Conference hydra::dejavu

Steve,
This is perfect timing.  I was going to ask you this question 
"off-line" in the near future, but your note makes it appropriate 
for here.

According to Paracelsus, that which gives rise to the four 
elements is called the Iliaster.  I find this an interesting 
word, since I'd never seen it anywhere else.  When I tried to 
look up the etymology of it, I discovered *why* I'd never seen it 
anywhere: it doesn't seem to be a word, according to every 
dictionary from the OED to Latin roots and suffices dictionary.  
Apparently ol' Paracelsus had a knack for making up words, this 
seems to be one of them.  But I'm curious about what you know 
about it as it relates to either his writings or this discussion 
(on the elements/elemental spirits).

One other question:  Is the proper way to pronounce Paracelsus 
with a hard "c" or a soft "c" (like an "s").

Thanks,
Chuck

    According to my dictionary, the name should be pronounced with a
    soft C.  "Paracelcus" was a professional name, and was, in full,
    Philippus Aureolus Paracelsus.  His original name was Theophrastus
    Bombastus von Hohenheim, and he was Swiss.  His dates are 1493-1541.
    The dictionary lists him as alchemist and physician.
    
    "Paracelsus" means "like Celsus" or "the peer of Celsus."  Celsus
    was an earlier alchemist to whom Paracelsus wished to compare himself.
    Unfortunately Celsus does not appear in my dictionary's biographical
    index.
    
    Is iliaster the same as prime matter?
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .1:
    
    I forget the exact derivation of Iliaster, and whether Paracelsus
    coined it or whether he obtained it from another source; I'll try
    to check it in my copy of _Archidoxes_ in the next few days (the
    type is very rough, being set with the "f"-like long-s characters
    so popular a couple of centuries ago, that I can't skim through
    it like I can with other books in my collection like Agrippa  or
    Barrett).
    
    I understand that the "c" in his name is a soft-c rather than a
    hard one.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

I've wondered about this too, so I decided to check it, and another
question I've had about him, out.

The best answer I got was from Webster's unabridged which listed the
adjective derived from his name "paracelsian".  The "c" in this word
is pronounced as an "s".  This probably applies to his name as well.

In the word derivation note Webster's says that it comes from the
name of "Philippus Aureolus Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus
von Hohnheim)".  I had heard that the term bombastic came from
Paracelsus's name due to his personal style, and this is the other
thing I wanted to check out.

Webster's and the American Heritage say that the term bombast comes from
a previous use of the term "bombace" which is a type of cotton padding.

The Britannica's entry on Paracelsus quite explicitly says that the
adjective is derived from his name, however.  It describes his style,
both personal and literary as "Always forthright, frequently vitriolic,
scurrilous, scathing and caustic."

There seems, therefore, to be a scholarly disagreement.  I would tend to
give the benefit of the doubt to the dictionaries, however, since they
were written by philologists.

The Britannica lists his "real" name, by the way, as "Philippus Aureolus
Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohnheim".  So the parenthesis above represents
a "replacement" for only the Paracelsus part.

For readers who don't know:  Paracelsus was a controversial Swiss
alchemist and physician in the early 1500's.  He believed that the body
operates chemically and that health is a matter of the proper chemical
composition of body tissues.  He invented many drugs, and expounded a
theory which anticipated homeopathy.  Much of the controversy surrounding
him during his life seems to have come from his rejection of scholasticism,
his populism (his lectures were open to the public and given in German
rather than Latin; he also publicly and frequently claimed to learn more
from talking to the "common" people than to scholars), and his fondness
for denigrating classical authorities (to the point of performing public
book-burnings of their works).

His credo:
     "Magick is a Great Hidden Wisdom -- Reason is a Great Open Folly".

I recommend the Britannica "Macropaedia" article on him -- he was a
fascinating person.

			Topher

    There are better Paracelsus references, including whole books. 
    I have a slight distrust of Brittanica from past history of finding
    small errors in it personally (there was a good book on the subject
    about fifteen years ago called _the Myth of the Brittanica_, by
    M. Harvey Einbinder, a doctorate-level physicist).
    
    Paracelsus was a really interesting character; part of his medical
    theory was based on the Theory of Signatures; partly on using metals
    and metal compounds in lieu of herbal remedies.  However, his greatest
    contribution to medicine was to investigate _everything_ for a possible
    cure, such as folk remedies, rather than relying solely on the opinion
    of medical writers of the past (rather like Galileo to Aristotle
    in the world of physics).
    
    He was an interesting occultist, too.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

123.2 came in while I was preparing my previous posting, hence the
redundancy.

The prefix "para" can mean either "Similar to", "Alongside" (its intended
sense in the coined terms "paranormal" and "parapsychology"), or "Beyond".

The Britannica says that Paracelsus means "beyond" or "better than"
Celsus.  This would fit with Paracelsus's general tendency to belittle
classical authorities.  Probably Paracelsus never explicitly explained
his coinage in writing, so we'll never know for sure.

As to who Celsus was, the Britannica says that he lived during the first
century AD, and is "generally considered the greatest Roman medical
writer."  He wrote an encyclopedia dealing with a variety of topics, but
only the section on medicine, entitled De Medicina, survived.  He was
obscure until discovered by Pope Nicholas V in the early 1400's.  De
Medicina was one of the first medical texts to be published on a printing
press.  Most of what is known about the medical practice in the period
comes from his work.

		Topher

(And the posting pace gets fast & furious).  123.5 came in while I was
composing 123.6.

I agree entirely about the weakness of the Britannica as a source.  It
all depends on the individual contributor.  It *is* a fairly good source
for the "general" picture, but details should be taken with a grain of
salt unless you know something about the contributor of an individual
article.

Take for example, the question about whether the term bombast came from
Paracelsus's real name.  The article was probably written by an historian
(I neglected to check) so his/her philological knowledge is very suspect.

I used the Britannica in this case because it was available and recommended
it for the same reason.

There is a particular edition of the Britannica (can't remember which
number) which is considered the last "scholarly" edition.  It was published
in the first part this century.  It is still much in demand by libraries.

		Topher

    Getting back to elementals, I have read that the gods were sometimes
    considered the elementals of ether, the fifth element.  My source
    is "The Discarded Image" by C. S. Lewis, an introduction to the
    medieval world-view intended for literature majors, but also useful
    to historians of science.  I could probably find Lewis's sources
    for that opinion, if anyone is interested.
    
    For another dubious etymology, ether, the fifth and most exhalted
    element, was, I am told, sometimes called the "fifth essence" or
    "quintessence," and that's where the word comes from.  Of course
    I have also heard that the word means "distilled five times over."
    
    Earl Wajenberg

I got private mail asking for the edition of the Britannica I had read
about Paracelsus in.  It was the 15'th edition, volume 13, pages 192-194.
I think they started renumbering editions at some point so be sure that
the one you use is one of the modern versions with three parts (pro-,
micro-, and macropaedias).  At least, be sure if you want the same
article I read.  I would guess that the article is the same in all the
"modern" (3 part) editions.

While I was looking up the edition number, I decided to check up on who
the article was by.  It turned out to be by someone who wrote only that
article (i.e., he was consulted as an authority on Paracelsus, rather than
as, say, an authority on the history of medicine).  His name is John
C. Hargrave, and he is the author of a book entitled "The Life and Soul
of Paracelsus".  Having found this out, I would tend to put a bit more
trust on the details of Paracelsus's life than I would have otherwise.

The article ends with a short, annotated bibliography of books on
Paracelsus.  The first listed is a two volume English collection of
Paracelsus's writings, translated by none other than A.E. Waite, who has
been mentioned elsewhere in this notes file.  The late A.E. Waite is
probably the leading scholarly occultist in English, though his writing
style is distinctly 19'th century (i.e., hard to read at times).  I don't
know whether there is an edition in print.

		Topher

    Re .8:
    
    The ether, ehich now has a couple of meanings, was once indeed thought
    to be a fifth state of matter.
    
    If we consider the heavens perfect and the earth not, as we ascend
    from the mundane we'd pass through a bunch of realms:
    
    Earth first: that's our origin.
    
    Then water.  On the earth, we see [the ancients would argue] that
    water is above earth.
    
    Then air.  This is obvious, since [they'd argue] water is beneath
    air.
    
    Then fire.  This iss less obvious, but [the argument would go]:
    fire rises.  The heavens above have divine fore (especially the
    sun) that shines down upon us and can warm us.
    
    Then ....?  According to some, the ether.
    
    All these elements wewre supposed to be on the imperfect earth,
    even ether.  Apollonius of Tyana (who some -- though not all --
    considered to be an archmagician) would not drink alchoholic beverages
    because he claimed they "darkened the ether" of his soul.
    
    Ether was considered a special realm of discussion for advanced
    mystics.  Some thought that like the [later scientific hypothesis
    of] the luminerifous ether, it permeated all things; this makes
    it somewhat akin to kakashic fluid.  One theory of the so-called
    "magic mirror" uses this hypothesis.
    
    When visiting the Brahmans of ancient India (-not- like the current
    set of hindu holy men), the wisest there told him that ether had
    to be taken together with the other elements for a full view of
    the world.  When Apollonius asked which was created first, he was
    told that all came into being together, because [according to
    Philostratus], "A being isn't created in parts."  When Apollonius
    was asked whether they meant that the whole world [read "universe"
    in modern terminology] should be considered as a living being, he
    was told "Yes."
    
    Ether, being the highest "element" was little involved with most
    alchemical and magical experiments, though.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I am under the impression that as (I think Earl stated) that the
    Gods were considered Elemental Beings also.
    
    Since I have no ancient or celebrated sources I won't present any.
    
    What I have gotten from reading many different types of authors
    is that there is this "One Big God", but since we can't really get
    to it we create Elemental Beings (maybe the wrong terms) to interceede
    or be the proxy god for us.  This leads to many millions of people
    building an emotional construct that appears to be God.  Now not
    only do we as humans create the gods but we add to them for thousands
    of years until a giant and somewhat sientent (sp) being is formed.
    These beings can exist for thousands of years after the last believer
    or follower has died.
    
    On to the subject of _e_lemental beings.  These could be the ones
    that didn't get "fed" enough to make it to real _g_odhood. This
    could leave the elemental much weaker in strength and consequently
    viewd as an elemental.
    
                                 (*)

    Re .1, .3:
    
    Seems my subconscious worked overtime.  I went through my various
    Paracelsus texts and re-learned his concept of Iliaster (actually,
    he preferred "Yliaster," so perhaps my connection took a bit longer
    than it should have).
    
    Yliaster refers to the stuff beforwe anything else, which vaguely
    _might_ be considered "god-stuff" rather than prime material, although
    the writingas are a bit vaggue on that.  Yliaster is what divided
    into and/or became the original Chaos as well as what best could
    ber called the ether.  From that came everything else.
    
    Because Paracelsus was amiong other things an alchemist and a serious
    student of magic, he subscribed to a number of beliefs (or their
    models).  Yliaster is derived from a Greek work meaning "tree" that
    the English "Yli" most nearly approximates; "aster" refers to "star";
    together, they suggest to me that Paracelsus was linking the heavens
    to the Kabbalistic Tree of Life.  This is reinforced by his statement
    that there is some yliaster in trace form [to use modern things]
    in everything: that is a reflection that within each sephirot of
    the Kabbalistic Tree one can find an equivalent sephirotic structure
    in you look deep enough.
    
    So Iliaster/Yliaster isn't the same as ether: it's what the entirety
    of everything hypothetically derivedd from.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

Re: .12
Thank you, Steve's unconscious!  Two last short questions will 
help me a lot:  What would be the correct pronounciation (I mean, 
how would Paracelsus have said it?); and, What texts does Yliaster 
appear in?

/chuck

    
    Re .13:
    
    I say my unconscious was working overtime if you happened to spot
    my "Before there was Chaos, there was...?"  The answer was Yliaster.
    
    Since Paracelsus was Swiss-German, I don't know how _he_ would have
    said it.  "aster" is pronounced pretty much the same; "yli" is probably
    something like "ye-lee"; but that's just a guess.
    
    The _fastest_ source to the yliaster business is Franz Hartmann
    [M.D.]'s collection of Paracelsiana; I chose it over _Archodoxes_
    because it's indexed.  It appears in several of his texts, including
    gis alchemical ones.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Re .14:
    
    The term "iliaster" did appear in a science-fantasy novel, _To Reign
    In Hell_, which is why it took a few minutes....
    
    Steve
    

RE: .11

That's a very popular idea in fantasy, but I've never seen it as a serious
religious belief (doesn't mean a whole lot, my reading in this area is
*very* unsystematic and uneven -- it might be a common belief).  It allows
a certain amount of "rationalism" in dealing with different pantheons,
traditional or invented, simultaneously.

The earliest fantasy reference I know to the idea is James Branch Cabell in
(I think, its been almost 20 years) _Jurgen, A Comedy of Justice_.  It might
be elsewhere in the Cabell's 25 book series which includes that novel. 
Wherever it is, its used for satiric effect when the main character is
sitting around watching The Opponent (at a Black Sabbath ceremony, I think)
and someone, a rather tired old man, sits next to him.  It turns out to
be the Old Testament Jehovah, and he's just not the storm god he used to be.
They discuss religion and faith and Jehovah points to other dimly seen
figures in the shadows, other displaced gods watching their old enemy.
The point -- gods and Gods come and go but evil is eternal.

I don't know where Cabell got the concept from.

The closest thing to a classical reference I know is the Prose Edda from
which we get most of what we know about Norse mythology.  The Prose Edda
was written by a "minstrel" ("skald" is I think the old Norse term; the
author's name was something like Snori Snorison but I could have that
wrong) several centuries after Iceland had been converted to Christianity
(it was the last major holdout, it had been founded by people leaving Norway
when it became an officially Christian country).

The book is introduced by a story about the narrator visiting Asgard and
meeting the Norse gods.  They tell him that they used to be gods (whoops,
used to believe that they were gods and had created the universe) but
that now they were good Christians and realized their mistake.  They were
now mostly powerless in the affairs of mortals, but would he like to hear
some stories of the "old days?"

I don't know how universal the "One Big God" theory is, but I do know that
a number of pantheistic religions include it.

In Hinduism there is a single "godhead" called Trimurti (spelled with a
bar over the "u", it's Sanskrit for "Three forms").  Trimurti is ultimately
unknowable so we can only appreciate it through its three major aspects
Brahma (creation), Vishnu (preservation) and Siva (destruction).  Each
of these has a female aspect as well as the "major" male aspect.  Each
appears in many incarnations (avatars) and there are many divine children
resulting from the mating of the male and female avatars with each other,
with mortals or with demons.

Some Greek philosophers spoke of an overriding godhead above the well-known
Greek pantheon.

In both these cases, the overriding godhead is considered to be too
unknowable, too unapproachable, to count for much in human affairs.  Its a
good idea for the religious philosophers to understand that it is there, but
it really doesn't have much impact on worship.

The Christian concept of the Trinity is obviously similar, but the existence
of the unified godhead is considered of prime import even in day-to-day
worship.

Similarly, the Kabalah says something to the effect that God can be
considered to be a wondrous jewel with 22 facets.  The jewel is a whole
which can only be understood fully *as* a whole, but nevertheless there
are 22 aspects which can be studied individually (elsewhere in the Kabalah,
of course, there are 2 aspects, 10 aspects, and 32 aspects, but this
metaphor comes from a discussion of the mystic significance of the Hebrew
alphabet).

		Topher

    re .16:
    
    Topher, and any others interested, I went into this is what some
    might say was excessive detail in a couple of note replies in
    DSSDEV::BIBLE (specifically the "Fun With Giants" and "Osiris
    Connection" notes, and in REX::RELIGION in "The Egyptian Gods" note,
    which I originated, with regards to the ancient Egyptian concept
    of their gods and the, er, overgod, _Neter Uay_, who sounds
    suspiciously like the big-G God I worship as a Christian.
    
    "Fun With Giants" in the Biblical section gets interesting further
    down in the replies.
    
    With regards to the Kabbalistic Tree, depending on what scholar
    one consults, God can be considered a ten- or 25-faceted jewel,
    depending upon one's interpretation of the construct.  But that's
    something else (among other things, Adam Qadmon, if you want).
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Topher, and .16,
    
    Then I take it there is some basis (not just imaginary) for my not
    so very widely held view?

    Re .18:
    
    Paracelsus' view was that elementals lived only in their own planes
    (except possibly when evoked).  If the ether is a fifth plane, then
    all the little-g gods would be stuck there, save for possibly being
    evoked during a worship ceremony.
    
    What puny gods these would be!   I suspect if little-g gods exist
    they'd have more latitude than that!
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    P.S.:  This aspect of the discussion sounds suspiciously like it
    would be better in RELIGION.NOT.
    
    -S