FERMENTATIONS BEFORE LAVOISIER 53 



that of the products of fermentation (save that of 

 alcohol, known for a long time), it is difficult for them to 

 escape glittering generalities. 



The honor of having provoked serious studies by 

 showing the worthlessness of the little that was known 

 belongs to Paracelsus (1493-1541). Although of new 

 facts he himself contributed very few, his militant way, 

 his great mind, his disdain for traditions and the philo- 

 sophical speculations which at that time dominated 

 science, all these brilliant and substantial qualities, 

 could not fail to have a powerful influence on his con- 

 temporaries. To the attraction of the studies in them- 

 selves he added the allurement of a close personal in- 

 terest. To him, man was a chemical compound; diseases 

 were caused by some alteration in this compound; the 

 putrid fevers, for example, were due to excremental 

 substances, which instead of being rejected were retained 

 in the economy. Hence, the utility of searching for 

 chemicals which could combat efficaciously these 

 maladies. Paracelsus, we see, might be cited as the fore- 

 runner of the theory of antitoxins. The truth in that 

 he argued well, but it was, after all, only argument. 



This association between the phenomena of fermenta- 

 tion and disease does not really date from Paracelsus. 

 It influenced his predecessors: it furthermore influenced 

 his successors down to Pasteur, who gave it a precise 

 significance. We find it becoming more and more clearly 

 defined from the beginning of the seventeenth century, 

 which opens the era of work and discovery. It takes an 

 experimental turn with Van Helmont, who discovered 

 carbonic acid in respiration, putrefaction, digestion, and 

 in the fermentation of wine; with Becher, who passed 

 several years in the practice of fermentations and whose 

 writings profited by his long experience. Unfortunately 

 dissertation regained ascendancy with R. Boyle, in other 



