[Phrenologische Untersuchung des im Grabmonumente von Theophrastus Paracelsus]
Translation from the German by Robert Hutwohl.[1]
Even if we have not the slightest reason to doubt that the skull found in the above-mentioned tomb monument is really that of Theophrastus Paracelsus, this assumption is still only an opinion based on certain assumptions, but is by no means with complete certainty. In order to be more certain, it may be appropriate to examine the skull in question, and this is not, as far as we know, impossible; for every thing has its own language; it is merely a matter of understanding it correctly. Even a skull speaks. It tells us about the transience of everything earthly and reports that it once served as a dwelling place for an immortal spirit; It tells us that it once contained a brain by means of which the spirit indwelling it was enabled to exercise the power of perception and thought. Yes even more! Since every visible thing is but the external symbol and expression of an invisible idea, it is not surprising that everything corresponds to an external degree to the idea or thought which it is designed to express. We know that a high forehead does not make a thinker, for there are also fools with high foreheads, and that a handsome goat does not make a man rich, for many a man goes about in a fine suit that has not yet been paid for. On the other hand, we also know that a wealthy person can buy a good suit, and experience teaches us that upbringing changes the shape of the head little by little, more slowly in children and more quickly in adults, and indeed certain parts of the skulls to the intellectual, others to the moral or spiritual and still others to the physical (animal) abilities and characteristics of man. I have observed how children whose sense of what is good and noble was not allowed to develop in early youth and who therefore had a very flat skullcap, after having taken a higher spiritual direction, caused by strokes of fate or the like, gradually the skullcap began to bulge and the organ of worship developed. Anyone can convince himself in daily life that young people who have a depression at the back of the head where the organ of self-respect is located, have very little true self-esteem, but on the other hand a great deal of vanity, and this is because the organ of Coquettishness on both sides emerges all the more strongly. Gradually, as man gains more respect for himself, and seeks to be more true and noble than merely appearing, this depression gradually disappears and the humps on either side diminish in proportion as, if he can respect himself, the judgments of others no longer matter.
However, it is not our purpose to discuss the merits or demerits of phrenology; the above is only intended to show that this science is neither as completely reliable as mathematics, nor, as many think, “there is nothing behind it,” but it is here, as with most sciences, where it is, that phenomena are involved. We do not recognize the absolute truth in this, but we do recognize the probability. We deduce what the thing is from what it appears to be.
Anyone who has studied phrenology, even if only to some extent, must immediately notice, when he looks at the skull of Paracelsus, that it is extremely harmonious and evenly developed in all its parts. It is almost spherical in shape in that there are no particularly prominent protuberances or conspicuously flattened areas. The moral, intellectual, and physical powers are pretty much all equally developed. In the intellectual region, however, the organs of causality (the search for causes) and the comparison of facts come to the fore most prominently. However, this research and comparison was not limited to what is accessible to those senses which man has in common with animals, but his perception penetrated deeper into the interior of nature, he not only saw what and how with the spiritual eye as he says, “every farmer can see,” but he perceived the spirit with a spiritual sense. This is evidenced by the extraordinarily beautiful and harmonious development of the skullcap, where spirituality, hope, worship and faith have their organs. Therefore, the medical science of Paracelsus did not come from merely reading books and parroting ancient authorities, but sprang from his own experience, his own higher thinking, his deep reasoning; what this skull tells us is in complete agreement with what what Paracelsus writes in his “Defence”:
“I am mild and humble of heart to learn medicine from him, who is a teacher of the Eternal. But what is in us deadly (creatures) that does not reach out to us and come from God? He who teaches what is eternal also teaches what is deadly (transitory), for both spring from the same (reason). The doctor is the one who treats and decomposes (represents the place of God) in bodily diseases, therefore he must get from God what he can, for in the same way as the medicine is not from the doctor, but from God, so the art of the doctor is also not from the doctor, but from God” (“Defensio” p. 163. Hus. ed. 1589).
A relatively extraordinary and disproportionate development of the organ of spirituality means superstition, religious fanaticism, credulity, daydreaming, fanaticism, and the like, none of which is noticeable on this skull. The organ of spirituality was certainly extraordinarily, but harmoniously developed, i.e., the owner’s intuition was immense, but balanced by an equal development of intellectual faculties. This also agrees with what is known of the character of Paracelsus, for he does not rely entirely on fine intuition in his practice, but tests the promptings of reason through the intellect acquired through practical experience:
“Art pursues no one, but it must be pursued. That’s why I thought and understood that I had to look for her and she not me. If we want to go to God, we must go to him, because he says: “Come to me!” While this is so, we must pursue where we want to go. If someone wants to see a person, a country, a city, learn about its type and habits (customs), (recognize) the nature of the craze and the elements, then he must follow them. So it is the manner of everyone who wants to see and experience something, that he should pursue it and royally (as much as he can) take in customers.”
“How can a good cosmographer or a geographer grow behind the stove? Doesn’t the face (seeing oneself) give the eyes the right reason? If someone wanders far, he learns a lot and learns to recognize a lot. Scripture is examined by its letters, but nature through country by country” (“Defens.” p. 174).
“We on earth make sure that there is nothing nobler for people in terms of physical happiness than to recognize nature and to philosophize and speak well of it as the right reason. Likewise we despise the sensuous cunning (arguing and quibbling), which is called philosophy and is a colored thought, but flowery and cold” (“De Generat. Hominis” p. 330).
The mental functions have their organs higher up (in the cranium) than the intellectual activities, which have their seat on the forehead, and since both regions are perfectly harmoniously developed in the present skull, the conclusion is that the possessor is not like many others, came to an understanding through long brooding; but that seeing came first and then analyzing what was seen and comparing it. This also corresponds to what Paracelsus says:
“Outer philosophy (science) does not grow out of speculation, but out of the outer man and shows what the inner (man) is. Now that there is such a teacher, it is necessary to leave speculation and pursue what is shown not in speculation but in exposition. Speculating is fantasizing and fantasizing makes a fantasist.” (“Paragran” p. 106).
Anyone who was as spiritually organized as this skull indicates may well be assumed to have spoken from personal experience when he said:
“This is the decree (of wisdom) in all things, that man, who wants to get to know, must take his knowledge from God and nature, and must learn from it.” (“Defensio” p. 164).
And elsewhere he quotes the Bible, where it says:
“Seek first of all the kingdom of God, and the rest (knowledge) will also be given to you.” But that the “kingdom of God” is the kingdom of divine self-knowledge will not be doubted by anyone who knows the meaning of this word. More about this is said in Paracelsus’ “De Fundamento Scientiarum et Sapientiae.”
Sublimity of thought, deep and clear insight into the causes of things, and keen comparison. It is these three forces and qualities that this skull tells us. Whoever was in possession of such talents, made secure in his self-confidence by the knowledge of the truth, might well appear fearlessly and say without hesitation:
“Follow me, you from Paris, from Montpellier, from Cologne, from Wittenberg, and all you in the sum (together), and no one has to be exempt, not stay in the furthest corner of Badwinkel; for I am monarchs and I for monarchy, and gird up your loins” (“Paragran” p. 102).
If we now ask this skull whether it was personal vanity that made Theophrastus speak in such a way, the answer is: “No!” The organ of true self-respect is fully developed, but not prominent or exaggerated, nor are the two humps discussed above, which denote vanity and the craving for adulation, entirely absent. Paracelsus therefore did not speak in the name of his ephemeral personality when he boasted that he was a ruler in the realm of human knowledge and medicine, but in the name of the spirit of eternal truth filling his soul, in the name of his immortal self. He also points this out in his defense, which states: “The descriptions of the new diseases, such as have never been described before, are given by me” (not “invented by me”). “To be reported by me because of the new diseases” etc. (“Defens.” p. 164). He further says: “Thirdly are the physicians who are taught from God. That is as much as we can, that we have from God” (ibid.).
Next to the organ of self-respect is that of prudence, and here, on closer inspection, we find a slight flattening, which is particularly noticeable because the organ of ideality, which lies closest to it, is particularly fully developed. Here, on Fowler’s scale, ideality would be number 7, prudence number 5, and the skull thus tells us as clearly as it can that the owner was a most ideal human being who, in defense of his ideal took little regard for his own person, and did not exercise the caution which is necessary in ordinary life to avoid hostility and inconvenience. That what the skull tells corresponds with the facts that are known to us from the life of Paracelsus hardly needs any assurance. Paracelsus made quite a few enemies with his more sincere than polite ways of speaking, and in addition to his love of truth perhaps the fact that, as can be seen from the construction of this skull, he possessed a well-developed organ for pugnacity and destruction (of error). In relation to this he says himself:
“I am not subtly spun by nature, nor is it the way of my country to attain anything by spinning silk. We are not brought up on figs, nor on meth [sic], nor on wheat bread; but with cheese, milk and oat bread. That is why the rough must be judged to be rough, even if he thinks himself to be subtle and gracious. So it is happening to me too. What I consider to be silk is what the others call twill and drill” (“Defens.” p. 183).
But that a man who paid little attention to conventional considerations, who did not carry his nose up, who valued people not by their outward appearance but by their inner worth, who dressed simply and who made no secret of his conviction — It is easy to understand that such a man was a thorn in the side of the windbags and “Gigerln” of the time. There was also no lack of people who, without knowing Paracelsus and without having understood the meaning of his writings, faithfully accepted all the slanders that Paracelsus’ enemies spread about him and proclaimed them as their oracles. So wrote, for example in 1763, someone whose name has long been forgotten, who said about Paracelsus:
“He lived like a pig, looked like a carter, took his greatest delight in the company of the slovenliest and lowest rabble, and was drunk for most of his glorious life; also all his writings seem to have been written in intoxication.”[2]
On the other hand, the famous Joh. Bapt. von Helmont states the following:
“Paracelsus was the forerunner of true medicine, sent by God and equipped with the science of dissecting bodies by fire, and his excellent auras set all Germany in motion.”[3]
“Paracelsus was a man of high gifts in the light of nature; However, he only knew a lot from experience of certain secret remedies and their practice, which he had found and learned from all sorts of people, than that he himself had always recognized the right reason.”[4]
“Paracelsus was a man of excellent understanding, well-experienced in all things. A subtle, highly intelligent man who would not be satisfied with the vain dreams of the dormouse who taught before him.”[5]
“Paracelsus was an adornment of all Germany, and the insults that were spoken against him are not worth a dead nut, of his learning, wisdom and artistic talents, of which all his writings are full, I do not want to say many words, which would also be far too low. Also, he is certainly not to be blamed for having made known the magnetic force (life magnetism) instead of the useless physics that is generally taught in schools, and having developed the real art of separation, for which reason he rightly earned the name of Monarch of the Arcana.”[6]
A certain H. G. Neumann tells us: “No one can pick up a book by Theophrastus without immediately being convinced that the man was insane.” On the other hand, Giordanus Bruno (d. 1600) says:
“Paracelsus, who understood neither Greek nor Arabic, not even a complete understanding of Latin, nevertheless evidently had a deeper knowledge of the art of healing and remedies than Galenus, Avicenna and all the doctors and their followers, who are supposed to be heard in Latin. His highest praise is that he first again treated medicine as a philosophy, employing magical remedies where the common physical and chemical did not suffice. As a result, he was able to cure an epileptic, which the physicists and chemists had already given up.”[7]
Where there are such varied and contradictory judgments by people who never knew Paracelsus personally, we prefer to hear the judgment of one of his contemporaries, and what better witness could we find than his own skull, which was his for life a loyal friend and with whom he was intimately connected. If we don’t understand the language of this skull properly, that’s our business, the skull can’t help it, it speaks the truth: What it says, translated into German, reads something like this:
“If you examine me closely, and study not only the individual parts, but also their relationships to one another, you will find that in the spirit which inhabited me, helped to form me, enlivened me, and impressed me with the stamp of its character, the moral, physical and intellectual qualities were in harmonious equilibrium, and that the possessor of such a skull cannot be said to be drunk, foolish or superstitious. In me the intellect was under the influence of intuition, the moonlight of imagination was penetrated by the light of wisdom, the imagination restrained by the clear mind. In me, reason ruled the excesses of passion, love was guided by reason, and reason moved by love. My fighting spirit was great and was not hindered by excessive caution; the courage that worked in me found its support in moral firmness. Of course, various spirits came and went in this house, too, but when unwelcome influences came, my owner drove them away with the firmness of his will, and he occasionally strengthened his will by expressing it outwardly and with the sword moving around in the air. So it may well have happened that some who know nothing about the art of self-control thought that Theophrastus was drunk. It would also have been in vain to try to make the fools of the time understand the usefulness of such an exercise.”
The most significant flattenings on Paracelsus’ skull, which are also noticeable in Huser’s caricature, considered by many to be the “best picture” of Theophrastus, are on either side of the occipital near the parietal bones. What organs are there?
-
-
- Imitation, i.e., the ability, or rather the desire, to imitate others. We know from himself that Paracelsus had no desire to imitate his ignorant medical contemporaries, but that he thought for himself and did what he thought best, disregarding the gossip of the people, domineering priests: these were his enemies, whom he did not want to imitate, and since he did not practice the art of this imitation, this organ lagged behind in its development.
-
“While the medicine (knowledge) of the other scribes does not flow from that well from which the (true) medicine takes its foundation, that I may boast of ground and well, shouldn’t I then have the power to write otherwise than another writer?” (“Defens.” p. 165.)
-
-
- Politeness, the art of complimenting, talkativeness, affability, in general everything that makes a man popular in social circles and by which he makes many friends among superficial thinkers by knowing how to amuse and flatter them. We also know from Paracelsus himself that he did not exercise these qualities, and that is why this organ did not develop fully either. He preferred to be occupied with people from whom he could be of service or from whom he could learn something, than with those with whom dealing would involve only a useless loss of time.
-
“My business is not to win anything with my mouth; much alone with works. But if they (the critics) don’t have any sense, then they can say, in their own way, that I’m a strange, whimsical head, don’t spend enough knowledge. It is not my intention (way) to feed me with kind caresses.”
Thirdly, the organ of worship could have been more highly developed on this skull, but then Theophrastus would have had more respect for the traditional, for “scientific authorities” and the like, and he probably would not have become what he has become, the “Luther” of Medicine, the reformer of medical science.
Highly developed in this skull, on the other hand, is the sense of charity, firmness of character and perseverance, the sense of the high and sublime, ideality and conscientiousness, but especially “individuality,” i.e., the ability to distinguish precisely and the desire to get to know everything. A mind that has this organ highly developed does not rest until it has come to know not only things themselves, but also their root causes. This organ is particularly noticeable on Carl Meyer’s sheet (side view, figure VI of the drawings of the skull) in the “Mitteilungen für Salzburger Landeskuende.” On the other hand, the organ for construction (composition) is less developed, and this perhaps explains why there is not more system to be found in the writings of Theophrastus. His books, like those of most mystics, are like a travelogue in which a man relates what he has seen and experienced, without artificially constructing a system like the theorist, but which is usually a product of speculation, lacking intuition.
Having now discussed the spiritual, moral, and intellectual characteristics of this skull in as much detail as is convenient for the layman of phrenology, it remains for us to look at the so-called “animal tendencies,” i.e., on those powers which man has in common with animals and which, by overcoming them, give him the strength for a higher spiritual development.
Here we are struck by the almost complete absence of the organ of sexual love in this skull, from which we are entitled to conclude that Paracelsus did not indulge in any inclinations that would have resulted in a development of this organ, but that he indulged those tending in this direction vital forces used for a higher purpose. It is well known that Paracelsus was not married. He believed that the practice of higher medicine (the use of occult powers) required “a whole man,” not one whose heart is in women (Vol. IV, p. 165).
Perhaps the readers of this article who are not familiar with the works of Paracelsus will be interested to hear what he says about sexual love. In contrast to certain medical authorities of our time, he does not consider the gratification of the sexual impulse to be a necessity, but shows that this impulse arises only from the imagination and can be avoided if one keeps one’s thinking and willing directed to higher ends.
“God gave man the imagination of lust and desire. He gave this so that it might become matter. The fantasy of pleasure comes from speculation (imagination), because speculation makes a fantasy (construct) and forms. This speculation takes itself from the counter-throw (object). When a man sees a pretty woman, he is given a counterpoint (the object affects him) and a cause for speculation. Because the imagination is the mother (producer) of the seed, but not the nature of man (produces the seed from itself), it is sufficient to understand that the seed (the seed formation) is in the free will of man, and much (depending on its perfection), little or not at all. Imagination makes the seed and not nature.” (“De Generat. Hominis” Vol. VII, p. 166).
In his book “De Fundamento Sapientiae” and also in many other passages, Paracelsus teaches that man should not be fully ruled by his imagination, but should learn to master his nature (imagination); for “the soul of man, and not the earthly body, is the real man.” (“Meteorum” Vol. VIII, p. (88). “We humans carry this spirit of God on earth, which spirit no one has ever seen, nor sees,” and it is he who in the matrix of women “imagines the physical man in her and makes him fruitful. Therefore they (women) should not be used in fornication; for there is the spirit that comes full of the Lord and goes to him again.” (“Paramir” Vol. I, p. 202).
As the whole posterior part of the present skull shows no outstanding development, the organ of attachment to children is not so well developed as we expect from the skull of a teacher or a nursemaid. Just as little or even less is the place where the love of the place of residence had its seat. Paracelsus had his home in heaven, the earth was his night’s lodging; he was cosmopolitan, at home wherever he happened to be, not tied to any soil. To one side of this is the organ of lust for battle, which, as noted above, shows full development and enables him to wage the struggle for truth and liberty against superstition and megalomania. Likewise the organ of destruction is high and vigorously unfolded: and who more than Paracelsus destroyed false theories? The secret organ is not at all outstanding, and this contradicts the view that he was a secret-monger with patent medicines, that he kept opium powder concealed in the pommel of his sword, and whatever other such follies spring from the imagination of “Paracelsus researchers.” However, he could not make the world understand everything he knew; for his arcana consisted of those peculiar to him, i.e., mystical powers that have unfolded in himself, which are necessarily a mystery to anyone who does not possess them himself.
That is basically what Paracelsus tried to make the world understand, and what is still as little understood today as it was then, namely that true medicine does not consist of quackery, but that divine powers reside in man himself, in whom he attains conscious possession by the fact that he himself comes closer to the divine, becomes more divine himself or becomes more like a god. There is no talk of mere “hypnotism” and “suggestion,” but of the working of the spiritual power of one man on another, of a transmission of that power which is the cause of life and health. Paracelsus says:
“Since the Son is known in all things through the Father, know that when we know God (the source of wisdom), we know his art and wisdom. For while we are to have our mirror in God on earth, so in the form that we are like him, like a child to its father, which has no less fingers than its father, so we are also to appear in God in wisdom. Therefore we should be whole; for we see nothing broken in God, nothing dismembered, but whole. So there is also such a wisdom with us people, which does not serve to the end of (true) wisdom, and does not come to an end without damage, or does not remain unbroken, the same is bankruptcy; for the wise man from God (who draws his wisdom from God, i.e., from divine self-knowledge), who is then to have all wisdom from God; he thus advises and teaches that his wisdom never succumbs” (“De Fundamento Sapientiae” p. 425).
“Man,” says Paracelsus, “is like the angels, and could exercise the powers of angels, if only he were conscious of his indwelling higher nature; but this is not achieved through theories and hypotheses, but only through intellectual development.
“God is mighty, and his mighty power in arts and wisdom he wills that they be made manifest both to men and to angels; for he wants the earth, the world, to be like heaven. In it we are angels and live in the will of God and are God’s, and thus by the (this) way his will is accomplished in us; then we are angels. How can the fool be according to the will of God? — Not at all! — How can the unlearned man be according to the will of God? —Not at all! How can the man who cannot do anything be in the will of God? — Not at all! — These things are all against the will of God; for he does not want us to be stupid fools, knowing nothing, unable to understand anything, but he wants us to be awakened in his great, natural things which he has given, so that the devil may see that we are God’s and angels.” (“De Fundamento Sapientiae p. 430).
The temptation is great to continue with these quotations, from which much more can be learned than from a canon of other philosophical speculations, once properly grasped. But we must return to our phrenological organs.
Next to the organs of secrecy is the desire for acquisition, and by this is meant not only acquisition of money, etc., but also acquisition of spiritual treasures, thirst for knowledge, and so on. This organ is fully developed in the present skull, but not exaggerated; Strangely enough, just about all the organs on this skull are harmoniously developed, and when protrusions and flat areas are discussed in this article, they are so insignificant that it takes a trained eye to discover them at all. It is well known that Paracelsus scolded when he was treated very shabbily and cheated of his wages by a very rich patient, Cornelius von Lichtenfels, whose life he had saved after he had been sentenced to death by the other doctors, but it is probable that he did not lament the loss of money, but rather denounced the shamefulness of ingratitude.
Below this point is the organ of nourishment, which, when excessively large, heralds gluttony and drunkenness. None of that can be seen on this skull, the organ is rather too weak than too strong. Thus this skull also testifies that the widespread claim that Paracelsus was a drunkard is a lie. But whoever has even a slight understanding of the sublime teachings of Paracelsus, when he reads his books, comes to the definite conviction that these teachings were not penned by a demoniac, but rather have flowed by a mind enlightened by the knowledge of the truth. The wine which Paracelsus drank is of a very different sort from that to which his critics are usually accustomed; It is the wine that Mirza Schaffy sings about and the Bible says: “I am the vine and you are the branches.” It is the wine which is made from the water of the pure thought of God and which receives its strength from the fire of divine love. It is the “elixir of life,” through which man’s soul attains immortality.
The only thing to note is that, in my opinion, the almost circular hole and the gap in the left temporal bone may have come from the pick and shovel of the gravedigger who dug up the skull. Such a wound during Paracelsus’ lifetime would probably have made it impossible for him to write his will as he did.
Notes:
[1] Phrenological Investigation of the Skull Located in the Monument-Tomb of Theophrastus Paracelsus in the Sebastian Church at Salzburg [Phrenologische Untersuchung des im Grabmonumente von Theophrastus Paracelsus. Franz Hartmann, M.D. Sphinx 20 (1895), 22-33] {This article was reformatted from the original, but with the content unchanged other than fixing minor typos. Translation from the German by Robert Hutwohl, ©2025}
[2] J. G. Zimmermann, “Von der Erfahrung in der Arzneikunde,” [“Of Experience in Pharmacy,”] II, p. 121.
[3] Opp. omnia. — Amstel 1712, fol. 74
[4] Ortus medicinae novus. Vorrede.
[5] Ortus medicinae. “von der Pest,” Chapter II, 5, 6.
[6] Ibid, “vom Tartarus,” Chapter III.
[7] Edit. 1584. Venet. 12. Pages 61, 65, 77.