Paracelsus(1493-1541) was a doctor, alchemist and philosopher who was born in Switzerland and lived wandering all around Europe. He founded a new medical-chemical-physiological doctrine in opposition to the Galenian medical-physiological system which had dominated university-educated physicians and apothecaries. Preparations of mineral medicines were very important to Paracelsus, so he is regarded as the founder of iatrochemistry. Paracelsus is said to have been in the transition period between magic and science. He had a sort of mystical view of knowledge, being under the strong influence of various ancient mystic philosophers (especially Neo-Platonic, Gnostic and Cabalistic). He considered the human experience (experientia) as the interaction between macrocosm and microcosm (man). This interaction, occurring between each part of macrocosm and its equivalent part of microcosm, was called 'correspondence'. He observed that the true knowledge of nature can be obtained only through the experience(correspondence), and it cannot be transmitted or educated through the written language. Most studies on Paracelsus interpreted this mystical view of knowledge as the main obstacle in his way to the modern science. But closer investigation of his writings shows not only phrases arguing that the transmission of true knowledge through the written language is impossible, but also those arguing that people should read books, such as his own, which contain knowledge obtained through the experience(correspondence). After his school days, He spread his theory and prescriptions mainly through printed matters circulated outside universities. And although the standard language among European intellectuals at that time was Latin, and he had a good command of Latin, he wrote his works in German so that more people could understand his works easily. Not only did he write in the vernacular, but he wrote his preparations and prescriptions very clearly and quantitatively. Such evidences undermine the prevailing interpretation that Paracelsus denied the communicability of knowledge through the written language owing to his mystical view of knowledge, and so he was at most a half-modern scientist. But we can estimate his view of knowledge properly only when we consider his position in the intellectual and social context of that time. Paracelsus's view of knowledge existed in the form of a specific discourse, encouraging and legitimizing empirical studies on nature. If the true knowledge can be obtained only by empirical studies, the whole scholastic-humanistic methodologies including logic, rhetoric, and literature study was to become valueless. His view of knowledge entailed such a strong anti-university intellectual tradition. According to it, popular knowledge could rise to the status of 'philosophy' if it is obtained through experience (correspondence). He argued that a thorough reformation was required, not only in the content of book, but also in the social mode of existence of knowledge. Indeed, Paracelsian view of knowledge was never accepted by universities and scientific societies after his death, while Paracelsian chemical theory was accepted since late sixteenth century. Regarding Paracelsus's view of knowledge as the legitimizing discourse which had no direct connection with the content of his medical-chemical theory, we can explain the apparent contradiction between Paracelsus who had a mystical view of knowledge distrusting the written language and Paracelsus who wrote and published a lot of books containing clearly described preparations and prescriptions. Paracelsus not only tried to displace the Galenian system with his own, but intended to reform the mode of social existence of knowledge, confronting the intellectuals around universities. His mystical view of knowledge should be understood not as the evidence of his pre-modernity, but in relation to the prevailing discourse which antagonized his new legitimizing discourse.