[Critical notions about Paracelsus [corrected] or "Antiparacelsianism"?, 1570-1630]

Historians of early modern medicine have frequently portrayed Paracelsians and Antiparacelsians around 1600 as two largely separate, hostile factions locked in a fierce battle. As I will argue in my paper, this account attributes too much weight to the public self-fashioning of both groups: From the mid-16th century onwards, some physicians chose the deceased Theophrastus of Hohenheim, or Paracelsus, as their new medical hero and tried to attract affluent patients with new, supposedly more powerful "spagyric" medicaments. Other physicians showed intense interest without thereby accepting Paracelsus as the "Luther of medicine". Based on my analysis of large collections of early modern physicians' letters, I argue for a more nuanced and cautious account of this conflict. Well-known physicians like Konrad Gesner, Johann Crato von Krafftheim, or Joachim Camerarius did indeed condemn the arrogance and rudeness of Paracelsus and his belittling of the ancient medical authors. Yet, at the same time, they also showed a keen interest in the new chemical drugs which the "Paracelsians" promoted. None of these supposed "Antiparacelsians" supported or welcomed the vehement attacks by Thomas Erastus in his Disputationum de Medicina nova Paracelsi without reservations--although Erastus suggested this for tactical reasons.