{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027317880794701987, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014072847682119206, 'mean_word_length': 5.676795580110498, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Paracelsus research past and present: basic results, frustrated attempts, new approaches].

As is well known, the Leipzig historian of medicine Karl Sudhoff inaugurated modern research on Paracelsus, providing it with a basis that has remained indispensable right down to the present. Pertinent scholarly contributions by Sudhoff date from 1887; they culminated first in the Paracelsus bibliography of 1894 and reached their fitting conclusion with the edition of Hohenheim's collected works, Abteilung 1: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische Schriften; its fourteen volumes appeared between 1922 and 1933. Following the second world war the Marburg historian of religion Kurt Goldammer undertook the edition of Abteilung 2: Theologische und religionsphilosophische Schriften; this edition, building on Sudhoff's work, is likewise conceived as comprising fourteen volumes, of which six (together with a supplement), that is, half the projected total, have appeared so far (through 1986). Alongside these fundamental achievements, however, Paracelsus research in the more recent past has also been marked by a series of failed attempts. One of these is the index volume to the Sudhoff edition; it was put together under difficult circumstances, and even at the time of its appearance (1960) it failed to fully satisfy scholarly criteria. A further unsatisfactory aspect, it may be recalled, is the Paracelsus lexicon which was begun forty years ago, but which, despite the pressing need for a research tool of this kind, has still not appeared. Finally, it has not been possible, despite repeated efforts, to establish a Paracelsus institute in the sense of a centre for historical research. Under these circumstances, the continued care for what Paracelsus has bequeathed to us and the coordination of related activities have down to the present been provided for solely by the two pertinent professional societies, the Schweizerische Paracelsus-Gesellschaft (founded in 1942) and the Internationale Paracelsus-Gesellschaft (created in 1951), along with their respective periodical publications. A renewal in Paracelsus research today should accordingly not be limited to the investigation of discrete problems, still unresolved, that bear on Hohenheim and his work; indeed, new efforts should focus above all on clearing up, through interdisciplinary cooperation, the above-mentioned desiderata.