Asclepiades, however, who viewed with suspicion the incredible

character of the cause mentioned, and who saw no other credible cause

on the basis of his supposed elements, shamelessly had recourse to the

statement that nothing is in any way attracted by anything else. Now,

if he was dissatisfied with what Epicurus said, and had nothing better

to say himself, he ought to have refrained from making hypotheses, and

should have said that Nature is a constructive artist and that the

substance of things is always tending towards unity and also towards

alteration because its own parts act upon and are acted upon by one

another.[119] For, if he had assumed this, it would not have been

difficult to allow that this constructive nature has powers which

attract appropriate and expel alien matter. For in no other way could

she be constructive, preservative of the animal, and eliminative of

its diseases,[120] unless it be allowed that she conserves what is

appropriate and discharges what is foreign.

But in this matter, too, Asclepiades realized the logical sequence of

the principles he had assumed; he showed no scruples, however, in

opposing plain fact; he joins issue in this matter also, not merely

with all physicians, but with everyone else, and maintains that there

is no such thing as a crisis, or critical day,[121] and that Nature

does absolutely nothing for the preservation of the animal. For his

constant aim is to follow out logical consequences and to upset

obvious fact, in this respect being opposed to Epicurus; for the

latter always stated the observed fact, although he gives an

ineffective explanation of it. For, that these small corpuscles

belonging to the lodestone rebound, and become entangled with other

similar particles of the iron, and that then, by means of this

entanglement (which cannot be seen anywhere) such a heavy substance as

iron is attracted--I fail to understand how anybody could believe

this. Even if we admit this, the same principle will not explain the

fact that, when the iron has another piece brought in contact with it,

this becomes attached to it.

For what are we to say? That, forsooth, some of the particles that

flow from the lodestone collide with the iron and then rebound back,

and that it is by these that the iron becomes suspended? that others

penetrate into it, and rapidly pass through it by way of its empty

channels?[122] that these then collide with the second piece of iron

and are not able to penetrate it although they penetrated the first

piece? and that they then course back to the first piece, and produce

entanglements like the former ones?

The hypothesis here becomes clearly refuted by its absurdity. As a

matter of fact, I have seen five writing-stylets of iron attached to

one another in a line, only the first one being in contact with the

lodestone, and the power[123] being transmitted through it to the

others. Moreover, it cannot be said that if you bring a second stylet

into contact with the lower end of the first, it becomes held,

attached, and suspended, whereas, if you apply it to any other part of

the side it does not become attached. For the power of the lodestone

is distributed in all directions; it merely needs to be in contact

with the first stylet at any point; from this stylet again the power

flows, as quick as a thought, all through the second, and from that

again to the third. Now, if you imagine a small lodestone hanging in a

house, and in contact with it all round a large number of pieces of

iron, from them again others, from these others, and so on,--all these

pieces of iron must surely become filled with the corpuscles which

emanate from the stone; therefore, this first little stone is likely

to become dissipated by disintegrating into these emanations.[124]

Further, even if there be no iron in contact with it, it still

disperses into the air, particularly if this be also warm.

"Yes," says Epicurus, "but these corpuscles must be looked on as

exceedingly small, so that some of them are a ten-thousandth part of

the size of the very smallest particles carried in the air." Then do

you venture to say that so great a weight of iron can be suspended by

such small bodies? If each of them is a ten-thousandth part as large

as the dust particles which are borne in the atmosphere, how big must

we suppose the hook-like extremities by which they interlock with each

other[125] to be? For of course this is quite the smallest portion of

the whole particle.

Then, again, when a small body becomes entangled with another small

body, or when a body in motion becomes entangled with another also in

motion, they do not rebound at once. For, further, there will of

course be others which break in upon them from above, from below, from

front and rear, from right and left, and which shake and agitate them

and never let them rest. Moreover, we must perforce suppose that each

of these small bodies has a large number of these hook-like

extremities. For by one it attaches itself to its neighbours, by

another--the topmost one--to the lodestone, and by the bottom one to

the iron. For if it were attached to the stone above and not

interlocked with the iron below, this would be of no use.[126] Thus,

the upper part of the superior extremity must hang from the lodestone,

and the iron must be attached to the lower end of the inferior

extremity; and, since they interlock with each other by their sides as

well, they must, of course, have hooks there too. Keep in mind also,

above everything, what small bodies these are which possess all these

different kinds of outgrowths. Still more, remember how, in order that

the second piece of iron may become attached to the first, the third

to the second, and to that the fourth, these absurd little particles

must both penetrate the passages in the first piece of iron and at the

same time rebound from the piece coming next in the series, although

this second piece is naturally in every way similar to the first.

Such an hypothesis, once again, is certainly not lacking in audacity;

in fact, to tell the truth, it is far more shameless than the previous

ones; according to it, when five similar pieces of iron are arranged

in a line, the particles of the lodestone which easily traverse the

first piece of iron rebound from the second, and do not pass readily

through it in the same way. Indeed, it is nonsense, whichever

alternative is adopted. For, if they do rebound, how then do they pass

through into the third piece? And if they do not rebound, how does the

second piece become suspended to the first? For Epicurus himself

looked on the rebound as the active agent in attraction.

But, as I have said, one is driven to talk nonsense whenever one gets

into discussion with such men. Having, therefore, given a concise and

summary statement of the matter, I wish to be done with it. For if one

diligently familiarizes oneself with the writings of Asclepiades, one

will see clearly their logical dependence on his first principles, but

also their disagreement with observed facts. Thus, Epicurus, in his

desire to adhere to the facts, cuts an awkward figure by aspiring to

show that these agree with his principles, whereas Asclepiades

safeguards the sequence of principles, but pays no attention to the

obvious fact. Whoever, therefore, wishes to expose the absurdity of

their hypotheses, must, if the argument be in answer to Asclepiades,

keep in mind his disagreement with observed fact; or if in answer to

Epicurus, his discordance with his principles. Almost all the other

sects depending on similar principles are now entirely extinct, while

these alone maintain a respectable existence still. Yet the tenets of

Asclepiades have been unanswerably confuted by Menodotus the

Empiricist, who draws his attention to their opposition to phenomena

and to each other; and, again, those of Epicurus have been confuted by

Asclepiades, who adhered always to logical sequence, about which

Epicurus evidently cares little.

Now people of the present day do not begin by getting a clear

comprehension of these sects, as well as of the better ones,

thereafter devoting a long time to judging and testing the true and

false in each of them; despite their ignorance, they style themselves,

some "physicians" and others "philosophers." No wonder, then, that

they honour the false equally with the true. For everyone becomes like

the first teacher that he comes across, without waiting to learn

anything from anybody else. And there are some of them, who, even if

they meet with more than one teacher, are yet so unintelligent and

slow-witted that even by the time they have reached old age they are

still incapable of understanding the steps of an argument.... In the

old days such people used to be set to menial tasks.... What will be

the end of it God knows!

Now, we usually refrain from arguing with people whose principles are

wrong from the outset. Still, having been compelled by the natural

course of events to enter into some kind of a discussion with them, we

must add this further to what was said--that it is not only cathartic

drugs which naturally attract their special qualities,[127] but also

those which remove thorns and the points of arrows such as sometimes

become deeply embedded in the flesh. Those drugs also which draw out

animal poisons or poisons applied to arrows all show the same faculty

as does the lodestone. Thus, I myself have seen a thorn which was

embedded in a young man's foot fail to come out when we exerted

forcible traction with our fingers, and yet come away painlessly and

rapidly on the application of a medicament. Yet even to this some

people will object, asserting that when the inflammation is dispersed

from the part the thorn comes away of itself, without being pulled out

by anything. But these people seem, in the first place, to be unaware

that there are certain drugs for drawing out inflammation and

different ones for drawing out embedded substances; and surely if it

was on the cessation of an inflammation that the abnormal matters were

expelled, then all drugs which disperse inflammations ought, _ipso

facto_, to possess the power of extracting these substances as

well.[128]

And secondly, these people seem to be unaware of a still more

surprising fact, namely, that not merely do certain medicaments draw

out thorns and others poisons, but that of the latter there are some

which attract the poison of the viper, others that of the

sting-ray,[129] and others that of some other animal; we can, in fact,

plainly observe these poisons deposited on the medicaments. Here,

then, we must praise Epicurus for the respect he shows towards obvious

facts, but find fault with his views as to causation. For how can it

be otherwise than extremely foolish to suppose that a thorn which we

failed to remove by digital traction could be drawn out by these

minute particles?

Have we now, therefore, convinced ourselves that everything which

exists[130] possesses a faculty by which it attracts its proper

quality, and that some things do this more, and some less?

Or shall we also furnish our argument with the illustration afforded

by _corn_?[131] For those who refuse to admit that anything is

attracted by anything else, will, I imagine, be here proved more

ignorant regarding Nature than the very peasants. When, for my own

part, I first learned of what happens, I was surprised, and felt

anxious to see it with my own eyes. Afterwards, when experience also

had confirmed its truth, I sought long among the various sects for an

explanation, and, with the exception of that which gave the first

place to _attraction_, I could find none which even approached

plausibility, all the others being ridiculous and obviously quite

untenable.

What happens, then, is the following. When our peasants are bringing

corn from the country into the city in wagons, and wish to filch some

away without being detected, they fill earthen jars with water and

stand them among the corn; the corn then draws the moisture into

itself through the jar and acquires additional bulk and weight, but

the fact is never detected by the onlookers unless someone who knew

about the trick before makes a more careful inspection. Yet, if you

care to set down the same vessel in the very hot sun, you will find

the daily loss to be very little indeed. Thus corn has a greater power

than extreme solar heat of drawing to itself the moisture in its

neighbourhood.[132] Thus the theory that the water is carried towards

the rarefied part of the air surrounding us[133] (particularly when

that is distinctly warm) is utter nonsense; for although it is much

more rarefied there than it is amongst the corn, yet it does not take

up a tenth part of the moisture which the corn does.

XIV

Palin oun kai hêmeis eph' heteran metabômen adoleschian;

ou gar epitrepousin hoi sophistai tôn axiôn ti zêtêmatôn

procheirizesthai kaitoi pampollôn hyparchontôn, alla

katatribein anankazousi ton chronon eis tên tôn

sophismatôn, hôn proballousi, lysin.

Tis oun hê adoleschia? hê endoxos hautê kai

polythrylêtos lithos hê ton sidêron || epispômenê. tacha 45

gar an hautê pote tên psychên autôn epispasaito

pisteuein einai tinas en hekastô tôn sômatôn helktikas

tôn oikeiôn poiotêtôn dynameis.

Epikouros men oun kaitoi paraplêsiois Asklêpiadê

stoicheiois pros tên physiologian chrômenos homôs

homologei, pros men tês hêrakleias lithou ton sidêron

helkesthai, pros de tôn êlektrôn ta kyrêbia kai peiratai

ge kai tên aitian apodidonai tou phainomenou. tas gar

aporrheousas atomous apo tês lithou tais aporrheousais

apo tou sidêrou tois schêmasin oikeias einai phêsin,

hôste periplekesthai rhadiôs. proskrouousas oun autas

tois synkrimasin hekaterois tês te lithou kai tou

sidêrou kapeit' eis to meson apopallomenas houtôs

allêlais te periplekesthai kai synepispasthai ton

sidêron. to men oun tôn hypotheseôn eis tên aitiologian

apithanon antikrys dêlon, homôs d' oun homologei tên

holkên. kai houtô ge kai kata ta sômata tôn zôôn phêsi

gignesthai tas t' anadoseis kai tas diakriseis tôn

perittômatôn kai tas tôn kathairontôn pharmakôn

energeias.

Asklêpiadês dê to te tês eirêmenês aitias apithanon || 46

hypidomenos kai mêdemian allên eph' hois hypetheto

stoicheiois exeuriskôn pithanên epi to mêd' holôs

helkesthai legein hypo mêdenos mêden anaischyntêsas

etrapeto, deon, ei mêth' hois Epikouros eipen êresketo

mêt' alla beltiô legein eichen, apostênai tôn

hypotheseôn kai tên te physin eipein technikên kai tên

ousian tôn ontôn henoumenên te pros heautên aei kai

alloioumenên hypo tôn heautês moriôn eis allêla drôntôn

te kai paschontôn. ei gar tauth' hypetheto, chalepon

ouden ên tên technikên ekeinên physin homologêsai

dynameis echein epispastikên men tôn oikeiôn,

apokritikên de tôn allotriôn. ou gar di' allo ti g' ên

autê to technikê t' einai kai tou zôou diasôstikê kai

tôn nosêmatôn kritikê para to prosiesthai men kai

phylattein to oikeion, apokrinein de to allotrion.

All' Asklêpiadês kantautha to men akolouthon tais

archais hais hypetheto syneiden, ou mên tên ge pros to

phainomenon enargôs êdesthê machên, all' homose || 47

chôrei kai peri toutou pasin ouk iatrois monon all' êdê

kai tois allois anthrôpois oute krisin einai tina legôn

outh' hêmeran krisimon outh' holôs ouden epi sôtêria tou

zôou pragmateusasthai tên physin. aei gar to men

akolouthon phylattein bouletai, to d' enargôs

phainomenon anatrepein empalin Epikourô. titheis gar

ekeinos aei to phainomenon aitian autou psychran

apodidôsi. ta gar apopallomena smikra sômata tês

hêrakleias lithou toioutois heterois periplekesthai

moriois tou sidêrou kapeita dia tês periplokês tautês

mêdamou phainomenês epispasthai bareian houtôs ousian

ouk oid' hopôs an tis peistheiê. kai gar ei touto

synchôrêsomen, to ge tô sidêrô palin heteron prostethen

ti synaptesthai tên autên aitian ouketi prosietai.

Ti gar eroumen? ê dêladê tôn aporrheontôn tês lithou

moriôn enia men proskrousanta tô sidêrô palin

apopallesthai kai tauta men einai, di' hôn kremannysthai

symbainei ton sidêron, ta d' eis auton eisdyomena dia

tôn || kenôn porôn diexerchesthai tachista kapeita tô 48

parakeimenô sidêrô proskrouonta mêt' ekeinon diadynai

dynasthai, kaitoi ton ge prôton diadynta, palindromounta

d' authis epi ton proteron heteras authis ergazesthai

tais proterais homoias periplokas?

Enargôs gar entautha to lêrôdes tês aitias elenchetai.

grapheia goun oida pote sidêra pente kata to syneches

allêlois synaphthenta, tou prôtou men monou tês lithou

psausantos, ex ekeinou d' eis talla tês dynameôs

diadotheisês; kai ouk estin eipein, hôs, ei men tô katô

tou grapheiou perati prosagois heteron, echetai te kai

synaptetai kai krematai to prosenechthen; ei d' allô

tini merei tôn plagiôn prostheiês, ou synaptetai. pantê

gar homoiôs hê tês lithou diadidotai dynamis, ei monon

hapsaito kata ti tou prôtou grapheiou. kai mentoi kak

toutou palin eis to deuteron holon hê dynamis hama

noêmati diarrhei kax ekeinou palin eis to triton holon.

ei dê noêsais smikran tina lithon hêrakleian en oikô

tini kremamenên, eit' en kyklô psauonta pampolla sidêria

kakeinôn palin hetera kakeinôn alla kai tout' achri

pleionos, hapanta || dêpou pimplasthai dei ta sidêria 49

tôn aporrheontôn tês lithou sômatôn. kai kindyneuei

diaphorêthênai to smikron ekeino lithidion eis tas

aporrhoas dialythen. kaitoi, kan ei mêden parakeoit'

autô sidêrion, eis ton aera skedannytai, malist' ei kai

thermos hyparchoi.

Nai, phêsi, smikra gar auta chrê pany noein, hôste tôn

empheromenôn tô aeri psêgmatôn toutôn dê tôn smikrotatôn

ekeinôn enia myrioston einai meros. eit' ex houtô

smikrôn tolmate legein kremannysthai barê têlikauta

sidêrou? ei gar hekaston autôn myrioston esti meros tôn

en tô aeri pheromenôn psêgmatôn, pêlikon chrê noêsai to

peras autôn to ankistroeides, hô peripleketai pros

allêla? pantôs gar dêpou touto smikrotaton estin holou

tou psêgmatos.

Eita mikron mikrô, kinoumenon kinoumenô periplaken ouk

euthys apopalletai. kai gar dê kai all' atta pantôs

autois, ta men anôthen, ta de katôthen, kai ta men

emprosthen, ta d' opisthen, ta d' ek tôn dexiôn, ta d'

ek tôn aristerôn || ekrêgnymena seiei te kai brattei kai 50

menein ouk ea. kai mentoi kai polla chrê noein ex

anankês hekaston ekeinôn tôn smikrôn sômatôn echein

ankistrôdê perata. di' henos men gar allêlois

synaptetai, di' heterou d' henos tou men hyperkeimenou

tê lithô, tou d' hypokeimenou tô sidêrô. ei gar anô men

exaphtheiê tês lithou, katô de tô sidêrô mê symplakeiê,

pleon ouden. hôste tou men hyperkeimenou to anô meros

ekkremasthai chrê tês lithou, tou d' hypokeimenou tô

katô perati synêphthai ton sidêron. epei de kak tôn

plagiôn allêlois peripleketai, pantôs pou kantautha

echei ta ankistra. kai memnêso moi pro pantôn, hopôs

onta smikra tas toiautas kai tosautas apophyseis echei.

kai toutou mallon eti, pôs, hina to deuteron sidêrion

synaphthê tô prôtô kai tô deuterô to triton kakeinô to

tetarton, hama men diexerchesthai chrê tous porous tauti

ta smikra kai lêrôdê psêgmata, hama d' apopallesthai tou

met' auto || tetagmenou, kaitoi kata pan homoiou tên 51

physin hyparchontos.

Oude gar hê toiautê palin hypothesis atolmos, all', ei

chrê talêthes eipein, makrô tôn emprosthen

anaischyntotera, pente sidêriôn homoiôn allêlois ephexês

tetagmenôn dia tou prôtou diadyomena rhadiôs tês lithou

ta moria kata to deuteron apopallesthai kai mê dia

toutou kata ton auton tropon hetoimôs diexerchesthai.

kai mên hekaterôs atopon. ei men gar apopalletai, pôs

eis to triton ôkeôs diexerchetai? ei d' ouk apopalletai,

pôs kremannytai to deuteron ek tou prôtou? tên gar

apopalsin autos hypetheto dêmiourgon tês holkês.

All', hoper ephên, eis adoleschian anankaion empiptein,

epeidan tis toioutois andrasi dialegêtai. syntomon oun

tina kai kephalaiôdê logon eipôn apallattesthai

boulomai. tois Asklêpiadou grammasin ei tis epimelôs

homilêseie, tên te pros tas archas akolouthian tôn

toioutôn dogmatôn akribôs an ekmathoi kai tên pros ta

phainomena machên. ho men oun Epikouros ta phainomena

phylattein boulomenos aschêmonei || philotimoumenos 52

epideiknyein auta tais archais homologounta; ho d'

Asklêpiadês to men akolouthon tais archais phylattei,

tou phainomenou d' ouden autô melei. hostis oun bouletai

tên atopian exelenchein tôn hypotheseôn, ei men pros

Asklêpiadên ho logos autô gignoito, tês pros to

phainomenon hypomimnêsketô machês; ei de pros Epikouron,

tês pros tas archas diaphônias. hai d' allai schedon

haireseis hai tôn homoiôn archôn echomenai teleôs

apesbêsan, hautai d' eti monai diarkousin ouk agennôs.

kaitoi ta men Asklêpiadou Mênodotos ho empeirikos

aphyktôs exelenchei, tên te pros ta phainomena machên

hypomimnêskôn auton kai tên pros allêla; ta d' Epikourou

palin ho Asklêpiadês echomenos aei tês akolouthias, hês

ekeinos ou pany ti phainetai phrontizôn.

All' hoi nyn anthrôpoi, prin kai tautas ekmathein tas

haireseis kai tas allas tas beltious kapeita chronô

pollô krinai te kai basanisai to kath' hekastên autôn

alêthes te kai pseudos, hoi men iatrous heautous, hoi de

philosophous onomazousi mêden eidotes. || ouden oun 53

thaumaston episês tois alêthesi ta pseudê tetimêsthai.

hotô gar an hekastos prôtô peritychê didaskalô, toioutos

egeneto, mê perimeinas mêden eti par' allou mathein.

enioi d' autôn, ei kai pleiosin entychoien, all' houtô

g' eisin asynetoi te kai bradeis tên dianoian, hôste kai

gegêrakotes oupô syniasin akolouthian logou. palai de

tous toioutous epi tas banausous apelyon technas. alla

tauta men es ho ti teleutêsei theos oiden.

Hêmeis d' epeidê, kaitoi pheugontes antilegein tois en

autais tais archais euthys esphalmenois, homôs

ênankasthêmen hyp' autês tôn pragmatôn tês akolouthias

eipein tina kai dialechthênai pros autous, eti kai touto

prosthêsomen tois eirêmenois, hôs ou monon ta

kathaironta pharmaka pephyken epispasthai tas oikeias

poiotêtas alla kai ta tous skolopas anagonta kai tas tôn

belôn akidas eis poly bathos sarkos empeparmenas eniote.

kai mentoi kai hosa tous ious tôn thêriôn ê tous

empepharmagmenous tois belesin anelkei, kai tauta tên

autên tais hêrakleiais lithois epi||deiknytai dynamin. 54

egôg' oun oida pote katapeparmenon en podi neaniskou

skolopa tois men daktylois helkousin hêmin biaiôs ouk

akolouthêsanta, pharmakou d' epitethentos alypôs te kai

dia tacheôn anelthonta. kaitoi kai pros touto tines

antilegousi phaskontes, hotan hê phlegmonê lythê tou

merous, automaton exienai ton skolopa pros oudenos

anelkomenon. all' houtoi ge prôton men agnoein eoikasin,

hôs alla men esti phlegmonês, alla de tôn houtô

katapeparmenôn helktika pharmaka; kaitoi g' eiper

aphlegmantôn genomenôn exekrineto ta para physin, hosa

phlegmonês esti lytika, taut' euthys an ên kakeinôn

helktika.

Deuteron d', ho kai mallon an tis thaumaseien, hôs ou

monon alla men tous skolopas, alla de tous ious exagei

pharmaka, alla kai autôn tôn tous ious helkontôn ta men

ton tês echidnês, ta de ton tês trygonos, ta d' allou

tinos epispatai kai saphôs estin idein tois pharmakois

epikeimenous autous. entauth' oun Epikouron men epainein

chrê tês pros || to phainomenon aidous, memphesthai de 55

ton logon tês aitias. hon gar hêmeis helkontes tois

daktylois ouk anêgagomen skolopa, touton hypo tôn

smikrôn ekeinôn anelkesthai psêgmatôn, pôs ou pantapasin

atopon einai chrê nomizein?

Ar' oun êdê pepeismetha tôn ontôn hekastô dynamin tin'

hyparchein, hê tên oikeian helkei poiotêta, to men

mallon, to d' hêtton?

Ê kai to tôn pyrôn eti paradeigma procheirisometha tô

logô? phanêsontai gar oimai kai tôn geôrgôn autôn

amathesteroi peri tên physin hoi mêden holôs hypo

mêdenos helkesthai synchôrountes; hôs egôge prôton men

akousas to gignomenon ethaumasa kai autos êboulêthên

autoptês autou katastênai. meta tauta de, hôs kai ta tês

peiras hômologei, tên aitian skopoumenos en pampollô

chronô kata pasas tas haireseis oudemian allên heurein

hoios t' ên oud' achri tou pithanou proïousan alla

katagelastous te kai saphôs exelenchomenas tas allas

hapasas plên tês tên holkên presbeuousês.

Esti de to gignomenon toionde. katakomizontes hoi par'

hêmin geôrgoi tous || ek tôn agrôn pyrous eis tên polin 56

en hamaxais tisin, hotan hyphelesthai boulêthôsin, hôste

mê phôrathênai, kerami' atta plêrôsantes hydatos mesois

autois enistasin. helkontes oun ekeinoi dia tou keramiou

to hygron eis hautous onkon men kai baros prosktôntai,

katadêloi d' ou pany gignontai tois horôsin, ei mê tis

propepysmenos êdê periergoteron episkopoito. kaitoi g'

ei boulêtheiês en hêliô katatheinai pany thermô tauton

angeion, elachiston pantelôs heurêseis to dapanômenon

eph' hekastês hêmeras. houtôs ara kai tês hêliakês

thermasias tês sphodras ischyroteran hoi pyroi dynamin

echousin helkein eis heautous tên plêsiazousan

hygrotêta. lêros oun entautha makros hê pros to

leptomeres phora tou periechontos hêmas aeros kai

malisth' hotan hikanôs ê thermos, poly men hyparchontos

ê kata tous pyrous leptomeresterou, dechomenou d' oude

to dekaton meros tês eis ekeinous metalambanomenês

hygrotêtos.

XV

Since then, we have talked sufficient nonsense--not willingly, but

because we were forced, as the proverb says, "to behave madly among

madmen"--let us return again to the subject of urinary secretion. Here

let us forget the absurdities of Asclepiades, and, in company with

those who are persuaded that the urine does pass through the kidneys,

let us consider what is the character of this function. For, most

assuredly, either the urine is conveyed by its own motion to the

kidneys, considering this the better course (as do we when we go off

to market![134]), or, if this be impossible, then some other reason

for its conveyance must be found. What, then, is this? If we are not

going to grant the kidneys a faculty for attracting this particular

quality,[135] as Hippocrates held, we shall discover no other reason.

For, surely everyone sees that either the kidneys must attract the

urine, or the veins must propel it--if, that is, it does not move of

itself. But if the veins did exert a propulsive action when they

contract, they would squeeze out into the kidneys not merely the

urine, but along with it the whole of the blood which they

contain.[136] And if this is impossible, as we shall show, the

remaining explanation is that the kidneys do exert traction.

And how is propulsion by the veins impossible? The situation of the

kidneys is against it. They do not occupy a position beneath the

hollow vein [vena cava] as does the sieve-like [ethmoid] passage in

the nose and palate in relation to the surplus matter from the

brain;[137] they are situated on both sides of it. Besides, if the

kidneys are like sieves, and readily let the thinner serous

[whey-like] portion through, and keep out the thicker portion, then

the whole of the blood contained in the vena cava must go to them,

just as the whole of the wine is thrown into the filters. Further, the

example of milk being made into cheese will show clearly what I mean.

For this, too, although it is all thrown into the wicker strainers,

does not all percolate through; such part of it as is too fine in

proportion to the width of the meshes passes downwards, and this is

called _whey_ [serum]; the remaining thick portion which is destined

to become cheese cannot get down, since the pores of the strainers

will not admit it. Thus it is that, if the blood-serum has similarly

to percolate through the kidneys, the whole of the blood must come to

them, and not merely one part of it.

What, then, is the appearance as found on dissection?

One division of the vena cava is carried upwards[138] to the heart,

and the other mounts upon the spine and extends along its whole length

as far as the legs; thus one division does not even come near the

kidneys, while the other approaches them but is certainly not inserted

into them. Now, if the blood were destined to be purified by them as

if they were sieves, the whole of it would have to fall into them, the

thin part being thereafter conveyed downwards, and the thick part

retained above. But, as a matter of fact, this is not so. For the

kidneys lie on either side of the vena cava. They therefore do not act

like sieves, filtering fluid sent to them by the vena cava, and

themselves contributing no force. They obviously exert traction; for

this is the only remaining alternative.

_How_, then, do they exert this traction? If, as Epicurus thinks, all

attraction takes place by virtue of the _rebounds_ and _entanglements_

of atoms, it would be certainly better to maintain that the kidneys

have no attractive action at all; for his theory, when examined, would

be found as it stands to be much more ridiculous even than the theory

of the lodestone, mentioned a little while ago. Attraction occurs in

the way that Hippocrates laid down; this will be stated more clearly

as the discussion proceeds; for the present our task is not to

demonstrate this, but to point out that no other cause of the

secretion of urine can be given except that of attraction by the

kidneys,[139] and that this attraction does not take place in the way

imagined by people who do not allow Nature a faculty of her own.[140]

For if it be granted that there is any attractive faculty at all in

those things which are governed by Nature,[141] a person who attempted

to say anything else about the absorption of nutriment[142] would be

considered a fool.

XV

Epei d' hikanôs êdoleschêsamen ouch hekontes, all', hôs

hê paroimia phêsi, mainomenois anankasthentes

sym||manênai, palin epi tên tôn ourôn epanelthômen 57

diakrisin, en hê tôn men Asklêpiadou lêrôn

epilathômetha, meta de tôn pepeismenôn diêtheisthai ta

oura dia tôn nephrôn, tis ho tropos tês energeias estin,

episkepsômetha; pantôs gar ê ex hautôn epi tous nephrous

pheretai ta oura touto beltion einai nomizonta, kathaper

hêmeis, hopotan eis tên agoran apiômen; ê, ei tout'

adynaton, heteron ti chrê tês phoras autôn exeurein

aition. ti dê tout' estin? ei gar mê tois nephrois

dôsomen tina dynamin helktikên tês toiautês poiotêtos,

hôs Hippokratês enomizen, ouden heteron exeurêsomen.

hoti men gar êtoi toutous helkein auto prosêken ê tas

phlebas pempein, eiper ge mê ex heautou pheretai, panti

pou dêlon. all' ei men hai phlebes peristellomenai

proôthoien, ouk ekeino monon, alla syn autô kai to pan

haima to periechomenon en heautais eis tous nephrous

ekthlipsousin; ei de tout' adynaton, hôs deixomen,

leipetai tous nephrous helkein.

Pôs oun adynaton touto? tôn nephrôn hê thesis

antibainei. ou gar dê houtô g' hypokeintai tê koilê

phlebi || kathaper tois ex enkephalou perittômasin en te 58

tê rhini kai kata tên hyperôan hoi tois êthmois homoioi

poroi, all' hekaterôthen autê parakeintai. kai mên,

eiper homoiôs tois êthmois hoson an ê leptoteron kai

teleôs orrhôdes, touto men hetoimôs diapempousi, to de

pachyteron apostegousin, hapan ep' autous ienai chrê to

haima to periechomenon en tê koilê phlebi, kathaper eis

tous trygêtous ho pas oinos emballetai. kai men ge kai

to tou galaktos tou tyroumenou paradeigma saphôs an, ho

boulomai legein, endeixaito. kai gar kai touto pan

emblêthen eis tous talarous ou pan diêtheitai, all'

hoson men an ê leptoteron tês eurytêtos tôn plokamôn,

eis to katantes pheretai kai touto men orrhos

eponomazetai; to loipon de to pachy to mellon esesthai

tyros, hôs an ou paradechomenôn auto tôn en tois

talarois porôn, ou diekpiptei katô. kai toinyn, eiper

houtô mellei diêtheisthai tôn nephrôn ho tou haimatos

orrhos, hapan ep' autous hêkein chrê to haima kai mê to

men nai, to d' ou. || 59

Pôs oun echei to phainomenon ek tês anatomês?

To men heteron meros tês koilês anô pros tên kardian

anapheretai, to loipon d' epibainei tê rhachei kath'

holês autês ekteinomenon achri tôn skelôn, hôste to men

heteron oud' engys aphikneitai tôn nephrôn, to loipon de

plêsiazei men, ou mên eis autous ge kataphyetai. echrên

d', eiper emellen hôs di' êthmôn autôn katharthêsesthai

to haima, pan empiptein eis autous kapeita katô men

pheresthai to lepton, ischesthai d' anô to pachy. nyni

d' ouch houtôs echei; plagioi gar hekaterôthen tês

koilês phlebos hoi nephroi keintai. oukoun hôs êthmoi

diêthousi, pempousês men ekeinês, autoi d' oudemian

eispheromenoi dynamin, all' helkousi dêlonoti; touto gar

eti leipetai.

Pôs oun helkousin? ei men, hôs Epikouros oietai tas

holkas hapasas gignesthai kata tas tôn atomôn apopalseis

te kai periplokas, ameinon ên ontôs eipein autous mêd'

helkein holôs; poly gar an houtô ge tôn epi tês

hêrakleias lithou mikrô prosthen eirê||menôn ho logos 60

exetazomenos heuretheiê geloioteros; all' hôs

Hippokratês êbouleto. lechthêsetai de saphesteron epi

proêkonti tô logô. nyni gar ou touto prokeitai

didaskein, all' hôs out' allo ti dynaton eipein aition

einai tês tôn ourôn diakriseôs plên tês holkês tôn

nephrôn outh' houtô gignesthai tên holkên, hôs hoi

mêdemian oikeian didontes tê physei dynamin oiontai

gignesthai.

Toutou gar homologêthentos, hôs estin holôs tis en tois

hypo physeôs dioikoumenois dynamis helktikê, lêrôdês

nomizoit' an ho peri anadoseôs trophês allo ti legein

epicheirôn.

XVI

Now, while Erasistratus[143] for some reason replied at great length

to certain other foolish doctrines, he entirely passed over the view

held by Hippocrates, not even thinking it worth while to mention it,

as he did in his work "On Deglutition"; in that work, as may be seen,

he did go so far as at least to make mention of the word _attraction_,

writing somewhat as follows:

"Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any attraction."[143]

But when he is dealing with _anadosis_ he does not mention the

Hippocratic view even to the extent of a single syllable. Yet we

should have been satisfied if he had even merely written this:

"Hippocrates lies in saying 'The flesh[144] attracts both from the

stomach and from without,' for it cannot attract either from the

stomach or from without." Or if he had thought it worth while to state

that Hippocrates was wrong in criticizing the weakness of the neck of

the uterus, "seeing that the orifice of the uterus has no power of

attracting semen,"[145] or if he [Erasistratus] had thought proper to

write any other similar opinion, then we in our turn would have

defended ourselves in the following terms:

"My good sir, do not run us down in this rhetorical fashion without

some proof; state some definite objection to our view, in order that

either you may convince us by a brilliant refutation of the ancient

doctrine, or that, on the other hand, we may convert you from your

ignorance." Yet why do I say "rhetorical"? For we too are not to

suppose that when certain rhetoricians pour ridicule upon that which

they are quite incapable of refuting, without any attempt at argument,

their words are really thereby constituted rhetoric. For rhetoric

proceeds by persuasive reasoning; words without reasoning are

buffoonery rather than rhetoric. Therefore, the reply of Erasistratus

in his treatise "On Deglutition" was neither rhetoric nor logic. For

what is it that he says? "Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise

any traction." Let us testify against him in return, and set our

argument beside his in the same form. _Now, there appears to be no

peristalsis[146] of the gullet._ "And how does this appear?" one of

his adherents may perchance ask. "For is it not indicative of

_peristalsis_ that always when the upper parts of the gullet contract

the lower parts dilate?" Again, then, we say, "And in what way does

the attraction of the stomach not appear? For is it not indicative of

_attraction_ that always when the lower parts of the gullet dilate the

upper parts contract?" Now, if he would but be sensible and recognize

that this phenomenon is not more indicative of the one than of the

other view, but that it applies equally to both,[147] we should then

show him without further delay the proper way to the discovery of

truth.

We will, however, speak about the stomach again. And the dispersal of

nutriment [anadosis] need not make us have recourse to the theory

regarding the _natural tendency of a vacuum to become refilled_,[148]

when once we have granted the attractive faculty of the kidneys. Now,

although Erasistratus knew that this faculty most certainly existed,

he neither mentioned it nor denied it, nor did he make any statement

as to his views on the secretion of urine.

Why did he give notice at the very beginning of his "General

Principles" that he was going to speak about natural

activities--firstly what they are, how they take place, and in what

situations--and then, in the case of urinary secretion, declared that

this took place through the kidneys, but left out its method of

occurrence? It must, then, have been for no purpose that he told us

how digestion occurs, or spends time upon the secretion of biliary

superfluities;[149] for in these cases also it would have been

sufficient to have named the parts through which the function takes

place, and to have omitted the method. On the contrary, in these cases

he was able to tell us not merely through what organs, but also in

what way it occurs--as he also did, I think, in the case of

_anadosis_; for he was not satisfied with saying that this took place

through the veins, but he also considered fully the method, which he

held to be from the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled.

Concerning the secretion of urine, however, he writes that this occurs

through the kidneys, but does not add in what _way_ it occurs. I do

not think he could say that this was from the tendency of matter to

fill a vacuum,[150] for, if this were so, nobody would have ever died

of retention of urine, since no more can flow into a vacuum than has

run out. For, if no other factor comes into operation[151] save only

this tendency by which a vacuum becomes refilled, no more could ever

flow in than had been evacuated. Nor could he suggest any other

plausible cause, such, for example, as the expression of nutriment by

the stomach[152] which occurs in the process of anadosis; this had

been entirely disproved in the case of blood in the vena cava;[153] it

is excluded, not merely owing to the long distance, but also from the

fact that the overlying heart, at each diastole, robs the vena cava by

violence of a considerable quantity of blood.

In relation to the lower part of the vena cava[154] there would still

remain, solitary and abandoned, the specious theory concerning the

filling of a vacuum. This, however, is deprived of plausibility by the

fact that people die of retention of urine, and also, no less, by the

situation of the kidneys. For, if the whole of the blood were carried

to the kidneys, one might properly maintain that it all undergoes

purification there. But, as a matter of fact, the whole of it does not

go to them, but only so much as can be contained in the veins going to

the kidneys;[155] this portion only, therefore, will be purified.

Further, the thin serous part of this will pass through the kidneys as

if through a sieve, while the thick sanguineous portion remaining in

the veins will obstruct the blood flowing in from behind; this will

first, therefore, have to run back to the vena cava, and so to empty

the veins going to the kidneys; these veins will no longer be able to

conduct a second quantity of unpurified blood to the kidneys--occupied

as they are by the blood which had preceded, there is no passage left.

What power have we, then, which will draw back the purified blood from

the kidneys? And what power, in the next place, will bid this blood

retire to the lower part of the vena cava, and will enjoin on another

quantity coming from above not to proceed downwards before turning off

into the kidneys?

Now Erasistratus realized that all these ideas were open to many

objections, and he could only find one idea which held good in all

respects--namely, that of _attraction_. Since, therefore, he did not

wish either to get into difficulties or to mention the view of

Hippocrates, he deemed it better to say nothing at all as to the

manner in which secretion occurs.

But even if he kept silence, I am not going to do so. For I know that

if one passes over the Hippocratic view and makes some other

pronouncement about the function of the kidneys, one cannot fail to

make oneself utterly ridiculous. It was for this reason that

Erasistratus kept silence and Asclepiades lied; they are like slaves

who have had plenty to say in the early part of their career, and have

managed by excessive rascality to escape many and frequent

accusations, but who, later, when caught in the act of thieving,

cannot find any excuse; the more modest one then keeps silence, as

though thunderstruck, whilst the more shameless continues to hide the

missing article beneath his arm and denies on oath that he has ever

seen it. For it was in this way also that Asclepiades, when all subtle

excuses had failed him and there was no longer any room for nonsense

about "conveyance towards the rarefied part [of the air],"[156] and

when it was impossible without incurring the greatest derision to say

that this superfluity [_i.e._ the urine] is generated by the kidneys

as is bile by the canals in the liver--he, then, I say, clearly lied

when he swore that the urine does not reach the kidneys, and

maintained that it passes, in the form of vapour, straight from the

region of the vena cava,[157] to collect in the bladder.

Like slaves, then, caught in the act of stealing, these two are quite

bewildered, and while the one says nothing, the other indulges in

shameless lying.

XVI

Erasistratos d' ouk oid' hopôs heterais men tisi doxais

euêthesin anteipe dia makrôn, hyperebê de teleôs tên

Hippokratous, oud' achri tou mnêmoneusai monon autês,

hôs en tois peri kataposeôs epoiêsen, axiôsas. en

ekeinois men gar achri tosoutou phainetai mnêmoneuôn,

hôs tounom' eipein tês holkês monon hôde pôs graphôn;

"Holkê men oun tês koilias oudemia phainetai einai";

peri de tês || anadoseôs ton logon poioumenos oud' achri 61

syllabês mias emnêmoneuse tês Hippokrateiou doxês.

kaitoi g' epêrkesen an hêmin, ei kai tout' egrapse

monon, hôs Hippokratês eipôn "Sarkes holkoi kai ek

koiliês kai exôthen" pseudetai; oute gar ek tês koilias

out' exôthen helkein dynantai. ei de kai hoti mêtras

aitiômenos arrhôston auchena kakôs eipen "Ou gar dynatai

auteês ho stomachos eirysai tên gonên," ê ei kai ti

toiouton allo graphein ho Erasistratos êxiôse, tot' an

kai hêmeis pros auton apologoumenoi eipomen;

Ô gennaie, mê rhêtorikôs hêmôn katatreche chôris

apodeixeôs, all' eipe tina katêgorian tou dogmatos, hin'

ê peisthômen soi hôs kalôs exelenchonti ton palaion

logon ê metapeisômen hôs agnoounta. kaitoi ti legô

rhêtorikôs? mê gar, epeidê tines tôn rhêtorôn, ha

malist' adynatousi dialyesthai, tauta diagelasantes oud'

epicheirousin antilegein, êdê pou touto kai hêmeis

hêgômeth' einai to rhêtorikôs; to gar dia logou pithanou

esti to || rhêtorikôs, to d' aneu logou bômolochikon, ou 62

rhêtorikon. oukoun oute rhêtorikôs oute dialektikôs

anteipen ho Erasistratos en tô peri tês kataposeôs logô.

ti gar phêsin? "Holkê men oun tês koilias oudemia

phainetai einai." palin oun autô par' hêmôn antimartyrôn

ho autos logos antiparaballesthô; peristolê men oun tou

stomachou oudemia phainetai einai. kai pôs ou phainetai?

tach' an isôs eipoi tis tôn ap' autou; to gar aei tôn

anôthen autou merôn systellomenôn diastellesthai ta katô

pôs ouk esti tês peristolês endeiktikon? authis oun

hêmeis, kai pôs ou phainetai, phêsomen, hê tês koilias

holkê? to gar aei tôn katôthen merôn tou stomachou

diastellomenôn systellesthai ta anô pôs ouk esti tês

holkês endeiktikon? ei de sôphronêseie pote kai gnoiê to

phainomenon touto mêden mallon tês heteras tôn doxôn

hyparchein endeiktikon all' amphoterôn einai koinon,

houtôs an êdê deixaimen autô tên orthên hodon tês tou

alêthous heureseôs.

Alla peri men tês koilias authis. hê de tês trophês

anadosis ouden deitai || tês pros to kenoumenon 63

akolouthias hapax ge tês helktikês dynameôs epi tôn

nephrôn hômologêmenês, hên kaitoi pany saphôs alêthê

gignôskôn hyparchein ho Erasistratos out' emnêmoneusen

out' anteipen outh' holôs apephênato, tin' echei doxan

hyper tês tôn ourôn diakriseôs.

Ê dia ti proeipôn euthys kat' archas tôn kath' holou

logôn, hôs hyper tôn physikôn energeiôn erei, prôton

tines t' eisi kai pôs gignontai kai dia tinôn topôn, epi

tês tôn ourôn diakriseôs, hoti men dia nephrôn,

apephênato, to d' hopôs gignetai parelipe? matên oun

hêmas kai peri tês pepseôs edidaxen, hopôs gignetai, kai

peri tês tou cholôdous perittômatos diakriseôs

katatribei. êrkei gar eipein kantautha ta moria, di' hôn

gignetai, to d' hopôs paralipein. alla peri men ekeinôn

eiche legein, ou monon di' hôn organôn alla kai kath'

hontina gignetai tropon, hôsper oimai kai peri tês

anadoseôs; ou gar êrkesen eipein autô monon, hoti dia

phlebôn, alla kai pôs epexêlthen, hoti tê pros || to 64

kenoumenon akolouthia; peri de tôn ourôn tês diakriseôs,

hoti men dia nephrôn gignetai, graphei, to d' hopôs

ouketi prostithêsin. oude gar oimai tê pros to

kenoumenon akolouthia ên eipein; houtô gar an oudeis

hyp' ischourias apethanen oudepote mê dynamenou pleionos

epirrhyênai pote para to kenoumenon; allês gar aitias

mêdemias prostetheisês, alla monês tês pros to

kenoumenon akolouthias podêgousês to syneches, ouk

enchôrei pleon epirrhyênai pote tou kenoumenou. all'

oud' allên tina prostheinai pithanên aitian eichen, hôs

epi tês anadoseôs tên ekthlipsin tês gastros. all' hautê

g' epi tou kata tên koilên haimatos apôlôlei teleôs, ou

tô mêkei monon tês apostaseôs eklytheisa, alla kai tô

tên kardian hyperkeimenên exarpazein autês sphodrôs

kath' hekastên diastolên ouk oligon haima.

Monê dê tis eti kai pantôn erêmos apeleipeto tôn

sophismatôn en tois katô tês koilês hê pros || to 65

kenoumenon akolouthia, dia te tous epi tais ischouriais

apothnêskontas apolôlekuia tên pithanotêta kai dia tên

tôn nephrôn thesin ouden hêtton, ei men gar hapan ep'

autous ephereto to haima, deontôs an tis hapan ephasken

auto kathairesthai. nyni de, ou gar holon alla tosouton

autou meros, hoson hai mechri nephrôn dechontai phlebes,

ep' autous erchetai, monon ekeino katharthêsetai. kai to

men orrhôdes autou kai lepton hoion di' êthmôn tinôn tôn

nephrôn diadysetai; to d' haimatôdes te kai pachy kata

tas phlebas hypomenon empodôn stêsetai tô katopin

epirrheonti. palindromein oun auto proteron epi tên

koilên anankaion kai kenas houtôs ergazesthai tas epi

tous nephrous iousas phlebas, hai deuteron ouketi

parakomiousin ep' autous akatharton haima; kateilêphotos

gar autas tou proterou parodos oudemia leleiptai. tis

oun hêmin hê dynamis apaxei palin opisô tôn nephrôn to

katharon haima? tis de touto men diadexamenê keleusei

palin pros to katô meros ienai tês koilês, heterô d'

anôthen epipheromenô prostaxei, prin || epi tous 66

nephrous apelthein, mê pheresthai katô?

Taut' oun hapanta synidôn ho Erasistratos aporiôn mesta

kai mian monên doxan euporon heurôn en hapasi tên tês

holkês, out' aporeisthai boulomenos oute tên

Hippokratous ethelôn legein ameinon hypelabe siôpêteon

einai peri tou tropou tês diakriseôs.

All' ei kakeinos esigêsen, hêmeis ou siôpêsomen; ismen

gar, hôs ouk endechetai parelthonta tên Hippokrateion

doxan, eith' heteron ti peri nephrôn energeias eiponta

mê ou katagelaston einai pantapasi. dia tout'

Erasistratos men esiôpêsen, Asklêpiadês d' epseusato

paraplêsiôs oiketais lalois men ta prosthen tou biou kai

polla pollakis enklêmata dialysamenois hypo perittês

panourgias, ep' autophôrô de pote kateilêmmenois, eit'

ouden exeuriskousi sophisma kapeit' entautha tou men

aidêmonesterou siôpôntos, hoion apoplêxia tini

kateilêmmenou, tou d' anaischyntoterou kryptontos men

eth' hypo malês to zêtoumenon, exomnymenou de kai mêd'

heôrakenai pôpote phaskontos. houtô gar toi kai ho

Asklêpiadês || epileipontôn auton tôn tês panourgias 67

sophismatôn kai mête tês pros to leptomeres phoras

echousês eti chôran entauthoi lêreisthai mêth' hôs hypo

tôn nephrôn gennatai touti to perittôma, kathaper hypo

tôn en hêpati porôn hê cholê, dynaton on eiponta mê ou

megiston ophlein gelôta, exomnytai te kai pseudetai

phanerôs, ou diêkein legôn epi tous nephrous to ouron

all' atmoeidôs euthys ek tôn kata tên koilên merôn eis

tên kystin athroizesthai.

Houtoi men oun tois ep' autophôrô kateilêmmenois

oiketais homoiôs ekplagentes ho men esiôpêsen, ho d'

anaischyntôs pseudetai.

XVII

Now such of the younger men as have dignified themselves with the

names of these two authorities by taking the appellations

"Erasistrateans" or "Asclepiadeans" are like the _Davi_ and

_Getae_--the slaves introduced by the excellent Menander into his

comedies. As these slaves held that they had done nothing fine unless

they had cheated their master three times, so also the men I am

discussing have taken their time over the construction of impudent

sophisms, the one party striving to prevent the lies of Asclepiades

from ever being refuted, and the other saying stupidly what

Erasistratus had the sense to keep silence about.

But enough about the Asclepiadeans. The Erasistrateans, in attempting

to say how the kidneys let the urine through, will do anything or

suffer anything or try any shift in order to find some plausible

explanation which does not demand the principle of _attraction_.

Now those near the times of Erasistratus maintain that the parts above

the kidneys receive pure blood, whilst the watery residue, being

heavy, tends to run downwards; that this, after percolating through

the kidneys themselves, is thus rendered serviceable, and is sent, as

blood, to all the parts below the kidneys.

For a certain period at least this view also found favour and

flourished, and was held to be true; after a time, however, it became

suspect to the Erasistrateans themselves, and at last they abandoned

it. For apparently the following two points were assumed, neither of

which is conceded by anyone, nor is even capable of being proved. The

first is the heaviness of the serous fluid, which was said to be

produced in the vena cava, and which did not exist, apparently, at the

beginning, when this fluid was being carried up from the stomach to

the liver. Why, then, did it not at once run downwards when it was in

these situations? And if the watery fluid is so heavy, what

plausibility can anyone find in the statement that it assists in the

process of _anadosis_?

In the second place there is this absurdity, that even if it be agreed

that all the watery fluid does fall downwards, and only when it is in

the vena cava,[158] still it is difficult, or, rather, impossible, to

say through what means it is going to fall into the kidneys, seeing

that these are not situated below, but on either side of the vena

cava, and that the vena cava is not inserted into them, but merely

sends a branch[159] into each of them, as it also does into all the

other parts.

What doctrine, then, took the place of this one when it was condemned?

One which to me seems far more foolish than the first, although it

also flourished at one time. For they say, that if oil be mixed with

water and poured upon the ground, each will take a different route,

the one flowing this way and the other that, and that, therefore, it

is not surprising that the watery fluid runs into the kidneys, while

the blood falls downwards along the vena cava. Now this doctrine also

stands already condemned. For why, of the countless veins which spring

from the vena cava, should blood flow into all the others, and the

serous fluid be diverted to those going to the kidneys? They have not

answered the question which was asked; they merely state what happens

and imagine they have thereby assigned the reason.

Once again, then (the third cup to the Saviour!),[160] let us now

speak of the worst doctrine of all, lately invented by Lycus of

Macedonia,[161] but which is popular owing to its novelty. This Lycus,

then, maintains, as though uttering an oracle from the inner

sanctuary, that urine is _residual matter from the nutrition of the

kidneys_![162] Now, the amount of urine passed every day shows clearly

that it is the whole of the fluid drunk which becomes urine, except

for that which comes away with the dejections or passes off as sweat

or insensible perspiration. This is most easily recognized in winter

in those who are doing no work but are carousing, especially if the

wine be thin and diffusible; these people rapidly pass almost the same

quantity as they drink. And that even Erasistratus was aware of this

is known to those who have read the first book of his "General

Principles."[163] Thus Lycus is speaking neither good Erasistratism,

nor good Asclepiadism, far less good Hippocratism. He is, therefore,

as the saying is, like a white crow, which cannot mix with the genuine

crows owing to its colour, nor with the pigeons owing to its size. For

all this, however, he is not to be disregarded; he may, perhaps, be

stating some wonderful truth, unknown to any of his predecessors.

Now it is agreed that all parts which are undergoing nutrition produce

a certain amount of residue, but it is neither agreed nor is it

likely, that the kidneys alone, small bodies as they are, could hold

four whole _congii_,[164] and sometimes even more, of residual matter.

For this surplus must necessarily be greater in quantity in each of

the larger viscera; thus, for example, that of the lung, if it

corresponds in amount to the size of the viscus, will obviously be

many times more than that in the kidneys, and thus the whole of the

thorax will become filled, and the animal will be at once suffocated.

But if it be said that the residual matter is equal in amount in each

of the other parts, where are the _bladders_, one may ask, through

which it is excreted? For, if the kidneys produce in drinkers three

and sometimes four _congii_ of superfluous matter, that of each of the

other viscera will be much more, and thus an enormous barrel will be

needed to contain the waste products of them all. Yet one often

urinates practically the same quantity as one has drunk, which would

show that the whole of what one drinks goes to the kidneys.

Thus the author of this third piece of trickery would appear to have

achieved nothing, but to have been at once detected, and there still

remains the original difficulty which was insoluble by Erasistratus

and by all others except Hippocrates. I dwell purposely on this topic,

knowing well that nobody else has anything to say about the function

of the kidneys, but that either we must prove more foolish than the

very butchers[165] if we do not agree that the urine passes through

the kidneys; or, if one acknowledges this, that then one cannot

possibly give any other reason for the secretion than the principle of

attraction.

Now, if the movement of urine does not depend on the tendency of a

vacuum to become refilled,[166] it is clear that neither does that of

the blood nor that of the bile; or if that of these latter does so,

then so also does that of the former. For they must all be

accomplished in one and the same way, even according to Erasistratus

himself.

This matter, however, will be discussed more fully in the book

following this.

XVII

Tôn de neôterôn hosoi tois toutôn onomasin heautous

esemnynan Erasistrateious te kai Asklêpiadeious

eponomasantes, homoiôs tois hypo tou beltistou Menandrou

kata tas kômôdias eisagomenois oiketais, Daois te tisi

kai Getais, ouden hêgoumenois sphisi peprachthai

gennaion, ei mê tris exapatêseian ton despotên, houtô

kai autoi kata pollên scholên anaischynta sophismata

synethesan, hoi men, hina mêd' holôs exelenchtheiê pot'

|| Asklêpiadês pseudomenos, hoi d', hina kakôs eipôsin, 68

ha kalôs esiôpêsen Erasistratos.

Alla tôn men Asklêpiadeiôn halis. hoi d' Erasistrateioi

legein epicheirountes, hopôs hoi nephroi diêthousi to

ouron, hapanta drôsi te kai paschousi kai pantoioi

gignontai pithanon exeurein ti zêtountes aition holkês

mê deomenon.

Hoi men dê plêsion Erasistratou tois chronois genomenoi

ta men anô tôn nephrôn moria katharon haima lambanein

phasi, tô de baros echein to hydatôdes perittôma

brithein te kai hyporrhein katô; diêthoumenon d'

entautha kata tous nephrous autous chrêston houtô

genomenon hapasi tois katô tôn nephrôn epipempesthai to

haima.

Kai mechri ge tinos eudokimêsen hêde hê doxa kai êkmase

kai alêthês enomisthê; chronô d' hysteron kai autois

tois Erasistrateiois hypoptos ephanê kai teleutôntes

apestêsan autês. aiteisthai gar edokoun dyo tauta mête

synchôroumena pros tinos all' oud' apodeichthênai

dynamena, prôton men to baros tês orrhôdous hygrotêtos

en tê koilê || phlebi gennômenon, hôsper ouk ex archês 69

hyparchon, hopot' ek tês koilias eis hêpar anephereto.

ti dê oun ouk euthys en ekeinois tois chôriois hyperrhei

katô? pôs d' an tô doxeien eulogôs eirêsthai syntelein

eis tên anadosin hê hydatôdês hygrotês, eiper houtôs

esti bareia?

Deuteron d' atopon, hoti kan katô synchôrêthê pheresthai

pasa kai mê kat' allo chôrion ê tên koilên phleba, tina

tropon eis tous nephrous empeseitai, chalepon, mallon d'

adynaton eipein, mêt' en tois katô meresi keimenôn autôn

tês phlebos all' ek tôn plagiôn mêt' emphyomenês eis

autous tês koilês all' apophysin tina monon eis

hekateron pempousês, hôsper kai eis talla panta moria.

Tis oun hê diadexamenê tautên doxa katagnôstheisan? emoi

men êlithiôtera makrô phainetai tês proteras. êkmase d'

oun kai hautê pote. phasi gar, ei kata tês gês

ekchytheiê memigmenon elaion hydati, diaphoron hekateron

hodon badieisthai kai rhyêsesthai to men têde, to de

têde. thaumaston oun ouden einai phasin, ei to men

hydatôdes hygron eis tous ne||phrous rhei, to d' haima 70

dia tês koilês pheretai katô. kategnôstai oun êdê kai

hêde hê doxa. dia ti gar apo tês koilês myriôn

ekpephykuiôn phlebôn haima men eis tas allas hapasas, hê

d' orrhôdês hygrotês eis tas epi tous nephrous

pheromenas ektrepetai? tout' auto to zêtoumenon ouk

eirêkasin, alla to gignomenon eipontes monon oiontai tên

aitian apodedôkenai.

Palin oun, to triton tô sôtêri, tên cheiristên hapasôn

doxan exeurêmenên nyn hypo Lykou tou Makedonos,

eudokimousan de dia to kainon êdê legômen. apephênato

gar dê ho Lykos houtos, hôsper ex adytou tinos chrêsmon

apophthengomenos, perittôma tês tôn nephrôn threpseôs

einai to ouron. hoti men oun auto to pinomenon hapan

ouron gignetai, plên ei ti meta tôn diachôrêmatôn

hypêlthen ê eis hidrôtas apechôrêsen ê eis tên adêlon

diapnoên, enargôs endeiknytai to plêthos tôn kath'

hekastên hêmeran ouroumenôn. en cheimôni de malista

mathein estin epi tôn argountôn men, kôthônizomenôn de,

kai malist' ei leptos ho oinos eiê kai porimos. ourousi

|| gar houtoi dia tacheôn oligou dein, hosonper kai 71

pinousin. hoti de kai ho Erasistratos houtôs egignôsken,

hoi to prôton anegnôkotes autou syngramma tôn katholou

logôn epistantai. hôsth' ho Lykos out' alêthê phainetai

legôn out' Erasistrateia, dêlon d' hôs oud'

Asklêpiadeia, poly de mallon oud' Hippokrateia. leukô

toinyn kata tên paroimian eoike koraki mêt' autois tois

koraxin anamichthênai dynamenô dia tên chroan mête tais

peristerais dia to megethos, all' outi pou toutou g'

heneka paropteos; isôs gar ti legei thaumaston, ho

mêdeis tôn emprosthen egnô.

To men oun hapanta ta trephomena moria poiein ti

perittôma synchôroumenon, to de tous nephrous monous,

houtô smikra sômata, choas holous tettaras ê kai pleious

ischein eniote perittômatos outh' homologoumenon oute

logon echon; to gar hekastou tôn meizonôn splanchnôn

perittôma pleion anankaion hyparchein. hoion autika to

tou pneumonos, eiper analogon tô megethei tou splanchnou

gignoito, pollapla||sion estai dêpou tou kata tous 72

nephrous, hôsth' holos men ho thôrax emplêsthêsetai,

pnigêsetai d' autika to zôon. all' ei ison phêsei tis

gignesthai to kath' hekaston tôn allôn moriôn perittôma,

dia poiôn kysteôn ekkrinetai? ei gar hoi nephroi tois

kôthônizomenois treis ê tettaras eniote choas poiousi

perittômatos, hekastou tôn allôn splanchnôn pollô

pleious esontai kai pithou tinos houtô megistou deêsei

tou dexomenou ta pantôn perittômata. kaitoi pollakis,

hoson epie tis, oligou dein ourêsen hapan, hôs an epi

tous nephrous pheromenou tou pomatos hapantos.

Eoiken oun ho to triton exapatôn houtos ouden anyein

all' euthys gegonenai kataphôros kai menein eti to ex

archês aporon Erasistratô te kai tois allois hapasi plên

Hippokratous. diatribô d' hekôn en tô topô saphôs eidôs,

hoti mêden eipein echei mêdeis allos peri tês tôn

nephrôn energeias, all' anankaion ê tôn mageirôn

amathesterous phainesthai mêd' hoti diêtheitai di' autôn

to ouron homologountas ê || touto synchôrêsantas mêden 73

et' echein eipein heteron aition tês diakriseôs plên tês

holkês.

All' ei mê tôn ourôn hê phora tê pros to kenoumenon

akolouthia gignetai, dêlon, hôs oud' hê tou haimatos

oud' hê tês cholês ê eiper ekeinôn kai toutou; panta gar

hôsautôs anankaion epiteleisthai kai kat' auton ton

Erasistraton.

Eirêsetai d' epi pleon hyper autôn en tô meta tauta

grammati.

[5] That is, "On the Natural Powers," the powers of the

_Physis_ or Nature. By that Galen practically means what

we would call the physiological or biological powers,

the characteristic faculties of the living organism; his

Physis is the subconscious vital principle of the animal

or plant. Like Aristotle, however, he also ascribes

quasi-vital properties to inanimate things, _cf._

Introduction, p. xxvii.

[6] _Ergon_, here rendered an _effect_, is literally a

_work_ or _deed_; strictly speaking, it is something

_done_, _completed_, as distinguished from _energeia_,

which is the actual _doing_, the _activity_ which

produces this _ergon_, _cf._ p. 13, and Introduction, p.

xxx.

[7] Gk. _psyche_, Lat. _anima_.

[8] Gk. _physis_, Lat. _natura_.

[9] _Motion_ (kinesis) is Aristotle's general term for

what we would rather call _change_. It includes various

kinds of change, as well as movement proper, _cf._

Introduction, p. xxix.

[10] "Conveyance," "transport," "transit"; purely

mechanical or passive motion, as distinguished from

_alteration_ (qualitative change).

[11] "Waxing and waning," the latter literally

_phthisis_, a wasting or "decline;" _cf._ Scotch

_divining_, Dutch _verdwijnen_.

[12] Becoming and perishing: Latin, _generatio et

corruptio_.

[13] "Ad substantiam productio seu ad formam processus"

(Linacre).

[14] "Preformationist" doctrine of Anaxagoras. To him

the apparent alteration in qualities took place when a

number of minute pre-existing bodies, all bearing the

same quality, came together in sufficient numbers to

impress that quality on the senses. The factor which

united the minute quality-bearers was Nous. "In the

beginning," says Anaxagoras, "all things existed

together--then came Nous and brought them into order."

[15] "De ea alteratione quae per totam fit substantiam"

(Linacre).

[16] The systematizer of Stoicism and successor of Zeno.

[17] Note characteristic impatience with metaphysics. To

Galen, as to Hippocrates and Aristotle, it sufficed to

look on the qualitative differences apprehended by the

senses as fundamental. Zeno of Citium was the founder of

the Stoic school; on the further analysis by this school

of the _qualities_ into _bodies_ _cf._ p. 144, note 3

(203).

[18] A rallying-ground: lit. a place where two glens

meet.

[19] Thus according to Gomperz (_Greek Thinkers_), the

hypothesis of Anaxagoras was that "the bread ... already

contained the countless forms of matter as such which

the human body displays. Their minuteness of size would

withdraw them from our perception. For the defect or

'weakness' of the senses is the narrowness of their

receptive area. These elusive particles are rendered

visible and tangible by the process of _nutrition_,

which combines them."

[20] Therefore the blood must have come from the bread.

The food from the alimentary canal was supposed by Galen

to be converted into blood in and by the portal veins,

_cf._ p. 17.

[21] By "elements" is meant all homogeneous, amorphous

substances, such as metals, &c., as well as the

elementary _tissues_.

[22] Work or product. Lat. _opus_. _cf._ p. 3, note 2

(6).

[23] Operation, activation, or functioning. Lat.

_actio_. _cf._ _loc. cit._

[24] _i.e._ a concomitant (secondary) or passive

affection. Galen is contrasting active and passive

"motion." _cf._ p. 6, note 1 (10).

[25] As already indicated, there is no exact English

equivalent for the Greek term _physis_, which is a

principle immanent in the animal itself, whereas our

term "Nature" suggests something more transcendent; we

are forced often, however, to employ it in default of a

better word. _cf._ p. 2, note 1 (5).

[26] In Greek _anadosis_. This process includes two

stages: (1) transmission of food from alimentary canal

to liver (rather more than our "absorption"); (2)

further transmission from liver to tissues. _Anadosis_

is lit. a yielding-up, a "delivery;" it may sometimes be

rendered "dispersal." "Distribution" (_diadosis_) is a

further stage; _cf._ p. 163, note 4 (230).

[27] _cf._ p. 9.

[28] Since heat and cold tend to cause diffusion and

condensation respectively.

[29] Lit. _haematopoietic_. _cf._ p. 11, note 3 (20).

[30] Lit. _peptic_.

[31] Lit. _sphygmic_.

[32] _Genesis_ corresponds to the intrauterine life, or

what we may call _embryogeny_. _Alteration_ here means

histogenesis or tissue-production; _shaping_ or

_moulding_ (in Greek _diaplasis_) means the ordering of

these tissues into organs (organogenesis).

[33] _cf._ p. 25, note 4 (49).

[34] Note inadequate analogy of semen with fertilised

seeds of plants (_i.e._ of gamete with zygote). Strictly

speaking, of course, semen corresponds to pollen. _cf._

p. 130, note 2 (188).

[35] _i.e._ the four primary qualities; _cf._ chap. iii.

_supra_.

[36] Various secondary or derivative differences in the

tissues. Note pre-eminence of sense of touch.

[37] _De Anima_, ii. _et seq._

[38] Lit. _homoeomerous_ = of similar parts throughout,

"the same all through." He refers to the elementary

tissues, conceived as not being susceptible of further

analysis.

[39] That is, by the bodily eye, and not by the mind's

eye. The observer is here called an _autoptes_ or

"eye-witness." Our medical term _autopsy_ thus means

literally a _persona inspection_ of internal parts,

ordinarily hidden.

[40] _i.e._ "alteration" is the earlier of the two

stages which constitute embryogeny or "genesis." _cf._

p. 18, note 1 (32).

[41] The terms Galen actually uses are: _ostopoietic_,

_neuropoietic_, _chondropoietic_.

[42] As we should say, _parenchyma_ (a term used by

Erasistratus).

[43] Those were all the elemental tissues that

Aristotle, for example, had recognized; other tissues

(_e.g._ flesh or muscle) he believed to be complexes of

these.

[44] Or _tunics_.

[45] _i.e._ tissues.

[46] As, for example, Aristotle had held; _cf._ p. 23,

note 3 (43). Galen added many new tissues to those described

by Aristotle.

[47] Lit. _synthesis_.

[48] By this is meant the _duodenum_, considered as an

outgrowth or prolongation of the stomach towards the

intestines.

[49] _cf._ p. 19, note 2 (33).

[50] Lit. the _auxetic_ or _incremental_ faculty.

[51] _i.e._ to the alterative and shaping faculties

(histogenetic and organogenetic).

[52] If the reading is correct we can only suppose that

Galen meant _the embryo_.

[53] _i.e._ not the pre-natal development of tissue

already described. _cf._ chap. vi.

[54] Administration, lit. "economy."

[55] The _activation_ or _functioning_ of this faculty,

the faculty _in actual operation_. _cf._ p. 3, note 2

(6).

[56] "Un rapport commun et une affinité" (Daremberg).

"Societatem aliquam cognationemque in qualitatibus"

(Linacre). _cf._ p. 36, note 2 (61).

[57] Lit. "necessity"; more _restrictive_, however, than

our "law of Nature." _cf._ p. 314, note 1 (386).

[58] His point is that no great change, in colours or in

anything else, can take place at one step.

[59] Not quite our "waste _products_," since these are

considered as being partly synthetic, whereas the Greek

_perittomata_ were simply superfluous substances which

could not be used and were thrown aside.

[60] Note "our natures," _cf._ p. 12, note 4 (25); p. 47,

note 1 (75).

[61] The term [Greek: oikeios], here rendered

_appropriate_, is explained on p. 33. _cf._ also

footnote on same page. Linacre often translated it

_conveniens_, and it may usually be rendered _proper_,

_peculiar_, _own special_, or _own particular_ in

English. Sometimes it is almost equal to _akin_,

_cognate_, _related_: _cf._ p. 319, note 2 (394). With

Galen's [Greek: oikeios] and [Greek: allotrios] we may

compare the German terms _eigen_ and _fremd_ used by

Aberhalden in connection with his theory of defensive

ferments in the blood-serum.

[62] Transit, _cf._ p. 6, note 1 (10).

[63] _i.e._ of the living organism, _cf._ p. 2, note 1

(5).

[64] _i.e._ with nutrition.

[65] We might perhaps say, more shortly, "assimilation

of food to feeder," or, "of food to fed"; Linacre

renders, "nutrimenti cum nutrito assimilatio."

[66] Lit. _prosphysis_, _i.e._ attachment, implantation.

[67] Lit. _prosthesis_, "apposition." One is almost

tempted to retain the terms _prosthesis_ and

_prosphysis_ in translation, as they obviously

correspond much more closely to Galen's physiological

conceptions than any English or semi-English words can.

[68] Lit. _phthisis_. _cf._ p. 6, note 2 (11). Now

means _tuberculosis_ only.

[69] More literally, "chymified." In _anasarca_ the

subcutaneous tissue is soft, and pits on pressure. In

the "white" disease referred to here (by which is

probably meant _nodular leprosy_) the same tissues are

indurated and "brawny." The principle of certain

diseases being best explained as cases of _arrest_ at

various stages of the metabolic path is recognized in

modern pathology, although of course the instances given

by Galen are too crude to stand.

[70] The effects of _oxidation_ attributed to the heat

which accompanies it? _cf._ p. 141, note 1 (199); p.

254, note 1 (332).

[71] Here follows a contrast between the Vitalists and

the Epicurean Atomists. _cf._ p. 153 _et seq._

[72] A unity or _continuum_, an _individuum_.

[73] Lit. to the _physis_ or the _psyche_; that is, a

denial of the autonomy of physiology and psychology.

[74] Lit. _somata_.

[75] For "natures" in the plural, involving the idea of

a separate nature immanent in each individual, _cf._ p.

36, note 1 (60).

[76] A lost work.

[77] For Asclepiades _v._ p. 49, note 5 (82).

[78] "Le corps tout entier a unité de souffle

(_perspiration et expiration_) et unité de flux

(_courants_, _circulation des liquides_)" (Daremberg).

"Conspirabile et confluxile corpus esse" (Linacre).

Apparently Galen refers to the pneuma and the various

humours. _cf._ p. 293, note 2 (366).

[79] _i.e._ "appropriated"; very nearly "assimilated."

[80] "Attractricem convenientis qualitatis vim"

(Linacre). _cf._ p. 36, note 2 (61).

[81] Lit. "obvious phenomena."

[82] Asclepiades of Bithynia, who flourished in the

first half of the first century B.C., was an adherent of

the atomistic philosophy of Democritus, and is the

typical representative of the Mechanistic school in

Graeco-Roman medicine; he disbelieved in any principle

of individuality ("nature") in the organism, and his

methods of treatment, in accordance with his pathology,

were mechano-therapeutical. _cf._ p. 64, note 3 (100).

[83] Diocles of Carystus was the chief representative of

the Dogmatic or Hippocratic school in the first half of

the fourth century B.C. Praxagoras was his disciple, and

followed him in the leadership of the school. For

Erasistratus, _cf._ p. 95 _et seq._

[84] Sufferers from kidney-trouble.

[85] The ureters.

[86] Unless otherwise stated, "peritoneum" stands for

parietal peritoneum alone.

[87] In the peritoneal cavity.

[88] Contrast, however, _anasarca_, p. 41.

[89] Regurgitation, however, is prevented by the fact

that the ureter runs for nearly one inch obliquely

through the bladder wall before opening into its cavity,

and thus an efficient _valve_ is produced.

[90] On the [Greek: technê] (artistic or creative skill)

shown by the living organism ([Greek: physis]) _v._ pp.

25, 45, 47; Introduction, p. xxix.

[91] Direct denial of Aristotle's dictum that "Nature

does nothing in vain." We are reminded of the view of

certain modern laboratory physicians and surgeons that

the _colon_ is a "useless" organ, _cf._ Erasistratus, p.

143.

[92] The _vasa deferentia_.

[93] "De l'habileté et de la prévoyance de la nature à

l'égard des animaux" (Daremberg). _cf._ p. 56, note 1

(90).

[94] _cf._ p. 36, note 2 (61).

[95] The morbid material passed successively through the

stages of "crudity," "coction" (_pepsis_), and

"elimination" (_crisis_). For "critical days" _cf._ p.

74, note 1 (121).

[96] This was the process by which nutriment was taken

up from the alimentary canal; "absorption," "dispersal;"

_cf._ p. 13, note 5 (26). The subject is dealt with more

fully in chap. xvi.

[97] Lit. _catharsis_.

[98] _i.e._ urine.

[99] On use of [Greek: kenoô] _v._ p. 67, note 9 (110).

[100] _i.e._ bile and phlegm had no existence as such

before the drugs were given; they are the products of

dissolved tissue. Asclepiades did not believe that

diseases were due to a _materia peccans_, but to

disturbances in the movements of the molecules ([Greek:

onkoi]) which constitute the body; thus, in opposition

to the humoralists such as Galen, he had no use for

drugs. _cf._ p. 49, note 5 (82).

[101] About 4 oz., or one-third of a pint.

[102] The Empiricists, _cf._ Introduction, p. xiii.

[103] His [Greek: onkoi] or molecules.

[104] He does not say "organized" or "living" body;

inanimate things were also thought to possess "natures";

_cf._ p. 2, note 1 (5).

[105] Carthamus tinctorius.

[106] Daphne Gnidium.

[107] Euphorbia acanthothamnos.

[108] Teucrium chamaedrys.

[109] Atractylis gummifera.

[110] On use of [Greek: kenoô] _cf._ p. 98, note 1 (148).

[111] Empiricist physicians.

[112] Note that drugs also have "natures"; _cf._ p. 66,

note 3 (104), and pp. 83-84.

[113] Pun here.

[114] Lit. _physiology_, _i.e._ _nature-lore_, almost

our "Natural Philosophy"; _cf._ Introduction, p. xxvi.

[115] The ultimate particle of Epicurus was the [Greek:

atomos] or atom (lit. "non-divisible"), of Asclepiades,

the [Greek: onkos] or molecule. Asclepiades took his

atomic theory from Epicurus, and he again from

Democritus; _cf._ p. 49, note 5 (82).

[116] Lit. _Herculean stone_.

[117] Lit. _aetiology_.

[118] _Anadosis_; _cf._ p. 62, note 1 (96).

[119] _cf._ p. 45.

[120] The _vis conservatrix et medicatrix Naturae_.

[121] _cf._ p. 61, note 3 (95). The _crisis_ or resolution in

fevers was observed to take place with a certain

regularity; hence arose the doctrine of "critical days."

[122] These were hypothetical spaces or channels between

the atoms; _cf._ Introduction, p. xiv.

[123] He means the specific drawing power or faculty of

the lodestone.

[124] _cf._ our modern "radium-emanations."

[125] _cf._ Ehrlich's hypothesis of "receptors" in

explanation of the "affinities" of animal cells.

[126] _i.e._ from the point of view of the theory.

[127] _cf._ p. 69, note 2 (112).

[128] That is to say, the two properties should go

together in all cases--which they do not.

[129] _Trygon pastinaca_.

[130] _cf._ p. 66, note 3 (104).

[131] The way that corn can attract moisture.

[132] Specific attraction of the "proper" quality; _cf._

p. 85, note 3 (130).

[133] Theory of evaporation insufficient to account for

it. _cf._ p. 104, note 1 (156).

[134] Playful suggestion of free-will in the urine.

[135] Specific attraction, _cf._ p. 87, note 2 (233).

[136] _i.e._ there would be no selective action.

[137] Nasal mucus was supposed to be the non-utilizable

part of the nutriment conveyed to the brain, _cf._ p.

214, note 3 (297).

[138] He means from its origin in the liver (_i.e._ in

the three hepatic veins). His idea was that the upper

division took nutriment to heart, lungs, head, etc., and

the lower division to lower part of body. On the

relation of right auricle to vena cava and right

ventricle, _cf._ p. 321, notes 4 (398) and 5 (399).

[139] We arrive at our belief by excluding other

possibilities.

[140] _i.e._ the mechanistic physicists. _cf._ pp.

45-47.

[141] _cf._ p. 85, note 3 (130).

[142] The subject of _anadosis_ is taken up in the next

chapter. _cf._ also p. 62, note 1 (96).

[143] On Erasistratus _v._ Introd. p. xii. His view that the

stomach exerts no _holké_, or attraction, is dealt with

more fully in Book III., chap. viii.

[144] _i.e._ the tissues.

[145] _cf._ p. 291.

[146] _Peristalsis_ may be used here to translate Gk.

_peristolé_, meaning the contraction and dilation of

muscle-fibres _circularly_ round a lumen, _cf._ p. 263,

note 2 (341).

[147] For a demonstration that this phenomenon is a

conclusive proof neither of _peristolé_ nor of real

vital _attraction_, but is found even in dead bodies

_v._ p. 267.

[148] This was Erasistratus's favourite principle, known

in Latin as the "horror vacui" and in English as

"Nature's abhorrence of a vacuum," although these terms

are not an exact translation of the Greek. [Greek: to

kenoumenon] probably means _the vacuum_, not the _matter

evacuated_, although Galen elsewhere uses [Greek: kenoô]

in the latter (non-classical) sense, _e.g._ pp. 67, 215.

Akolouthia is a _following-up_, a _sequence_, almost a

_consequence_.

[149] _v._ p. 123.

[150] _cf._ Book II., chap. i.

[151] Vital factor necessary over and above the

mechanical.

[152] _cf._ p. 119, note 2 (173).

[153] pp. 91, 93.

[154] _i.e._ the part below the liver; _cf._ p. 91, note

2 (138).

[155] Renal veins.

[156] _cf._ p. 87, note 3 (133).

[157] [Greek: koilên]: the usual reading is [Greek:

koilian], which would make it "from the region of the

alimentary canal." _cf._ p. 118, note 1 (171).

[158] Not at an earlier stage, when it is still on its

way from the alimentary canal to the liver.

[159] _i.e._ a renal vein.

[160] In a toast, the third cup was drunk to Zeus Sôtêr

(the Saviour).

[161] An anatomist of the Alexandrian school.

[162] _cf._ nasal mucus, p. 90, note 1 (137).

[163] "Sur l'Ensemble des Choses" (Daremberg).

[164] About twelve quarts. This is about five times as

much as the average daily excretion, and could only be

passed if a very large amount of wine were drunk.

[165] _cf._ p. 51.

[166] Horror vacui. Note analogical reasoning; _cf._ p.

289, note 1 (360).

BOOK II

I

In the previous book we demonstrated that not only Erasistratus, but

also all others who would say anything to the purpose about urinary

secretion, must acknowledge that the kidneys possess some faculty

which attracts to them this particular quality existing in the

urine.[167] Besides this we drew attention to the fact that the urine

is not carried through the kidneys into the bladder by one method, the

blood into parts of the animal by another, and the yellow bile

separated out on yet another principle. For when once there has been

demonstrated in any one organ, the drawing, or so-called

_epispastic_[168] faculty, there is then no difficulty in transferring

it to the rest. Certainly Nature did not give a power such as this to

the kidneys without giving it also to the vessels which abstract the

biliary fluid,[169] nor did she give it to the latter without also

giving it to each of the other parts. And, assuredly, if this is true,

we must marvel that Erasistratus should make statements concerning the

delivery of nutriment from the food-canal[170] which are so false as

to be detected even by Asclepiades. Now, Erasistratus considers it

absolutely certain that, if anything flows from the veins, one of two

things must happen: either a completely empty space will result, or

the contiguous quantum of fluid will run in and take the place of that

which has been evacuated. Asclepiades, however, holds that not one of

two, but one of three things must be said to result in the emptied

vessels: either there will be an entirely empty space, or the

contiguous portion will flow in, or the vessel will contract. For

whereas, in the case of reeds and tubes it is true to say that, if

these be submerged in water, and are emptied of the air which they

contain in their lumens, then either a completely empty space will be

left, or the contiguous portion will move onwards; in the case of

veins this no longer holds, since their coats can collapse and so fall

in upon the interior cavity. It may be seen, then, how false this

hypothesis--by Zeus, I cannot call it a demonstration!--of

Erasistratus is.

And, from another point of view, even if it were true, it is

superfluous, if the stomach[171] has the power of compressing the

veins, as he himself supposed, and the veins again of contracting upon

their contents and propelling them forwards.[172] For, apart from

other considerations, no _plethora_[173] would ever take place in the

body, if delivery of nutriment resulted merely from the tendency of a

vacuum to become refilled. Now, if the compression of the stomach

becomes weaker the further it goes, and cannot reach to an indefinite

distance, and if, therefore, there is need of some other mechanism to

explain why the blood is conveyed in all directions, then the

principle of the refilling of a vacuum may be looked on as a necessary

addition;[174] there will not, however, be a plethora in any of the

parts coming after the liver,[175] or, if there be, it will be in the

region of the heart and lungs; for the heart alone of the parts which

come after the liver draws the nutriment into its right ventricle,

thereafter sending it through the _arterioid vein_[176] to the lungs

(for Erasistratus himself will have it that, owing to the membranous

excrescences,[177] no other parts save the lungs receive nourishment

from the heart). If, however, in order to explain how plethora comes

about, we suppose the force of compression by the stomach to persist

indefinitely, we have no further need of the principle of the

refilling of a vacuum, especially if we assume contraction of the

veins in addition--as is, again, agreeable to Erasistratus himself.

BOOK II

B

I

Hoti men oun anankaion estin ouk Erasistratô monon alla 74

kai tois allois hapasin, hosoi mellousi peri diakriseôs

ourôn erein ti chrêston, homologêsai dynamin tin'

hyparchein tois nephrois helkousan eis heautous poiotêta

toiautên, hoia en tois ourois esti, dia tou prosthen

epidedeiktai grammatos, anamimnêskontôn ham' autô kai

touth' hêmôn, hôs ouk allôs men eis tên kystin pheretai

ta oura dia tôn nephrôn, allôs d' eis hapanta tou zôou

ta moria to haima, kat' allon de tina tropon hê xanthê

cholê diakrinetai. deichtheisês gar enargôs eph' henos

|| houtinosoun organou tês helktikês te kai epispastikês 75

onomazomenês dynameôs ouden eti chalepon epi ta loipa

metapherein autên; ou gar dê tois men nephrois hê physis

edôke tina toiautên dynamin, ouchi de ge kai tois to

cholôdes hygron helkousin angeiois oude toutois men,

ouketi de kai tôn allôn moriôn hekastô. kai mên ei tout'

alêthes esti, thaumazein chrê tou Erasistratou pseudeis

houtô logous hyper anadoseôs trophês eipontos, hôs mêd'

Asklêpiadên lathein. kaitoi g' oietai pantos mallon

alêthes hyparchein, hôs, eiper ek tôn phlebôn aporrheoi

ti, dyoin thateron ê kenos estai topos athroôs ê to

syneches epirrhyêsetai tên basin anaplêroun tou

kenoumenou. all' ho g' Asklêpiadês ou dyoin thateron

phêsin, alla triôn hen ti chrênai legein epi tois

kenoumenois angeiois hepesthai ê kenon athroôs topon ê

to syneches akolouthêsein ê systalêsesthai to angeion.

epi men gar tôn kalamôn kai tôn auliskôn tôn eis to

hydôr kathiemenôn alêthes eipein, hoti kenoumenou tou

periechomenou kata tên || eurychôrian autôn aeros ê 76

kenos athroôs estai topos ê akolouthêsei to syneches;

epi de tôn phlebôn ouket' enchôrei, dynamenou dê tou

chitônos autôn eis heauton synizanein kai dia touto

katapiptein eis tên entos eurychôrian. houtô men dê

pseudês hê peri tês pros to kenoumenon akolouthias ouk

apodeixis ma Di' eipoim' an all' hypothesis

Erasistrateios.

Kath' heteron d' au tropon, ei kai alêthês eiê, perittê,

tês men koilias enthlibein tais phlepsi dynamenês, hôs

autos hypetheto, tôn phlebôn d' au peristellesthai tô

enyparchonti kai proôthein auto. ta te gar alla kai

plêthos ouk an en tô sômati genoito, tê pros to

kenoumenon akolouthia monê tês anadoseôs epiteloumenês.

ei men oun hê tês gastros enthlipsis eklyetai proïousa

kai mechri pantos adynatos estin exikneisthai kai dia

tout' allês tinos dei mêchanês eis tên pantê phoran tou

haimatos, anankaia men hê pros to kenoumenon akolouthia

prosexeurêtai; plêthos d' en oudeni tôn meth' hêpar

estai || moriôn, ê, eiper ara, peri tên kardian te kai 77

ton pneumona. monê gar hautê tôn meth' hêpar eis tên

dexian hautês koilian helkei tên trophên, eita dia tês

phlebos tês artêriôdous ekpempei tô pneumoni; tôn gar

allôn ouden oud' autos ho Erasistratos ek kardias

bouletai trephesthai dia tên tôn hymenôn epiphysin. ei

de g', hina plêthos genêtai, phylaxomen achri pantos tên

rhômên tês kata tên koilian enthlipseôs, ouden eti

deometha tês pros to kenoumenon akolouthias, malist' ei

kai tên tôn phlebôn synypothoimetha peristolên, hôs au

kai tout' autô palin areskei tô Erasistratô.

II

Let me draw his attention, then, once again, even if he does not wish

it, to the kidneys, and let me state that these confute in the very

clearest manner such people as object to the principle of

_attraction_. Nobody has ever said anything plausible, nor, as we

previously showed, has anyone been able to discover, by any means,

any other cause for the secretion of urine; we necessarily appear mad

if we maintain that the urine passes into the kidneys in the form of

vapour, and we certainly cut a poor figure when we talk about the

tendency of a vacuum to become refilled;[178] this idea is foolish in

the case of blood, and impossible, nay, perfectly nonsensical, in the

case of the urine.[179]

This, then, is one blunder made by those who dissociate themselves

from the principle of attraction. Another is that which they make

about the _secretion of yellow bile_. For in this case, too, it is not

a fact that when the blood runs past the mouths [stomata] of the

bile-ducts there will be a thorough separation out [secretion] of

biliary waste-matter. "Well," say they, "let us suppose that it is not

secreted but carried with the blood all over the body." But, you

sapient folk, Erasistratus himself supposed that Nature took thought

for the animals' future, and was workmanlike in her method; and at the

same time he maintained that the biliary fluid was useless in every

way for the animals. Now these two things are incompatible. For how

could Nature be still looked on as exercising forethought for the

animal when she allowed a noxious humour such as this to be carried

off and distributed with the blood?...

This, however, is a small matter. I shall again point out here the

greatest and most obvious error. For if the yellow bile adjusts itself

to the narrower vessels and stomata, and the blood to the wider ones,

for no other reason than that blood is thicker and bile thinner, and

that the stomata of the veins are wider and those of the bile-ducts

narrower,[180] then it is clear that this watery and serous

superfluity,[181] too, will run out into the bile-ducts quicker than

does the bile, exactly in proportion as it is thinner than the bile!

How is it, then, that it does not run out? "Because," it may be said,

"urine is thicker than bile!" This was what one of our Erasistrateans

ventured to say, herein clearly disregarding the evidence of his

senses, although he had trusted these in the case of the bile and

blood. For, if it be that we are to look on bile as thinner than blood

because it runs more, then, since the serous residue[181] passes

through fine linen or lint or a sieve more easily even than does bile,

by these tokens bile must also be thicker than the watery fluid. For

here, again, there is no argument which will demonstrate that bile is

thinner than the serous superfluities.

But when a man shamelessly goes on using circumlocutions, and never

acknowledges when he has had a fall, he is like the amateur wrestlers,

who, when they have been overthrown by the experts and are lying on

their backs on the ground, so far from recognizing their fall,

actually seize their victorious adversaries by the necks and prevent

them from getting away, thus supposing themselves to be the winners!

II

Anamnêsteon oun authis auton, kan mê boulêtai, tôn

nephrôn kai lekteon, hôs elenchos houtoi phanerôtatos

hapantôn tôn apochôrountôn tês holkês; oudeis gar ouden

out' eipe pithanon, all' oud' exeurein eiche kat' oudena

tropon, hôs emprosthen edeiknymen, heteron aition ourôn

diakriseôs, all' anankaion ê mainesthai dokein, ei

phêsaimen atmoei||dôs eis tên kystin ienai to ouron ê 78

aschêmonein tês pros to kenoumenon akolouthias

mnêmoneuontas, lêrôdous men ousês kapi tou haimatos,

adynatou de kai êlithiou pantapasin epi tôn ourôn.

Hen men dê touto sphalma tôn apostantôn tês holkês;

heteron de to peri tês kata tên xanthên cholên

diakriseôs. oude gar oud' ekei pararrheontos tou

haimatos ta stomata tôn cholêdochôn angeiôn akribôs

diakrithêsetai to cholôdes perittôma. kai mê

diakrinesthô, phasin, alla synanapheresthô tô haimati

pantê tou sômatos. all', ô sophôtatoi, pronoêtikên tou

zôou kai technikên autos ho Erasistratos hypetheto tên

physin. alla kai to cholôdes hygron achrêston einai

pantapasi tois zôois ephasken. ou symbainei d' allêlois

amphô tauta. pôs gar an eti pronoeisthai tou zôou

doxeien epitrepousa synanapheresthai tô haimati

mochthêron houtô chymon?

Alla tauta men smikra; to de megiston kai saphestaton

palin entauth' hamartêma kai dê phrasô. eiper gar di'

ouden all' ê hoti pachyteron men esti to haima,

leptotera d' hê || xanthê cholê kai ta men tôn phlebôn 79

eurytera stomata, ta de tôn cholêdochôn angeiôn

stenotera, dia touth' hê men cholê tois stenoterois

angeiois te kai stomasin enarmottei, to d' haima tois

euryterois, dêlon, hôs kai to hydatôdes touto kai

orrhôdes perittôma tosoutô proteron eisryêsetai tois

cholêdochois angeiois, hosô leptoteron esti tês cholês.

pôs oun ouk eisrei? hoti pachyteron esti nê Dia to ouron

tês cholês; touto gar etolmêse tis eipein tôn kath'

hêmas Erasistrateiôn apostas dêlonoti tôn aisthêseôn,

hais episteusen epi te tês cholês kai tou haimatos. eite

gar hoti mallon hê cholê tou haimatos rhei, dia touto

leptoteran autên hêmin esti nomisteon, eith' hoti di'

othonês ê rhakous ê tinos êthmou rhaon diexerchetai kai

tautês to orrhôdes perittôma, kata tauta ta gnôrismata

pachytera tês hydatôdous hygrotêtos kai hautê genêsetai.

palin gar oud' entautha logos oudeis estin, hos

apodeixei leptoteran tên cholên tôn orrhôdôn

perittômatôn.

All' hotan tis anaischyntê periplekôn te kai mêpô

katapeptôkenai synchôrôn, || homoios estai tois idiôtais 80

tôn palaistôn, hoi katablêthentes hypo tôn palaistrikôn

kai kata tês gês hyptioi keimenoi tosoutou deousi to

ptôma gnôrizein, hôste kai kratousi tôn auchenôn autous

tous katabalontas ouk eôntes apallattesthai, kan toutô

nikan hypolambanousi.

III

Thus, every hypothesis of _channels_[182] as an explanation of natural

functioning is perfect nonsense. For, if there were not _an inborn

faculty_ given by Nature to each one of the organs at the very

beginning, then animals could not continue to live even for a few

days, far less for the number of years which they actually do. For let

us suppose they were under no guardianship, lacking in creative

ingenuity[183] and forethought; let us suppose they were steered only

by material forces,[184] and not by any special _faculties_ (the one

attracting what is proper to it, another rejecting what is foreign,

and yet another causing alteration and adhesion of the matter destined

to nourish it); if we suppose this, I am sure it would be ridiculous

for us to discuss natural, or, still more, psychical, activities--or,

in fact, life as a whole.[185]

For there is not a single animal which could live or endure for the

shortest time if, possessing within itself so many different parts, it

did not employ faculties which were attractive of what is appropriate,

eliminative of what is foreign, and alterative of what is destined for

nutrition. On the other hand, if we have these faculties, we no longer

need _channels_, little or big, resting on an unproven hypothesis, for

explaining the secretion of urine and bile, and the conception of some

_favourable situation_ (in which point alone Erasistratus shows some

common sense, since he does regard all the parts of the body as having

been well and truly placed and shaped by Nature).

But let us suppose he remained true to his own statement that Nature

is "artistic"--this Nature which, at the beginning, well and truly

shaped and disposed all the parts of the animal,[186] and, after

carrying out this function (for she left nothing undone), brought it

forward to the light of day, endowed with certain faculties necessary

for its very existence, and, thereafter, gradually increased it until

it reached its due size. If he argued consistently on this principle,

I fail to see how he can continue to refer natural functions to the

smallness or largeness of canals, or to any other similarly absurd

hypothesis. For this Nature which shapes and gradually adds to the

parts is most certainly extended throughout their whole substance. Yes

indeed, she shapes and nourishes and increases them through and

through, not on the outside only. For Praxiteles and Phidias and all

the other statuaries used merely to decorate their material on the

outside, in so far as they were able to touch it; but its inner parts

they left unembellished, unwrought, unaffected by art or forethought,

since they were unable to penetrate therein and to reach and handle

all portions of the material. It is not so, however, with Nature.

Every part of a bone she makes bone, every part of the flesh she makes

flesh, and so with fat and all the rest; there is no part which she

has not touched, elaborated, and embellished. Phidias, on the other

hand, could not turn wax into ivory and gold, nor yet gold into wax:

for each of these remains as it was at the commencement, and becomes a

perfect statue simply by being clothed externally in a form and

artificial shape. But Nature does not preserve the original character

of any kind of matter; if she did so then all parts of the animal

would be blood--that blood, namely, which flows to the semen from the

impregnated female and which is, so to speak, like the statuary's wax,

a single uniform matter, subjected to the artificer. From this blood

there arises no part of the animal which is as red and moist [as blood

is], for bone, artery, vein, nerve, cartilage, fat, gland, membrane,

and marrow are not blood, though they arise from it.

I would then ask Erasistratus himself to inform me what the altering,

coagulating, and shaping agent is. He would doubtless say, "Either

Nature or the semen," meaning the same thing in both cases, but

explaining it by different devices. For that which was previously

semen, when it begins to procreate and to shape the animal, becomes,

so to say, a special _nature_.[187] For in the same way that Phidias

possessed the faculties of his art even before touching his material,

and then activated these in connection with this material (for every

faculty remains inoperative in the absence of its proper material), so

it is with the semen: its faculties it possessed from the

beginning,[188] while its activities it does not receive from its

material, but it manifests them in connection therewith.

And, of course, if it were to be overwhelmed with a great quantity of

blood, it would perish, while if it were to be entirely deprived of

blood it would remain inoperative and would not turn into a _nature_.

Therefore, in order that it may not perish, but may become a _nature_

in place of semen, there must be an afflux to it of a little

blood--or, rather, one should not say a little, but a quantity

commensurate with that of the semen. What is it then that measures the

quantity of this afflux? What prevents more from coming? What ensures

against a deficiency? What is this third overseer of animal generation

that we are to look for, which will furnish the semen with a due

amount of blood? What would Erasistratus have said if he had been

alive, and had been asked this question? Obviously, the semen itself.

This, in fact, is the artificer analogous with Phidias, whilst the

blood corresponds to the statuary's wax.

Now, it is not for the wax to discover for itself how much of it is

required; that is the business of Phidias. Accordingly the artificer

will draw to itself as much blood as it needs. Here, however, we must

pay attention and take care not unwittingly to credit the semen with

reason and intelligence; if we were to do this, we would be making

neither semen nor a nature, but an actual living animal.[189] And if

we retain these two principles--that of proportionate attraction[190]

and that of the non-participation of intelligence--we shall ascribe to

the semen a faculty for attracting blood similar to that possessed by

the lodestone for iron.[191] Here, then, again, in the case of the

semen, as in so many previous instances, we have been compelled to

acknowledge some kind of attractive faculty.

And what is the semen? Clearly the active principle of the animal, the

material principle being the menstrual blood.[192] Next, seeing that

the active principle employs this faculty primarily, therefore, in

order that any one of the things fashioned by it may come into

existence, it [the principle] must necessarily be possessed of its own

faculty. How, then, was Erasistratus unaware of it, if the primary

function of the semen be to draw to itself a due proportion of blood?

Now, this fluid would be in due proportion if it were so thin and

vaporous, that, as soon as it was drawn like dew into every part of

the semen, it would everywhere cease to display its own particular

character; for so the semen will easily dominate and quickly

assimilate it--in fact, will use it as food. It will then, I imagine,

draw to itself a second and a third quantum, and thus by feeding it

acquires for itself considerable bulk and quantity.[193] In fact, _the

alterative faculty_ has now been discovered as well, although about

this also Erasistratus has not written a word. And, thirdly the

_shaping_[194] faculty will become evident, by virtue of which the

semen firstly surrounds itself with a thin membrane like a kind of

superficial condensation; this is what was described by Hippocrates in

the sixth-day birth, which, according to his statement, fell from the

singing-girl and resembled the pellicle of an egg. And following this

all the other stages will occur, such as are described by him in his

work "On the Child's Nature."

But if each of the parts formed were to remain as small as when it

first came into existence, of what use would that be? They have, then,

to grow. Now, how will they grow? By becoming extended in all

directions and at the same time receiving nourishment. And if you will

recall what I previously said about the bladder which the children

blew up and rubbed,[195] you will also understand my meaning better as

expressed in what I am now about to say.

Imagine the heart to be, at the beginning, so small as to differ in no

respect from a millet-seed, or, if you will, a bean; and consider how

otherwise it is to become large than by being extended in all

directions and acquiring nourishment throughout its whole substance,

in the way that, as I showed a short while ago, the semen is

nourished. But even this was unknown to Erasistratus--the man who

sings the artistic skill of Nature! He imagines that animals grow like

webs, ropes, sacks, or baskets, each of which has, woven on to its end

or margin, other material similar to that of which it was originally

composed.

But this, most sapient sir, is not growth, but genesis! For a bag,

sack, garment, house, ship, or the like is said to be still coming

into existence [undergoing genesis] so long as the appropriate form

for the sake of which it is being constructed by the artificer is

still incomplete. Then, when does it grow? Only when the basket, being

complete, with a bottom, a mouth, and a belly, as it were, as well as

the intermediate parts, now becomes larger in all these respects. "And

how can this happen?" someone will ask. Only by our basket suddenly

becoming an animal or a plant; for growth belongs to living things

alone. Possibly you imagine that a house _grows_ when it is being

built, or a basket when being plaited, or a garment when being woven?

It is not so however. Growth belongs to that which has already been

completed in respect to its form, whereas the process by which that

which is still _becoming_ attains its form is termed not growth but

genesis. That which _is_, grows, while that which _is not_, becomes.

III

Lêros oun makros hapasa porôn hypothesis eis physikên

energeian. ei mê gar dynamis tis symphytos hekastô tôn

organôn hypo tês physeôs euthys ex archês dotheiê,

diarkein ou dynêsetai ta zôa, mê hoti tosouton arithmon

etôn all' oud' hêmerôn oligistôn; anepitropeuta gar

easantes auta kai technês kai pronoias erêma monais tais

tôn hylôn oiakizomena rhopais, oudamou dynameôs oudemias

tês men helkousês to prosêkon heautê, tês d' apôthousês

to allotrion, tês d' alloiousês te kai prosphyousês to

threpson, ouk oid' hopôs ouk an eiêmen katagelastoi peri

te tôn physikôn energeiôn dialegomenoi kai poly mallon

eti peri tôn psychikôn kai || sympasês ge tês zôês. 81

Oude gar zên oude diamenein oudeni tôn zôôn oud' eis

elachiston chronon estai dynaton, ei tosauta kektêmenon

en heautô moria kai houtô diapheronta mêth' helktikê tôn

oikeiôn chrêsetai dynamei mêt' apokritikê tôn allotriôn

mêt' alloiôtikê tôn threpsontôn. kai mên ei tautas

echoimen, ouden eti porôn mikrôn ê megalôn ex

hypotheseôs anapodeiktou lambanomenôn eis ourou kai

cholês diakrisin deometha kai tinos epikairou theseôs,

en hô monô sôphronein eoiken ho Erasistratos hapanta

kalôs tethênai te kai diaplasthênai ta moria tou sômatos

hypo tês physeôs oiomenos.

All' ei parakolouthêseien heautô physin onomazonti

technikên, euthys men ex archês hapanta kalôs

diaplasasan te kai diatheisan tou zôou ta moria, meta de

tên toiautên energeian, hôs ouden eleipen, eti

proagagousan eis phôs auto syn tisi dynamesin, hôn aneu

zên ouk êdynato, kai meta tauta kata brachy

prosauxêsasan achri tou prepontos megethous, ouk oida

pôs hypomenei porôn smikrotêsin || ê megethesin ê tisin 82

allais houtô lêrôdesin hypothesesi physikas energeias

epitrepein. hê gar diaplattousa ta moria physis ekeinê

kai kata brachy prosauxousa pantôs dêpou di' holôn autôn

ektetatai; kai gar hola di' holôn ouk exôthen monon auta

diaplattei te kai trephei kai prosauxei. Praxitelês men

gar ê Pheidias ê tis allos agalmatopoios exôthen monon

ekosmoun tas hylas, katha kai psauein autôn êdynanto, to

bathos d' akosmêton kai argon kai atechnon kai

apronoêton apelipon, hôs an mê dynamenoi katelthein eis

auto kai katadynai kai thigein hapantôn tês hylês tôn

merôn. hê physis d' ouch houtôs, alla to men ostou meros

hapan ostoun apotelei, to de sarkos sarka, to de pimelês

pimelên kai tôn allôn hekaston; ouden gar estin

apsauston autê meros oud' anexergaston oud' akosmêton.

alla ton men kêron ho Pheidias ouk êdynato poiein

elephanta kai chryson, all' oude ton chryson kêron;

hekaston gar autôn menon, hoion ên ex archês, exôthen

monon êmphiesmenon eidos ti kai schêma technikon, agalma

teleion || gegonen. hê physis d' oudemias eti phylattei 83

tôn hylôn tên archaian idean; haima gar an ên houtôs

hapanta tou zôou ta moria, to para tês kyousês epirrheon

tô spermati, dikên kêrou tinos hylê mia kai monoeidês

hypobeblêmenê tô technitê. gignetai d' ex autês ouden

tôn tou zôou moriôn out' erythron houtôs outh' hygron.

ostoun gar kai artêria kai phleps kai neuron kai

chondros kai pimelê kai adên kai hymên kai myelos anaima

men, ex haimatos de gegone.

Tinos alloiôsantos kai tinos pêxantos kai tinos

diaplasantos edeomên an moi ton Erasistraton auton

apokrinasthai. pantôs gar an eipen êtoi tên physin ê to

sperma, tauton men legôn kath' hekateron, diaphorois d'

epinoiais hermêneuôn; ho gar ên proteron sperma, touth',

hotan arxêtai phyein te kai diaplattein to zôon, physis

tis gignetai. kathaper gar ho Pheidias eiche men tas

dynameis tês technês kai prin psauein tês hylês, enêrgei

d' autais peri tên hylên--hapasa gar dynamis argei

aporousa tês oikeias hylês--, houtô kai to sperma tas

men || dynameis oikothen ekektêto, tas d' energeias ouk 84

ek tês hylês elaben, alla peri tên hylên epedeixato.

Kai mên ei pollô men epiklyzoito tô haimati to sperma,

diaphtheiroit' an; ei d' holôs aporoiê pantapasin

argoun, ouk an genoito physis. hin' oun mête phtheirêtai

kai gignêtai physis anti spermatos, oligon epirrhein

anankaion autô tou haimatos, mallon d' ouk oligon legein

chrê, alla symmetron tô plêthei tou spermatos. tis oun

ho metrôn autou to poson tês epirrhoês? tis ho kôlyôn

ienai pleon? tis ho protrepôn, hin' endeesteron mê iê?

tina zêtêsomen entautha triton epistatên tou zôou tês

geneseôs, hos chorêgêsei tô spermati to symmetron haima?

ti an eipen Erasistratos, ei zôn taut' êrôtêthê? to

sperma auto dêlonoti; touto gar estin ho technitês ho

analogôn tô Pheidia, to d' haima tô kêrô proseoiken.

Oukoun prepei ton kêron auton heautô to metron

exeuriskein, alla ton Pheidian. helxei dê tosouton

haimatos ho technitês eis heauton, hoposou deitai. all'

en||tautha chrê prosechein êdê ton noun kai skopein, mê 85

pôs lathômen tô spermati logismon tina kai noun

charisamenoi; houtô gar an oute sperma poiêsaimen oute

physin all' êdê zôon auto. kai mên ei phylaxomen

amphotera, tên th' holkên tou symmetrou kai to chôris

logismou, dynamin tina, kathaper hê lithos helktikên

eiche tou sidêrou, kai tô spermati phêsomen hyparchein

haimatos epispastikên. ênankasthêmen oun palin

kantautha, kathaper êdê pollakis emprosthen, helktikên

tina dynamin homologêsai kata to sperma.