« AnteriorContinuar »
that Oporinus afterwards repented of his treachery: "Sed resipuit tandem, et quem vivum convitiis insectatus fuerat defunctum veneratione prosequutus," infames famæ præceptoris morsus in remorsus conscientiæ conversi pœnitentiâ, heu nimis tardâ vulnera clausêre exanimi quæ spiranti inflixerant." For these "bites" of Oporinus, see Disputat. Erasti," and Andreas Jociscus "Oratio de vit. et ob. Opori.;" for the "remorse" Mic. Toxita in præf. Testamenti, and Conringius, (otherwise an enemy of Paracelsus,) who says it was con tained in a letter from Oporinus to Doctor Vegerus.*
Whatever the moderns may think of these marvellous attributes, the title of Paracelsus to be considered the father of modern chemistry, is indisputable. Gerardus Vossius "De Philosâ. et Philosum. sectis," thus prefaces the ninth section of Cap. 9, "De Chymia ""Nobilem hanc medicinæ partem, diu sepultam avorum ætate quasi ab orco revocavit Th. Paracelsus." I suppose many hints lie scattered in his neglected books, which clever appropriators have since developed with applause. Thus, it appears from his treatise "De Phlebotomiâ," and elsewhere, that he had discovered the circulation of the blood and the sanguification of the heart; as did after him Realdo Colombo, and still more perfectly Andrea Cesalpino of Arezzo, as Bayle and Bartoli observe. Even Lavater quotes a passage from his work, "Denaturâ Rerum," on practical Physiognomy, in which the definitions and axioms are precise enough: he adds, "though an astrological enthusiast, a man of prodigious genius." See Holcroft's Translation, vol. iii. p. 179 "The Eyes." While on the subject of the writings of Paracelsus, I may explain a passage in the third part of the Poem. He was, as I have said, unwilling to publish his works, but in effect did publish a vast number. Valentius (in Præfat. in Paramyr.) declares “quod ad librorum Paracelsi copiam attinet, audio à Germanis prope trecentos recenseri." O fæcunditas ingenii!" adds he, appositely. Many of these were, however, spurious; and Fred. Bitiskius gives his good edition (3 vols. fol. Gen. 1658) "rejectis suppositas solo ipsius nomine superbientibus quorum ingens circumfertur numerus." The rest
*For a good defence of Paracelsus I refer the reader to Olaus Borrichius's treatise "Hermetis &c., sapientia vindicata. 1674." Or, if he is no more learned than myself in such matters, I had better mention simply that Paracelsus introduced the use of Mercury and Laudanum.
were "charissimum et pretiosissimum authoris pignus, extorsum potius ab illo quàm obtentum.” "Jam minime eo volente atque jubente hæc ipsius scripta in lucem prodiisse videntur: quippe quæ muro inclusa ipso absente servi cujusdem indicio, furto surrepta atque sublata sunt," says Valentius. These have been the study of a host of commentators, among whose labours are most notable, Petri Severini, Idea Medicina Philosophiæ. Bas. 1571; Mic. Toxetis, Onomastica. Arg. 1574; Dornei, Dict. Parac. Franc. 1584; and Pi Philos. Compendium cum scholiis auctore Leone Suavio Paris. (This last, a good book.)
(6.) A disgraceful affair. One Liechtenfels, a canon, having been rescued in extremis by the "laudanum" of Paracelsus, refused the stipulated fee, and was supported in his meanness by the authorities, whose interference Paracelsus would not brook. His own liberality was allowed by his bitterest foes, who found a ready solution of his indifference to profit, in the aforesaid sword-handle and its guest. His freedom from the besetting sin of a profession he abhorred—(as he curiously says somewhere, "Quis quæso deinceps honorem deferat professione tali, quæ à tam facinorosis nebulonibus obitur et administratur?")—is recorded in his epitaph, which affirms-"Bona sua in pauperes distribuenda collocandaque erogavit," honoravit, or ordinavit --for accounts differ.