctors of his time. He grew up in the Roman church, but thought, wrote, and preached independently his own brand of spirituality barely escaping condemnation for heresy.

I had read bits and pieces about Paracelsus over the years, but gathered almost nothing about the man. By putting Paracelsus in his time and many places (the man traveled a get deal for the times), Ball has made him real and his significance to European, and so world, history understandable.

I can't say I disliked anything about this book. Except, maybe, the fact that Paracelsus was associated with so many interesting characters who deserved books of their own, which I'll probably never find. I highly recommend this book to those interested in this period of history even if they scoff at alchemy. If they scoff, Ball will give them a better understanding of its significance to the period.

If any age in human history can be called "pivotal" it must be the 16th Century C.E. Nearly every major social norm, from national law through religion endured significant upheavals. It was the time of Martin Luther, Erasmus, Copernicus, Thomas More, Calvin and a host of others. A nearly forgotten element was that of medicine. For centuries, the hold of Galen, through the Church, had dominated medical thought and procedures. Not until this pivotal time did a figure emerge that seriously challenged this monopoly. Philip Ball has produced a lively and informative biography of Theophrastus Bombast von Hohenheim - the man we know as "Paracelsus".

We don't call doctors unless we're ill or need a golfing partner. In the Renaissance, it was a risky venture to place yourself in a medic's hands. Doctors worked from scholastic dogmas, rarely investigating symptoms except to fit them to rules laid down centuries before. Many diagnoses were done through the visual inspection of a urine sample. A "prescription" was then derived from what Galen or other Roman Empire "authorities" recommended. Paracelsus castigated this "hands-off" approach to medicine. In fact, he did so with such vehemence that the term "bombastic" is said to derive from his name. For him, the body was the best healer. Conditions should be established that would allow Nature to work its own cures. "Establishment" doctors rejected this approach almost universally, causing Paracelsus to lead a peripatetic life. Moving from town to town, he would lecture against normal medical practice, even while performing cures of his own. This wasn't "faith healing:" since Paracelsus was a keen student of herbs and natural medicines.

This all sounds revolutionary and far-sighted even for Renaissance Europe. Ball shows that simple assessments of Paracelsus, or even changing medical outlooks, have no place in dealing with this radical healer. Although he rejected long-held dogmas, Paracelsus also held fast to even less credible ideas. He was a dabbler in magic and a leading student of alchemy. Alchemy had many aspects, and some modern scholars credit it with laying the groundwork for modern chemistry. Ball doesn't go quite that far, noting that the quest for gold from other metals dominated the alchemist's programme. Theophrastus spelled out many of his ideas in a series of works, nearly all of which were published after his death. Ball confronted an immense task in dealing with the works of this complex figure. He handles it well, and is fully conscious of his subject's shortcomings. Some of the writings are self-contradictory, while others spend more ink on castigating his enemies, that Paracelsus left many readers scratching their heads to make sense of it. In dealing with alchemy, for example, the "militant medic" launched into the realm of cosmology, trying to tie together mundane aspects of doctoring with astrological themes. It's a bad fit in any circumstance, but it shows clearly why Paracelsus is an important transition figure.

The many and varied elements of Paracelsus' life and work make it difficult, if not impossible to assess him. Certainly, as Ball demonstrates, he had both enemies and supporters enough in his own time and later. Where some praise him as the liberator of medicine from the thrall of "classical" dogmas, others dismiss him as misguided or a charlatan. Yet, as Ball makes clear, this radical reforming did provide a foundation for modern medicine. Although hardly gifted with foresight, Theophrastus von Hohenheim disrupted the locked view of doctoring that would ultimately overturn fixed thinking. Nature, in whatever way proved best, was now consulted to aid doctors in treating the sick. That legacy alone should grant him respectful immortality. Ball has given us a work ably explaining what science and scientists have endured to advance our thinking beyond simple formulas. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

I find the history of science to be a fascinating topic, especially the transition from attempting to explain (and control) the world through "magic" to "science" as it is mainly understood today. In this context, I did find this book quite interesting as it provides a vivid illustration of the life of proto-scientist that sough to fight dogma with, like many of his contemporaries, one foot in the past and one in the future. With this said, even thought the historical narrative is compelling, Ball does not completely succeed in presenting Paracelsus cosmology... that is, what he actually believed. This may not be completely his fault as the "doctor" seemed to change his mind frequently and often describe his thoughts in quite vague terms (at least this is the impression I get from the book). Of course it is completely plausible that Ball didn't get it also.

To some extent the book resembles Frances Yates' "Giordano Bruno..." and I think that's what Ball was aiming for. I didn't think the life and legacy of Paracelsus was a controversial issue until I read some of the reviews here. In this regard the book is written in a mostly neutral tone, although I feel Ball has some sympathy for the maverick. After reading the book I do to! This is not the ultimate scholarly resource on Paracelsus (actually I wouldn't even consider it a scholarly book) but all in all it was an interesting read.

The world that Paracelsus knew is thankfully long gone. In its place is a world that takes its lead from modern science which is based largely on experience, experiment, criticism and empiricism and science itself moves forward upon the basis of the scientific method. But it was not always like that and this book does a remarkably good job of trying to bring to life a time in the late middle ages that modern science has forgotten, or perhaps more accurately, would like to forget.

Modern science has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy, 4th century writings, Roman theories, natural magic, Christian theology, astrology, folk tales, alchemy and all manner of mediaeval claptrap and mumbo-jumbo that mostly would have us in hysterics today. When Paracelsus was alive though it was believed and largely taken as true. To stand up and say such and such was not true, or worse still to write it down and publish it was not generally taken as excepted modes of behaviour. In fact it would often put your well being in jeopardy as Paracelsus found out all too often. Rather confirming what was already understood underpinned the thinking of the time. Modern science emerged over several centuries from this mishmash and Ball manages to give a real flavour of what Paracelsus must have encountered. This is a book that should be enjoyed as much as it informs.

Paracelsus himself was a remarkable character of contradictions who can best be described as a failure. Paracelsus' writings are not particularly important either to the history of medicine or to science but it is the spirit in which they were written, the rants as well as the more lucid bits. It is not hard to see Paracelsus as a Till Eulenspeigel type figure or even as a Pierrot, and a good deal of this comes over in Ball's portrait. But it was as a failure who managed to ignite in those who came after him the wish to enquire and not be put off by those who would suppress enquiry that Paracelsus deserves to be remembered.

The life and work of Paracelsus could be written and appraised in a book one quarter the size of this, but that is not what makes this book worth the effort. The background to modern science is in short supply and it is worth getting to know more about it. In the process you will realise that our modern comforts should not be taken for granted and it is not hard to find areas of the world even today some things are not much further advanced than those encountered in this book.

A good read on what could be a difficult subject.