them." Galen does not know why Plato should have seen fit to select the theory of circumpulsion rather than that of attraction (differing almost on this point alone from Hippocrates), though indeed it does not agree in reality with either reason or experiment. Nor indeed is either the air or anything else circumpelled; and the bodies themselves which are attracted are carried towards the attracting substance not confusedly, or in an orbe. Lucretius, the poet of the Epicurean sect, sang his opinion of it thus: [149]_First, then, know,_ _Ceaseless effluvia from the magnet flow,--_ _Effluvia, whose superior powers expel_ _The air that lies between the stone and steel._ _A vacuum formed, the steely atoms fly_ _In a link'd train, and all the void supply;_ _While the whole ring to which the train is join'd_ _The influence owns, and follows close behind. &c._ {62} Such a reason Plutarch also alleges in the _Quæstiones Platonicæ_: That that stone gives off heavy exhalations, whereby the adjacent air, being impelled along, condenses that which is in front of it; and that air, being driven round in an orbe and reverting to the place it had vacated, drags the iron forcibly along with it. The following explanation of the virtues of the loadstone and of amber is propounded by Johannes Costæus of Lodi[150]. For he would have it that "there is mutual work and mutual result, and therefore the motion is partly due to the attraction of the loadstone and partly to a spontaneous movement on the part of the iron: For as we say that vapours issuing from the loadstone hasten by their own nature to attract the iron, so also the air repelled by the vapours, whilst seeking a place for itself, is turned back, and when turned back, it impels the iron, lifts it up, as it were, and carries it along; the iron being of itself also excited somehow. So by being drawn out and by a spontaneous motion, and by striking against another substance, there is in some way produced a composite motion, which motion would nevertheless be rightly referred to attraction, because the terminus from which this motion invariably begins is the same terminus at which it ends, which is the characteristic proper of an attraction." There is certainly a mutual action, not an operation, nor does the loadstone attract in that way; nor is there any impulsion. But neither is there that origination of the motion by the vapours, and the turning of them back, which opinion of Epicurus has so often been quoted by others. Galen errs in his _De Naturalibus Facultatibus_, Book I., chap. 14, when he expresses the view that whatever agents draw out either the venom of serpents or darts also exhibit the same power as the loadstone. Now of what sort may be the attraction of such medicaments (if indeed it may be called attraction) we shall consider elsewhere. Drugs against poisons or darts have no relation to, no similitude with, the action of magnetical bodies.