Chapter XVII

Three other attempts (by adherents of the Erasistratean

school and by Lycus of Macedonia) to explain how the

kidneys come to separate out urine from the blood. All

these ignore the obvious principle of attraction.

BOOK II

Chapter I

In order to explain dispersal of food from alimentary

canal _viâ_ the veins (_anadosis_) there is no need to

invoke with Erasistratus, the _horror vacui_, since here

again the principle of specific attraction is operative;

moreover, blood is also driven forward by the

compressing action of the stomach and the contractions

of the veins. Possibility, however, of Erasistratus's

factor playing a certain minor _rôle_.

Chapter II

The Erasistratean idea that bile becomes separated out

from the blood in the liver because, being the thinner

fluid, it alone can enter the narrow stomata of the

bile-ducts, while the thicker blood can only enter the

wider mouths of the hepatic venules.

Chapter III

The morphological factors suggested by Erasistratus are

quite inadequate to explain biological happenings.

Erasistratus inconsistent with his own statements. The

immanence of the _physis_ or nature; her shaping is not

merely external like that of a statuary, but involves

the entire substance. In genesis (embryogeny) the semen

is the active, and the menstrual blood the passive,

principle. Attractive, alterative, and formative

faculties of the semen. Embryogeny is naturally followed

by growth; these two functions distinguished.

Chapter IV

Unjustified claim by Erasistrateans that their founder

had associations with the Peripatetic (Aristotelian)

school. The characteristic physiological tenets of that

school (which were all anticipated by Hippocrates) in no

way agree with those of Erasistratus, save that both

recognize the purposefulness of Nature; in practice,

however, Erasistratus assumed numerous exceptions to

this principle. Difficulty of understanding why he

rejected the biological principle of attraction in

favour of anatomical factors.

Chapter V

A further difficulty raised by Erasistratus's statement

regarding secretion of bile in the liver.

Chapter VI

The same holds with nutrition. Even if we grant that

veins may obtain their nutrient blood by virtue of the

_horror vacui_ (chap. i.), how could this explain the

nutrition of nerves? Erasistratus's hypothesis of minute

elemental nerves and vessels within the ordinary visible

nerves simply throws the difficulty further back. And is

Erasistratus's minute "simple" nerve susceptible of

further analysis, as the Atomists would assume? If so,

this is opposed to the conception of a constructive and

artistic Nature which Erasistratus himself shares with

Hippocrates and the writer. And if his minute nerve is

really elementary and not further divisible, then it

cannot, according to his own showing, contain a cavity;

therefore the _horror vacui_ does not apply to it. And

how could this principle apply to the restoration to its

original bulk of a part which had become thin through

disease, where more matter must become attached than

runs away? A quotation from Erasistratus shows that he

did acknowledge an "attraction," although not exactly in

the Hippocratic sense.

Chapter VII

In the last resort, the ultimate living elements

(Erasistratus's _simple vessels_) must draw in their

food by virtue of an inherent attractive faculty like

that which the lodestone exerts on iron. Thus the

process of anadosis, from beginning to end, can be

explained without assuming a _horror vacui_.

Chapter VIII

Erasistratus's disregard for the humours. In respect to

excessive formation of bile, however, prevention is

better than cure: accordingly we must consider its

pathology. Does blood pre-exist in the food, or does it

come into existence in the body? Erasistratus's purely

anatomical explanation of _dropsy_. He entirely avoids

the question of the four qualities (_e.g._ the

importance of innate heat) in the generation of the

humours, etc. Yet the problem of blood-production is no

less important than that of gastric digestion. Proof

that bile does not pre-exist in the food. The four

fundamental qualities of Hippocrates and Aristotle. How

the humours are formed from food taken into the veins:

when heat is in proportionate amount, blood results;

when in excess, bile; when deficient, phlegm. Various

conditions determining cold or warm temperaments. The

four primary diseases result each from excess of one of

the four qualities. Erasistratus unwillingly

acknowledges this when he ascribes the indigestion

occurring in fever to _impaired function_ of the

stomach. For what causes this _functio laesa_? Proof

that it is the fever (excess of innate heat).

If, then, heat plays so important a part in abnormal

functioning, so must it also in normal (_i.e._ causes of

eucrasia involved in those of dyscrasia, of physiology

in those of pathology). A like argument explains the

_genesis of the humours_. Addition of warmth to things

already warm makes them bitter; thus honey turns to bile

in people who are already warm; where warmth deficient,

as in old people, it turns to useful blood. This is a

proof that bile does not pre-exist, as such, in the

food.

Chapter IX

The _functions of organs_ also depend on the way in

which the four qualities are mixed--_e.g._ the

contracting function of the stomach. Treatment only

possible when we know the _causes_ of errors of

function. The Erasistrateans practically Empiricists in

this respect. On an appreciation of the meaning of a

_dyscrasia_ follows naturally the Hippocratic principle

of treating opposites by opposites (_e.g._ cooling the

over-heated stomach, warming it when chilled, etc.).

Useless in treatment to know merely the function of each

organ; we must know the _bodily condition_ which upsets

this function. Blood is warm and moist. Yellow bile is

warm and (virtually, though not apparently) dry. Phlegm

is cold and moist. The fourth possible combination (cold

and dry) is represented by _black bile_. For the

clearing out of this humour from the blood, Nature has

provided the spleen--an organ which, according to

Erasistratus, fulfils no purpose. Proof of the

importance of the spleen is the jaundice, toxaemia,

etc., occurring when it is diseased. Erasistratus's

failure to mention the views of leading authorities on

this organ shows the hopelessness of his position. The

Hippocratic view has now been demonstrated deductively

and inductively. The classical view as to the generation

of the humours. Normal and pathological forms of yellow

and black bile. Part played by the _innate heat_ in

their production. Other kinds of bile are merely

transition-stages between these extreme types. Abnormal

forms removed by liver and spleen respectively. Phlegm,

however, does not need a special excretory organ, as it

can undergo entire metabolism in the body.

Need for studying the works of the Ancients carefully,

in order to reach a proper understanding of this

subject.

BOOK III

Chapter I

A recapitulation of certain points previously

demonstrated. Every part of the animal has an attractive

and an alterative (assimilative) faculty; it attracts

the nutrient juice which is proper to it. Assimilation

is preceded by adhesion (_prosphysis_) and that again,

by application (_prosthesis_). Application the goal of

attraction. It would not, however, be followed by

adhesion and assimilation if each part did not also

possess a faculty for _retaining in position_ the

nutriment which has been applied. _A priori_ necessity

for this _retentive_ faculty.

Chapter II

The same faculty to be proved _a posteriori_. Its

corresponding _function_ (_i.e._ the activation of this

faculty or potentiality) well seen in the large hollow

organs, notably the uterus and stomach.

Chapter III

Exercise of the retentive faculty particularly well seen

in the uterus. Its object is to allow the embryo to

attain full development; this being completed, a new

faculty--the expulsive--hitherto quiescent, comes into

play. Characteristic signs and symptoms of pregnancy.

Tight grip of uterus on growing embryo, and accurate

closure of os uteri during operation of the retentive

faculty. Dilatation of os and expulsive activities of

uterus at full term, or when foetus dies. Prolapse from

undue exercise of this faculty. _Rôle_ of the midwife.

Accessory muscles in parturition.

Chapter IV

Same two faculties seen in stomach. _Gurglings_ or

_borborygmi_ show that this organ is weak and is not

gripping its contents tightly enough. Undue delay of

food in a weak stomach proved not to be due to

narrowness of pylorus: length of stay depends on whether

_digestion_ (another instance of the characteristically

vital process of _alteration_) has taken place or not.

Erasistratus wrong in attributing digestion merely to

the mechanical action of the stomach walls. When

digestion completed, then pylorus opens and allows

contents to pass downwards, just as os uteri when

development of embyro completed.

Chapter V

If attraction and elimination always proceeded _pari

passu_, the content of these hollow organs (including

gall-bladder and urinary bladder) would never vary in

amount. A _retentive_ faculty, therefore, also logically

needed. Its existence demonstrated. Expulsion determined

by qualitative and quantitative changes of contents.

"Diarrhoea" of stomach. Vomiting.

Chapter VI

Every organic part has an _appetite_ and _aversion_ for

the qualities which are appropriate and foreign to it

respectively. Attraction necessarily leads to a certain

_benefit_ received. This again necessitates _retention_.

Chapter VII

Interaction between two bodies; the stronger masters the

weaker; a deleterious drug masters the forces of the

body, whereas food is mastered by them; this mastery is

an _alteration_, and the amount of alteration varies

with the different organs; thus a partial alteration is

effected in mouth by saliva, but much greater in

stomach, where not only gastric juice, but also bile,

pneuma, innate heat (_i.e._ oxidation?), and other

powerful factors are brought to bear on it; need of

considerable alteration in stomach as a

transition-stage between food and blood; appearance of

faeces in intestine another proof of great alteration

effected in stomach. Asclepiades's denial of real

qualitative change in stomach rebutted. Erasistratus's

denial that digestion in any way resembles a _boiling_

process comes from his taking words too literally.

Chapter VIII

Erasistratus denies that the stomach exerts any pull in

the act of swallowing. That he is wrong, however, is

proved by the anatomical structure of the stomach--its

inner coat with longitudinal fibres obviously acts as a

_vis a fronte_ (attraction), whilst its outer coat

exercises through the contraction of its circular fibres

a _vis a tergo_ (propulsion); the latter also comes into

play in vomiting. The stomach uses the oesophagus as a

kind of hand, to draw in its food with. The functions of

the two coats proved also by vivisection. Swallowing

cannot be attributed merely to the force of gravity.

Chapter IX

These four faculties which subserve nutrition are thus

apparent in many different parts of the body.

Chapter X

Need for elaborating the statements of the ancient

physicians. Superiority of Ancients to Moderns. This

state of affairs can only be rectified by a really

efficient education of youth. The chief requisites of

such an education.

Chapter XI

For the sake of the few who realty wish truth, the

argument will be continued. A third kind of fibre--the

_oblique_--subserves _retention_; the way in which this

fibre is disposed in different coats.

Chapter XII

The factor which brings the expulsive faculty into

action is essentially a condition of the organ or its

contents which is the reverse of that which determined

attraction. Analogy between abortion and normal

parturition. Whatever produces _discomfort_ must be

expelled. That discomfort also determines expulsion of

contents from gall-bladder is not so evident as in the

case of stomach, uterus, urinary bladder, etc., but can

be logically demonstrated.

Chapter XIII

Expulsion takes place through the same channel as

attraction (_e.g._, in stomach, gall-bladder, uterus).

Similarly the delivery (_anadosis_) of nutriment to the

liver from the food-canal _viâ_ the mesenteric veins may

have its direction reversed. Continuous give-and-take

between different parts of the body; superior strength

of certain parts is natural, of others acquired. When

liver contains abundant food and stomach depleted,

latter may draw on former; this occurs when animal can

get nothing to eat, and so prevents starvation.

Similarly, when one part becomes over-distended, it

tends to deposit its excess in some weaker part near it;

this passes it on to some still weaker part, which

cannot get rid of it; hence _deposits_ of various kinds.

Further instances of reversal of the normal direction of

anadosis from the food canal through the veins. Such

reversal of functions would in any case be expected _a

priori_. In the vomiting of intestinal obstruction,

matter may be carried backwards all the way from the

intestine to the mouth; not surprising, therefore, that,

under certain circumstances, food-material might be

driven right back from the skin-surface to the

alimentary canal (_e.g._ in excessive chilling of

surface); not much needed to determine this reversal of

direction. Action of purgative drugs upon terminals of

veins; one part draws from another until whole body

participates; similarly in intestinal obstruction, each

part passes on the irritating substance to its weaker

neighbour. Reversal of direction of flow occurs not

merely on occasion but also constantly (as in arteries,

lungs, heart, etc.). The various stages of normal

nutrition described. Why the stomach sometimes draws

back the nutriment it had passed on to portal veins and

liver. A similar ebb and flow in relation to the spleen.

Comparison of the parts of the body to a lot of animals

at a feast. The valves of the heart are a provision of

Nature to prevent this otherwise inevitable

regurgitation, though even they are not quite efficient.

Chapter XIV

The superficial arteries, when they dilate, draw in air

from the atmosphere, and the deeper ones a fine,

vaporous blood from the veins and heart. Lighter matter

such as air will always be drawn in preference to

heavier; this is why the arteries in the food-canal draw

in practically none of the nutrient matter contained in

it.

Chapter XV

The two kinds of attraction--the mechanical attraction

of dilating bellows and the "physical" (vital)

attraction by living tissue of nutrient matter which is

specifically allied or appropriate to it. The former

kind--that resulting from _horror vacui_--acts primarily

on light matter, whereas vital attraction has no

essential concern with such mechanical factors. A hollow

organ exercises, by virtue of its cavity, the former

kind of attraction, and by virtue of the living tissue

of its walls, the second kind. Application of this to

question of contents of arteries; _anastomoses of

arteries and veins_. _Foramina in interventricular

septum of heart_, allowing some blood to pass from right

to left ventricle. Large size of aorta probably due to

fact that it not merely carries the pneuma received from

the lungs, but also some of the blood which percolates

through septum from right ventricle. Thus arteries carry

not merely pneuma, but also some light vaporous blood,

which certain parts need more than the ordinary thick

blood of the veins. The organic parts must have their

blood-supply sufficiently near to allow them to absorb

it; comparison with an irrigation system in a garden.

Details of the process of nutrition in the ultimate

specific tissues; some are nourished from the blood

directly; in others a series of intermediate stages must

precede complete assimilation; for example, marrow is an

intermediate stage between blood and bone.

From the generalisations arrived at in the present work

we can deduce the explanation of all kinds of particular

phenomena; an instance is given, showing the

co-operation of various factors previously discussed.

GALEN

ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES[5]

BOOK I

I

Since feeling and voluntary motion are peculiar to animals, whilst

growth and nutrition are common to plants as well, we may look on the

former as effects[6] of the _soul_[7] and the latter as effects of the

_nature_.[8] And if there be anyone who allows a share in soul to

plants as well, and separates the two kinds of soul, naming the kind

in question _vegetative_, and the other _sensory_, this person is not

saying anything else, although his language is somewhat unusual. We,

however, for our part, are convinced that the chief merit of language

is clearness, and we know that nothing detracts so much from this as

do unfamiliar terms; accordingly we employ those terms which the bulk

of people are accustomed to use, and we say that animals are governed

at once by their soul and by their nature, and plants by their nature

alone, and that growth and nutrition are the effects of nature, not of

soul.

GALÊNOU

PERI PHYSIKÔN DYNAMEÔN

A

I

Epeidê to men aisthanesthai te kai kineisthai kata 1

proairesin idia tôn zôôn esti, to d' auxanesthai te kai

trephesthai koina kai tois phytois, eiê an ta men

protera tês psychês, ta de deutera tês physeôs erga. ei

de tis kai tois phytois psychês metadidôsi kai

diairoumenos autas onomazei phytikên men tautên,

aisthêtikên de tên heteran, legei men oud' houtos alla,

tê lexei d' ou pany tê synêthei kechrêtai. all' hêmeis

ge megistên lexeôs aretên saphêneian einai pepeismenoi

kai tautên eidotes || hyp' oudenos houtôs hôs hypo tôn 2

asynêthôn onomatôn diaphtheiromenên, hôs tois pollois

ethos, houtôs onomazontes hypo men psychês th' hama kai

physeôs ta zôa dioikeisthai phamen, hypo de physeôs

monês ta phyta kai to g' auxanesthai te kai trephesthai

physeôs erga phamen, ou psychês.

II

Thus we shall enquire, in the course of this treatise, from what

_faculties_ these effects themselves, as well as any other effects of

nature which there may be, take their origin.

First, however, we must distinguish and explain clearly the various

terms which we are going to use in this treatise, and to what things

we apply them; and this will prove to be not merely an explanation of

terms but at the same time a demonstration of the effects of nature.

When, therefore, such and such a body undergoes no change from its

existing state, we say that it is _at rest_; but, if it departs from

this in any respect we then say that in this respect it _undergoes

motion_.[9] Accordingly, when it departs in various ways from its

pre-existing state, it will be said to undergo various kinds of

motion. Thus, if that which is white becomes black, or what is black

becomes white, it undergoes motion in respect to _colour_; or if what

was previously sweet now becomes bitter, or, conversely, from being

bitter now becomes sweet, it will be said to undergo motion in respect

to _flavour_; to both of these instances, as well as to those

previously mentioned, we shall apply the term _qualitative motion_.

And further, it is not only things which are altered in regard to

colour and flavour which, we say, undergo motion; when a warm thing

becomes cold, and a cold warm, here, too we speak of its undergoing

motion; similarly also when anything moist becomes dry, or dry

moist. Now, the common term which we apply to all these cases is

_alteration_.

This is one kind of motion. But there is another kind which occurs in

bodies which change their position, or as we say, pass from one place

to another; the name of this is _transference_.[10]

These two kinds of motion, then, are simple and primary, while

compounded from them we have _growth_ and _decay_,[11] as when a small

thing becomes bigger, or a big thing smaller, each retaining at the

same time its particular form. And two other kinds of motion are

_genesis_ and _destruction_,[12] genesis being a coming into

existence,[13] and destruction being the opposite.

Now, common to all kinds of motion is _change from the pre-existing

state_, while common to all conditions of rest is _retention of the

pre-existing state_. The Sophists, however, while allowing that bread

in turning into blood becomes changed as regards sight, taste, and

touch, will not agree that this change occurs in reality. Thus some of

them hold that all such phenomena are tricks and illusions of our

senses; the senses, they say, are affected now in one way, now in

another, whereas the underlying substance does not admit of any of

these changes to which the names are given. Others (such as

Anaxagoras)[14] will have it that the qualities do exist in it, but

that they are unchangeable and immutable from eternity to eternity,

and that these apparent alterations are brought about by _separation_

and _combination_.

Now, if I were to go out of my way to confute these people, my

subsidiary task would be greater than my main one. Thus, if they do

not know all that has been written, "On Complete Alteration of

Substance"[15] by Aristotle, and after him by Chrysippus,[16] I must

beg of them to make themselves familiar with these men's writings. If,

however, they know these, and yet willingly prefer the worse views to

the better, they will doubtless consider my arguments foolish also. I

have shown elsewhere that these opinions were shared by Hippocrates,

who lived much earlier than Aristotle. In fact, of all those known to

us who have been both physicians and philosophers Hippocrates was the

first who took in hand to demonstrate that there are, in all, four

mutually interacting _qualities_, and that to the operation of these

is due the genesis and destruction of all things that come into and

pass out of being. Nay, more; Hippocrates was also the first to

recognise that all these qualities undergo an intimate mingling with

one another; and at least the beginnings of the proofs to which

Aristotle later set his hand are to be found first in the writings of

Hippocrates.

As to whether we are to suppose that the _substances_ as well as their

_qualities_ undergo this intimate mingling, as Zeno of Citium

afterwards declared, I do not think it necessary to go further into

this question in the present treatise;[17] for immediate purposes we

only need to recognize the _complete alteration of substance_. In

this way, nobody will suppose that bread represents a kind of

meeting-place[18] for bone, flesh, nerve, and all the other parts, and

that each of these subsequently becomes separated in the body and goes

to join its own kind;[19] before any separation takes place, the whole

of the bread obviously becomes blood; (at any rate, if a man takes no

other food for a prolonged period, he will have blood enclosed in his

veins all the same).[20] And clearly this disproves the view of those

who consider the elements[21] unchangeable, as also, for that matter,

does the oil which is entirely used up in the flame of the lamp, or

the faggots which, in a somewhat longer time, turn into fire.

I said, however, that I was not going to enter into an argument with

these people, and it was only because the example was drawn from the

subject-matter of medicine, and because I need it for the present

treatise, that I have mentioned it. We shall then, as I said, renounce

our controversy with them, since those who wish may get a good grasp

of the views of the ancients from our own personal investigations into

these matters.

The discussion which follows we shall devote entirely, as we

originally proposed, to an enquiry into the number and character of

the _faculties_ of Nature, and what is the effect which each naturally

produces. Now, of course, I mean by an effect[22] that which has

already come into existence and has been completed by the

_activity_[23] of these faculties--for example, blood, flesh, or

nerve. And _activity_ is the name I give to the active change or

_motion_, and the _cause_ of this I call a _faculty_. Thus, when food

turns into blood, the motion of the food is passive, and that of the

vein active. Similarly, when the limbs have their position altered, it

is the muscle which produces, and the bones which undergo the motion.

In these cases I call the motion of the vein and of the muscle an

_activity_, and that of the food and the bones a _symptom_ or

_affection_,[24] since the first group undergoes _alteration_ and the

second group is merely _transported_. One might, therefore, also speak

of the _activity_ as an _effect_ of Nature[25]--for example,

digestion, absorption,[26] blood-production; one could not, however,

in every case call the effect an activity; thus flesh is an effect of

Nature, but it is, of course, not an activity. It is, therefore, clear

that one of these terms is used in two senses, but not the other.

II

Kai zêtêsomen kata tonde ton logon, hypo tinôn gignetai

dynameôn auta dê tauta kai ei dê ti allo physeôs ergon

estin.

Alla proteron ge dielesthai te chrê kai mênysai saphôs

hekaston tôn onomatôn, hois chrêsometha kata tonde ton

logon, kai eph' ho ti pheromen pragma. genêsetai de

tout' euthys ergôn physikôn didaskalia syn tais tôn

onomatôn exêgêsesin.

Hotan oun ti sôma kata mêden exallattêtai tôn

proÿparchontôn, hêsychazein auto phamen; ei d' existaito

pê, kat' ekeino kineisthai. kai toinyn epei polyeidôs

existatai, polyeidôs kai kinêthêsetai. kai gar ei leukon

hyparchon melainoito kai ei melan leukainoito, kineitai

kata chroan, kai ei glyky teôs hyparchon authis || 3

austêron ê empalin ex austêrou glyky genoito, kai tout'

an kineisthai legoito kata ton chymon. amphô de tauta te

kai ta proeirêmena kata tên poiotêta kineisthai

lechthêsetai kai ou monon ge ta kata tên chroan ê ton

chymon exallattomena kineisthai phamen, alla kai to

thermoteron ek psychroterou genomenon ê psychroteron ek

thermoterou kineisthai kai touto legomen, hôsper ge kai

ei ti xêron ex hygrou ê hygron ek xêrou gignoito. koinon

de kata toutôn hapantôn onoma pheromen tên alloiôsin.

Hen ti touto genos kinêseôs. heteron de genos epi tois

tas chôras ameibousi sômasi kai topon ek topou

metallattein legomenois, onoma de kai toutô phora.

Hautai men oun hai dyo kinêseis haplai kai prôtai,

synthetoi d' ex autôn auxêsis te kai phthisis, hotan ex

elattonos ti meizon ê ek meizonos elatton genêtai

phylatton to oikeion eidos. heterai de dyo kinêseis

genesis kai phthora, genesis men hê eis ousian agôgê,

phthora d' hê enantia.

Pasais de tais kinêsesi koinon exallaxis tou || 4

proÿparchontos, hôsper oun kai tais hêsychiais hê

phylakê tôn proÿparchontôn. all' hoti men exallattetai

kai pros tên opsin kai pros tên geusin kai pros tên

haphên haima gignomena ta sitia, synchôrousin; hoti de

kai kat' alêtheian, ouketi touth' homologousin hoi

sophistai. hoi men gar tines autôn hapanta ta toiauta

tôn hêmeterôn aisthêseôn apatas tinas kai paragôgas

nomizousin allot' allôs paschousôn, tês hypokeimenês

ousias mêden toutôn, hois eponomazetai, dechomenês; hoi

de tines einai men en autê boulontai tas poiotêtas,

ametablêtous de kai atreptous ex aiônos eis aiôna kai

tas phainomenas tautas alloiôseis tê diakrisei te kai

synkrisei gignesthai phasin hôs Anaxagoras.

Ei dê toutous ektrapomenos exelenchoimi, meizon an moi

to parergon tou ergou genoito. ei men gar ouk isasin,

hosa peri tês kath' holên tên ousian alloiôseôs

Aristotelei te kai met' auton Chrysippô gegraptai,

parakalesai chrê tois ekeinôn autous homilêsai

grammasin; ei de gignôskontes epeith' hekontes ta cheirô

pro tôn beltionôn || hairountai, mataia dêpou kai ta 5

hêmetera nomiousin. hoti de kai Hippokratês houtôs

egignôsken Aristotelous eti proteros ôn, en heterois

hêmin apodedeiktai. prôtos gar houtos hapantôn hôn ismen

iatrôn te kai philosophôn apodeiknyein epecheirêse

tettaras einai tas pasas drastikas eis allêlas

poiotêtas, hyph' hôn gignetai te kai phtheiretai panth',

hosa genesin te kai phthoran epidechetai. kai mentoi kai

to kerannysthai di' allêlôn autas holas di' holôn

Hippokratês hapantôn prôtos egnô; kai tas archas ge tôn

apodeixeôn, hôn hysteron Aristotelês metecheirisato,

par' ekeinô prôtô gegrammenas estin heurein.

Ei d' hôsper tas poiotêtas houtô kai tas ousias di'

holôn kerannysthai chrê nomizein, hôs hysteron

apephênato Zênôn ho Kittieus, ouch hêgoumai dein eti

peri toutou kata tonde ton logon epexienai. monên gar

eis ta paronta deomai gignôskesthai tên di' holês tês

ousias alloiôsin, hina mê tis ostou kai sarkos kai

neurou kai tôn allôn hekastou moriôn hoionei misgankeian

tina tô artô nomisê periechesthai kapeit' en || tô 6

sômati diakrinomenon hôs to homophylon hekaston ienai.

kaitoi pro ge tês diakriseôs haima phainetai gignomenos

ho pas artos. ei goun pampollô tis chronô mêden all' eiê

sition prospheromenos, ouden hêtton en tais phlepsin

haima periechomenon hexei. kai phanerôs touto tên tôn

ametablêta ta stoicheia tithemenôn exelenchei doxan,

hôsper oimai kai toulaion eis tên tou lychnou phloga

katanaliskomenon hapan kai ta xyla pyr mikron hysteron

gignomena.

Kaitoi to g' antilegein autois êrnêsamên, all' epei tês

iatrikês hylês ên to paradeigma kai chrêzô pros ton

paronta logon autou, dia tout' emnêmoneusa. katalipontes

oun, hôs ephên, tên pros toutous antilogian, <enon> tois

boulomenois ta tôn palaiôn ekmanthanein kax hôn hêmeis

idia peri autôn epeskemmetha.

Ton ephexês logon hapanta poiêsometha zêtountes hyper

hôn ex archês prouthemetha, posai te kai tines eisin hai

tês physeôs dynameis kai ti poiein ergon hekastê

pephyken. ergon de dêlonoti kalô to gegonos êdê kai

sympeplê||rômenon hypo tês energeias autôn, hoion to 7

haima, tên sarka, to neuron; energeian de tên drastikên

onomazô kinêsin kai tên tautês aitian dynamin. epei gar

en tô to sition haima gignesthai pathêtikê men hê tou

sitiou, drastikê d' hê tês phlebos gignetai kinêsis,

hôsautôs de kan tô metapherein ta kôla kinei men ho mys,

kineitai de ta osta, tên men tês phlebos kai tôn myôn

kinêsin energeian einai phêmi, tên de tôn sitiôn te kai

tôn ostôn symptôma te kai pathêma; ta men gar

alloioutai, ta de pheretai. tên men oun energeian

enchôrei kalein kai ergon tês physeôs, hoion tên pepsin,

tên anadosin, tên haimatôsin, ou mên to g' ergon ex

hapantos energeian; hê gar toi sarx ergon men esti tês

physeôs, ou mên energeia ge. dêlon oun, hôs thateron men

tôn onomatôn dichôs legetai, thateron d' ou.

III

It appears to me, then, that the vein, as well as each of the other

parts, functions in such and such a way according to the manner in

which _the four qualities_[27] are mixed. There are, however, a

considerable number of not undistinguished men--philosophers and

physicians--who refer action to the Warm and the Cold, and who

subordinate to these, as passive, the Dry and the Moist; Aristotle, in

fact, was the first who attempted to bring back the causes of the

various special activities to these principles, and he was followed

later by the Stoic school. These latter, of course, could logically

make active principles of the Warm and Cold, since they refer the

change of the elements themselves into one another to certain

_diffusions_ and _condensations_.[28] This does not hold of Aristotle,

however; seeing that he employed the four qualities to explain the

genesis of the elements, he ought properly to have also referred the

causes of all the special activities to these. How is it that he uses

the four qualities in his book "On Genesis and Destruction," whilst in

his "Meteorology," his "Problems," and many other works he uses the

two only? Of course, if anyone were to maintain that in the case of

animals and plants the Warm and Cold are _more_ active, the Dry and

Moist _less_ so, he might perhaps have even Hippocrates on his side;

but if he were to say that this happens in all cases, he would, I

imagine, lack support, not merely from Hippocrates, but even from

Aristotle himself--if, at least, Aristotle chose to remember what he

himself taught us in his work "On Genesis and Destruction," not as a

matter of simple statement, but with an accompanying demonstration. I

have, however, also investigated these questions, in so far as they

are of value to a physician, in my work "On Temperaments."

III

Emoi men oun kai hê phleps kai tôn allôn hapantôn

hekaston dia tên ek tôn tettarôn poian krasin hôdi pôs

energein dokei. eisi de ge mên ouk oligoi tines andres

|| oud' adoxoi, philosophoi te kai iatroi, tô men thermô 8

kai tô psychrô to dran anapherontes, hypoballontes d'

autois pathêtika to xêron te kai to hygron. kai prôtos

g' Aristotelês tas tôn kata meros hapantôn aitias eis

tautas anagein peiratai tas archas, êkolouthêse d'

hysteron autô kai ho apo tês stoas choros. kaitoi

toutois men, hôs an kai autôn tôn stoicheiôn tên eis

allêla metabolên chysesi te tisi kai pilêsesin

anapherousin, eulogon ên archas drastikas poiêsasthai to

thermon kai to psychron, Aristotelei d' ouch houtôs,

alla tais tettarsi poiotêsin eis tên tôn stoicheiôn

genesin chrômenô beltion ên kai tas tôn kata meros

aitias hapasas eis tautas anagein. ti dêpot' oun en men

tois peri geneseôs kai phthoras tais tettarsi chrêtai,

en de tois meteôrologikois kai tois problêmasi kai

allothi pollachothi tais dyo monais? ei men gar hôs en

tois zôois te kai tois phytois mallon men dra to thermon

kai to psychron, hêtton de to xêron kai to hygron

apophainoito tis, isôs an echoi kai ton Hippokratên

sympsêphon; ei d' hôsautôs en || hapasin, ouket' oimai 9

synchôrêsein touto mê hoti ton Hippokratên alla mêd'

auton ton Aristotelên memnêsthai ge boulomenon hôn en

tois peri geneseôs kai phthoras ouch haplôs alla met'

apodeixeôs autos hêmas edidaxen. alla peri men toutôn

kan tois peri kraseôn, eis hoson iatrô chrêsimon,

epeskepsametha.

IV

The so-called _blood-making_[29] faculty in the veins, then, as well

as all the other faculties, fall within the category of relative

concepts; primarily because the faculty is the cause of the activity,

but also, accidentally, because it is the cause of the effect. But if

the cause is relative to something--for it is the cause of what

results from it, and of nothing else--it is obvious that the faculty

also falls into the category of the relative; and so long as we are

ignorant of the true essence of the cause which is operating, we call

it a _faculty_. Thus we say that there exists in the veins a

blood-making faculty, as also a digestive[30] faculty in the stomach,

a pulsatile[31] faculty in the heart, and in each of the other parts a

special faculty corresponding to the function or activity of that

part. If, therefore, we are to investigate methodically the number and

kinds of faculties, we must begin with the effects; for each of these

effects comes from a certain activity, and each of these again is

preceded by a cause.

IV

Hê d' oun dynamis hê en tais phlepsin hê haimatopoiêtikê

prosagoreuomenê kai pasa d' allê dynamis en tô pros ti

nenoêtai; prôtôs men gar tês energeias aitia, êdê de kai

tou ergou kata symbebêkos. all' eiper hê aitia pros ti,

tou gar hyp' autês genomenou monou, tôn d' allôn

oudenos, eudêlon, hoti kai hê dynamis en tô pros ti. kai

mechri g' an agnoômen tên ousian tês energousês aitias,

dynamin autên onomazomen, einai tina legontes en tais

phlepsin haimatopoiêtikên, hôsautôs de kan tê koilia

peptikên kan tê kardia sphygmikên kai kath' hekaston tôn

allôn idian tina tês || kata to morion energeias. eiper 10

oun methodô melloimen exeurêsein, hoposai te kai hopoiai

tines hai dynameis eisin, apo tôn ergôn autôn arkteon;

hekaston gar autôn hypo tinos energeias gignetai kai

toutôn hekastês proêgeitai tis aitia.

V

The effects of Nature, then, while the animal is still being formed in

the womb, are all the different _parts_ of its body; and after it has

been born, an effect in which all parts share is the progress of each

to its full size, and thereafter its maintenance of itself as long as

possible.

The activities corresponding to the three effects mentioned are

necessarily three--one to each--namely, Genesis, Growth, and

Nutrition. Genesis, however, is not a simple activity of Nature, but

is compounded of _alteration_ and of _shaping_.[32] That is to say, in

order that bone, nerve, veins, and all other [tissues] may come into

existence, the _underlying substance_ from which the animal springs

must be _altered_; and in order that the substance so altered may

acquire its appropriate shape and position, its cavities, outgrowths,

attachments, and so forth, it has to undergo a _shaping_ or

_formative_ process.[33] One would be justified in calling this

substance which undergoes alteration the _material_ of the animal,

just as wood is the material of a ship, and wax of an image.

_Growth_ is an increase and expansion in length, breadth, and

thickness of the solid parts of the animal (those which have been

subjected to the moulding or shaping process). _Nutrition_ is an

addition to these, without expansion.

V

Erga toinyn tês physeôs eti men kyoumenou te kai

diaplattomenou tou zôou ta sympant' esti tou sômatos

moria, gennêthentos de koinon eph' hapasin ergon hê eis

to teleion hekastô megethos agôgê kai meta tauth' hê

mechri tou dynatou diamonê.

Energeiai d' epi trisi tois eirêmenois ergois treis ex

anankês, eph' hekastô mia, genesis te kai auxêsis kai

threpsis. all' hê men genesis ouch haplê tis energeia

tês physeôs, all' ex alloiôseôs te kai diaplaseôs esti

synthetos. hina men gar ostoun genêtai kai neuron kai

phleps kai tôn allôn hekaston, alloiousthai chrê tên

hypobeblêmenên ousian, ex hês gignetai to zôon; hina de

kai schêma to deon kai thesin kai koilotêtas tinas kai

apophyseis kai symphyseis kai talla || ta toiauta 11

ktêsêtai, diaplattesthai chrê tên alloioumenên ousian,

hên dê kai hylên tou zôou kalôn, hôs tês neôs ta xyla

kai tês eikonos ton kêron, ouk an hamartois.

Hê d' auxêsis epidosis esti kai diastasis kata mêkos kai

platos kai bathos tôn stereôn tou zôou moriôn, hônper

kai hê diaplasis ên, hê de threpsis prosthesis tois

autois aneu diastaseôs.

VI

Let us speak then, in the first place, of Genesis, which, as we have

said, results from _alteration_ together with _shaping_.

The seed having been cast into the womb or into the earth (for there

is no difference),[34] then, after a certain definite period, a great

number of parts become constituted in the substance which is being

generated; these differ as regards moisture, dryness, coldness and

warmth,[35] and in all the other qualities which naturally derive

therefrom.[36] These derivative qualities, you are acquainted with, if

you have given any sort of scientific consideration to the question of

genesis and destruction. For, first and foremost after the qualities

mentioned come the other so-called _tangible_ distinctions, and after

them those which appeal to taste, smell, and sight. Now, tangible

distinctions are hardness and softness, viscosity, friability,

lightness, heaviness, density, rarity, smoothness, roughness,

thickness and thinness; all of these have been duly mentioned by

Aristotle.[37] And of course you know those which appeal to taste,

smell, and sight. Therefore, if you wish to know which alterative

faculties are primary and elementary, they are moisture, dryness,

coldness, and warmth, and if you wish to know which ones arise from

the combination of these, they will be found to be in each animal of a

number corresponding to its _sensible elements_. The name _sensible

elements_ is given to all the _homogeneous_[38] parts of the body, and

these are to be detected not by any system, but by personal

observation of dissections.[39]

Now Nature constructs bone, cartilage, nerve, membrane, ligament,

vein, and so forth, at the first stage of the animal's genesis,[40]

employing at this task a faculty which is, in general terms,

generative and alterative, and, in more detail, warming, chilling,

drying, or moistening; or such as spring from the blending of

these, for example, the bone-producing, nerve-producing, and

cartilage-producing faculties[41] (since for the sake of clearness

these names must be used as well).

Now the peculiar[42] flesh of the liver is of this kind as well, also

that of the spleen, that of the kidneys, that of the lungs, and that

of the heart; so also the proper substance of the brain, stomach,

gullet, intestines, and uterus is _a sensible element_, of similar

parts all through, simple, and uncompounded. That is to say, if you

remove from each of the organs mentioned its arteries, veins, and

nerves,[43] the substance remaining in each organ is, from the point

of view of the senses, simple and elementary. As regards those organs

consisting of two dissimilar _coats_,[44] of which each is simple, of

these organs the coats are the elements--for example, the coats of the

stomach, oesophagus, intestines, and arteries; each of these two coats

has an alterative faculty peculiar to it, which has engendered it from

the menstrual blood of the mother. Thus the _special_ alterative

faculties in each animal are of the same number as the elementary

parts[45]; and further, the _activities_ must necessarily correspond

each to one of the special parts, just as each part has its special

_use_--for example, those ducts which extend from the kidneys into the

bladder, and which are called _ureters_; for these are not arteries,

since they do not pulsate nor do they consist of two coats; and they

are not veins, since they neither contain blood, nor do their coats

in any way resemble those of veins; from nerves they differ still more

than from the structures mentioned.

"What, then, are they?" someone asks--as though every part must

necessarily be either an artery, a vein, a nerve, or a complex of

these,[46] and as though the truth were not what I am now stating,

namely, that every one of the various organs has its own particular

substance. For in fact the two bladders--that which receives the

urine, and that which receives the yellow bile--not only differ from

all other organs, but also from one another. Further, the ducts which

spring out like kinds of conduits from the gall-bladder and which pass

into the liver have no resemblance either to arteries, veins or

nerves. But these parts have been treated at a greater length in my

work "On the Anatomy of Hippocrates," as well as elsewhere.

As for the actual substance of the coats of the stomach, intestine,

and uterus, each of these has been rendered what it is by a special

alterative faculty of Nature; while the bringing of these

together,[47] the combination therewith of the structures which are

inserted into them, the outgrowth into the intestine,[48] the shape of

the inner cavities, and the like, have all been determined by a

faculty which we call the shaping or formative faculty[49]; this

faculty we also state to be _artistic_--nay, the best and highest

art--doing everything for some purpose, so that there is nothing

ineffective or superfluous, or capable of being better disposed. This,

however, I shall demonstrate in my work "On the Use of Parts."

VI

Peri prôtês oun tês geneseôs eipômen, hên ex alloiôseôs

th' hama kai diaplaseôs elegomen gignesthai.

Katablêthentos dê tou spermatos eis tên mêtran ê eis tên

gên, ouden gar diapherei, chronois tisin hôrismenois

pampolla synistatai moria tês gennômenês ousias

hygrotêti kai xêrotêti kai psychrotêti kai thermotêti

kai tois allois hapasin, hosa toutois hepetai,

diapheronta. ta d' hepomena gignôskeis, eiper holôs

ephilosophêsas ti peri geneseôs kai phthoras; hai loipai

gar tôn haptôn onomazomenôn diaphorôn tais eirêmenais

hepontai prôtai kai malista, meta de tau||tas hai 12

geustai te kai osphrêtai kai horatai. sklêrotês men oun

kai malakotês kai glischrotês kai kraurotês kai

kouphotês kai barytês kai pyknotês kai araiotês kai

leiotês kai trachytês kai pachytês kai leptotês haptai

diaphorai kai eirêtai peri pasôn Aristotelei kalôs.

oistha de dêpou kai tas geustas te kai osphrêtas kai

horatas diaphoras. hôst', ei men tas prôtas te kai

stoicheiôdeis alloiôtikas dynameis zêtoiês, hygrotês

esti kai xêrotês kai psychrotês kai thermotês; ei de tas

ek tês toutôn kraseôs genomenas, tosautai kath' hekaston

esontai zôon, hosaper an autou ta aisthêta stoicheia

hyparchê; kaleitai d' aisthêta stoicheia ta homoiomerê

panta tou sômatos moria; kai taut' ouk ek methodou tinos

all' autoptên genomenon ekmathein chrê dia tôn anatomôn.

Ostoun dê kai chondron kai neuron kai hymena kai

syndesmon kai phleba kai panth' hosa toiauta kata tên

prôtên tou zôou genesin hê physis apergazetai dynamei

chrômenê katholou men eipein tê gennêtikê te kai

alloiô||tikê, kata meros de thermantikê te kai psyktikê 13

kai xêrantikê kai hygrantikê kai tais ek tês toutôn

kraseôs genomenais, hoion ostopoiêtikê te kai

neuropoiêtikê kai chondropoiêtikê; saphêneias gar heneka

kai toutois tois onomasi chrêsteon.

Esti goun kai hê idia sarx tou hêpatos ek toutou tou

genous kai hê tou splênos kai hê tôn nephrôn kai hê tou

pneumonos kai hê tês kardias houtô de kai tou enkephalou

to idion sôma kai tês gastros kai tou stomachou kai tôn

enterôn kai tôn hysterôn aisthêton stoicheion estin

homoiomeres te kai haploun kai asyntheton; ean gar

exelês hekastou tôn eirêmenôn tas artêrias te kai tas

phlebas kai ta neura, to hypoloipon sôma to kath'

hekaston organon haploun esti kai stoicheiôdes hôs pros

aisthêsin. hosa de tôn toioutôn organôn ek dyoin

synkeitai chitônôn ouch homoiôn men allêlois, haplou d'

hekaterou, toutôn hoi chitônes eisi ta stoicheia

kathaper tês te gastros kai tou stomachou kai tôn

enterôn kai tôn artêriôn, kai kath' hekateron ge tôn

chitônôn idios hê alloiôtikê dynamis hê ek tou para tês

|| mêtros epimêniou gennêsasa to morion, hôste tas kata 14

meros alloiôtikas dynameis tosautas einai kath' hekaston

zôon, hosaper an echê ta stoicheiôdê moria. kai men ge

kai tas energeias idias hekastô tôn kata meros anankaion

hyparchein hôsper kai tas chreias, hoion kai tôn apo tôn

nephrôn eis tên kystin diêkontôn porôn, hoi dê kai

ourêtêres kalountai. houtoi gar out' artêriai eisin,

hoti mête sphyzousi mêt' ek dyoin chitônôn synestêkasin,

oute phlebes, hoti mêth' haima periechousi mêt' eoiken

autôn ho chitôn kata ti tô tês phlebos; alla kai neurôn

epi pleon aphestêkasin ê tôn eirêmenôn.

Ti pot' oun eisin? erôta tis, hôsper anankaion on hapan

morion ê artêrian ê phleba ê neuron hyparchein ê ek

toutôn peplechthai kai mê tout' auto to nyn legomenon,

hôs idios hekastô tôn kata meros organôn estin hê ousia.

kai gar kai hai kysteis hekaterai hê te to ouron

hypodechomenê kai hê tên xanthên cholên ou monon tôn

allôn hapantôn alla kai allêlôn diapherousi kai hoi eis

to hêpar apophyomenoi || poroi, kathaper stomachoi tines 15

apo tês cholêdochou kysteôs, ouden out' artêriais oute

phlepsin oute neurois eoikasin. alla peri men toutôn epi

pleon en allois te tisi kan tois peri tês Hippokratous

anatomês eirêtai.

Hai de kata meros hapasai dynameis tês physeôs hai

alloiôtikai autên men tên ousian tôn chitônôn tês

koilias kai tôn enterôn kai tôn hysterôn apetelesan,

hoiaper esti; tên de synthesin autôn kai tên tôn

emphyomenôn plokên kai tên eis to enteron ekphysin kai

tên tês endon koilotêtos idean kai tall' hosa toiauta

dynamis tis hetera dieplasen, hên diaplastikên

onomazomen, hên dê kai technikên einai legomen, mallon

d' aristên kai akran technên kai panta tinos heneka

poiousan, hôs mêden argon einai mêde peritton mêd' holôs

houtôs echon, hôs dynasthai beltion heterôs echein. alla

touto men en tois peri chreias moriôn apodeixomen. || 16

VII

Passing now to the faculty of Growth[50] let us first mention that

this, too, is present in the foetus _in utero_ as is also the

nutritive faculty, but that at that stage these two faculties are, as

it were, _handmaids_ to those already mentioned,[51] and do not

possess in themselves supreme authority. When, however, the animal[52]

has attained its complete size, then, during the whole period

following its birth and until the acme is reached, the faculty of

growth is predominant, while the alterative and nutritive faculties

are accessory--in fact, act as its handmaids. What, then, is the

property of this faculty of growth? To extend in every direction that

which has already come into existence--that is to say, the solid parts

of the body, the arteries, veins, nerves, bones, cartilages,

membranes, ligaments, and the various _coats_ which we have just

called elementary, homogeneous, and simple. And I shall state in what

way they gain this extension in every direction, first giving an

illustration for the sake of clearness.

Children take the bladders of pigs, fill them with air, and then rub

them on ashes near the fire, so as to warm, but not to injure them.

This is a common game in the district of Ionia, and among not a few

other nations. As they rub, they sing songs, to a certain measure,

time, and rhythm, and all their words are an exhortation to the

bladder to increase in size. When it appears to them fairly well

distended, they again blow air into it and expand it further; then

they rub it again. This they do several times, until the bladder seems

to them to have become large enough. Now, clearly, in these doings of

the children, the more the interior cavity of the bladder increases in

size, the thinner, necessarily, does its substance become. But, if the

children were able to bring nourishment to this thin part, then they

would make the bladder big in the same way that Nature does. As it is,

however, they cannot do what Nature does, for to imitate this is

beyond the power not only of children, but of any one soever; it is a

property of Nature alone.

It will now, therefore, be clear to you that _nutrition_ is a

necessity for growing things. For if such bodies were distended, but

not at the same time nourished, they would take on a false appearance

of growth, not a true growth. And further, to be distended _in all

directions_ belongs only to bodies whose growth is directed by Nature;

for those which are distended by us undergo this distension in one

direction but grow less in the others; it is impossible to find a body

which will remain entire and not be torn through whilst we stretch it

in the three dimensions. Thus Nature alone has the power to expand a

body in all directions so that it remains unruptured and preserves

completely its previous form.

Such then is _growth_, and it cannot occur without the nutriment which

flows to the part and is worked up into it.

VII

Epi de tên auxêtikên êdê metabantes dynamin auto touth'

hypomnêsômen prôton, hôs hyparchei men kai autê tois

kyoumenois hôsper kai hê threptikê; all' hoion

hypêretides tines eisi tênikauta tôn proeirêmenôn

dynameôn, ouk en hautais echousai to pan kyros. epeidan

de to teleion apolabê megethos to zôon, en tô meta tên

apokyêsin chronô panti mechri tês akmês hê men auxêtikê

tênikauta kratei; boêthoi d' autês kai hoion hypêretides

hê t' alloiôtikê dynamis esti kai hê threptikê. ti oun

to idion esti tês auxêtikês dynameôs? eis pan meros

ekteinai ta pephykota. kaleitai d' houtô ta sterea moria

tou sômatos, artêriai kai phlebes kai neura kai osta kai

chondroi kai hymenes kai syndesmoi kai hoi chitônes

hapantes, hous stoicheiôdeis te kai homoiomereis kai

haplous oligon emprosthen ekaloumen. hotô de tropô tên

eis pan meros ektasin ischousin, egô phrasô paradeigma

ti proteron eipôn heneka tou saphous. || 17

Tas kysteis tôn hyôn labontes hoi paides plêrousi te

pneumatos kai tribousin epi tês tephras plêsion tou

pyros, hôs aleainesthai men, blaptesthai de mêden; kai

pollê g' hautê hê paidia peri te tên Iônian kai en

allois ethnesin ouk oligois estin. epilegousi de dê kai

tin' epê tribontes en metrô te tini kai melei kai

rhythmô kai esti panta ta rhêmata tauta parakeleusis tê

kystei pros tên auxêsin. epeidan d' hikanôs autois

diatetasthai dokê, palin emphysôsi te kai epidiateinousi

kai authis tribousi kai touto pleonakis poiousin, achris

an autois hê kystis hikanôs echein dokê tês auxêseôs.

all' en toutois ge tois ergois tôn paidôn enargôs, hoson

eis megethos epididôsin hê entos eurychôria tês kysteôs,

tosouton anankaion eis leptotêta kathaireisthai to sôma

kai ei ge tên leptotêta tautên anatrephein hoioi t' êsan

hoi paides, homoiôs an tê physei tên kystin ek mikras

megalên apeirgazonto. nyni de tout' autois endei to

ergon oude kath' hena tropon eis mimêsin endechomenon

achthênai mê hoti tois || paisin all' oud' allô tini; 18

monês gar tês physeôs idion estin.

Hôst' êdê soi dêlon, hôs anankaia tois auxanomenois hê

threpsis. ei gar diateinoito men, anatrephoito de mê,

phantasian pseudê mallon, ouk auxêsin alêthê ta toiauta

sômata ktêsetai. kaitoi kai to diateinesthai pantê

monois tois hypo physeôs auxanomenois hyparchei. ta gar

hyph' hêmôn diateinomena sômata kata mian tina diastasin

touto paschonta meioutai tais loipais, oud' estin

heurein ouden, ho syneches eti menon kai adiaspaston eis

tas treis diastaseis epekteinai dynametha. monês oun tês

physeôs to pantê diistanai syneches heautô menon eti kai

tên archaian hapasan idean phylatton to sôma.

Kai tout' estin hê auxêsis aneu tês epirrheousês te kai

prosplattomenês trophês mê dynamenê genesthai.

VIII

We have, then, it seems, arrived at the subject of Nutrition, which is

the third and remaining consideration which we proposed at the outset.

For, when the matter which flows to each part of the body in the form

of nutriment is being worked up into it, this activity is _nutrition_,

and its cause is the _nutritive faculty_. Of course, the kind of

activity here involved is also an _alteration_, but not an alteration

like that occurring at the stage of _genesis_.[53] For in the latter

case something comes into existence which did not exist previously,

while in nutrition the inflowing material becomes assimilated to that

which has already come into existence. Therefore, the former kind of

alteration has with reason been termed _genesis_, and the latter,

_assimilation_.

VIII

Kai toinyn ho logos hêkein eoiken ho peri tês threpseôs,

hos dê loipos esti kai tritos hôn ex archês

prouthemetha. tou gar epirrheontos en eidei trophês

panti || moriô tou trephomenou sômatos prosplattomenou 19

threpsis men hê energeia, threptikê de dynamis hê aitia.

alloiôsis men dê kantautha to genos tês energeias, all'

ouch hoiaper hê en tê genesei. ekei men gar ouk on

proteron hysteron egeneto, kata de tên threpsin tô êdê

gegonoti synexomoioutai to epirrheon kai dia tout'

eulogôs ekeinên men tên alloiôsin genesin, tautên d'

exomoiôsin ônomasan.

IX

Now, since the three faculties of Nature have been exhaustively dealt

with, and the animal would appear not to need any others (being

possessed of the means for growing, for attaining completion, and for

maintaining itself as long a time as possible), this treatise might

seem to be already complete, and to constitute an exposition of all

the faculties of Nature. If, however, one considers that it has not

yet touched upon any of _the parts_ of the animal (I mean the stomach,

intestines, liver, and the like), and that it has not dealt with the

faculties resident in these, it will seem as though merely a kind of

introduction had been given to the practical parts of our teaching.

For the whole matter is as follows: Genesis, growth, and nutrition are

the first, and, so to say, the principal effects of Nature; similarly

also the faculties which produce these effects--the first

faculties--are three in number, and are the most dominating of all.

But as has already been shown, these need the service both of each

other, and of yet different faculties. Now, these which the faculties

of generation and growth require have been stated. I shall now say

what ones the nutritive faculty requires.

IX

Epeidê de peri tôn triôn dynameôn tês physeôs autarkôs

eirêtai kai phainetai mêdemias allês prosdeisthai to

zôon, echon ge kai hopôs auxêthê kai hopôs teleiôthê kai

hopôs heôs pleistou diaphylachthê, doxeie men an isôs

hikanôs echein ho logos houtos êdê kai pasas exêgeisthai

tas tês physeôs dynameis. all' ei tis palin ennoêseien,

hôs oudenos oudepô tôn tou zôou moriôn ephêpsato,

koilias legô kai enterôn kai hêpatos kai tôn homoiôn,

oud' exêgêsato tas en autois dynameis, authis doxeien an

hoion prooimion ti monon eirêsthai tês chrêsimou

didaskalias. || to gar sympan hôd' echei. genesis kai 20

auxêsis kai threpsis ta prôta kai hoion kephalaia tôn

ergôn esti tês physeôs; hôste kai hai toutôn ergastikai

dynameis hai prôtai treis eisi kai kyriôtatai; deontai

d' eis hypêresian, hôs êdê dedeiktai, kai allêlôn kai

allôn. tinôn men oun hê gennêtikê te kai auxêtikê

deontai, eirêtai, tinôn d' hê threptikê, nyn eirêsetai.

X

For I believe that I shall prove that the organs which have to do with

the disposal[54] of the nutriment, as also their faculties, exist for

the sake of this _nutritive faculty_. For since the action of this

faculty[55] is _assimilation_, and it is impossible for anything to be

assimilated by, and to change into anything else unless they already

possess a certain _community and affinity_ in their qualities,[56]

therefore, in the first place, any animal cannot naturally derive

nourishment from any kind of food, and secondly, even in the case of

those from which it can do so, it cannot do this at once. Therefore,

by reason of this law,[57] every animal needs several organs for

_altering_ the nutriment. For in order that the yellow may become red,

and the red yellow, one simple process of alteration is required, but

in order that the white may become black, and the black white, all the

intermediate stages are needed.[58] So also, a thing which is very

soft cannot all at once become very hard, nor _vice versa_; nor,

similarly can anything which has a very bad smell suddenly become

quite fragrant, nor again, can the converse happen.

How, then, could blood ever turn into bone, without having first

become, as far as possible, thickened and white? And how could bread

turn into blood without having gradually parted with its whiteness and

gradually acquired redness? Thus it is quite easy for blood to become

flesh; for, if Nature thicken it to such an extent that it acquires a

certain consistency and ceases to be fluid, it thus becomes original

newly-formed flesh; but in order that blood may turn into bone, much

time is needed and much elaboration and transformation of the blood.

Further, it is quite clear that bread, and, more particularly lettuce,

beet, and the like, require a great deal of alteration in order to

become blood.

This, then, is one reason why there are so many organs concerned in

the alteration of food. A second reason is the nature of the

_superfluities_.[59] For, as we are unable to draw any nourishment

from grass, although this is possible for cattle, similarly we can

derive nourishment from radishes, albeit not to the same extent as

from meat; for almost the whole of the latter is mastered by our

natures[60]; it is transformed and altered and constituted useful

blood; but, in the radish, what is appropriate[61] and able of being

altered (and that only with difficulty, and with much labour) is the

very smallest part; almost the whole of it is surplus matter, and

passes through the digestive organs, only a very little being taken up

into the veins as blood--nor is this itself entirely utilisable blood.

Nature, therefore had need of a second process of separation for the

superfluities in the veins. Moreover, these superfluities need, on the

one hand, certain fresh routes to conduct them to the outlets, so that

they may not spoil the useful substances, and they also need certain

_reservoirs_, as it were, in which they are collected till they reach

a sufficient quantity, and are then discharged.

Thus, then, you have discovered bodily parts of a second kind,

consecrated in this case to the [removal of the] superfluities of the

food. There is, however, also a third kind, for carrying the pabulum

in every direction; these are like a number of roads intersecting the

whole body.

Thus there is one entrance--that through the mouth--for all the

various articles of food. What receives nourishment, however, is not

one single part, but a great many parts, and these widely separated;

do not be surprised, therefore, at the abundance of organs which

Nature has created for the purpose of nutrition. For those of them

which have to do with alteration prepare the nutriment suitable for

each part; others separate out the superfluities; some pass these

along, others store them up, others excrete them; some, again, are

paths for the transit[62] in all directions of the _utilisable_

juices. So, if you wish to gain a thorough acquaintance with all the

faculties of Nature,[63] you will have to consider each one of these

organs.

Now in giving an account of these we must begin with those effects of

Nature, together with their corresponding parts and faculties, which

are closely connected with the purpose to be achieved.[64]

X

Dokô gar moi deixein ta peri tên tês trophês oikonomian

organa te kai tas dynameis autôn dia tautên gegonota.

epeidê gar hê energeia tautês tês dynameôs exomoiôsis

estin, homoiousthai de kai metaballein eis allêla pasi

tois ousin adynaton, ei mê tina echoi koinônian êdê kai

syngeneian en tais poiotêsi, dia touto prôton men ouk ek

pantôn edesmatôn pan zôon trephesthai pephyken, epeita

d' oud' ex hôn hoion t' estin oud' ek toutôn parachrêma,

kai dia tautên tên anankên pleionôn organôn alloiôtikôn

tês trophês hekaston || tôn zôôn chrêzei. hina men gar 21

to xanthon erythron genêtai kai to erythron xanthon,

haplês kai mias deitai tês alloiôseôs; hina de to leukon

melan kai to melan leukon, hapasôn tôn metaxy. kai

toinyn kai to malakôtaton ouk an athroôs sklêrotaton kai

to sklêrotaton ouk an athroôs malakôtaton genoito,

hôsper oude to dysôdestaton euôdestaton oud' empalin to

euôdestaton dysôdestaton exaiphnês genoit' an.

Pôs oun ex haimatos ostoun an pote genoito mê

pachynthentos ge proteron epi pleiston autou kai

leukanthentos ê pôs ex artou to haima mê kata brachy men

apothemenou tên leukotêta, kata brachy de lambanontos

tên erythrotêta? sarka men gar ex haimatos genesthai

rhaston; ei gar eis tosouton auto pachyneien hê physis,

hôs systasin tina schein kai mêket' einai rhyton, hê

prôtê kai neopagês houtôs an eiê sarx; ostoun d' hina

genêtai, pollou men deitai chronou, pollês d' ergasias

kai metabolês tô haimati. hoti de kai tô artô kai poly

mallon thrida||kinê kai teutlô kai tois homoiois 22

pampollês deitai tês alloiôseôs eis haimatos genesin,

oude tout' adêlon.

Hen men dê tout' aition tou polla genesthai ta peri tên

tês trophês alloiôsin organa. deuteron d' hê tôn

perittômatôn physis. hôs gar hypo botanôn oud' holôs

dynametha trephesthai, kaitoi tôn boskêmatôn

trephomenôn, houtôs hypo rhaphanidos trephometha men,

all' ouch hôs hypo tôn kreôn. toutôn men gar oligou dein

holôn hê physis hêmôn kratei kai metaballei kai alloioi

kai chrêston ex autôn haima synistêsin; en de tê

rhaphanidi to men oikeion te kai metablêthênai

dynamenon, mogis kai touto kai syn pollê tê katergasia,

pantapasin elachiston; holê d' oligou dein esti

perittômatikê kai diexerchetai ta tês pepseôs organa,

bracheos ex autês eis tas phlebas analêphthentos

haimatos kai oude toutou teleôs chrêstou. deuteras oun

authis edeêse diakriseôs tê physei tôn en tais phlepsi

perittômatôn. kai chreia kai toutois hodôn te tinôn

heterôn epi tas ek||kriseis auta paragousôn, hôs mê 23

lymainoito tois chrêstois, hypodochôn te tinôn hoion

dexamenôn, en hais hotan eis hikanon plêthos aphikêtai,

tênikaut' ekkrithêsetai.

Deuteron dê soi kai touto to genos tôn en tô sômati

moriôn exeurêtai tois perittômasi tês trophês

anakeimenon. allo de triton hyper tou pantê pheresthai,

kathaper tines hodoi pollai dia tou sômatos holou

katatetmêmenai.

Mia men gar eisodos hê dia tou stomatos hapasi tois

sitiois, ouch hen de to trephomenon alla pampolla te kai

pampoly diestôta. mê toinyn thaumaze to plêthos tôn

organôn, hosa threpseôs heneken hê physis edêmiourgêse.

ta men gar alloiounta proparaskeuazei tên epitêdeion

hekastô moriô trophên, ta de diakrinei ta perittômata,

ta de parapempei, ta d' hypodechetai, ta d' ekkrinei, ta

d' hodoi tês pantê phoras eisi tôn chrêstôn chymôn,

hôst', eiper boulei tas dynameis tês physeôs hapasas

ekmathein, hyper hekastou toutôn an eiê soi tôn organôn

episkepteon.

Archê d' autôn tês didaskalias, hosa || tou telous engys 24

erga te tês physeôs esti kai moria kai dynameis autôn.

XI

Let us once more, then, recall the actual purpose for which Nature has

constructed all these parts. Its name, as previously stated, is

_nutrition_, and the definition corresponding to the name is: _an

assimilation of that which nourishes to that which receives

nourishments_.[65] And in order that this may come about, we must

assume a preliminary process of _adhesion_,[66] and for that, again,

one of _presentation_.[67] For whenever the juice which is destined to

nourish any of the parts of the animal is emitted from the vessels, it

is in the first place dispersed all through this part, next it is

presented, and next it adheres, and becomes completely assimilated.

The so-called white [leprosy] shows the difference between

assimilation and adhesion, in the same way that the kind of dropsy

which some people call _anasarca_ clearly distinguishes presentation

from adhesion. For, of course, the genesis of such a dropsy does not

come about as do some of the conditions of atrophy and wasting,[68]

from an insufficient supply of moisture; the flesh is obviously moist

enough,--in fact it is thoroughly saturated,--and each of the solid

parts of the body is in a similar condition. While, however, the

nutriment conveyed to the part does undergo presentation, it is still

too watery, and is not properly transformed into a _juice_,[69] nor

has it acquired that viscous and agglutinative quality which results

from the operation of _innate heat_;[70] therefore, adhesion cannot

come about, since, owing to this abundance of thin, crude liquid, the

pabulum runs off and easily slips away from the solid parts of the

body. In white [leprosy], again, there is adhesion of the nutriment

but no real assimilation. From this it is clear that what I have just

said is correct, namely, that in that part which is to be nourished

there must first occur presentation, next adhesion, and finally

assimilation proper.

Strictly speaking, then, _nutriment_ is that which is actually

nourishing, while the _quasi-nutriment_ which is not yet nourishing

(_e.g._ matter which is undergoing adhesion or presentation) is not,

strictly speaking, nutriment, but is so called only by an

equivocation. Also, that which is still contained in the veins, and

still more, that which is in the stomach, from the fact that it is

destined to nourish if properly elaborated, has been called

"nutriment." Similarly we call the various kinds of food "nutriment,"

not because they are already nourishing the animal, nor because they

exist in the same state as the material which actually is nourishing

it, but because they are able and destined to nourish it if they be

properly elaborated.

This was also what Hippocrates said, viz., "Nutriment is what is

engaged in nourishing, as also is quasi-nutriment, and what is

destined to be nutriment." For to that which is already being

assimilated he gave the name of _nutriment_; to the similar material

which is being presented or becoming adherent, the name of

_quasi-nutriment_; and to everything else--that is, contained in the

stomach and veins--the name of _destined nutriment_.

XI

Autou de dê palin anamnêsteon hêmin tou telous, houper

heneka tosauta te kai toiauta tê physei dedêmiourgêtai

moria. to men oun onoma tou pragmatos, hôsper kai

proteron eirêtai, threpsis; ho de kata tounoma logos

homoiôsis tou trephontos tô trephomenô. hina d' hautê

genêtai, proêgêsasthai chrê prosphysin, hina d' ekeinê,

prosthesin. epeidan gar ekpesê tôn angeiôn ho mellôn

threpsein hotioun tôn tou zôou moriôn chymos, eis hapan

auto diaspeiretai prôton, epeita prostithetai kapeita

prosphyetai kai teleôs homoioutai.

Dêlousi d' hai kaloumenai leukai tên diaphoran

homoiôseôs te kai prosphyseôs, hôsper to genos ekeino

tôn hyderôn, ho tines onomazousin ana sarka, diorizei

saphôs prosthesin prosphyseôs. ou gar endeia dêpou tês

epirrheousês hygrotêtos, hôs eniai tôn atrophiôn te kai

phthiseôn, hê tou toioutou genesis hyderou || 25

synteleitai. phainetai gar hikanôs hê te sarx hygra kai

diabrochos hekaston te tôn stereôn tou sômatos moriôn

hôsautôs diakeimenon. alla prosthesis men tis gignetai

tês epipheromenês trophês, hate d' hydatôdesteras ousês

eti kai mê pany ti kechymômenês mêde to glischron ekeino

kai kollôdes, ho dê tês emphytou thermasias oikonomia

prosgignetai, kektêmenês hê prosphysis adynatos estin

epiteleisthai plêthei leptês hygrotêtos apeptou

diarrheousês te kai rhadiôs olisthainousês apo tôn

stereôn tou sômatos moriôn tês trophês. en de tais

leukais prosphysis men tis gignetai tês trophês, ou mên

exomoiôsis ge. kai dêlon en tôde to mikrô prosthen

rhêthen hôs orthôs elegeto to dein prosthesin men

prôton, ephexês de prosphysin, epeit' exomoiôsin

genesthai tô mellonti trephesthai.

Kyriôs men oun to trephon êdê trophê, to d' hoion men

trophê, oupô de trephon, hopoion esti to prosphyomenon ê

prostithemenon, trophê men ou kyriôs, homônymôs de

trophê; to d' en tais phlepsin eti periechomenon || kai 26

toutou mallon eti to kata tên gastera tô mellein pote

threpsein, ei kalôs katergastheiê, keklêtai trophê. kata

tauta de kai tôn edesmatôn hekaston trophên onomazomen

oute tô trephein êdê to zôon oute tô toiouton hyparchein

hoion to trephon, alla tô dynasthai te kai mellein

trephein, ei kalôs katergastheiê.

Touto gar ên kai to pros Hippokratous legomenon; "Trophê

de to trephon, trophê kai to hoion trophê kai to

mellon." to men gar homoioumenon êdê trophên ônomase, to

d' hoion men ekeino prostithemenon ê prosphyomenon hoion

trophên; to d' allo pan, hoson en tê gastri kai tais

phlepsi periechetai, mellon.

XII

It is quite clear, therefore, that nutrition must necessarily be a

process of assimilation of that which is nourishing to that which is

being nourished. Some, however, say that this assimilation does not

occur in reality, but is merely apparent; these are the people who

think that Nature is not artistic, that she does not show forethought

for the animal's welfare, and that she has absolutely no native powers

whereby she alters some substances, attracts others, and discharges

others.

Now, speaking generally, there have arisen the following two sects in

medicine and philosophy among those who have made any definite

pronouncement regarding Nature. I speak, of course, of such of them as

know what they are talking about, and who realize the logical sequence

of their hypotheses, and stand by them; as for those who cannot

understand even this, but who simply talk any nonsense that comes to

their tongues, and who do not remain definitely attached either to one

sect or the other--such people are not even worth mentioning.

What, then, are these sects, and what are the logical consequences of

their hypotheses?[71] The one class supposes that all substance which

is subject to genesis and destruction is at once _continuous_[72] and

susceptible of _alteration_. The other school assumes substance to be

unchangeable, unalterable, and sub-divided into fine particles, which

are separated from one another by empty spaces.

All people, therefore, who can appreciate the logical sequence of an

hypothesis hold that, according to the second teaching, there does not

exist any substance or faculty peculiar either to Nature or to

Soul,[73] but that these result from the way in which the primary

corpuscles,[74] which are unaffected by change, come together.

According to the first-mentioned teaching, on the other hand, Nature

is not posterior to the corpuscles, but is a long way prior to them

and older than they; and therefore in their view it is Nature which

puts together the bodies both of plants and animals; and this she does

by virtue of certain faculties which she possesses--these being, on

the one hand, attractive and assimilative of what is appropriate, and,

on the other, expulsive of what is foreign. Further, she skilfully

moulds everything during the stage of genesis; and she also provides

for the creatures after birth, employing here other faculties again,

namely, one of affection and forethought for offspring, and one of

sociability and friendship for kindred. According to the other school,

none of these things exist in the natures[75] [of living things], nor

is there in the soul any original innate idea, whether of agreement or

difference, of separation or synthesis, of justice or injustice, of

the beautiful or ugly; all such things, they say, arise in us _from

sensation and through sensation_, and animals are steered by certain

images and memories.

Some of these people have even expressly declared that the soul

possesses no reasoning faculty, but that we are led like cattle by the

impression of our senses, and are unable to refuse or dissent from

anything. In their view, obviously, courage, wisdom, temperance, and

self-control are all mere nonsense, we do not love either each other

or our offspring, nor do the gods care anything for us. This school

also despises dreams, birds, omens, and the whole of astrology,

subjects with which we have dealt at greater length in another

work,[76] in which we discuss the views of Asclepiades the

physician.[77] Those who wish to do so may familiarize themselves with

these arguments, and they may also consider at this point which of the

two roads lying before us is the better one to take. Hippocrates took

the first-mentioned. According to this teaching, substance is one and

is subject to _alteration_; there is a consensus in the movements of

air and fluid throughout the whole body;[78] Nature acts throughout in

an artistic and equitable manner, having certain faculties, by virtue

of which each part of the body draws to itself the juice which is

proper to it, and, having done so, attaches it to every portion of

itself, and completely assimilates it; while such part of the juice as

has not been mastered,[79] and is not capable of undergoing complete

alteration and being assimilated to the part which is being nourished,

is got rid of by yet another (an expulsive) faculty.

XII

Hoti men oun anankaion homoiôsin tin' einai tou

trephontos tô trephomenô tên threpsin, antikrys dêlon.

ou mên hyparchousan ge tautên tên homoiôsin, alla

phainomenên monon einai phasin hoi mête technikên

oiomenoi tên physin einai mête pronoêtikên tou zôou

mêth' holôs tinas oikeias echein dynameis, hais chrômenê

ta men alloioi, ta d' helkei, || ta d' ekkrinei. 27

Kai hautai dyo gegonasin haireseis kata genos en iatrikê

te kai philosophia tôn apophênamenôn ti peri physeôs

andrôn, hosoi g' autôn gignôskousin, ho ti legousi, kai

tên akolouthian hôn hypethento theôrousi th' hama kai

diaphylattousin. hosoi de mêd' auto touto syniasin, all'

haplôs, ho ti an epi glôttan elthê, lêrousin, en

oudetera tôn haireseôn akribôs katamenontes, oude

memnêsthai tôn toioutôn prosêkei.

Tines oun hai dyo haireseis hautai kai tis hê tôn en

autais hypotheseôn akolouthia? tên hypobeblêmenên ousian

genesei kai phthora pasan hênômenên th' hama kai

alloiousthai dynamenên hypetheto thateron genos tês

haireseôs, ametablêton de kai analloiôton kai

katatetmêmenên eis lepta kai kenais tais metaxy chôrais

dieilêmmenên hê loipê.

Kai toinyn hosoi ge tês akolouthias tôn hypotheseôn

aisthanontai, kata men tên deuteran hairesin oute

physeôs oute psychês idian tina nomizousin ousian ê

dynamin hyparchein, || all' en tê poia synodô tôn prôtôn 28

ekeinôn sômatôn tôn apathôn apoteleisthai. kata de tên

proteran eirêmenên hairesin ouch hystera tôn sômatôn hê

physis, alla poly protera te kai presbytera. kai toinyn

kata men toutous hautê ta sômata tôn te phytôn kai tôn

zôôn synistêsi dynameis tinas echousa tas men helktikas

th' hama kai homoiôtikas tôn oikeiôn, tas d' apokritikas

tôn allotriôn, kai technikôs hapanta diaplattei te

gennôsa kai pronoeitai tôn gennômenôn heterais authis

tisi dynamesi, sterktikê men tini kai pronoêtikê tôn

engonôn, koinônikê de kai philikê tôn homogenôn. kata d'

au tous heterous oute toutôn ouden hyparchei tais

physesin out' ennoia tis esti tê psychê symphytos ex

archês ouk akolouthias ou machês, ou diaireseôs ou

syntheseôs, ou dikaiôn ouk adikôn, ou kalôn ouk

aischrôn, all' ex aisthêseôs te kai di' aisthêseôs

hapanta ta toiauth' hêmin engignesthai phasi kai

phantasiais tisi kai mnêmais oiakizesthai ta zôa.

Enioi || d' autôn kai rhêtôs apephênanto mêdemian einai 29

tês psychês dynamin, hê logizometha, all' hypo tôn

aisthêtôn agesthai pathôn hêmas kathaper boskêmata pros

mêden ananeusai mêd' anteipein dynamenous. kath' hous

dêlonoti kai andreia kai phronêsis kai sôphrosynê kai

enkrateia lêros esti makros kai philoumen out' allêlous

oute ta engona kai tois theois ouden hêmôn melei.

kataphronousi de kai tôn oneiratôn kai tôn oiônôn kai

tôn symbolôn kai pasês astrologias, hyper hôn hêmeis men

idia di' heterôn grammatôn epi pleon eskepsametha peri

tôn Asklêpiadou tou iatrou skopoumenoi dogmatôn. enesti

de tois boulomenois kakeinois men homilêsai tois logois

kai nyn d' êdê skopein, hôsper tinôn dyoin hodôn hêmin

prokeimenôn, hopoteran beltion esti trepesthai.

Hippokratês men gar tên proteran rhêtheisan etrapeto,

kath' hên hênôtai men hê ousia kai alloioutai kai

sympnoun holon esti kai syrrhoun to sôma kai hê physis

hapanta technikôs kai dikaiôs prattei dynameis echousa,

kath' has hekaston tôn moriôn helkei men || eph' heauto 30

ton oikeion heautô chymon, helxan de prosphyei te panti

merei tôn en hautô kai teleôs exomoioi, to de mê

kratêthen en toutô mêde tên pantelê dynêthen alloiôsin

te kai homoiotêta tou trephomenou katadexasthai di'

heteras au tinos ekkritikês dynameôs apotribetai.

XIII

Now the extent of exactitude and truth in the doctrines of Hippocrates

may be gauged, not merely from the way in which his opponents are at

variance with obvious facts, but also from the various subjects of

natural research themselves--the functions of animals, and the rest.

For those people who do not believe that there exists in any part of

the animal a faculty for attracting _its own special quality_[80] are

compelled repeatedly to deny obvious facts.[81] For instance,

Asclepiades, the physician,[82] did this in the case of the kidneys.

That these are organs for secreting [separating out] the urine, was

the belief not only of Hippocrates, Diocles, Erasistratus,

Praxagoras,[83] and all other physicians of eminence, but practically

every butcher is aware of this, from the fact that he daily observes

both the position of the kidneys and the duct (termed the ureter)

which runs from each kidney into the bladder, and from this

arrangement he infers their characteristic use and faculty. But, even

leaving the butchers aside, all people who suffer either from frequent

dysuria or from retention of urine call themselves "nephritics,"[84]

when they feel pain in the loins and pass sandy matter in their water.

I do not suppose that Asclepiades ever saw a stone which had been

passed by one of these sufferers, or observed that this was preceded

by a sharp pain in the region between kidneys and bladder as the stone

traversed the ureter, or that, when the stone was passed, both the

pain and the retention at once ceased. It is worth while, then,

learning how his theory accounts for the presence of urine in the

bladder, and one is forced to marvel at the ingenuity of a man who

puts aside these broad, clearly visible routes,[85] and postulates

others which are narrow, invisible--indeed, entirely imperceptible.

His view, in fact, is that the fluid which we drink passes into the

bladder by being resolved into vapours, and that, when these have been

again condensed, it thus regains its previous form, and turns from

vapour into fluid. He simply looks upon the bladder as a sponge or a

piece of wool, and not as the perfectly compact and impervious body

that it is, with two very strong coats. For if we say that the vapours

pass through these coats, why should they not pass through the

peritoneum[86] and the diaphragm, thus filling the whole abdominal

cavity and thorax with water? "But," says he, "of course the

peritoneal coat is more impervious than the bladder, and this is why

it keeps out the vapours, while the bladder admits them." Yet if he

had ever practised anatomy, he might have known that the outer coat of

the bladder springs from the peritoneum and is essentially the same as

it, and that the inner coat, which is peculiar to the bladder, is more

than twice as thick as the former.

Perhaps, however, it is not the thickness or thinness of the coats,

but the _situation_ of the bladder, which is the reason for the

vapours being carried into it? On the contrary, even if it were

probable for every other reason that the vapours accumulate there, yet

the situation of the bladder would be enough in itself to prevent

this. For the bladder is situated below, whereas vapours have a

natural tendency to rise upwards; thus they would fill all the region

of the thorax and lungs long before they came to the bladder.

But why do I mention the situation of the bladder, peritoneum, and

thorax? For surely, when the vapours have passed through the coats of

the stomach and intestines, it is in the space between these and the

peritoneum[87] that they will collect and become liquefied (just as in

dropsical subjects it is in this region that most of the water

gathers).[88] Otherwise the vapours must necessarily pass straight

forward through everything which in any way comes in contact with

them, and will never come to a standstill. But, if this be assumed,

then they will traverse not merely the peritoneum but also the

epigastrium, and will become dispersed into the surrounding air;

otherwise they will certainly collect under the skin.

Even these considerations, however, our present-day Asclepiadeans

attempt to answer, despite the fact that they always get soundly

laughed at by all who happen to be present at their disputations on

these subjects--so difficult an evil to get rid of is this sectarian

partizanship, so excessively resistant to all cleansing processes,

harder to heal than any itch!

Thus, one of our Sophists who is a thoroughly hardened disputer and as

skilful a master of language as there ever was, once got into a

discussion with me on this subject; so far from being put out of

countenance by any of the above-mentioned considerations, he even

expressed his surprise that I should try to overturn obvious facts by

ridiculous arguments! "For," said he, "one may clearly observe any day

in the case of any bladder, that, if one fills it with water or air

and then ties up its neck and squeezes it all round, it does not let

anything out at any point, but accurately retains all its contents.

And surely," said he, "if there were any large and perceptible

channels coming into it from the kidneys the liquid would run out

through these when the bladder was squeezed, in the same way that it

entered?"[89] Having abruptly made these and similar remarks in

precise and clear tones, he concluded by jumping up and

departing--leaving me as though I were quite incapable of finding any

plausible answer!

The fact is that those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely

devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn!

Instead of listening, as they ought, to the reason why liquid can

enter the bladder through the ureters, but is unable to go back again

the same way,--instead of admiring Nature's artistic skill[90]--they

refuse to learn; they even go so far as to scoff, and maintain that

the kidneys, as well as many other things, have been made by Nature

_for no purpose!_[91] And some of them who had allowed themselves to

be shown the ureters coming from the kidneys and becoming implanted in

the bladder, even had the audacity to say that these also existed for

no purpose; and others said that they were spermatic ducts, and that

this was why they were inserted into the neck of the bladder and not

into its cavity. When, therefore, we had demonstrated to them the real

spermatic ducts[92] entering the neck of the bladder lower down than

the ureters, we supposed that, if we had not done so before, we would

now at least draw them away from their false assumptions, and convert

them forthwith to the opposite view. But even this they presumed to

dispute, and said that it was not to be wondered at that the semen

should remain longer in these latter ducts, these being more

constricted, and that it should flow quickly down the ducts which came

from the kidneys, seeing that these were well dilated. We were,

therefore, further compelled to show them in a still living animal,

the urine plainly running out through the ureters into the bladder;

even thus we hardly hoped to check their nonsensical talk.

Now the method of demonstration is as follows. One has to divide the

peritoneum in front of the ureters, then secure these with ligatures,

and next, having bandaged up the animal, let him go (for he will not

continue to urinate). After this one loosens the external bandages and

shows the bladder empty and the ureters quite full and distended--in

fact almost on the point of rupturing; on removing the ligature from

them, one then plainly sees the bladder becoming filled with urine.

When this has been made quite clear, then, before the animal urinates,

one has to tie a ligature round his penis and then to squeeze the

bladder all over; still nothing goes back through the ureters to the

kidneys. Here, then, it becomes obvious that not only in a dead

animal, but in one which is still living, the ureters are prevented

from receiving back the urine from the bladder. These observations

having been made, one now loosens the ligature from the animal's penis

and allows him to urinate, then again ligatures one of the ureters and

leaves the other to discharge into the bladder. Allowing, then, some

time to elapse, one now demonstrates that the ureter which was

ligatured is obviously full and distended on the side next to the

kidneys, while the other one--that from which the ligature had been

taken--is itself flaccid, but has filled the bladder with urine. Then,

again, one must divide the full ureter, and demonstrate how the urine

spurts out of it, like blood in the operation of venesection; and

after this one cuts through the other also, and both being thus

divided, one bandages up the animal externally. Then when enough time

seems to have elapsed, one takes off the bandages; the bladder will

now be found empty, and the whole region between the intestines and

the peritoneum full of urine, as if the animal were suffering from

dropsy. Now, if anyone will but test this for himself on an animal, I

think he will strongly condemn the rashness of Asclepiades, and if he

also learns the reason why nothing regurgitates from the bladder into

the ureters, I think he will be persuaded by this also of the

forethought and art shown by Nature in relation to animals.[93]

Now Hippocrates, who was the first known to us of all those who have

been both physicians and philosophers inasmuch as he was the first to

recognize what Nature effects, expresses his admiration of her, and is

constantly singing her praises and calling her "just." Alone, he says,

she suffices for the animal in every respect, performing of her own

accord and without any teaching all that is required. Being such, she

has, as he supposes, certain _faculties_, one attractive of what is

appropriate,[94] and another eliminative of what is foreign, and she

nourishes the animal, makes it grow, and expels its diseases by

crisis.[95] Therefore he says that there is in our bodies a

concordance in the movements of air and fluid, and that everything is

in sympathy. According to Asclepiades, however, nothing is naturally

in sympathy with anything else, all substance being divided and broken

up into inharmonious elements and absurd "molecules." Necessarily,

then, besides making countless other statements in opposition to plain

fact, he was ignorant of Nature's faculties, both that attracting what

is appropriate, and that expelling what is foreign. Thus he invented

some wretched nonsense to explain blood-production and _anadosis_,[96]

and, being utterly unable to find anything to say regarding the

clearing-out[97] of superfluities, he did not hesitate to join issue

with obvious facts, and, in this matter of urinary secretion, to

deprive both the kidneys and the ureters of their activity, by

assuming that there were certain invisible channels opening into the

bladder. It was, of course, a grand and impressive thing to do, to

mistrust the obvious, and to pin one's faith in things which could not

be seen!

Also, in the matter of the yellow bile, he makes an even grander and

more spirited venture; for he says this is actually generated in the

bile-ducts, not merely separated out.

How comes it, then, that in cases of jaundice two things happen at the

same time--that the dejections contain absolutely no bile, and that

the whole body becomes full of it? He is forced here again to talk

nonsense, just as he did in regard to the urine. He also talks no less

nonsense about the black bile and the spleen, not understanding what

was said by Hippocrates; and he attempts in stupid--I might say

insane--language, to contradict what he knows nothing about.

And what profit did he derive from these opinions from the point of

view of treatment? He neither was able to cure a kidney ailment, nor

jaundice, nor a disease of black bile, nor would he agree with the

view held not merely by Hippocrates but by all men regarding

drugs--that some of them purge away yellow bile, and others black,

some again phlegm, and others the thin and watery superfluity[98]; he

held that all the substances evacuated[99] were _produced by the drugs

themselves_, just as yellow bile is produced by the biliary passages!

It matters nothing, according to this extraordinary man, whether we

give a hydragogue or a cholagogue in a case of dropsy, for these all

equally purge[99] and dissolve the body, and produce a solution having

such and such an appearance, which did not exist as such before![100]

Must we not, therefore, suppose he was either mad, or entirely

unacquainted with practical medicine? For who does not know that if a

drug for attracting phlegm be given in a case of jaundice it will not

even evacuate four _cyathi_[101] of phlegm? Similarly also if one of

the hydragogues be given. A cholagogue, on the other hand, clears away

a great quantity of bile, and the skin of patients so treated at once

becomes clear. I myself have, in many cases, after treating the liver

condition, then removed the disease by means of a single purgation;

whereas, if one had employed a drug for removing phlegm one would have

done no good.

Nor is Hippocrates the only one who knows this to be so, whilst those

who take experience alone as their starting-point[102] know otherwise;

they, as well as all physicians who are engaged in the practice of

medicine, are of this opinion. Asclepiades, however is an exception;

he would hold it a betrayal of his assumed "elements"[103] to confess

the truth about such matters. For if a single drug were to be

discovered which attracted such and such a humour only, there would

obviously be danger of the opinion gaining ground that there is in

every body[104] a faculty which attracts its own particular quality.

He therefore says that safflower,[105] the Cnidian berry,[106] and

_Hippophaes_,[107] do not draw phlegm from the body, but actually make

it. Moreover, he holds that the flower and scales of bronze, and burnt

bronze itself, and germander,[108] and wild mastich[109] dissolve the

body into water, and that dropsical patients derive benefit from these

substances, not because they are purged by them, but because they are

rid of substances which actually help to increase the disease; for, if

the medicine does not evacuate[110] the dropsical fluid contained in

the body, but generates it, it aggravates the condition further.

Moreover, scammony, according to the Asclepiadean argument, not only

fails to evacuate[110] the bile from the bodies of jaundiced subjects,

but actually turns the useful blood into bile, and dissolves the body;

in fact it does all manner of evil and increases the disease.

And yet this drug may be clearly seen to do good to numbers of people!

"Yes," says he, "they derive benefit certainly, but merely in

proportion to the evacuation." ... But if you give these cases a drug

which draws off phlegm they will not be benefited. This is so obvious

that even those who make experience alone their starting-point[111]

are aware of it; and these people make it a cardinal point of their

teaching to trust to no arguments, but only to what can be clearly

seen. In this, then, they show good sense; whereas Asclepiades goes

far astray in bidding us distrust our senses where obvious facts

plainly overturn his hypotheses. Much better would it have been for

him not to assail obvious facts, but rather to devote himself entirely

to these.

Is it, then, these facts only which are plainly irreconcilable with

the views of Asclepiades? Is not also the fact that in summer yellow

bile is evacuated in greater quantity by the same drugs, and in winter

phlegm, and that in a young man more bile is evacuated, and in an old

man more phlegm? Obviously each drug attracts something which already

exists, and does not generate something previously non-existent. Thus

if you give in the summer season a drug which attracts phlegm to a

young man of a lean and warm habit, who has lived neither idly nor too

luxuriously, you will with great difficulty evacuate a very small

quantity of this humour, and you will do the man the utmost harm. On

the other hand, if you give him a cholagogue, you will produce an

abundant evacuation and not injure him at all.

Do we still, then, disbelieve that each drug attracts _that humour

which is proper to it_?[112] Possibly the adherents of Asclepiades

will assent to this--or rather, they will--not possibly, but

certainly--declare that they disbelieve it, lest they should betray

their darling prejudices.

XIII

Mathein d' enestin ou monon ex hôn hoi tanantia

tithemenoi diapherontai tois enargôs phainomenois, eis

hoson orthotêtos te kai alêtheias hêkei ta Hippokratous

dogmata, alla kax autôn tôn kata meros en tê physikê

theôria zêtoumenôn tôn t' allôn hapantôn kai tôn en tois

zôois energeiôn. hosoi gar oudemian oudeni moriô

nomizousin hyparchein helktikên tês oikeias poiotêtos

dynamin, anankazontai pollakis enantia legein tois

enargôs phainomenois, hôsper kai Asklêpiadês ho iatros

epi tôn nephrôn epoiêsen, hous ou monon Hippokratês ê

Dioklês ê Erasistratos ê Praxagoras ê tis allos iatros

aristos organa diakritika tôn ourôn pepisteukasin

hyparchein, alla kai hoi || mageiroi schedon hapantes 31

isasin, hosêmerai theômenoi tên te thesin autôn kai ton

aph' hekaterou poron eis tên kystin emballonta, ton

ourêtêra kaloumenon, ex autês tês kataskeuês

analogizomenoi tên te chreian autôn kai tên dynamin. kai

pro ge tôn mageirôn hapantes anthrôpoi kai dysourountes

pollakis kai pantapasin ischourountes, hotan algôsi men

ta kata tas psoas, psammôdê d' exourôsin, nephritikous

onomazousi sphas autous.

Asklêpiadên d' oimai mêde lithon ourêthenta pote

theasasthai pros tôn houtô paschontôn mêd' hôs

proêgêsato kata tên metaxy tôn nephrôn kai tês kysteôs

chôran odynê tis oxeia dierchomenou tou lithou ton

ourêtêra mêd' hôs ourêthentos autou ta te tês odynês kai

ta tês ischourias epausato parachrêma. pôs oun eis tên

kystin tô logô paragei to ouron, axion akousai kai

thaumasai tandros tên sophian, hos katalipôn houtôs

eureias hodous enargôs phainomenas aphaneis kai stenas

kai pantapasin anaisthêtous || hypetheto. bouletai gar 32

eis atmous analyomenon to pinomenon hygron eis tên

kystin diadidosthai kapeit' ex ekeinôn authis allêlois

syniontôn houtôs apolambanein auto tên archaian idean

kai gignesthai palin hygron ex atmôn atechnôs hôs peri

spongias tinos ê eriou tês kysteôs dianooumenos, all' ou

sômatos akribôs pyknou kai steganou dyo chitônas

ischyrotatous kektêmenou, di' hôn eiper dierchesthai

phêsomen tous atmous, ti dêpot' ouchi dia tou

peritonaiou kai tôn phrenôn dielthontes eneplêsan

hydatos to t' epigastrion hapan kai ton thôraka? alla

pachyteros, phêsin, esti dêladê kai steganôteros ho

peritonaios chitôn tês kysteôs kai dia tout' ekeinos men

apostegei tous atmous, hê de kystis paradechetai. all'

eiper anatetmêkei pote, tach' an êpistato ton men

exôthen chitôna tês kysteôs apo tou peritonaiou

pephykota tên autên ekeinô physin echein, ton d'

endothen ton autês tês kysteôs idion pleon ê diplasion

ekeinou to pachos hyparchein.

All' isôs oute to || pachos outh' hê leptotês tôn 33

chitônôn, all' hê thesis tês kysteôs aitia tou

pheresthai tous atmous eis autên. kai mên ei kai dia

talla panta pithanon ên autous entauthoi

synathroizesthai, to ge tês theseôs monês autarkes

kôlysai. katô men gar hê kystis keitai, tois d' atmois

symphytos hê pros to meteôron phora, hôste poly proteron

an eplêsan hapanta ta kata ton thôraka te kai ton

pneumona, prin epi tên kystin aphikesthai.

Kaitoi ti theseôs kysteôs kai peritonaiou kai thôrakos

mnêmoneuô? diekpesontes gar dêpou tous te tês koilias

kai tôn enterôn chitônas hoi atmoi kata tên metaxy

chôran autôn te toutôn kai tou peritonaiou

synathroisthêsontai kai hygron entauthoi genêsontai,

hôsper kai tois hyderikois en toutô tô chôriô to

pleiston athroizetai tou hydatos, ê pantôs autous chrê

pheresthai prosô dia pantôn tôn hopôsoun homilountôn kai

mêdepoth' histasthai. all' ei kai touto tis hypothoito,

diekpesontes an houtôs ou to peritonaion monon alla kai

to epigastrion, eis to periechon skedastheien ê pantôs

an hypo tô dermati || synathroistheien. 34

Alla kai pros taut' antilegein hoi nyn Asklêpiadeioi

peirôntai, kaitoi pros hapantôn aei tôn paratynchanontôn

autois, hotan peri toutôn erizôsi, katagelômenoi. houtôs

ara dysapotripton ti kakon estin hê peri tas haireseis

philotimia kai dyseknipton en tois malista kai psôras

hapasês dysiatoteron.

Tôn goun kath' hêmas tis sophistôn ta t' alla kai peri

tous eristikous logous hikanôs synkekrotêmenos kai

deinos eipein, eiper tis allos, aphikomenos emoi poth'

hyper toutôn eis logous, tosouton apedei tou

dysôpeisthai pros tinos tôn eirêmenôn, hôste kai

thaumazein ephasken emou ta saphôs phainomena logois

lêrôdesin anatrepein epicheirountos. enargôs gar

hosêmerai theôreisthai tas kysteis hapasas, ei tis autas

emplêseien hydatos ê aeros, eita dêsas ton trachêlon

piezoi pantachothen, oudamothen methieisas ouden, all'

akribôs hapan entos heautôn stegousas. kaitoi g' eiper

êsan tines ek tôn nephrôn eis autas hêkontes aisthêtoi

kai megaloi poroi, pantôs an, ephê, di' ekeinôn, hôsper

eisêei to || hygron eis autas, houtô kai thlibontôn 35

exekrineto. tauta kai ta toiaut' eipôn exaiphnês

aptaistô kai saphei tô stomati teleutôn anapêdêsas apêei

katalipôn hêmas hôs oude pithanês tinos antilogias

euporêsai dynamenous.

Houtôs ou monon hygies ouden isasin hoi tais hairesesi

douleuontes, all' oude mathein hypomenousi. deon gar

akousai tên aitian, di' hên eisienai men dynatai dia tôn

ourêtêrôn eis tên kystin to hygron, exienai d' authis

opisô tên autên hodon ouketh' hoion te, kai thaumasai

tên technên tês physeôs, oute mathein ethelousi kai

loidorountai proseti matên hyp' autês alla te polla kai

tous nephrous gegonenai phaskontes. eisi d' hoi kai

deichthênai parontôn autôn tous apo tôn nephrôn eis tên

kystin emphyomenous ourêtêras hypomeinantes etolmêsan

eipein hoi men, hoti matên kai houtoi gegonasin, hoi d',

hoti spermatikoi tines eisi poroi kai dia touto kata ton

trachêlon autês, ouk eis to kytos emphyontai. deixantes

oun hêmeis autois tous hôs alêthôs spermatikous porous

katôterô tôn ourêtêrôn || emballontas eis ton trachêlon, 36

nyn goun, ei kai mê proteron, ôêthêmen apaxein te tôn

pseudôs hypeilêmmenôn epi te tanantia metastêsein

autika. hoi de kai pros tout' antilegein etolmôn ouden

einai thaumaston eipontes, en ekeinois men hôs an

steganôterois ousin epi pleon hypomenein to sperma, kata

de tous apo tôn nephrôn hôs an hikanôs aneurysmenous

ekrein dia tacheôn. hêmeis oun ênankasthêmen autois tou

loipou deiknyein eisreon tê kystei dia tôn ourêtêrôn to

ouron enargôs epi zôntos eti tou zôou, mogis an houtô

pote tên phlyarian autôn epischêsein elpizontes.

Ho de tropos tês deixeôs esti toiosde. dielein chrê to

pro tôn ourêtêrôn peritonaion, eita brochois autous

eklabein kapeit' epidêsantas easai to zôon; ou gar an

ourêseien eti. meta de tauta lyein men tous exôthen

desmous, deiknynai de kenên men tên kystin, mestous d'

hikanôs kai diatetamenous tous ourêtêras kai

kindyneuontas rhagênai kapeita tous brochous autôn

aphelontas enargôs horan êdê plêroumenên ourou tên

kystin.

Epi de toutô || phanenti, prin ourêsai to zôon, brochon 37

autou peribalein chrê tô aidoiô kapeita thlibein

pantachothen tên kystin. oude gar an ouden eti dia tôn

ourêtêrôn epanelthoi pros tous nephrous. kan toutô dêlon

gignetai to mê monon epi tethneôtos alla kai periontos

eti tou zôou kôlyesthai metalambanein authis ek tês

kysteôs tous ourêtêras to ouron. epi toutois ophtheisin

epitrepein êdê to zôon ourein lyontas autou ton epi tô

aidoiô brochon, eit' authis epibalein men thaterô tôn

ourêtêrôn, easai de ton heteron eis tên kystin syrrhein

kai tina dialipontas chronon epideiknyein êdê, pôs ho

men heteros autôn ho dedemenos mestos kai diatetamenos

kata ta pros tôn nephrôn merê phainetai, ho d' heteros

ho lelymenos autos men chalaros esti, peplêrôke d' ourou

tên kystin. eit' authis diatemein prôton men ton plêrê

kai deixai, pôs exakontizetai to ouron ex autou,

kathaper en tais phlebotomiais to haima, meta tauta de

kai ton heteron authis diatemein kapeit' epidêsai to

zôon exôthen, amphoterôn diêrêmenôn, || eith' hotan 38

hikanôs echein dokê, lysai ton desmon. heurethêsetai gar

hê men kystis kenê, plêres d' ourou to metaxy tôn

enterôn te kai tou peritonaiou chôrion hapan, hôs an ei

kai hyderikon ên to zôon. taut' oun ei tis autos kath'

heauton boulêtheiê basanizein epi zôou, megalôs moi

dokei katagnôsesthai tês Asklêpiadou propeteias. ei de

dê kai tên aitian mathoi, di' hên ouden ek tês kysteôs

eis tous ourêtêras antekrei, peisthênai an moi dokei kai

dia toude tên eis ta zôa pronoian te kai technên tês

physeôs.

Hippokratês men oun hôn ismen iatrôn te kai philosophôn

prôtos hapantôn, hôs an kai prôtos epignous ta tês

physeôs erga, thaumazei te kai dia pantos autên hymnei

dikaian onomazôn kai monên exarkein eis hapanta tois

zôois phêsin, autên ex hautês adidaktôs prattousan

hapanta ta deonta; toiautên d' ousan autên eutheôs kai

dynameis hypelaben echein helktikên men tôn oikeiôn,

apokritikên de tôn allotriôn kai trephein te kai auxein

au||tên ta zôa kai krinein ta nosêmata; kai dia tout' en 39

tois sômasin hêmôn sympnoian te mian einai phêsi kai

syrrhoian kai panta sympathea. kata de ton Asklêpiadên

ouden oudeni sympathes esti physei, diêrêmenês te kai

katatethrausmenês eis anarma stoicheia kai lêrôdeis

onkous hapasês tês ousias. ex anankês oun alla te myria

tois enargôs phainomenois enantiôs apephênato kai tês

physeôs êgnoêse tên te tôn oikeiôn epispastikên dynamin

kai tên tôn allotriôn apokritikên. epi men oun tês

exaimatôseôs te kai anadoseôs exeure tina psychran

adoleschian; eis de tên tôn perittômatôn katharsin ouden

holôs heurôn eipein ouk ôknêsen homose chôrêsai tois

phainomenois, epi men tês tôn ourôn diakriseôs

aposterêsas men tôn te nephrôn kai tôn ourêtêrôn tên

energeian, adêlous de tinas porous eis tên kystin

hypothemenos; touto gar ên dêladê mega kai semnon

apistêsanta tois phainomenois pisteusai tois adêlois.

Epi || de tês xanthês cholês eti meizon autô kai 40

neanikôteron esti to tolmêma; gennasthai gar autên en

tois cholêdochois angeiois, ou diakrinesthai legei.

Pôs oun tois ikterikois ham' amphô sympiptei, ta men

diachôrêmata mêden holôs en hautois echonta cholês,

anapleôn d' autois gignomenon holon to sôma? lêrein

palin entauth' anankazetai tois epi tôn ourôn eirêmenois

paraplêsiôs. lêrei d' ouden hêtton kai peri tês melainês

cholês kai tou splênos oute ti poth' hyph' Hippokratous

eirêtai synieis antilegein t' epicheirôn hois ouk oiden

emplêktô tini kai manikô stomati.

Ti dê to kerdos ek tôn toioutôn dogmatôn eis tas

therapeias ektêsato? mête nephritikon ti nosêma

dynasthai therapeusai mêt' ikterikon mête melancholikon,

alla kai peri tou pasin anthrôpois ouch Hippokratei

monon homologoumenou tou kathairein tôn pharmakôn enia

men tên xanthên cholên, enia de tên melainan, alla de

tina phlegma kai tina to lepton kai hydatôdes perittôma,

mêde peri toutôn synchôrein, all' hyp' autôn tôn

pharmakôn gignesthai legein toiouton hekaston tôn

kenoumenôn, hôsper hypo tôn cholê||dochôn porôn tên 41

cholên; kai mêden diapherein kata ton thaumaston

Asklêpiadên ê hydragôgon didonai tois hyderiôsin ê

cholagôgon pharmakon; hapanta gar homoiôs kenoun kai

syntêkein to sôma kai to syntêgma toionde ti phainesthai

poiein, mê proteron hyparchon toiouton.

Ar' oun ou mainesthai nomisteon auton ê pantapasin

apeiron einai tôn ergôn tês technês? tis gar ouk oiden,

hôs, ei men phlegmatos agôgon dotheiê pharmakon tois

ikteriôsin, ouk an oude tettaras kyathous kathartheien;

houtô d' oud' ei tôn hydragôgôn ti; cholagôgô de

pharmakô pleiston men ekkenoutai cholês, autika de

katharos tois houtô kathartheisin ho chrôs gignetai.

pollous goun hêmeis meta to therapeusai tên en tô hêpati

diathesin hapax kathêrantes apêllaxamen tou pathêmatos.

ou mên oud' ei phlegmatos agôgô kathairois pharmakô,

pleon an ti diapraxaio.

Kai taut' ouch Hippokratês men houtôs oide gignomena,

tois d' apo tês empeirias monês hormômenois heterôs

egnôstai, alla kakei||nois hôsautôs kai pasin iatrois, 42

hois melei tôn ergôn tês technês, houtô dokei plên

Asklêpiadou. prodosian gar einai nenomike tôn stoicheiôn

hôn hypetheto tên alêthê peri tôn toioutôn homologian.

ei gar holôs heuretheiê ti pharmakon helktikon toude

tinos tou chymou monou, kindynos kratein dêladê tô logô

to en hekastô tôn sômatôn einai tina dynamin

epispastikên tês oikeias poiotêtos. dia touto knêkon men

kai kokkon ton knidion kai hippophaes ouch helkein ek

tou sômatos alla poiein to phlegma phêsin; anthos de

chalkou kai lepida kai auton ton kekaumenon chalkon kai

chamaidryn kai chamaileonta eis hydôr analyein to sôma

kai tous hyderikous hypo toutôn ou kathairomenous

oninasthai alla kenoumenous synauxontôn dêladê to

pathos. ei gar ou kenoi to periechomenon en tois sômasin

hydatôdes hygron all' auto genna, tô nosêmati

prostimôreitai. kai men ge kai hê skammônia pros tô mê

kenoun ek tou sômatos tôn ikterikôn tên cholên eti kai

to chrêston haima cholên ergazomenê || kai syntêkousa to 43

sôma kai têlikauta kaka drôsa kai to pathos epauxousa

kata ge ton Asklêpiadou logon.

Homôs enargôs horatai pollous ôphelousa. nai, phêsin,

oninantai men, all' autô monô tô logô tês kenôseôs. kai

mên ei phlegmatos agôgon autois doiês pharmakon, ouk

onêsontai. kai touth' houtôs enarges estin, hôste kai

hoi apo monês tês empeirias hormômenoi gignôskousin

auto. kaitoi toutois ge tois andrasin auto dê tout' esti

philosophêma, to mêdeni logô pisteuein alla monois tois

enargôs phainomenois. ekeinoi men oun sôphronousin;

Asklêpiadês de parapaiei tais aisthêsesin hêmas apistein

keleuôn, entha to phainomenon anatrepei saphôs autou tas

hypotheseis. kaitoi makrô g' ên ameinon ouch homose

chôrein tois phainomenois all' ekeinois anathesthai to

pan.

Ar' oun tauta monon enargôs machetai tois Asklêpiadou

dogmasin ê kai to therous men pleiona kenousthai tên

xanthên cholên hypo tôn autôn pharmakôn, cheimônos de to

phlegma, kai neaniskô men pleiona tên cholên, presbytê

de to phlegma? phainetai || gar hekaston helkein tên 44

ousan, ouk auto gennan tên ouk ousan. ei goun ethelêsais

neaniskô tini tôn ischnôn kai thermôn hôra therous mêt'

argôs bebiôkoti mêt' en plêsmonê phlegmatos agôgon

dounai pharmakon, oligiston men kai meta bias pollês

ekkenôseis tou chymou, blapseis d' eschatôs ton

anthrôpon; empalin d' ei cholagôgon doiês, kai pampoly

kenôseis kai blapseis ouden.

Ar' apistoumen eti tô mê ouch hekaston tôn pharmakôn

epagesthai ton oikeion heautô chymon? isôs phêsousin hoi

ap' Asklêpiadou, mallon d' ouk isôs, alla pantôs

apistein erousin, hina mê prodôsi ta philtata.

XIV

Let us pass on, then, again to another piece of nonsense; for the

sophists do not allow one to engage in enquiries that are of any

worth, albeit there are many such; they compel one to spend one's time

in dissipating the fallacious arguments which they bring forward.

What, then, is this piece of nonsense? It has to do with the famous

and far-renowned stone which draws iron [the lodestone]. It might be

thought that this would draw[113] their minds to a belief that there

are in all bodies certain _faculties_ by which they attract their own

proper qualities.

Now Epicurus, despite the fact that he employs in his _Physics_[114]

elements similar to those of Asclepiades,[115] yet allows that iron is

attracted by the lodestone,[116] and chaff by amber. He even tries to

give the cause of the phenomenon. His view is that the atoms which

flow from the stone are related in shape to those flowing from the

iron, and so they become easily interlocked with one another; thus it

is that, after colliding with each of the two compact masses (the

stone and the iron) they then rebound into the middle and so become

entangled with each other, and draw the iron after them. So far, then,

as his hypotheses regarding causation[117] go, he is perfectly

unconvincing; nevertheless, he does grant that there is an attraction.

Further, he says that it is on similar principles that there occur in

the bodies of animals the dispersal of nutriment[118] and the

discharge of waste matters, as also the actions of cathartic drugs.