Shining Fish, Flesh, and Wood 465 



followed by dryness and looseness of the parts, which is illuminated by a 

 smooth gleam without any danger of ignition. . . . 



I myself cannot conceive of a special claim of putrefaction and the 

 ordinary qualities to bringing forth light, which neither the celestial 

 heat before putrefaction nor the whole perfected mixture was able to 

 kindle. The majesty of noble nature would work ignobly if the ignoble 

 parts by themselves could kindle splendor, which the body could not 

 achieve, though it flourished in its symmetrical mixture with the power 

 of some higher being. . . . 



The light does not originate from putrefaction, nor is it begotten by 

 it, but only laid open. Putrefaction has the effect that the compound, 

 resolved in its principles and loosened from a strict union of its parts to 

 a minimum, liberates the latent seeds of light which had been sup- 

 pressed in the mixture of the elements. Thus in the death of living 

 matter, putrefaction does not produce light by generation, but only by 

 separation leads forth what before had been latent in the whole struc- 

 ture. Therefore also putrefaction does not arouse light from just any 

 mixture but only the proper one which acknowledges the inner mixture 

 of some light. 



Despite Bartholin's argument, the idea that putrefaction had a 

 causal connection with the emission of light persisted for at least 

 150 years. Further information on the thinking of the time can 

 be obtained from a discussion of the luminous meat by Daniel 

 Puerarius, since not all of Bartholin's contemporaries accepted the 

 universal light theory. 



DANIEL PUERARIUS 



In the 1669 edition of his book, Bartholin mentioned three men 

 who had attempted to explain the light of flesh— Herman Con- 

 ring (1606-1681) who wrote De Calido Innato sive Igne Animali, 

 etc. (Helmstadt, 1647) , Jacob Hoist, and Daniel Puerarius. The 

 opinions of Hoist and Puerarius were published under the name of 

 T. Bartholin as De Flammula Cordis Epistola cum Jacobi Holsti 

 Viri Clarissimi ejiisdem Argumenti Dissertatione. Accessit De carni- 

 hus lucentihus Danielis Puerarii responsio (Hafniae, 1667) . Puer- 

 arius, who was professor of philosophy in the Geneva Academy, and 

 a doctor of medicine, answered questions proposed to him by letter. 

 In the letter the statement was made that the more the writer 

 thought about the luminous lamb " the deeper becomes the mystery 

 and the more controversial its explanations. The scholars do not 

 even agree what light is, a substance or an accident." 



Then the following questions were proposed: 



1) What has Puerarius found out about the nature of light? 



