NOVUM ORGANUM. 339 



in auro. Fuga vero ferri ab altero polo magnetis a Crilberto 

 bene notatur non esse Fuga propria, sed conformitas, et coitio 

 ad situm magis accommodatum. 1 



Sit Motus Undecimus, Motus Assimilationis, sive Multipli- 

 cationis sui, sive etiam Generationis Simplicis. Generationem 

 autem Simplicem dicimus non corporum integralium, ut in 

 plantis, aut animalibus; sed corporum similarium. 2 Nempe 

 per hunc motum corpora similaria vertunt corpora alia affinia, 

 aut saltern bene disposita et prasparata, in substantiam et na- 

 turam suam; ut flamma, quae super halitus et oleosa multi- 

 plicat se, et generat novam flammam ; aer, qui super aquam et 

 aquea multiplicat se, et generat novum aerem ; spiritus vege- 

 tabilis et animalis, qui super tenuiores partes tarn aquei quam 

 oleosi in alimentis suis multiplicat se, et generat novum spiri- 

 tum ; partes solidae plantarum et animalium, veluti folium, flos, 

 caro, os, et sic de caeteris, quae singular ex succis alimentorum 

 assimilant et generant substantiam successivam et epiusiam. 

 Neque enim quenquam cum Paracelso delirare juvet, qui (di- 

 stillationibus suis scilicet occaecatus) nutrition em per separa- 

 tionem tantum fieri voluit; quodque in pane vel cibo lateat 

 oculus, nasus, cerebrum, jecur 3 ; in succo terrae radix, folium, 

 flos. Etenim sicut faber ex rudi massa lapidis vel ligni, per 



1 "Ita coitio magnetica actus est magnetis et ferri, non actio unius, utriusque 

 J/T6\e'x*ia non epyov, ffwcvreksx* 10 - et conactus potius quam sympathia ; antipathia 

 nulla est proprie magnetica. Nam fuga et declinatio terminorum, sive conversio totius, 

 utriusque actus est ad unitatem, a conactu et <rwei/TeA.ex ia amborum." Gilbert, De 

 Magnete, ii. c. 4. 



2 i. e. bodies of uniform texture. 



3 I have not been able to find any passage in Paracelsus which altogether corre- 

 sponds to this remark ; and in his Modus Pharmacandi the process of digestion is 

 described without reference to the Archeus ; nor is it said that each member " latet 

 in pane vel cibo." ' Hoc scimus, quod cujusque membri nutrimentum latitet in pane, 

 carne, et in aliis similiter. " " Quot vero modis et quibus, necnon qua ratione membris 

 corporis nutrimentum dividatur, nos ignoramus ; hoc tantum scimus, rem ita se 

 habere ut diximus." De Mod. Pharm. v. p. 233. (I use the edition of 1603). 



Bacon has, however, correctly stated the general doctrine that alimentation is by 

 separation ; and again Paracelsus affirms that " officium vero Archei est in micro- 

 cosmo purum ab impure separare." De Morbis Tartareis, iii. 195. The truth is that 

 Paracelsus's views are so often repeated and varied in the course of his writings, that 

 it is difficult to know how far his opinions are represented by any particular passage. 



It is well to remark that, to a certain extent, the theory here so decidedly con- 

 demned has, by the recent progress of organic chemistry, been shown to be true. 

 Nothing seems better established than that the nitrogenised components of animal 

 bodies are derived from the corresponding elements of their food. With respect to fat, 

 it is, I believe, a prevailing opinion at present, that animals have the power of con- 

 verting into it the starch or sugar of their food ; and the production of butyric acid 

 by fermentation, has been regarded as at least an illustration of rhe transformation. 

 One of the highest authorities on such a subject, however, I mean M. Boussingault, 

 was, at least a few years ago, of a different opinion. He regarded animal fat as the 

 representative of the fatty matters contained in the food. 



z 2 



