This electronic edition is funded by the National Library of Medicine History of Medicine Division. This text has been proofread to a high degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using Data Entry. (Medical Information Disclaimer:
It is not the intention of NLM to provide specific medical advice but rather to provide users with information to better understand their health and their diagnosed disorders. Specific medical advice will not be provided, and NLM urges you to consult with a qualified physician for diagnosis and for answers to your personal questions.)
ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES Book I
PART 14
[p. 75]maintains that there is no such thing as a crisis, or critical day,
cf. p. 61, note 3. The crisis or resolution in fevers was observed to take place with a certain regularity; hence arose the doctrine of "critical days."
and that Nature does absolutely nothing for the preservation of the animal. For his constant aim is to follow out logical consequences and to upset obvious fact, in this respect being opposed to Epicurus; for the latter always stated the observed fact, although he gives an ineffective explanation of it. For, that these small corpuscles belonging to the lodestone rebound, and become entangled with other similar particles of the
iron, and that then, by means of this entanglement (which cannot be seen anywhere) such a heavy substance as iron is attracted- I fail to understand how anybody could believe this. Even if we admit this, the same principle will not explain the fact
that, when the iron has another piece brought in contact with it, this becomes attached to it.
For what are we to say? That, forsooth, some of the particles that flow from the lodestone collide with the iron and then rebound back, and that it is by these that the iron becomes suspended? that others penetrate into it, and rapidly pass through it by way of its empty channels?
These were hypothetical spaces or channels between the atoms; cf. Introduction, p. xiv.
that these then collide with the second piece of iron and are not able to penetrate it although they penetrated the first piece? and that they then course back to the first piece, and produce entanglements like the former ones?
The hypothesis here becomes clearly refuted by its absurdity. As a matter of fact, I have seen five
writing-stylets of iron attached to one another in a line, only the first one being in contact with the
