De Animalibus Insectis Libri Septem

hidden properties. Thus wine gladdens, and it is familiar to man: gold takes on mercury, and with it is extended for gilding, etc. These things goldsmiths know, but not the Aristotelians, who cannot provide the reasons for these things from the Acroamatica esoteric lectures of Aristotle. What follows from this? Must the philosophy of Aristotle therefore be adorned with shorter feathers? We deny that this follows. For if military discipline cannot be learned from the philosophy of Aristotle, it is not therefore to be despised. It is a ridiculous argument: Goldsmiths in their own art know that which Aristotle does not. Therefore, they have eyes and an illuminated mind.

47. As far as pertains to Plato, Democritus, Pythagoras, and Hermes, it is false that they saw with heavenly and angelic eyes, unless you take demons for angels, since they were wicked magicians and idolaters, whose entire wisdom is folly before God in divine matters. In human matters, however, they are so full of vices and absurdities that they have been reproved by more than one, and in particular the Hermetic dialogues are full of errors. That in the dialogues of Plato are the foundations of impious magic, and the acatalepsia incomprehensibility of the Pyrrhonists, is evident both by itself and is testified to by the writings of the Platonists, Iamblichus, Proclus, Mirandulanus, Pistorius, Marsilius, etc. But whence is it proven that they recognized a seminal power in all things? Whatever they knew, they either received through instruction, or learned from familiar spirits, or in a natural way through sense, reason, and experience. If you look at instruction, Aristotle does not yield to them. If at magic, they were wicked: if at the ordinary way, the Peripatetics leave them behind by long strides, as the matter itself and the controversies prove.

48. The examples that are brought forward do not prove that for which they are used to prove. For regarding the magnet, the Paracelsians hold a very false opinion, namely that iron is attracted by it because of an iron spirit, which attracts more strongly in a foreign body than in its own. If there even is a spirit, which the Peripatetics and Galenists willingly concede, those new philosophers must say why it attracts. Is it because it is sulfurous? But why does sulfur attract? Because it is familiar. Why? Is it not because such is the constitution, and an inexplicable property? Therefore, the Paracelsians stick in the same, or rather deeper mud. For that which is said to be from heaven, they are also bound to prove, since it is not therefore true because it seems so to them. Regarding garlic, what is said is false. Regarding the scorpion, the Paracelsians cannot give a better reason than the Galenists. In both cases

>> Sympathy and similarity have reasons in hidden things. That a man loves gold is particular
,, and incidental. He also loves girls, glory, estates, and many other things which he
,, thinks are good and pleasant to him, and this often not of itself, but incidentally. Therefore, many
,, have despised gold who have become not a little famous in the name of wisdom.
,, If small stones were of value in commerce, gold, silver, and the like would be
,, very worthless. Wine is so familiar to human nature that it sometimes becomes poison,
whether you offer the whole, or its essence. But was this unknown to the ancients? Do the Paracelsians not beg the question when they say the spirit of wine is the cause? For why is this the cause here? You will say the heavens. But I ask for the principle of this as well. Thus, the Galenists can argue better about the familiarity of gold and mercury, although the nature of hydrargyrum mercury was unexplored by Galen.

49. From his own impotence, that man estimated the power of others. If he had correctly understood the Acroamata esoteric teachings of Aristotle, he could also have argued physikos physically/naturally about the nature of gold and mercury: he could have taken particulars from the books on origins, and the fourth book of the Meteors, and the explanations of other Peripatetics. Tell me, chemists, why do gold and mercury love each other? Is it not because they are of the same root, and differ only in imperfection and perfection, solution and coagulation, cooking and crudity, just as water and ice? Why this? Is it not because the constitution and the whole nature is such? Who indeed are those Aristotelian philosophers ignorant of friendship or sympathy? They recognized it from particular nature, and they can render reasons from Aristotle regarding gunpowder and fulminating gold. Therefore, the Peripatetics see much more sharply than the Paracelsians, who seem to themselves to see what they do not see at all. The Paracelsian would like to hear the cause of these things from an Aristotelian philosopher. But you sciolists smatterers/pretenders to knowledge, who are sharper than Aristotle, speak first. We read Crollius regarding the hostility of Tartaric salt and sal ammoniac, but he does not satisfy.

50. If the chemical art is not applied, the causes of all things cannot be declared from the philosophy of Aristotle. Indeed, I say, not even if the chemical art is applied, as far as pertains to special and proper things. We only hold to generalities, as much as can be proven. We have, however, seen various writings of the Paracelsians on the causes of things. But we have not found wisdom and truth in all of them.