Galen: On the Natural Faculties
by Galen · English, Greek, Ancient · Gutenberg #43383 · 618,975 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Galen: On the Natural Faculties
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Galen: On the Natural Faculties
Author: Galen
Translator: Arthur John Brock
Release date: August 2, 2013 [eBook #43383]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English, Greek, Ancient
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43383
Credits: Produced by Eileen Gormly, Turgut Dincer, Ted Garvin and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALEN: ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES ***
GALEN
ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES
WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY
ARTHUR JOHN BROCK, M.D.
EDINBURGH
LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN
NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
MCMXVI
PREFACE
The text used is (with a few unimportant modifications) that of Kühn
(Vol. II), as edited by Georg Helmreich; Teubner, Leipzig, 1893. The
numbers of the pages of Kühn's edition are printed at the side of the
Greek text, a parallel mark (||) in the line indicating the exact
point of division between Kühn's pages.
Words in the English text which are enclosed in square brackets are
supplementary or explanatory; practically all explanations, however,
are relegated to the footnotes or introduction. In the footnotes,
also, attention is drawn to words which are of particular philological
interest from the point of view of modern medicine.
I have made the translation directly from the Greek; where passages of
special difficulty occurred, I have been able to compare my own
version with Linacre's Latin translation (1523) and the French
rendering of Charles Daremberg (1854-56); in this respect I am also
peculiarly fortunate in having had the help of Mr. A. W. Pickard
Cambridge of Balliol College, Oxford, who most kindly went through the
proofs and made many valuable suggestions from the point of view of
exact scholarship.
My best thanks are due to the Editors for their courtesy and for the
kindly interest they have taken in the work. I have also gratefully to
acknowledge the receipt of much assistance and encouragement from Sir
William Osler, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, and from
Dr. J. D. Comrie, first lecturer on the History of Medicine at Edinburgh
University. Professor D'Arcy W. Thompson of University College,
Dundee, and Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, late director of the Royal
Botanic Gardens at Kew, have very kindly helped me to identify several
animals and plants mentioned by Galen.
I cannot conclude without expressing a word of gratitude to my former
biological teachers, Professors Patrick Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson.
The experience reared on the foundation of their teaching has gone far
to help me in interpreting the great medical biologist of Greece.
I should be glad to think that the present work might help, however
little, to hasten the coming reunion between the "humanities" and
modern biological science; their present separation I believe to be
against the best interest of both.
A. J. B.
22nd Stationary Hospital, Aldershot.
_March_, 1916.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE v
INTRODUCTION ix
BIBLIOGRAPHY xli
SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS xliii
BOOK I 1
BOOK II 115
BOOK III 221
INDEX AND GLOSSARY 333
INTRODUCTION
[Sidenote: Hippocrates and Galen.]
If the work of Hippocrates be taken as representing the foundation
upon which the edifice of historical Greek medicine was reared, then
the work of Galen, who lived some six hundred years later, may be
looked upon as the summit or apex of the same edifice. Galen's merit
is to have crystallised or brought to a focus all the best work of the
Greek medical schools which had preceded his own time. It is
essentially in the form of Galenism that Greek medicine was
transmitted to after ages.
[Sidenote: The Beginnings of Medicine in Greece.]
The ancient Greeks referred the origins of medicine to a god Asklepios
(called in Latin Aesculapius), thereby testifying to their
appreciation of the truly divine function of the healing art. The
emblem of Aesculapius, familiar in medical symbolism at the present
day, was a staff with a serpent coiled round it, the animal typifying
wisdom in general, and more particularly the wisdom of the
medicine-man, with his semi-miraculous powers over life and death.
"_Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves._"
[Sidenote: The Asclepiea or Health-Temples.]
The temples of Aesculapius were scattered over the ancient Hellenic
world. To them the sick and ailing resorted in crowds. The treatment,
which was in the hands of an hereditary priesthood, combined the best
of the methods carried on at our present-day health-resorts, our
hydropathics, sanatoriums, and nursing-homes. Fresh air, water-cures,
massage, gymnastics, psychotherapy, and natural methods in general
were chiefly relied on.
[Sidenote: Hippocrates and the Unity of the Organism.]
Hippocrates, the "Father of Medicine" (5th to 4th centuries, B.C.) was
associated with the Asclepieum of Cos, an island off the south-west
coast of Asia Minor, near Rhodes. He apparently revitalized the work
of the health-temples, which had before his time been showing a
certain decline in vigour, coupled with a corresponding excessive
tendency towards sophistry and priestcraft.
Celsus says: "_Hippocrates Cous primus quidem ex omnibus memoria
dignis ab studio sapientiae disciplinam hanc separavit_." He means
that Hippocrates first gave the physician an independent standing,
separating him from the cosmological speculator. Hippocrates confined
the medical man to medicine. He did with medical thought what Socrates
did with thought in general--he "brought it down from heaven to
earth." His watchword was "Back to Nature!"
At the same time, while assigning the physician his post, Hippocrates
would not let him regard that post as sacrosanct. He set his face
against any tendency to mystery-mongering, to exclusiveness, to
sacerdotalism. He was, in fact, opposed to the spirit of
trade-unionism in medicine. His concern was rather with the
physician's duties than his "rights."
At the dawn of recorded medical history Hippocrates stands for the
fundamental and primary importance of _seeing clearly_--that is of
_clinical observation_. And what he observed was that the human
organism, when exposed to certain abnormal conditions--certain
stresses--tends to behave in a certain way: that in other words, each
"disease" tends to run a certain definite course. To him a disease was
essentially a process, one and indivisible, and thus his practical
problem was essentially one of _prognosis_--"what will be the natural
course of this disease, if left to itself?" Here he found himself to
no small extent in opposition with the teaching of the neighbouring
medical school of Cnidus, where a more static view-point laid special
emphasis upon the minutiae of _diagnosis_.
Observation taught Hippocrates to place unbounded faith in the
recuperative powers of the living organism--in what we sometimes call
nowadays the _vis medicatrix Naturae_. His observation was that even
with a very considerable "abnormality" of environmental stress the
organism, in the large majority of cases, manages eventually by its
own inherent powers to adjust itself to the new conditions. "Merely
give Nature a chance," said the father of medicine in effect, "and
most diseases will cure themselves." And accordingly his treatment
was mainly directed towards "giving Nature a chance."
His keen sense of the solidarity (or rather, of the constant
interplay) between the organism and its environment (the "conditions"
to which it is exposed) is instanced in his book, "Airs, Waters, and
Places." As we recognise, in our popular everyday psychology, that "it
takes two to make a quarrel," so Hippocrates recognised that in
pathology, it takes two (organism and environment) to make a disease.
As an outstanding example of his power of clinical observation we may
recall the _facies Hippocratica_, an accurate study of the countenance
of a dying man.
His ideals for the profession are embodied in the "Hippocratic oath."
[Sidenote: Anatomy.]
Impressed by this view of the organism as a unity, the Hippocratic
school tended in some degree to overlook the importance of its
constituent _parts_. The balance was re-adjusted later on by the
labours of the anatomical school of Alexandria, which, under the aegis
of the enlightened Ptolemies, arose in the 3rd century B.C. Two
prominent exponents of anatomy belonging to this school were
Herophilus and Erasistratus, the latter of whom we shall frequently
meet with in the following pages (_v._ p. 95 _et seq._).
[Sidenote: The Empirics.]
After the death of the Master, the Hippocratic school tended, as so
often happens with the best of cultural movements, to show signs
itself of diminishing vitality: the letter began to obscure and hamper
the spirit. The comparatively small element of theory which existed in
the Hippocratic physiology was made the groundwork of a somewhat
over-elaborated "system." Against this tendency on the part of the
"Dogmatic" or "Rationalist" school there arose, also at Alexandria,
the sect of the Empiricists. "It is not," they said, "the cause but
the cure of diseases that concerns us; not how we digest, but what is
digestible."
[Sidenote: Greek Medicine in Rome.]
Horace said "_Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit_." Political
domination, the occupation of territory by armies, does not
necessarily mean real conquest. Horace's statement applied to medicine
as to other branches of culture.
The introducer of Greek medicine into Rome was Asclepiades (1st
century B.C.). A man of forceful personality, and equipped with a
fully developed philosophic system of health and disease which
commended itself to the Roman _savants_ of the day, he soon attained
to the pinnacle of professional success in the Latin capital: he is
indeed to all time the type of the fashionable (and somewhat "faddy")
West-end physician. His system was a purely mechanistic one, being
based upon the atomic doctrine of Leucippus and Democritus, which had
been completed by Epicurus and recently introduced to the Roman public
in Lucretius's great poem "_De Rerum Natura_." The disbelief of
Asclepiades in the self-maintaining powers of the living organism are
exposed and refuted at considerable length by Galen in the volume
before us.
[Sidenote: The Methodists.]
Out of the teaching of Asclepiades that physiological processes depend
upon the particular way in which the ultimate indivisible molecules
come together ([Greek: en tê poia synodô tôn prôtôn ekeinôn sômatôn
tôn apathôn]) there was developed by his pupil, Themison of Laodicea,
a system of medicine characterised by the most engaging simplicity
both of diagnosis and treatment. This so-called "Methodic" system was
intended to strike a balance between the excessive leaning to
apriorism shown by the Rationalist (Hippocratic) school and the
opposite tendency of the Empiricists. "A pathological theory we must
have," said the Methodists in effect, "but let it be simple." They
held that the molecular groups constituting the tissues were traversed
by minute channels ([Greek: poroi], "pores"); all diseases belonged to
one or other of two classes; if the channels were constricted the
disease was one of _stasis_ ([Greek: stegnôsis]), and if they were
dilated the disease was one of _flux_ ([Greek: rhysis]). Flux and
stasis were indicated respectively by increase and diminution of the
natural secretions; treatment was of opposites by opposites--of
stasis by methods causing dilatation of the channels, and conversely.
Wild as it may seem, this pathological theory of the Methodists
contained an element of truth; in various guises it has cropped up
once and again at different epochs of medical history; even to-day
there are pathologists who tend to describe certain classes of disease
in terms of vaso-constriction and vaso-dilatation. The vice of the
Methodist teaching was that it looked on a disease too much as
something fixed and finite, an independent _entity_, to be considered
entirely apart from its particular setting. The Methodists illustrate
for us the tyranny of _names_. In its defects as in its virtues this
school has analogues at the present day; we are all acquainted with
the medical man to whom a name (such, let us say, as "tuberculosis,"
"gout," or "intestinal auto-intoxication") stands for an entity, one
and indivisible, to be treated by a definite and unvarying formula.
To such an individual the old German saying "_Jedermann hat am Ende
ein Bischen Tuberkulose_" is simply--incomprehensible.
[Sidenote: Galen.]
All the medical schools which I have mentioned were still holding
their ground in the 2nd century A.D., with more or less popular
acceptance, when the great Galen made his entry into the world of
Graeco-Roman medicine.
[Sidenote: His Nature and Nurture.]
Claudius Galenus was born at Pergamos in Asia Minor in the year
A.D. His father was one Nicon, a well-to-do architect of that city. "I
had the great good fortune," says Galen,[1] "to have as a father a
highly amiable, just, good, and benevolent man. My mother, on the
other hand, possessed a very bad temper; she used sometimes to bite
her serving-maids, and she was perpetually shouting at my father and
quarrelling with him--worse than Xanthippe with Socrates. When,
therefore, I compared the excellence of my father's disposition with
the disgraceful passions of my mother, I resolved to embrace and love
the former qualities, and to avoid and hate the latter."
Nicon called his son [Greek: Galênos], which means _quiet, peaceable_,
and although the physician eventually turned out to be a man of
elevated character, it is possible that his somewhat excessive leaning
towards controversy (exemplified in the following pages) may have
resulted from the fact that he was never quite able to throw off the
worst side of the maternal inheritance.
His father, a man well schooled in mathematics and philosophy, saw to
it that his son should not lack a liberal education. Pergamos itself
was an ancient centre of civilisation, containing, among other
culture-institutions, a library only second in importance to that of
Alexandria itself; it also contained an Asclepieum.
Galen's training was essentially eclectic: he studied all the chief
philosophical systems of the time--Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, and
Epicurean--and then, at the age of seventeen, entered on a course of
medical studies; these he pursued under the best teachers at his own
city, and afterwards, during a period of _Wanderjahre_, at Smyrna,
Alexandria, and other leading medical centres.
Returning to Pergamos, he received his first professional
appointment--that of surgeon to the gladiators. After four years here
he was drawn by ambition to Rome, being at that time about thirty-one
years of age. At Rome the young Pergamene attained a brilliant
reputation both as a practitioner and as a public demonstrator of
anatomy; among his patients he finally numbered even the Emperor
Marcus Aurelius himself.
Medical practice in Rome at this time was at a low ebb, and Galen took
no pains to conceal his contempt for the ignorance, charlatanism, and
venality of his fellow-practitioners. Eventually, in spite of his
social popularity, he raised up such odium against himself in medical
circles, that he was forced to flee the city. This he did hurriedly
and secretly in the year 168 A.D., when thirty-six years of age. He
betook himself to his old home at Pergamos, where he settled down once
more to a literary life.
His respite was short, however, for within a year he was summoned back
to Italy by imperial mandate. Marcus Aurelius was about to undertake
an expedition against the Germans, who at that time were threatening
the northern frontiers of the Empire, and he was anxious that his
consulting physician should accompany him to the front. "Patriotism"
in this sense, however, seems to have had no charms for the Pergamene,
and he pleaded vigorously to be excused. Eventually, the Emperor gave
him permission to remain at home, entrusting to his care the young
prince Commodus.
Thereafter we know little of Galen's history, beyond the fact that he
now entered upon a period of great literary activity. Probably he died
about the end of the century.
[Sidenote: Subsequent History of Galen's Works.]
Galen wrote extensively, not only on anatomy, physiology, and medicine
in general, but also on logic; his logical proclivities, as will be
shown later, are well exemplified in his medical writings. A
considerable number of undoubtedly genuine works of his have come down
to us. The full importance of his contributions to medicine does not
appear to have been recognized till some time after his death, but
eventually, as already pointed out, the terms Galenism and Greek
medicine became practically synonymous.
A few words may be devoted to the subsequent history of his writings.
[Sidenote: Byzantine Medicine.]
During and after the final break-up of the Roman Empire came times or
confusion and of social reconstruction, which left little opportunity
for scientific thought and research. The Byzantine Empire, from the
4th century onwards, was the scene of much internal turmoil, in which
the militant activities of the now State-established Christian church
played a not inconsiderable part. The Byzantine medical scholars
were at best compilers, and a typical compiler was Oribasius,
body-physician to the Emperor Julian (4th century, A.D.); his
excellent _Synopsis_ was written in order to make the huge mass of
the Galenic writings available for the ordinary practitioner.
[Sidenote: Arabian Medicine.]
Greek medicine spread, with general Greek culture, throughout Syria,
and from thence was carried by the Nestorians, a persecuted heretical
sect, into Persia; here it became implanted, and hence eventually
spread to the Mohammedan world. Several of the Prophet's successors
(such as the Caliphs Harun-al-Rashid and Abdul-Rahman III) were great
patrons of Greek learning, and especially of medicine. The Arabian
scholars imbibed Aristotle and Galen with avidity. A partial
assimilation, however, was the farthest stage to which they could
attain; with the exception of pharmacology, the Arabians made
practically no independent additions to medicine. They were
essentially systematizers and commentators. "_Averrois che il gran
comento feo_"[2] may stand as the type _par excellence_ of the Moslem
sage.
Avicenna (Ebn Sina), (10th to 11th century) is the foremost name in
Arabian medicine: his "Book of the Canon in Medicine," when translated
into Latin, even overshadowed the authority of Galen himself for some
four centuries. Of this work the medical historian Max Neuburger says:
"Avicenna, according to his lights, imparted to contemporary medical
science the appearance of almost mathematical accuracy, whilst the art
of therapeutics, although empiricism did not wholly lack recognition,
was deduced as a logical sequence from theoretical (Galenic and
Aristotelian) premises."
[Sidenote: Introduction of Arabian Medicine to the West.
Arabo-Scholastic Period.]
Having arrived at such a condition in the hands of the Mohammedans,
Galenism was now destined to pass once more to the West. From the 11th
century onwards Latin translations of this "Arabian" Medicine (being
Greek medicine in oriental trappings) began to make their way into
Europe; here they helped to undermine the authority of the one medical
school of native growth which the West produced during the Middle
Ages--namely the School of Salerno.
Blending with the Scholastic philosophy at the universities of Naples
and Montpellier, the teachings of Aristotle and Galen now assumed a
position of supreme authority: from their word, in matters scientific
and medical, there was no appeal. In reference to this period the
Pergamene was referred to in later times as the "Medical Pope of the
Middle Ages."
It was of course the logical side of Galenism which chiefly commended
it to the mediaeval Schoolmen, as to the essentially speculative
Moslems.
[Sidenote: The Renascence.]
The year 1453, when Constantinople fell into the hands of the Turks,
is often taken as marking the commencement of the Renascence. Among
the many factors which tended to stimulate and awaken men's minds
during these spacious times was the rediscovery of the Greek classics,
which were brought to Europe by, among others, the scholars who fled
from Byzantium. The Arabo-Scholastic versions of Aristotle and Galen
were now confronted by their Greek originals. A passion for Greek
learning was aroused. The freshness and truth of these old writings
helped to awaken men to a renewed sense of their own dignity and
worth, and to brace them in their own struggle for self-expression.
Prominent in this "Humanist" movement was the English physician,
Thomas Linacre (_c._ 1460-1524) who, having gained in Italy an
extraordinary zeal for the New Learning, devoted the rest of his life,
after returning to England, to the promotion of the _litterae
humaniores_, and especially to making Galen accessible to readers of
Latin. Thus the "_De Naturalibus Facultatibus_" appeared in London in
1523, and was preceded and followed by several other translations,
all marked by minute accuracy and elegant Latinity.
Two new parties now arose in the medical world--the so-called "Greeks"
and the more conservative "Arabists."
[Sidenote: Paracelsus.]
But the swing of the pendulum did not cease with the creation of the
liberal "Greek" party; the dazzling vision of freedom was to drive
some to a yet more anarchical position. Paracelsus, who flourished in
the first half of the 16th century, may be taken as typifying this
extremist tendency. His one cry was, "Let us away with all authority
whatsoever, and get back to Nature!" At his first lecture as professor
at the medical school of Basle he symbolically burned the works of
Galen and of his chief Arabian exponent, Avicenna.
[Sidenote: The Renascence Anatomists.]
But the final collapse of authority in medicine could not be brought
about by mere negativism. It was the constructive work of the
Renascence anatomists, particularly those of the Italian school, which
finally brought Galenism to the ground.
Vesalius (1514-64), the modern "Father of Anatomy," for dissecting
human bodies, was fiercely assailed by the hosts of orthodoxy,
including that stout Galenist, his old teacher Jacques Dubois (Jacobus
Sylvius). Vesalius held on his way, however, proving, _inter alia_,
that Galen had been wrong in saying that the interventricular septum
of the heart was permeable (_cf._ present volume, p. 321).
Michael Servetus (1509-53) suggested that the blood, in order to get
from the right to the left side of the heart, might have to pass
through the lungs. For his heterodox opinions he was burned at the
stake.
Another 16th-century anatomist, Andrea Cesalpino, is considered by the
Italians to have been a discoverer of the circulation of the blood
before Harvey; he certainly had a more or less clear idea of the
circulation, but, as in the case of the "organic evolutionists before
Darwin," he failed to prove his point by conclusive demonstration.
[Sidenote: William Harvey (1578-1657).]
William Harvey, the great Englishman who founded modern experimental
physiology and was the first to establish not only the fact of the
circulation but also the physical laws governing it, is commonly
reckoned the Father of Modern Medicine. He owed his interest in the
movements of the blood to Fabricio of Acquapendente, his tutor at
Padua, who drew his attention to the valves in the veins, thus
suggesting the idea of a circular as opposed to a to-and-fro motion.
Harvey's great generalisation, based upon a long series of experiments
_in vivo_, was considered to have given the _coup de grâce_ to the
Galenic physiology, and hence threw temporary discredit upon the whole
system of medicine associated therewith.
Modern medicine, based upon a painstaking research into the details
of physiological function, had begun.
[Sidenote: Back to Galen!]
While we cannot sufficiently commend the results of the long modern
period of research-work to which the labours of the Renascence
anatomists from Vesalius to Harvey form a fitting prelude, we yet by
no means allow that Galen's general medical outlook was so entirely
invalidated as many imagine by the conclusive demonstration of his
anatomical errors. It is time for us now to turn to Galen again after
three hundred years of virtual neglect: it may be that he will help us
to see something fundamentally important for medical practice which is
beyond the power even of our microscopes and _X_-rays to reveal. While
the value of his work undoubtedly lies mainly in its enabling us to
envisage one of the greatest of the early steps attained by man in
medical knowledge, it also has a very definite intrinsic value of its
own.
[Sidenote: Galen's Debt to his Precursors.]
No attempt can be made here to determine how much of Galen's work is,
in the true sense of the word, original, and how much is drawn from
the labours of his predecessors. In any case, there is no doubt that
he was much more than a mere compiler and systematizer of other men's
work: he was great enough to be able not merely to collect, to digest,
and to assimilate all the best of the work done before his time, but,
adding to this the outcome of his own observations, experiments, and
reflections, to present the whole in an articulated "system" showing
that perfect balance of parts which is the essential criterion of a
work of art. Constantly, however, in his writings we shall come across
traces of the influence of, among others, Plato, Aristotle, and
writers of the Stoic school.
[Sidenote: Influence of Hippocrates on Galen.]
Although Galen is an eclectic in the best sense of influence of the
term, there is one name to which he pays a very special tribute--that
of his illustrious forerunner Hippocrates. Him on quite a number of
occasions he actually calls "divine" (_cf._ p. 293).
"Hippocrates," he says, "was the first known to us of all who have
been both physicians and philosophers, in that _he was the first to
recognise what nature does_." Here is struck the keynote of the
teaching of both Hippocrates and Galen; this is shown in the volume
before us, which deals with "the _natural_ faculties"--that is with
the faculties of this same "Nature" or vital principle referred to in
the quotation.
[Sidenote: "The Natural Faculties."]
If Galen be looked on as a crystallisation of Greek medicine, then
this book may be looked on as a crystallisation of Galen. Within its
comparatively short compass we meet with instances illustrating
perhaps most of the sides of this many-sided writer. The "Natural
Faculties" therefore forms an excellent prelude to the study of his
larger and more specialised works.
[Sidenote: Galen's "Physiology."]
What, now, is this "Nature" or biological principle upon which Galen,
like Hippocrates, bases the whole of his medical teaching, and which,
we may add, is constantly overlooked--if indeed ever properly
apprehended--by many physiologists of the present day? By using this
term Galen meant simply that, when we deal with a living thing, we are
dealing primarily with a unity, which, _quâ_ living, is not further
divisible; all its parts can only be understood and dealt with as
being _in relation to_ this principle of unity. Galen was thus led to
criticise with considerable severity many of the medical and surgical
specialists of his time, who acted on the assumption (implicit if not
explicit) that the whole was merely the sum of its parts, and that if,
in an ailing organism, these parts were treated each in and for
itself, the health of the whole organism could in this way be
eventually restored.
Galen expressed this idea of the unity of the organism by saying that
it was governed by a _Physis_ or Nature ([Greek: hê physis hêper
dioikei to zôon]), with whose "faculties" or powers it was the
province of [Greek: physiologia] (physiology, Nature-lore) to deal.
It was because Hippocrates had a clear sense of this principle that
Galen called him master. "Greatest," say the Moslems, "is Allah, and
Mohammed is his prophet." "Greatest," said Galen, "is the Physis, and
Hippocrates is its prophet." Never did Mohammed more zealously
maintain the unity of the Godhead than Hippocrates and Galen the unity
of the organism.
[Sidenote: Galen's Physics.]
But we shall not have read far before we discover that the term
_Physiology_, as used by Galen, stands not merely for what we
understand by it nowadays, but also for a large part of _Physics_ as
well. This is one of the chief sources of confusion in his writings.
Having grasped, for example, the uniqueness of the process of
_specific selection_ ([Greek: holkê tou oikeiou]), by which the
tissues nourish themselves, he proceeds to apply this principle in
explanation of entirely different classes of phenomena; thus he mixes
it up with the physical phenomenon of the attraction of the lodestone
for iron, of dry grain for moisture, etc. It is noteworthy, however,
in these latter instances, that he does not venture to follow out his
comparison to its logical conclusion; he certainly stops short of
hinting that the lodestone (like a living organ or tissue)
_assimilates_ the metal which it has attracted!
Setting aside, however, these occasional half-hearted attempts to
apply his principle of a [Greek: physis] in regions where it has no
natural standing, we shall find that in the field of biology Galen
moves with an assurance bred of first-hand experience.
[Sidenote: The Mechanical Physicists.]
Against his attempt to "biologize" physics may be set the converse
attempt of the mechanical Atomist school. Thus in Asclepiades he found
a doughty defender of the view that physiology was "merely" physics.
Galen's ire being roused, he is not content with driving the enemy out
of the biological camp, but must needs attempt also to dislodge him
from that of physics, in which he has every right to be.
[Sidenote: The Anatomists.]
In defence of the universal validity of his principle, Galen also
tends to excessive disparagement of morphological factors; witness his
objection to the view of the anatomist Erasistratus that the calibre
of vessels played a part in determining the secretion of fluids (p.
123), that digestion was caused by the mechanical action of the
stomach walls (p. 243), and dropsy by induration of the liver (p.
171).
[Sidenote: Characteristics of the Living Organism.]
While combating the atomic explanation of physical processes, Galen of
course realised that there were many of these which could only be
explained according to what we should now call "mechanical laws." For
example, non-living things could be subjected to [Greek: phora]
(passive motion), they answered to the laws of gravity ([Greek: tais
tôn hylôn oiakizomena rhopais], p. 126). Furthermore, Galen did not
fail to see that living things also were not entirely exempted from
the operation of these laws; they too may be at least partly subject
to gravity (_loc. cit._); a hollow organ exerts, by virtue of its
cavity, an attraction similar to that of dilating bellows, as well as,
by virtue of the living tissue of its walls, a specifically "vital" or
selective kind of attraction (p. 325).
As a type of characteristically vital action we may take _nutrition_,
in which occurs a phenomenon which Galen calls _active motion_
([Greek: drastikê kinêsis]) or, more technically, _alteration_
([Greek: alloiôsis]). This active type of motion cannot be adequately
stated in terms of the passive movements (groupings and re-groupings)
of its constituent parts according to certain empirical "laws."
Alteration involves _self-movement_, a self-determination of the
organism or organic part. Galen does not attempt to explain this
fundamental characteristic of _alteration_ any further; he contents
himself with referring his opponents to Aristotle's work on the
"Complete Alteration of Substance" (p. 9).
The most important characteristic of the Physis or Nature is its
[Greek: technê]--its artistic creativeness. In other words, the living
organism is a creative artist. This feature may be observed typically
in its primary functions of _growth_ and _nutrition_; these are
dependent on the characteristic _faculties_ or powers, by virtue of
which each part draws to itself what is proper or appropriate to it
([Greek: to oikeion]) and rejects what is foreign ([Greek: to
allotrion]), thereafter appropriating or assimilating the attracted
material; this assimilation is an example of the _alteration_ (or
qualitative change) already alluded to; thus the food eaten is
"altered" into the various tissues of the body, each of these having
been provided by "Nature" with its own specific faculties of
attraction and repulsion.
[Sidenote: The Three Categories.]
Any of the operations of the living part may be looked on in three
ways, either (_a_) as a [Greek: dynamis], faculty, potentiality;
(_b_) as an [Greek: energeia], which is this [Greek: dynamis] in
operation; or (_c_) as an [Greek: ergon], the product or effect of the
[Greek: energeia].[3]
[Sidenote: Galen's Method.]
Like his master Hippocrates, Galen attached fundamental importance to
clinical observation--to the evidence of the senses as the
indispensable groundwork of all medical knowledge. He had also,
however, a forte for rapid generalisation from observations, and his
logical proclivities disposed him particularly to deductive
reasoning. Examples of an almost Euclidean method of argument may be
found in the _Natural Faculties_ (_e.g._ Book III. chap. i.). While
this method undoubtedly gave him much help in his search for truth, it
also not unfrequently led him astray. This is evidenced by his
attempt, already noted, to apply the biological principle of the
[Greek: physis] in physics. Characteristic examples of attempts to
force facts to fit premises will be found in Book II. chap. ix., where
our author demonstrates that yellow bile is "virtually" dry, and also,
by a process of exclusion, assigns to the spleen the function of
clearing away black bile. Strangest of all is his attempt to prove
that the same principle of specific attraction by which the ultimate
tissues nourish themselves (and the lodestone attracts iron!) accounts
for the reception of food into the stomach, of urine into the kidneys,
of bile into the gall-bladder, and of semen into the uterus.
These instances are given, however, without prejudice to the system of
generalisation and deduction which, in Galen's hands, often proved
exceedingly fruitful. He is said to have tried "to unite professional
and scientific medicine with a philosophic link." He objected,
however, to such extreme attempts at simplification of medical science
as that of the Methodists, to whom diseases were isolated entities,
without any relationships in time or space (_v._ p. xv. _supra_).
He based much of his pathological reasoning upon the "humoral theory"
of Hippocrates, according to which certain diseases were caused by one
or more of the four humours (blood, phlegm, black and yellow bile)
being in excess--that is, by various _dyscrasiae_. Our modern
conception of "hormone" action shows certain resemblances with this
theory.
Besides observation and reasoning, Galen took his stand on
_experiment_; he was one of the first of experimental physiologists,
as is illustrated in the present book by his researches into the
function of the kidneys (p. 59 _et seq._). He also conducted a long
series of experiments into the physiology of the spinal cord, to
determine what parts controlled movement and what sensibility.
As a practitioner he modelled his work largely on the broad and simple
lines laid down by Hippocrates. He had also at his disposal all the
acquisitions of biological science dating from the time of Aristotle
five hundred years earlier, and reinforced by the discoveries in
anatomy made by the Alexandrian school. To these he added a large
series of researches of his own.
Galen never confined himself to what one might call the academic or
strictly orthodox sources of information; he roamed the world over for
answers to his queries. For example, we find him on his journeys
between Pergamos and Rome twice visiting the island of Lemnos in order
to procure some of the _terra sigillata_, a kind of earth which had a
reputation for healing the bites of serpents and other wounds. At
other times he visited the copper-mines of Cyprus in search for
copper, and Palestine for the resin called Balm of Gilead.
By inclination and training Galen was the reverse of a "party-man." In
the _Natural Faculties_ (p. 55) he speaks of the bane of sectarian
partizanship, "harder to heal than any itch." He pours scorn upon the
ignorant "Erasistrateans" and "Asclepiadeans," who attempted to hide
their own incompetence under the shield of some great man's name
(_cf._ p. 141).
Of the two chief objects of his censure in the _Natural Faculties_,
Galen deals perhaps less rigorously with Erasistratus than with
Asclepiades. Erasistratus did at least recognize the existence of a
vital principle in the organism, albeit, with his eye on the
structures which the scalpel displayed he tended frequently to forget
it. The researches of the anatomical school of Alexandria had been
naturally of the greatest service to surgery, but in medicine they
sometimes had a tendency to check progress by diverting attention from
the whole to the part.
[Sidenote: The Pneuma or Spirit.]
Another novel conception frequently occurring in Galen's writings is
that of the _Pneuma_ (_i.e._ the breath, _spiritus_). This word is
used in two senses, as meaning (1) the inspired air, which was drawn
into the left side of the heart and thence carried all over the body
by the arteries; this has not a few analogies with oxygen,
particularly as its action in the tissues is attended with the
appearance of the so-called "innate heat." (2) A vital principle,
conceived as being made up of matter in the most subtle imaginable
state (_i.e._ air). This vital principle became resolved into three
kinds: (_a_) [Greek: pneuma physikon] or _spiritus naturalis_, carried
by the veins, and presiding over the subconscious vegetative life;
this "natural spirit" is therefore practically equivalent to the
[Greek: physis] or "nature" itself. (_b_) The [Greek: pneuma zôtikon]
or _spiritus vitalis_; here particularly is a source of error, since
the air already alluded to as being carried by the arteries tends to
be confused with this principle of "individuality" or relative
autonomy in the circulatory (including, perhaps, the vasomotor)
system. (_c_) The [Greek: pneuma psychikon] or _spiritus animalis_
(anima = [Greek: psychê]), carried by longitudinal canals in the nerves;
this corresponds to the [Greek: psychê].
This view of a "vital principle" as necessarily consisting of matter
in a finely divided, fluid, or "etheric" state is not unknown even in
our day. Belief in the fundamental importance of the Pneuma formed the
basis of the teaching of another vitalist school in ancient Greece,
that of the Pneumatists.
[Sidenote: Galen and the Circulation of the Blood.]
It is unnecessary to detail here the various ways in which Galen's
physiological views differ from those of the Moderns, as most of these
are noticed in footnotes to the text of the present translation. His
ignorance of the circulation of the blood does not lessen the force of
his general physiological conclusions to the extent that might be
anticipated. In his opinion, the great bulk of the blood travelled
with a to-and-fro motion in the veins, while a little of it, mixed
with inspired air, moved in the same way along the arteries; whereas
we now know that all the blood goes outward by the arteries and
returns by the veins; in either case blood is carried to the tissues
by blood-vessels, and Galen's ideas of tissue-nutrition were
wonderfully sound. The ingenious method by which (in ignorance of the
pulmonary circulation) he makes blood pass from the right to the left
ventricle, may be read in the present work (p. 321). As will be seen,
he was conversant with the "anastomoses" between the ultimate branches
of arteries and veins, although he imagined that they were not used
under "normal" conditions.
[Sidenote: Galen's Character.]
Galen was not only a man of great intellectual gifts, but one also of
strong moral fibre. In his short treatise "That the best Physician is
also a Philosopher" he outlines his professional ideals. It is
necessary for the efficient healer to be versed in the three branches
of "philosophy," viz.: (_a_) _logic_, the science of how to think;
(_b_) _physics_, the science of what is--_i.e._ of "Nature" in the
widest sense; (_c_) _ethics_, the science of what to do. The amount of
toil which he who wishes to be a physician must undergo--firstly, in
mastering the work of his predecessors and afterwards in studying
disease at first hand--makes it absolutely necessary that he should
possess perfect self-control, that he should scorn money and the weak
pleasures of the senses, and should live laborious days.
Readers of the following pages will notice that Galen uses what we
should call distinctly immoderate language towards those who ventured
to differ from the views of his master Hippocrates (which were also
his own). The employment of such language was one of the few
weaknesses of his age which he did not transcend. Possibly also his
mother's choleric temper may have predisposed him to it.
The fact, too, that his vivisection experiments (_e.g._ pp. 59, 273)
were carried out apparently without any kind of anaesthetisation being
even thought of is abhorrent to the feelings of to-day, but must be
excused also on the ground that callousness towards animals was then
customary, men having probably never thought much about the subject.
[Sidenote: Galen's Greek Style.]
Galen is a master of language, using a highly polished variety of
Attic prose with a precision which can be only very imperfectly
reproduced in another tongue. Every word he uses has an exact and
definite meaning attached to it. Translation is particularly difficult
when a word stands for a physiological conception which is not now
held; instances are the words _anadosis_, _prosthesis_, and
_prosphysis_, indicating certain steps in the process by which
nutriment is conveyed from the alimentary canal to the tissues.
Readers will be surprised to find how many words are used by Galen
which they would have thought had been expressly coined to fit modern
conceptions; thus our author employs not merely such terms as
_physiology_, _phthisis_, _atrophy_, _anastomosis_, but also
_haematopoietic_, _anaesthesia_, and even _aseptic_! It is only fair,
however, to remark that these terms, particularly the last, were not
used by Galen in quite their modern significance.
[Sidenote: Summary.]
To resume, then: What contribution can Galen bring to the art of
healing at the present day? It was not, surely, for nothing that the
great Pergamene gave laws to the medical world for over a thousand
years!
Let us draw attention once more to:
(1) The high ideal which he set before the profession.
(2) His insistence on immediate contact with nature as the primary
condition for arriving at an understanding of disease; on the need for
due consideration of previous authorities; on the need also for
reflection--for employment of the mind's eye ([Greek: hê logikê
theôria]) as an aid to the physical eye.
(3) His essentially broad outlook, which often helped him in the
comprehension of a phenomenon through his knowledge of an analogous
phenomenon in another field of nature.
(4) His keen appreciation of the unity of the organism, and of the
inter-dependence of its parts; his realisation that the vital
phenomena (physiological and pathological) in a living organism can
only be understood when considered in relation to the _environment_ of
that organism or part. This is the foundation for the war that Galen
waged _à outrance_ on the Methodists, to whom diseases were things
without relation to anything. This dispute is, unfortunately, not
touched upon in the present volume. What Galen combated was the
tendency, familiar enough in our own day, to reduce medicine to the
science of finding a label for each patient, and then treating not the
patient, but the label. (This tendency, we may remark in parenthesis,
is one which is obviously well suited for the _standardising_ purposes
of a State medical service, and is therefore one which all who have
the weal of the profession at heart must most jealously watch in the
difficult days that lie ahead.)
(5) His realisation of the inappropriateness and inadequacy of
physical formulae in explaining physiological activities. Galen's
disputes with Asclepiades over [Greek: ta prôta ekeina sômata ta
apathê], over the [Greek: anarma stoicheia kai lêrôdeis onkoi], is but
another aspect of his quarrel with the Methodists regarding their
pathological "units," whose primary characteristic was just this same
[Greek: apatheia] (impassiveness to environment, "unimpressionability").
We have of course our Physiatric or Iatromechanical school at the
present day, to whom such processes as absorption from the alimentary
canal, the respiratory interchange of gases, and the action of the renal
epithelium are susceptible of a purely physical explanation.[4]
(6) His quarrel with the Anatomists, which was in essence the same as
that with the Atomists, and which arose from his clear realisation
that that primary and indispensable desideratum, a view of the whole,
could never be obtained by a mere summation of partial views; hence,
also, his sense of the dangers which would beset the medical art if it
were allowed to fall into the hands of a mere crowd of competing
specialists without any organising head to guide them.
[1] _On the Affections of the Mind_, p. 41 (Kühn's ed.).
[2] "Averrhoës who made the great Commentary" (Dante). It
was Averrhoës (Ebn Roshd) who, in the 12th century,
introduced Aristotle to the Mohammedan world, and the
"Commentary" referred to was on Aristotle.
[3] What appear to me to be certain resemblances between
the Galenical and the modern vitalistic views of Henri
Bergson may perhaps be alluded to here. Galen's vital
principle, [Greek: hê technikê physis] ("creative
growth"), presents analogies with _l'Evolution créatrice_:
both manifest their activity in producing qualitative
change ([Greek: alloiôsis], _changement_): in both, the
creative change cannot be analysed into a series of static
states, but is one and continuous. In Galen, however, it
comes to an end with the _development of the individual_,
whereas in Bergson it continues indefinitely as the
_evolution of life_. The three aspects of organic life may
be tabulated thus:--
[Greek: dynamis] [Greek: energeia] [Greek: ergon]
Work to be done. Work being done. Work done, finished.
Future aspect. Present aspect. Past aspect.
Function. Structure.
The _élan vital_. A "thing."
A changing which
cannot be understood
as a sum of static
parts; a constant
becoming, never
stopping--at least
till the [Greek: ergon]
is reached.
Bergson's Bergson's Bergson's "outlook
"teleological" "philosophical" of physical
aspect. aspect. science."
Galen recognized "creativeness" ([Greek: technê]) in the
_development_ of the individual and its parts (ontogeny)
and in the maintenance of these, but he failed to
appreciate the creative _evolution_ of species
(phylogeny), which is, of course, part of the same
process. To the teleologist the possibilities ([Greek:
dynameis]) of the Physis are limited, to Bergson they
are unlimited. Galen and Bergson agree in attaching most
practical importance to the middle category--that of
Function.
While it must be conceded that Galen, following
Aristotle, had never seriously questioned the fixity of
species, the following quotation from his work _On
Habits_ (chap. ii.) will show that he must have at least
had occasional glimmerings of our modern point of view
on the matter. Referring to _assimilation_, he says:
"Just as everything we eat or drink becomes _altered in
quality_, so of course also does the altering factor
itself become altered.... A clear proof of the
assimilation of things which are being nourished to that
which is nourishing them is the change which occurs in
plants and seeds; this often goes so far that what is
highly noxious in one soil becomes, when transplanted
into another soil, not merely harmless, but actually
useful. This has been largely put to the test by those
who compose memoirs on farming and on plants, as also by
zoological authors who have written on the changes which
occur according to the countries in which animals live.
Since, therefore, not only is the nourishment altered by
the creature nourished, but the latter itself also
undergoes some slight alteration, _this slight
alteration must necessarily become considerable in the
course of time_, and thus properties resulting from
prolonged habit must come to be on a par with natural
properties."
Galen fails to see the possibility that the "natural"
properties themselves originated in this way, as
activities which gradually became habitual--that is to
say, that the effects of _nurture_ may become a "second
nature," and so eventually _nature_ itself.
The whole passage, however, may be commended to modern
biologists--particularly, might one say, to those
bacteriologists who have not yet realised how
extraordinarily _relative_ is the term "specificity"
when applied to the subject-matter of their science.
[4] In terms of filtration, diffusion, and osmosis.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Codices
Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris. No. 2267.
Library of St. Mark. Venice. No. 275.
Translations
Arabic translations by Honain in the Escurial Library, and
in the Library at Leyden. Hebrew translation in the
Library at Bonn. Latin translations in the Library of
Gonville and Caius College (MSS.), No. 947; also by
Linacre in editions published, London, 1523; Paris,
1528; Leyden, 1540, 1548, and 1550; also by C.G. Kühn,
Leipzig, 1821.
Commentaries and Appreciations
Nic. de Anglia in Bib. Nat. Paris (MSS.), No. 7015; J.
Rochon, _ibidem_, No. 7025; J. Segarra, 1528; J. Sylvius,
1550, 1560; L. Joubert, 1599; M. Sebitz, 1644, 1645;
J.B. Pacuvius, 1554; J.C.G. Ackermann, 1821, in
the introduction to Kühn's translation, p. lxxx; Ilberg
in articles on "Die Schriftstellerei des Klaudios
Galenos," in _Rhein. Mus._, Nos. 44, 47, 51, and 52
(years 1889, 1892, 1896 and 1897); I. von Mueller in
_Quæstiones Criticae de Galeni libris_, Erlangen, 1871;
Steinschneider in Virchow's _Archiv_, No. cxxiv. for
1891; Wenrich in _De auctorum graecorum versionibus
et commentariis syriacis, arabicis, armiacis, persisque_,
Leipzig, 1842.
SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS
BOOK I
Chapter I
Distinction between the effects of (_a_) the organism's
_psyche_ or soul (_b_) its _physis_ or nature. The
author proposes to confine himself to a consideration of
the latter--the vegetative--aspect of life.
Chapter II
Definition of terms. Different kinds of _motion_.
_Alteration_ or qualitative change. Refutation of the
Sophists' objection that such change is only apparent,
not real. The four fundamental qualities of Hippocrates
(later Aristotle). Distinction between _faculty_,
_activity_ (function), and _effect_ (work or product).
Chapter III
It is by virtue of the _four qualities_ that each part
functions. Some authorities subordinate the dry and the
moist principles to the hot and the cold. Aristotle
inconsistent here.
Chapter IV
We must suppose that there are _faculties_ corresponding
in number to the visible _effects_ (or products) with
which we are familiar.
Chapter V
Genesis, growth, and nutrition. Genesis (embryogeny)
sub-divided into histogenesis and organogenesis. Growth
is a tridimensional expansion of the solid parts formed
during genesis. Nutrition.
Chapter VI
The process of genesis (embryogeny) from insemination
onwards. Each of the simple, elementary, homogeneous
parts (tissues) is produced by a special blend of the
four primary alterative faculties (such secondary
alterative faculties being _ostopoietic_,
_neuropoietic_, etc.). A special _function_ and _use_
also corresponds to each of these special tissues. The
bringing of these tissues together into _organs_ and the
disposal of these organs is performed by another faculty
called _diaplastic_, _moulding_, or _formative_.
Chapter VII
We now pass from genesis to _growth_. Growth essentially
a post-natal process; it involves two factors, expansion
and nutrition, explained by analogy of a familiar
child's game.
Chapter VIII
Nutrition.
Chapter IX
These three primary faculties (genesis, growth,
nutrition) have various others subservient to them.
Chapter X
Nutrition not a simple process. (1) Need of subsidiary
organs for the various stages of alteration, _e.g._, of
bread into blood, of that into bone, etc. (2) Need also
of organs for excreting the non-utilizable portions of
the food, _e.g._, much vegetable matter is superfluous.
(3) Need of organs of a third kind, for distributing the
pabulum through the body.
Chapter XI
Nutrition analysed into the stages of application
(_prosthesis_), adhesion (_prosphysis_), and
assimilation. The stages illustrated by certain
pathological conditions. Different shades of meaning of
the term _nutriment_.
Chapter XII
The two chief medico-philosophical schools--Atomist and
Vitalist. Hippocrates an adherent of the latter
school--his doctrine of an original principle or
"nature" in every living thing (doctrine of the unity of
the organism).
Chapter XIII
Failure of Asclepiades to understand the functions of
kidneys and ureters. His hypothesis of vaporization of
imbibed fluids is here refuted. A demonstration of
urinary secretion in the living animal; the forethought
and artistic skill of Nature vindicated. Refutation also
of Asclepiades's disbelief in the special selective
action of purgative drugs.
Chapter XIV
While Asclepiades denies _in toto_ the obvious fact of
specific attraction, Epicurus grants the fact, although
his attempt to explain it by the atomic hypothesis
breaks down. Refutation of the Epicurean theory of
magnetic attraction. Instances of specific attraction of
thorns and animal poisons by medicaments, of moisture by
corn, etc.
Chapter XV
It now being granted that the urine is secreted by the
kidneys, the _rationale_ of this secretion is enquired
into. The kidneys are not mechanical filters, but are by
virtue of their _nature_ possessed of a specific faculty
of attraction.
Chapter XVI
Erasistratus, again, by his favourite principle of
_horror vacui_ could never explain the secretion of
urine by the kidneys. While, however, he acknowledged
that the kidneys do secrete urine, he makes no attempt
to explain this; he ignores, but does not attempt to
refute, the Hippocratic doctrine of specific
_attraction_. "Servile" position taken up by Asclepiades
and Erasistratus in regard to this function of urinary
secretion.
Chapter XVII
Three other attempts (by adherents of the Erasistratean
school and by Lycus of Macedonia) to explain how the
kidneys come to separate out urine from the blood. All
these ignore the obvious principle of attraction.
BOOK II
Chapter I
In order to explain dispersal of food from alimentary
canal _viâ_ the veins (_anadosis_) there is no need to
invoke with Erasistratus, the _horror vacui_, since here
again the principle of specific attraction is operative;
moreover, blood is also driven forward by the
compressing action of the stomach and the contractions
of the veins. Possibility, however, of Erasistratus's
factor playing a certain minor _rôle_.
Chapter II
The Erasistratean idea that bile becomes separated out
from the blood in the liver because, being the thinner
fluid, it alone can enter the narrow stomata of the
bile-ducts, while the thicker blood can only enter the
wider mouths of the hepatic venules.
Chapter III
The morphological factors suggested by Erasistratus are
quite inadequate to explain biological happenings.
Erasistratus inconsistent with his own statements. The
immanence of the _physis_ or nature; her shaping is not
merely external like that of a statuary, but involves
the entire substance. In genesis (embryogeny) the semen
is the active, and the menstrual blood the passive,
principle. Attractive, alterative, and formative
faculties of the semen. Embryogeny is naturally followed
by growth; these two functions distinguished.
Chapter IV
Unjustified claim by Erasistrateans that their founder
had associations with the Peripatetic (Aristotelian)
school. The characteristic physiological tenets of that
school (which were all anticipated by Hippocrates) in no
way agree with those of Erasistratus, save that both
recognize the purposefulness of Nature; in practice,
however, Erasistratus assumed numerous exceptions to
this principle. Difficulty of understanding why he
rejected the biological principle of attraction in
favour of anatomical factors.
Chapter V
A further difficulty raised by Erasistratus's statement
regarding secretion of bile in the liver.
Chapter VI
The same holds with nutrition. Even if we grant that
veins may obtain their nutrient blood by virtue of the
_horror vacui_ (chap. i.), how could this explain the
nutrition of nerves? Erasistratus's hypothesis of minute
elemental nerves and vessels within the ordinary visible
nerves simply throws the difficulty further back. And is
Erasistratus's minute "simple" nerve susceptible of
further analysis, as the Atomists would assume? If so,
this is opposed to the conception of a constructive and
artistic Nature which Erasistratus himself shares with
Hippocrates and the writer. And if his minute nerve is
really elementary and not further divisible, then it
cannot, according to his own showing, contain a cavity;
therefore the _horror vacui_ does not apply to it. And
how could this principle apply to the restoration to its
original bulk of a part which had become thin through
disease, where more matter must become attached than
runs away? A quotation from Erasistratus shows that he
did acknowledge an "attraction," although not exactly in
the Hippocratic sense.
Chapter VII
In the last resort, the ultimate living elements
(Erasistratus's _simple vessels_) must draw in their
food by virtue of an inherent attractive faculty like
that which the lodestone exerts on iron. Thus the
process of anadosis, from beginning to end, can be
explained without assuming a _horror vacui_.
Chapter VIII
Erasistratus's disregard for the humours. In respect to
excessive formation of bile, however, prevention is
better than cure: accordingly we must consider its
pathology. Does blood pre-exist in the food, or does it
come into existence in the body? Erasistratus's purely
anatomical explanation of _dropsy_. He entirely avoids
the question of the four qualities (_e.g._ the
importance of innate heat) in the generation of the
humours, etc. Yet the problem of blood-production is no
less important than that of gastric digestion. Proof
that bile does not pre-exist in the food. The four
fundamental qualities of Hippocrates and Aristotle. How
the humours are formed from food taken into the veins:
when heat is in proportionate amount, blood results;
when in excess, bile; when deficient, phlegm. Various
conditions determining cold or warm temperaments. The
four primary diseases result each from excess of one of
the four qualities. Erasistratus unwillingly
acknowledges this when he ascribes the indigestion
occurring in fever to _impaired function_ of the
stomach. For what causes this _functio laesa_? Proof
that it is the fever (excess of innate heat).
If, then, heat plays so important a part in abnormal
functioning, so must it also in normal (_i.e._ causes of
eucrasia involved in those of dyscrasia, of physiology
in those of pathology). A like argument explains the
_genesis of the humours_. Addition of warmth to things
already warm makes them bitter; thus honey turns to bile
in people who are already warm; where warmth deficient,
as in old people, it turns to useful blood. This is a
proof that bile does not pre-exist, as such, in the
food.
Chapter IX
The _functions of organs_ also depend on the way in
which the four qualities are mixed--_e.g._ the
contracting function of the stomach. Treatment only
possible when we know the _causes_ of errors of
function. The Erasistrateans practically Empiricists in
this respect. On an appreciation of the meaning of a
_dyscrasia_ follows naturally the Hippocratic principle
of treating opposites by opposites (_e.g._ cooling the
over-heated stomach, warming it when chilled, etc.).
Useless in treatment to know merely the function of each
organ; we must know the _bodily condition_ which upsets
this function. Blood is warm and moist. Yellow bile is
warm and (virtually, though not apparently) dry. Phlegm
is cold and moist. The fourth possible combination (cold
and dry) is represented by _black bile_. For the
clearing out of this humour from the blood, Nature has
provided the spleen--an organ which, according to
Erasistratus, fulfils no purpose. Proof of the
importance of the spleen is the jaundice, toxaemia,
etc., occurring when it is diseased. Erasistratus's
failure to mention the views of leading authorities on
this organ shows the hopelessness of his position. The
Hippocratic view has now been demonstrated deductively
and inductively. The classical view as to the generation
of the humours. Normal and pathological forms of yellow
and black bile. Part played by the _innate heat_ in
their production. Other kinds of bile are merely
transition-stages between these extreme types. Abnormal
forms removed by liver and spleen respectively. Phlegm,
however, does not need a special excretory organ, as it
can undergo entire metabolism in the body.
Need for studying the works of the Ancients carefully,
in order to reach a proper understanding of this
subject.
BOOK III
Chapter I
A recapitulation of certain points previously
demonstrated. Every part of the animal has an attractive
and an alterative (assimilative) faculty; it attracts
the nutrient juice which is proper to it. Assimilation
is preceded by adhesion (_prosphysis_) and that again,
by application (_prosthesis_). Application the goal of
attraction. It would not, however, be followed by
adhesion and assimilation if each part did not also
possess a faculty for _retaining in position_ the
nutriment which has been applied. _A priori_ necessity
for this _retentive_ faculty.
Chapter II
The same faculty to be proved _a posteriori_. Its
corresponding _function_ (_i.e._ the activation of this
faculty or potentiality) well seen in the large hollow
organs, notably the uterus and stomach.
Chapter III
Exercise of the retentive faculty particularly well seen
in the uterus. Its object is to allow the embryo to
attain full development; this being completed, a new
faculty--the expulsive--hitherto quiescent, comes into
play. Characteristic signs and symptoms of pregnancy.
Tight grip of uterus on growing embryo, and accurate
closure of os uteri during operation of the retentive
faculty. Dilatation of os and expulsive activities of
uterus at full term, or when foetus dies. Prolapse from
undue exercise of this faculty. _Rôle_ of the midwife.
Accessory muscles in parturition.
Chapter IV
Same two faculties seen in stomach. _Gurglings_ or
_borborygmi_ show that this organ is weak and is not
gripping its contents tightly enough. Undue delay of
food in a weak stomach proved not to be due to
narrowness of pylorus: length of stay depends on whether
_digestion_ (another instance of the characteristically
vital process of _alteration_) has taken place or not.
Erasistratus wrong in attributing digestion merely to
the mechanical action of the stomach walls. When
digestion completed, then pylorus opens and allows
contents to pass downwards, just as os uteri when
development of embyro completed.
Chapter V
If attraction and elimination always proceeded _pari
passu_, the content of these hollow organs (including
gall-bladder and urinary bladder) would never vary in
amount. A _retentive_ faculty, therefore, also logically
needed. Its existence demonstrated. Expulsion determined
by qualitative and quantitative changes of contents.
"Diarrhoea" of stomach. Vomiting.
Chapter VI
Every organic part has an _appetite_ and _aversion_ for
the qualities which are appropriate and foreign to it
respectively. Attraction necessarily leads to a certain
_benefit_ received. This again necessitates _retention_.
Chapter VII
Interaction between two bodies; the stronger masters the
weaker; a deleterious drug masters the forces of the
body, whereas food is mastered by them; this mastery is
an _alteration_, and the amount of alteration varies
with the different organs; thus a partial alteration is
effected in mouth by saliva, but much greater in
stomach, where not only gastric juice, but also bile,
pneuma, innate heat (_i.e._ oxidation?), and other
powerful factors are brought to bear on it; need of
considerable alteration in stomach as a
transition-stage between food and blood; appearance of
faeces in intestine another proof of great alteration
effected in stomach. Asclepiades's denial of real
qualitative change in stomach rebutted. Erasistratus's
denial that digestion in any way resembles a _boiling_
process comes from his taking words too literally.
Chapter VIII
Erasistratus denies that the stomach exerts any pull in
the act of swallowing. That he is wrong, however, is
proved by the anatomical structure of the stomach--its
inner coat with longitudinal fibres obviously acts as a
_vis a fronte_ (attraction), whilst its outer coat
exercises through the contraction of its circular fibres
a _vis a tergo_ (propulsion); the latter also comes into
play in vomiting. The stomach uses the oesophagus as a
kind of hand, to draw in its food with. The functions of
the two coats proved also by vivisection. Swallowing
cannot be attributed merely to the force of gravity.
Chapter IX
These four faculties which subserve nutrition are thus
apparent in many different parts of the body.
Chapter X
Need for elaborating the statements of the ancient
physicians. Superiority of Ancients to Moderns. This
state of affairs can only be rectified by a really
efficient education of youth. The chief requisites of
such an education.
Chapter XI
For the sake of the few who realty wish truth, the
argument will be continued. A third kind of fibre--the
_oblique_--subserves _retention_; the way in which this
fibre is disposed in different coats.
Chapter XII
The factor which brings the expulsive faculty into
action is essentially a condition of the organ or its
contents which is the reverse of that which determined
attraction. Analogy between abortion and normal
parturition. Whatever produces _discomfort_ must be
expelled. That discomfort also determines expulsion of
contents from gall-bladder is not so evident as in the
case of stomach, uterus, urinary bladder, etc., but can
be logically demonstrated.
Chapter XIII
Expulsion takes place through the same channel as
attraction (_e.g._, in stomach, gall-bladder, uterus).
Similarly the delivery (_anadosis_) of nutriment to the
liver from the food-canal _viâ_ the mesenteric veins may
have its direction reversed. Continuous give-and-take
between different parts of the body; superior strength
of certain parts is natural, of others acquired. When
liver contains abundant food and stomach depleted,
latter may draw on former; this occurs when animal can
get nothing to eat, and so prevents starvation.
Similarly, when one part becomes over-distended, it
tends to deposit its excess in some weaker part near it;
this passes it on to some still weaker part, which
cannot get rid of it; hence _deposits_ of various kinds.
Further instances of reversal of the normal direction of
anadosis from the food canal through the veins. Such
reversal of functions would in any case be expected _a
priori_. In the vomiting of intestinal obstruction,
matter may be carried backwards all the way from the
intestine to the mouth; not surprising, therefore, that,
under certain circumstances, food-material might be
driven right back from the skin-surface to the
alimentary canal (_e.g._ in excessive chilling of
surface); not much needed to determine this reversal of
direction. Action of purgative drugs upon terminals of
veins; one part draws from another until whole body
participates; similarly in intestinal obstruction, each
part passes on the irritating substance to its weaker
neighbour. Reversal of direction of flow occurs not
merely on occasion but also constantly (as in arteries,
lungs, heart, etc.). The various stages of normal
nutrition described. Why the stomach sometimes draws
back the nutriment it had passed on to portal veins and
liver. A similar ebb and flow in relation to the spleen.
Comparison of the parts of the body to a lot of animals
at a feast. The valves of the heart are a provision of
Nature to prevent this otherwise inevitable
regurgitation, though even they are not quite efficient.
Chapter XIV
The superficial arteries, when they dilate, draw in air
from the atmosphere, and the deeper ones a fine,
vaporous blood from the veins and heart. Lighter matter
such as air will always be drawn in preference to
heavier; this is why the arteries in the food-canal draw
in practically none of the nutrient matter contained in
it.
Chapter XV
The two kinds of attraction--the mechanical attraction
of dilating bellows and the "physical" (vital)
attraction by living tissue of nutrient matter which is
specifically allied or appropriate to it. The former
kind--that resulting from _horror vacui_--acts primarily
on light matter, whereas vital attraction has no
essential concern with such mechanical factors. A hollow
organ exercises, by virtue of its cavity, the former
kind of attraction, and by virtue of the living tissue
of its walls, the second kind. Application of this to
question of contents of arteries; _anastomoses of
arteries and veins_. _Foramina in interventricular
septum of heart_, allowing some blood to pass from right
to left ventricle. Large size of aorta probably due to
fact that it not merely carries the pneuma received from
the lungs, but also some of the blood which percolates
through septum from right ventricle. Thus arteries carry
not merely pneuma, but also some light vaporous blood,
which certain parts need more than the ordinary thick
blood of the veins. The organic parts must have their
blood-supply sufficiently near to allow them to absorb
it; comparison with an irrigation system in a garden.
Details of the process of nutrition in the ultimate
specific tissues; some are nourished from the blood
directly; in others a series of intermediate stages must
precede complete assimilation; for example, marrow is an
intermediate stage between blood and bone.
From the generalisations arrived at in the present work
we can deduce the explanation of all kinds of particular
phenomena; an instance is given, showing the
co-operation of various factors previously discussed.
GALEN
ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES[5]
BOOK I
I
Since feeling and voluntary motion are peculiar to animals, whilst
growth and nutrition are common to plants as well, we may look on the
former as effects[6] of the _soul_[7] and the latter as effects of the
_nature_.[8] And if there be anyone who allows a share in soul to
plants as well, and separates the two kinds of soul, naming the kind
in question _vegetative_, and the other _sensory_, this person is not
saying anything else, although his language is somewhat unusual. We,
however, for our part, are convinced that the chief merit of language
is clearness, and we know that nothing detracts so much from this as
do unfamiliar terms; accordingly we employ those terms which the bulk
of people are accustomed to use, and we say that animals are governed
at once by their soul and by their nature, and plants by their nature
alone, and that growth and nutrition are the effects of nature, not of
soul.
GALÊNOU
PERI PHYSIKÔN DYNAMEÔN
A
I
Epeidê to men aisthanesthai te kai kineisthai kata 1
proairesin idia tôn zôôn esti, to d' auxanesthai te kai
trephesthai koina kai tois phytois, eiê an ta men
protera tês psychês, ta de deutera tês physeôs erga. ei
de tis kai tois phytois psychês metadidôsi kai
diairoumenos autas onomazei phytikên men tautên,
aisthêtikên de tên heteran, legei men oud' houtos alla,
tê lexei d' ou pany tê synêthei kechrêtai. all' hêmeis
ge megistên lexeôs aretên saphêneian einai pepeismenoi
kai tautên eidotes || hyp' oudenos houtôs hôs hypo tôn 2
asynêthôn onomatôn diaphtheiromenên, hôs tois pollois
ethos, houtôs onomazontes hypo men psychês th' hama kai
physeôs ta zôa dioikeisthai phamen, hypo de physeôs
monês ta phyta kai to g' auxanesthai te kai trephesthai
physeôs erga phamen, ou psychês.
II
Thus we shall enquire, in the course of this treatise, from what
_faculties_ these effects themselves, as well as any other effects of
nature which there may be, take their origin.
First, however, we must distinguish and explain clearly the various
terms which we are going to use in this treatise, and to what things
we apply them; and this will prove to be not merely an explanation of
terms but at the same time a demonstration of the effects of nature.
When, therefore, such and such a body undergoes no change from its
existing state, we say that it is _at rest_; but, if it departs from
this in any respect we then say that in this respect it _undergoes
motion_.[9] Accordingly, when it departs in various ways from its
pre-existing state, it will be said to undergo various kinds of
motion. Thus, if that which is white becomes black, or what is black
becomes white, it undergoes motion in respect to _colour_; or if what
was previously sweet now becomes bitter, or, conversely, from being
bitter now becomes sweet, it will be said to undergo motion in respect
to _flavour_; to both of these instances, as well as to those
previously mentioned, we shall apply the term _qualitative motion_.
And further, it is not only things which are altered in regard to
colour and flavour which, we say, undergo motion; when a warm thing
becomes cold, and a cold warm, here, too we speak of its undergoing
motion; similarly also when anything moist becomes dry, or dry
moist. Now, the common term which we apply to all these cases is
_alteration_.
This is one kind of motion. But there is another kind which occurs in
bodies which change their position, or as we say, pass from one place
to another; the name of this is _transference_.[10]
These two kinds of motion, then, are simple and primary, while
compounded from them we have _growth_ and _decay_,[11] as when a small
thing becomes bigger, or a big thing smaller, each retaining at the
same time its particular form. And two other kinds of motion are
_genesis_ and _destruction_,[12] genesis being a coming into
existence,[13] and destruction being the opposite.
Now, common to all kinds of motion is _change from the pre-existing
state_, while common to all conditions of rest is _retention of the
pre-existing state_. The Sophists, however, while allowing that bread
in turning into blood becomes changed as regards sight, taste, and
touch, will not agree that this change occurs in reality. Thus some of
them hold that all such phenomena are tricks and illusions of our
senses; the senses, they say, are affected now in one way, now in
another, whereas the underlying substance does not admit of any of
these changes to which the names are given. Others (such as
Anaxagoras)[14] will have it that the qualities do exist in it, but
that they are unchangeable and immutable from eternity to eternity,
and that these apparent alterations are brought about by _separation_
and _combination_.
Now, if I were to go out of my way to confute these people, my
subsidiary task would be greater than my main one. Thus, if they do
not know all that has been written, "On Complete Alteration of
Substance"[15] by Aristotle, and after him by Chrysippus,[16] I must
beg of them to make themselves familiar with these men's writings. If,
however, they know these, and yet willingly prefer the worse views to
the better, they will doubtless consider my arguments foolish also. I
have shown elsewhere that these opinions were shared by Hippocrates,
who lived much earlier than Aristotle. In fact, of all those known to
us who have been both physicians and philosophers Hippocrates was the
first who took in hand to demonstrate that there are, in all, four
mutually interacting _qualities_, and that to the operation of these
is due the genesis and destruction of all things that come into and
pass out of being. Nay, more; Hippocrates was also the first to
recognise that all these qualities undergo an intimate mingling with
one another; and at least the beginnings of the proofs to which
Aristotle later set his hand are to be found first in the writings of
Hippocrates.
As to whether we are to suppose that the _substances_ as well as their
_qualities_ undergo this intimate mingling, as Zeno of Citium
afterwards declared, I do not think it necessary to go further into
this question in the present treatise;[17] for immediate purposes we
only need to recognize the _complete alteration of substance_. In
this way, nobody will suppose that bread represents a kind of
meeting-place[18] for bone, flesh, nerve, and all the other parts, and
that each of these subsequently becomes separated in the body and goes
to join its own kind;[19] before any separation takes place, the whole
of the bread obviously becomes blood; (at any rate, if a man takes no
other food for a prolonged period, he will have blood enclosed in his
veins all the same).[20] And clearly this disproves the view of those
who consider the elements[21] unchangeable, as also, for that matter,
does the oil which is entirely used up in the flame of the lamp, or
the faggots which, in a somewhat longer time, turn into fire.
I said, however, that I was not going to enter into an argument with
these people, and it was only because the example was drawn from the
subject-matter of medicine, and because I need it for the present
treatise, that I have mentioned it. We shall then, as I said, renounce
our controversy with them, since those who wish may get a good grasp
of the views of the ancients from our own personal investigations into
these matters.
The discussion which follows we shall devote entirely, as we
originally proposed, to an enquiry into the number and character of
the _faculties_ of Nature, and what is the effect which each naturally
produces. Now, of course, I mean by an effect[22] that which has
already come into existence and has been completed by the
_activity_[23] of these faculties--for example, blood, flesh, or
nerve. And _activity_ is the name I give to the active change or
_motion_, and the _cause_ of this I call a _faculty_. Thus, when food
turns into blood, the motion of the food is passive, and that of the
vein active. Similarly, when the limbs have their position altered, it
is the muscle which produces, and the bones which undergo the motion.
In these cases I call the motion of the vein and of the muscle an
_activity_, and that of the food and the bones a _symptom_ or
_affection_,[24] since the first group undergoes _alteration_ and the
second group is merely _transported_. One might, therefore, also speak
of the _activity_ as an _effect_ of Nature[25]--for example,
digestion, absorption,[26] blood-production; one could not, however,
in every case call the effect an activity; thus flesh is an effect of
Nature, but it is, of course, not an activity. It is, therefore, clear
that one of these terms is used in two senses, but not the other.
II
Kai zêtêsomen kata tonde ton logon, hypo tinôn gignetai
dynameôn auta dê tauta kai ei dê ti allo physeôs ergon
estin.
Alla proteron ge dielesthai te chrê kai mênysai saphôs
hekaston tôn onomatôn, hois chrêsometha kata tonde ton
logon, kai eph' ho ti pheromen pragma. genêsetai de
tout' euthys ergôn physikôn didaskalia syn tais tôn
onomatôn exêgêsesin.
Hotan oun ti sôma kata mêden exallattêtai tôn
proÿparchontôn, hêsychazein auto phamen; ei d' existaito
pê, kat' ekeino kineisthai. kai toinyn epei polyeidôs
existatai, polyeidôs kai kinêthêsetai. kai gar ei leukon
hyparchon melainoito kai ei melan leukainoito, kineitai
kata chroan, kai ei glyky teôs hyparchon authis || 3
austêron ê empalin ex austêrou glyky genoito, kai tout'
an kineisthai legoito kata ton chymon. amphô de tauta te
kai ta proeirêmena kata tên poiotêta kineisthai
lechthêsetai kai ou monon ge ta kata tên chroan ê ton
chymon exallattomena kineisthai phamen, alla kai to
thermoteron ek psychroterou genomenon ê psychroteron ek
thermoterou kineisthai kai touto legomen, hôsper ge kai
ei ti xêron ex hygrou ê hygron ek xêrou gignoito. koinon
de kata toutôn hapantôn onoma pheromen tên alloiôsin.
Hen ti touto genos kinêseôs. heteron de genos epi tois
tas chôras ameibousi sômasi kai topon ek topou
metallattein legomenois, onoma de kai toutô phora.
Hautai men oun hai dyo kinêseis haplai kai prôtai,
synthetoi d' ex autôn auxêsis te kai phthisis, hotan ex
elattonos ti meizon ê ek meizonos elatton genêtai
phylatton to oikeion eidos. heterai de dyo kinêseis
genesis kai phthora, genesis men hê eis ousian agôgê,
phthora d' hê enantia.
Pasais de tais kinêsesi koinon exallaxis tou || 4
proÿparchontos, hôsper oun kai tais hêsychiais hê
phylakê tôn proÿparchontôn. all' hoti men exallattetai
kai pros tên opsin kai pros tên geusin kai pros tên
haphên haima gignomena ta sitia, synchôrousin; hoti de
kai kat' alêtheian, ouketi touth' homologousin hoi
sophistai. hoi men gar tines autôn hapanta ta toiauta
tôn hêmeterôn aisthêseôn apatas tinas kai paragôgas
nomizousin allot' allôs paschousôn, tês hypokeimenês
ousias mêden toutôn, hois eponomazetai, dechomenês; hoi
de tines einai men en autê boulontai tas poiotêtas,
ametablêtous de kai atreptous ex aiônos eis aiôna kai
tas phainomenas tautas alloiôseis tê diakrisei te kai
synkrisei gignesthai phasin hôs Anaxagoras.
Ei dê toutous ektrapomenos exelenchoimi, meizon an moi
to parergon tou ergou genoito. ei men gar ouk isasin,
hosa peri tês kath' holên tên ousian alloiôseôs
Aristotelei te kai met' auton Chrysippô gegraptai,
parakalesai chrê tois ekeinôn autous homilêsai
grammasin; ei de gignôskontes epeith' hekontes ta cheirô
pro tôn beltionôn || hairountai, mataia dêpou kai ta 5
hêmetera nomiousin. hoti de kai Hippokratês houtôs
egignôsken Aristotelous eti proteros ôn, en heterois
hêmin apodedeiktai. prôtos gar houtos hapantôn hôn ismen
iatrôn te kai philosophôn apodeiknyein epecheirêse
tettaras einai tas pasas drastikas eis allêlas
poiotêtas, hyph' hôn gignetai te kai phtheiretai panth',
hosa genesin te kai phthoran epidechetai. kai mentoi kai
to kerannysthai di' allêlôn autas holas di' holôn
Hippokratês hapantôn prôtos egnô; kai tas archas ge tôn
apodeixeôn, hôn hysteron Aristotelês metecheirisato,
par' ekeinô prôtô gegrammenas estin heurein.
Ei d' hôsper tas poiotêtas houtô kai tas ousias di'
holôn kerannysthai chrê nomizein, hôs hysteron
apephênato Zênôn ho Kittieus, ouch hêgoumai dein eti
peri toutou kata tonde ton logon epexienai. monên gar
eis ta paronta deomai gignôskesthai tên di' holês tês
ousias alloiôsin, hina mê tis ostou kai sarkos kai
neurou kai tôn allôn hekastou moriôn hoionei misgankeian
tina tô artô nomisê periechesthai kapeit' en || tô 6
sômati diakrinomenon hôs to homophylon hekaston ienai.
kaitoi pro ge tês diakriseôs haima phainetai gignomenos
ho pas artos. ei goun pampollô tis chronô mêden all' eiê
sition prospheromenos, ouden hêtton en tais phlepsin
haima periechomenon hexei. kai phanerôs touto tên tôn
ametablêta ta stoicheia tithemenôn exelenchei doxan,
hôsper oimai kai toulaion eis tên tou lychnou phloga
katanaliskomenon hapan kai ta xyla pyr mikron hysteron
gignomena.
Kaitoi to g' antilegein autois êrnêsamên, all' epei tês
iatrikês hylês ên to paradeigma kai chrêzô pros ton
paronta logon autou, dia tout' emnêmoneusa. katalipontes
oun, hôs ephên, tên pros toutous antilogian, <enon> tois
boulomenois ta tôn palaiôn ekmanthanein kax hôn hêmeis
idia peri autôn epeskemmetha.
Ton ephexês logon hapanta poiêsometha zêtountes hyper
hôn ex archês prouthemetha, posai te kai tines eisin hai
tês physeôs dynameis kai ti poiein ergon hekastê
pephyken. ergon de dêlonoti kalô to gegonos êdê kai
sympeplê||rômenon hypo tês energeias autôn, hoion to 7
haima, tên sarka, to neuron; energeian de tên drastikên
onomazô kinêsin kai tên tautês aitian dynamin. epei gar
en tô to sition haima gignesthai pathêtikê men hê tou
sitiou, drastikê d' hê tês phlebos gignetai kinêsis,
hôsautôs de kan tô metapherein ta kôla kinei men ho mys,
kineitai de ta osta, tên men tês phlebos kai tôn myôn
kinêsin energeian einai phêmi, tên de tôn sitiôn te kai
tôn ostôn symptôma te kai pathêma; ta men gar
alloioutai, ta de pheretai. tên men oun energeian
enchôrei kalein kai ergon tês physeôs, hoion tên pepsin,
tên anadosin, tên haimatôsin, ou mên to g' ergon ex
hapantos energeian; hê gar toi sarx ergon men esti tês
physeôs, ou mên energeia ge. dêlon oun, hôs thateron men
tôn onomatôn dichôs legetai, thateron d' ou.
III
It appears to me, then, that the vein, as well as each of the other
parts, functions in such and such a way according to the manner in
which _the four qualities_[27] are mixed. There are, however, a
considerable number of not undistinguished men--philosophers and
physicians--who refer action to the Warm and the Cold, and who
subordinate to these, as passive, the Dry and the Moist; Aristotle, in
fact, was the first who attempted to bring back the causes of the
various special activities to these principles, and he was followed
later by the Stoic school. These latter, of course, could logically
make active principles of the Warm and Cold, since they refer the
change of the elements themselves into one another to certain
_diffusions_ and _condensations_.[28] This does not hold of Aristotle,
however; seeing that he employed the four qualities to explain the
genesis of the elements, he ought properly to have also referred the
causes of all the special activities to these. How is it that he uses
the four qualities in his book "On Genesis and Destruction," whilst in
his "Meteorology," his "Problems," and many other works he uses the
two only? Of course, if anyone were to maintain that in the case of
animals and plants the Warm and Cold are _more_ active, the Dry and
Moist _less_ so, he might perhaps have even Hippocrates on his side;
but if he were to say that this happens in all cases, he would, I
imagine, lack support, not merely from Hippocrates, but even from
Aristotle himself--if, at least, Aristotle chose to remember what he
himself taught us in his work "On Genesis and Destruction," not as a
matter of simple statement, but with an accompanying demonstration. I
have, however, also investigated these questions, in so far as they
are of value to a physician, in my work "On Temperaments."
III
Emoi men oun kai hê phleps kai tôn allôn hapantôn
hekaston dia tên ek tôn tettarôn poian krasin hôdi pôs
energein dokei. eisi de ge mên ouk oligoi tines andres
|| oud' adoxoi, philosophoi te kai iatroi, tô men thermô 8
kai tô psychrô to dran anapherontes, hypoballontes d'
autois pathêtika to xêron te kai to hygron. kai prôtos
g' Aristotelês tas tôn kata meros hapantôn aitias eis
tautas anagein peiratai tas archas, êkolouthêse d'
hysteron autô kai ho apo tês stoas choros. kaitoi
toutois men, hôs an kai autôn tôn stoicheiôn tên eis
allêla metabolên chysesi te tisi kai pilêsesin
anapherousin, eulogon ên archas drastikas poiêsasthai to
thermon kai to psychron, Aristotelei d' ouch houtôs,
alla tais tettarsi poiotêsin eis tên tôn stoicheiôn
genesin chrômenô beltion ên kai tas tôn kata meros
aitias hapasas eis tautas anagein. ti dêpot' oun en men
tois peri geneseôs kai phthoras tais tettarsi chrêtai,
en de tois meteôrologikois kai tois problêmasi kai
allothi pollachothi tais dyo monais? ei men gar hôs en
tois zôois te kai tois phytois mallon men dra to thermon
kai to psychron, hêtton de to xêron kai to hygron
apophainoito tis, isôs an echoi kai ton Hippokratên
sympsêphon; ei d' hôsautôs en || hapasin, ouket' oimai 9
synchôrêsein touto mê hoti ton Hippokratên alla mêd'
auton ton Aristotelên memnêsthai ge boulomenon hôn en
tois peri geneseôs kai phthoras ouch haplôs alla met'
apodeixeôs autos hêmas edidaxen. alla peri men toutôn
kan tois peri kraseôn, eis hoson iatrô chrêsimon,
epeskepsametha.
IV
The so-called _blood-making_[29] faculty in the veins, then, as well
as all the other faculties, fall within the category of relative
concepts; primarily because the faculty is the cause of the activity,
but also, accidentally, because it is the cause of the effect. But if
the cause is relative to something--for it is the cause of what
results from it, and of nothing else--it is obvious that the faculty
also falls into the category of the relative; and so long as we are
ignorant of the true essence of the cause which is operating, we call
it a _faculty_. Thus we say that there exists in the veins a
blood-making faculty, as also a digestive[30] faculty in the stomach,
a pulsatile[31] faculty in the heart, and in each of the other parts a
special faculty corresponding to the function or activity of that
part. If, therefore, we are to investigate methodically the number and
kinds of faculties, we must begin with the effects; for each of these
effects comes from a certain activity, and each of these again is
preceded by a cause.
IV
Hê d' oun dynamis hê en tais phlepsin hê haimatopoiêtikê
prosagoreuomenê kai pasa d' allê dynamis en tô pros ti
nenoêtai; prôtôs men gar tês energeias aitia, êdê de kai
tou ergou kata symbebêkos. all' eiper hê aitia pros ti,
tou gar hyp' autês genomenou monou, tôn d' allôn
oudenos, eudêlon, hoti kai hê dynamis en tô pros ti. kai
mechri g' an agnoômen tên ousian tês energousês aitias,
dynamin autên onomazomen, einai tina legontes en tais
phlepsin haimatopoiêtikên, hôsautôs de kan tê koilia
peptikên kan tê kardia sphygmikên kai kath' hekaston tôn
allôn idian tina tês || kata to morion energeias. eiper 10
oun methodô melloimen exeurêsein, hoposai te kai hopoiai
tines hai dynameis eisin, apo tôn ergôn autôn arkteon;
hekaston gar autôn hypo tinos energeias gignetai kai
toutôn hekastês proêgeitai tis aitia.
V
The effects of Nature, then, while the animal is still being formed in
the womb, are all the different _parts_ of its body; and after it has
been born, an effect in which all parts share is the progress of each
to its full size, and thereafter its maintenance of itself as long as
possible.
The activities corresponding to the three effects mentioned are
necessarily three--one to each--namely, Genesis, Growth, and
Nutrition. Genesis, however, is not a simple activity of Nature, but
is compounded of _alteration_ and of _shaping_.[32] That is to say, in
order that bone, nerve, veins, and all other [tissues] may come into
existence, the _underlying substance_ from which the animal springs
must be _altered_; and in order that the substance so altered may
acquire its appropriate shape and position, its cavities, outgrowths,
attachments, and so forth, it has to undergo a _shaping_ or
_formative_ process.[33] One would be justified in calling this
substance which undergoes alteration the _material_ of the animal,
just as wood is the material of a ship, and wax of an image.
_Growth_ is an increase and expansion in length, breadth, and
thickness of the solid parts of the animal (those which have been
subjected to the moulding or shaping process). _Nutrition_ is an
addition to these, without expansion.
V
Erga toinyn tês physeôs eti men kyoumenou te kai
diaplattomenou tou zôou ta sympant' esti tou sômatos
moria, gennêthentos de koinon eph' hapasin ergon hê eis
to teleion hekastô megethos agôgê kai meta tauth' hê
mechri tou dynatou diamonê.
Energeiai d' epi trisi tois eirêmenois ergois treis ex
anankês, eph' hekastô mia, genesis te kai auxêsis kai
threpsis. all' hê men genesis ouch haplê tis energeia
tês physeôs, all' ex alloiôseôs te kai diaplaseôs esti
synthetos. hina men gar ostoun genêtai kai neuron kai
phleps kai tôn allôn hekaston, alloiousthai chrê tên
hypobeblêmenên ousian, ex hês gignetai to zôon; hina de
kai schêma to deon kai thesin kai koilotêtas tinas kai
apophyseis kai symphyseis kai talla || ta toiauta 11
ktêsêtai, diaplattesthai chrê tên alloioumenên ousian,
hên dê kai hylên tou zôou kalôn, hôs tês neôs ta xyla
kai tês eikonos ton kêron, ouk an hamartois.
Hê d' auxêsis epidosis esti kai diastasis kata mêkos kai
platos kai bathos tôn stereôn tou zôou moriôn, hônper
kai hê diaplasis ên, hê de threpsis prosthesis tois
autois aneu diastaseôs.
VI
Let us speak then, in the first place, of Genesis, which, as we have
said, results from _alteration_ together with _shaping_.
The seed having been cast into the womb or into the earth (for there
is no difference),[34] then, after a certain definite period, a great
number of parts become constituted in the substance which is being
generated; these differ as regards moisture, dryness, coldness and
warmth,[35] and in all the other qualities which naturally derive
therefrom.[36] These derivative qualities, you are acquainted with, if
you have given any sort of scientific consideration to the question of
genesis and destruction. For, first and foremost after the qualities
mentioned come the other so-called _tangible_ distinctions, and after
them those which appeal to taste, smell, and sight. Now, tangible
distinctions are hardness and softness, viscosity, friability,
lightness, heaviness, density, rarity, smoothness, roughness,
thickness and thinness; all of these have been duly mentioned by
Aristotle.[37] And of course you know those which appeal to taste,
smell, and sight. Therefore, if you wish to know which alterative
faculties are primary and elementary, they are moisture, dryness,
coldness, and warmth, and if you wish to know which ones arise from
the combination of these, they will be found to be in each animal of a
number corresponding to its _sensible elements_. The name _sensible
elements_ is given to all the _homogeneous_[38] parts of the body, and
these are to be detected not by any system, but by personal
observation of dissections.[39]
Now Nature constructs bone, cartilage, nerve, membrane, ligament,
vein, and so forth, at the first stage of the animal's genesis,[40]
employing at this task a faculty which is, in general terms,
generative and alterative, and, in more detail, warming, chilling,
drying, or moistening; or such as spring from the blending of
these, for example, the bone-producing, nerve-producing, and
cartilage-producing faculties[41] (since for the sake of clearness
these names must be used as well).
Now the peculiar[42] flesh of the liver is of this kind as well, also
that of the spleen, that of the kidneys, that of the lungs, and that
of the heart; so also the proper substance of the brain, stomach,
gullet, intestines, and uterus is _a sensible element_, of similar
parts all through, simple, and uncompounded. That is to say, if you
remove from each of the organs mentioned its arteries, veins, and
nerves,[43] the substance remaining in each organ is, from the point
of view of the senses, simple and elementary. As regards those organs
consisting of two dissimilar _coats_,[44] of which each is simple, of
these organs the coats are the elements--for example, the coats of the
stomach, oesophagus, intestines, and arteries; each of these two coats
has an alterative faculty peculiar to it, which has engendered it from
the menstrual blood of the mother. Thus the _special_ alterative
faculties in each animal are of the same number as the elementary
parts[45]; and further, the _activities_ must necessarily correspond
each to one of the special parts, just as each part has its special
_use_--for example, those ducts which extend from the kidneys into the
bladder, and which are called _ureters_; for these are not arteries,
since they do not pulsate nor do they consist of two coats; and they
are not veins, since they neither contain blood, nor do their coats
in any way resemble those of veins; from nerves they differ still more
than from the structures mentioned.
"What, then, are they?" someone asks--as though every part must
necessarily be either an artery, a vein, a nerve, or a complex of
these,[46] and as though the truth were not what I am now stating,
namely, that every one of the various organs has its own particular
substance. For in fact the two bladders--that which receives the
urine, and that which receives the yellow bile--not only differ from
all other organs, but also from one another. Further, the ducts which
spring out like kinds of conduits from the gall-bladder and which pass
into the liver have no resemblance either to arteries, veins or
nerves. But these parts have been treated at a greater length in my
work "On the Anatomy of Hippocrates," as well as elsewhere.
As for the actual substance of the coats of the stomach, intestine,
and uterus, each of these has been rendered what it is by a special
alterative faculty of Nature; while the bringing of these
together,[47] the combination therewith of the structures which are
inserted into them, the outgrowth into the intestine,[48] the shape of
the inner cavities, and the like, have all been determined by a
faculty which we call the shaping or formative faculty[49]; this
faculty we also state to be _artistic_--nay, the best and highest
art--doing everything for some purpose, so that there is nothing
ineffective or superfluous, or capable of being better disposed. This,
however, I shall demonstrate in my work "On the Use of Parts."
VI
Peri prôtês oun tês geneseôs eipômen, hên ex alloiôseôs
th' hama kai diaplaseôs elegomen gignesthai.
Katablêthentos dê tou spermatos eis tên mêtran ê eis tên
gên, ouden gar diapherei, chronois tisin hôrismenois
pampolla synistatai moria tês gennômenês ousias
hygrotêti kai xêrotêti kai psychrotêti kai thermotêti
kai tois allois hapasin, hosa toutois hepetai,
diapheronta. ta d' hepomena gignôskeis, eiper holôs
ephilosophêsas ti peri geneseôs kai phthoras; hai loipai
gar tôn haptôn onomazomenôn diaphorôn tais eirêmenais
hepontai prôtai kai malista, meta de tau||tas hai 12
geustai te kai osphrêtai kai horatai. sklêrotês men oun
kai malakotês kai glischrotês kai kraurotês kai
kouphotês kai barytês kai pyknotês kai araiotês kai
leiotês kai trachytês kai pachytês kai leptotês haptai
diaphorai kai eirêtai peri pasôn Aristotelei kalôs.
oistha de dêpou kai tas geustas te kai osphrêtas kai
horatas diaphoras. hôst', ei men tas prôtas te kai
stoicheiôdeis alloiôtikas dynameis zêtoiês, hygrotês
esti kai xêrotês kai psychrotês kai thermotês; ei de tas
ek tês toutôn kraseôs genomenas, tosautai kath' hekaston
esontai zôon, hosaper an autou ta aisthêta stoicheia
hyparchê; kaleitai d' aisthêta stoicheia ta homoiomerê
panta tou sômatos moria; kai taut' ouk ek methodou tinos
all' autoptên genomenon ekmathein chrê dia tôn anatomôn.
Ostoun dê kai chondron kai neuron kai hymena kai
syndesmon kai phleba kai panth' hosa toiauta kata tên
prôtên tou zôou genesin hê physis apergazetai dynamei
chrômenê katholou men eipein tê gennêtikê te kai
alloiô||tikê, kata meros de thermantikê te kai psyktikê 13
kai xêrantikê kai hygrantikê kai tais ek tês toutôn
kraseôs genomenais, hoion ostopoiêtikê te kai
neuropoiêtikê kai chondropoiêtikê; saphêneias gar heneka
kai toutois tois onomasi chrêsteon.
Esti goun kai hê idia sarx tou hêpatos ek toutou tou
genous kai hê tou splênos kai hê tôn nephrôn kai hê tou
pneumonos kai hê tês kardias houtô de kai tou enkephalou
to idion sôma kai tês gastros kai tou stomachou kai tôn
enterôn kai tôn hysterôn aisthêton stoicheion estin
homoiomeres te kai haploun kai asyntheton; ean gar
exelês hekastou tôn eirêmenôn tas artêrias te kai tas
phlebas kai ta neura, to hypoloipon sôma to kath'
hekaston organon haploun esti kai stoicheiôdes hôs pros
aisthêsin. hosa de tôn toioutôn organôn ek dyoin
synkeitai chitônôn ouch homoiôn men allêlois, haplou d'
hekaterou, toutôn hoi chitônes eisi ta stoicheia
kathaper tês te gastros kai tou stomachou kai tôn
enterôn kai tôn artêriôn, kai kath' hekateron ge tôn
chitônôn idios hê alloiôtikê dynamis hê ek tou para tês
|| mêtros epimêniou gennêsasa to morion, hôste tas kata 14
meros alloiôtikas dynameis tosautas einai kath' hekaston
zôon, hosaper an echê ta stoicheiôdê moria. kai men ge
kai tas energeias idias hekastô tôn kata meros anankaion
hyparchein hôsper kai tas chreias, hoion kai tôn apo tôn
nephrôn eis tên kystin diêkontôn porôn, hoi dê kai
ourêtêres kalountai. houtoi gar out' artêriai eisin,
hoti mête sphyzousi mêt' ek dyoin chitônôn synestêkasin,
oute phlebes, hoti mêth' haima periechousi mêt' eoiken
autôn ho chitôn kata ti tô tês phlebos; alla kai neurôn
epi pleon aphestêkasin ê tôn eirêmenôn.
Ti pot' oun eisin? erôta tis, hôsper anankaion on hapan
morion ê artêrian ê phleba ê neuron hyparchein ê ek
toutôn peplechthai kai mê tout' auto to nyn legomenon,
hôs idios hekastô tôn kata meros organôn estin hê ousia.
kai gar kai hai kysteis hekaterai hê te to ouron
hypodechomenê kai hê tên xanthên cholên ou monon tôn
allôn hapantôn alla kai allêlôn diapherousi kai hoi eis
to hêpar apophyomenoi || poroi, kathaper stomachoi tines 15
apo tês cholêdochou kysteôs, ouden out' artêriais oute
phlepsin oute neurois eoikasin. alla peri men toutôn epi
pleon en allois te tisi kan tois peri tês Hippokratous
anatomês eirêtai.
Hai de kata meros hapasai dynameis tês physeôs hai
alloiôtikai autên men tên ousian tôn chitônôn tês
koilias kai tôn enterôn kai tôn hysterôn apetelesan,
hoiaper esti; tên de synthesin autôn kai tên tôn
emphyomenôn plokên kai tên eis to enteron ekphysin kai
tên tês endon koilotêtos idean kai tall' hosa toiauta
dynamis tis hetera dieplasen, hên diaplastikên
onomazomen, hên dê kai technikên einai legomen, mallon
d' aristên kai akran technên kai panta tinos heneka
poiousan, hôs mêden argon einai mêde peritton mêd' holôs
houtôs echon, hôs dynasthai beltion heterôs echein. alla
touto men en tois peri chreias moriôn apodeixomen. || 16
VII
Passing now to the faculty of Growth[50] let us first mention that
this, too, is present in the foetus _in utero_ as is also the
nutritive faculty, but that at that stage these two faculties are, as
it were, _handmaids_ to those already mentioned,[51] and do not
possess in themselves supreme authority. When, however, the animal[52]
has attained its complete size, then, during the whole period
following its birth and until the acme is reached, the faculty of
growth is predominant, while the alterative and nutritive faculties
are accessory--in fact, act as its handmaids. What, then, is the
property of this faculty of growth? To extend in every direction that
which has already come into existence--that is to say, the solid parts
of the body, the arteries, veins, nerves, bones, cartilages,
membranes, ligaments, and the various _coats_ which we have just
called elementary, homogeneous, and simple. And I shall state in what
way they gain this extension in every direction, first giving an
illustration for the sake of clearness.
Children take the bladders of pigs, fill them with air, and then rub
them on ashes near the fire, so as to warm, but not to injure them.
This is a common game in the district of Ionia, and among not a few
other nations. As they rub, they sing songs, to a certain measure,
time, and rhythm, and all their words are an exhortation to the
bladder to increase in size. When it appears to them fairly well
distended, they again blow air into it and expand it further; then
they rub it again. This they do several times, until the bladder seems
to them to have become large enough. Now, clearly, in these doings of
the children, the more the interior cavity of the bladder increases in
size, the thinner, necessarily, does its substance become. But, if the
children were able to bring nourishment to this thin part, then they
would make the bladder big in the same way that Nature does. As it is,
however, they cannot do what Nature does, for to imitate this is
beyond the power not only of children, but of any one soever; it is a
property of Nature alone.
It will now, therefore, be clear to you that _nutrition_ is a
necessity for growing things. For if such bodies were distended, but
not at the same time nourished, they would take on a false appearance
of growth, not a true growth. And further, to be distended _in all
directions_ belongs only to bodies whose growth is directed by Nature;
for those which are distended by us undergo this distension in one
direction but grow less in the others; it is impossible to find a body
which will remain entire and not be torn through whilst we stretch it
in the three dimensions. Thus Nature alone has the power to expand a
body in all directions so that it remains unruptured and preserves
completely its previous form.
Such then is _growth_, and it cannot occur without the nutriment which
flows to the part and is worked up into it.
VII
Epi de tên auxêtikên êdê metabantes dynamin auto touth'
hypomnêsômen prôton, hôs hyparchei men kai autê tois
kyoumenois hôsper kai hê threptikê; all' hoion
hypêretides tines eisi tênikauta tôn proeirêmenôn
dynameôn, ouk en hautais echousai to pan kyros. epeidan
de to teleion apolabê megethos to zôon, en tô meta tên
apokyêsin chronô panti mechri tês akmês hê men auxêtikê
tênikauta kratei; boêthoi d' autês kai hoion hypêretides
hê t' alloiôtikê dynamis esti kai hê threptikê. ti oun
to idion esti tês auxêtikês dynameôs? eis pan meros
ekteinai ta pephykota. kaleitai d' houtô ta sterea moria
tou sômatos, artêriai kai phlebes kai neura kai osta kai
chondroi kai hymenes kai syndesmoi kai hoi chitônes
hapantes, hous stoicheiôdeis te kai homoiomereis kai
haplous oligon emprosthen ekaloumen. hotô de tropô tên
eis pan meros ektasin ischousin, egô phrasô paradeigma
ti proteron eipôn heneka tou saphous. || 17
Tas kysteis tôn hyôn labontes hoi paides plêrousi te
pneumatos kai tribousin epi tês tephras plêsion tou
pyros, hôs aleainesthai men, blaptesthai de mêden; kai
pollê g' hautê hê paidia peri te tên Iônian kai en
allois ethnesin ouk oligois estin. epilegousi de dê kai
tin' epê tribontes en metrô te tini kai melei kai
rhythmô kai esti panta ta rhêmata tauta parakeleusis tê
kystei pros tên auxêsin. epeidan d' hikanôs autois
diatetasthai dokê, palin emphysôsi te kai epidiateinousi
kai authis tribousi kai touto pleonakis poiousin, achris
an autois hê kystis hikanôs echein dokê tês auxêseôs.
all' en toutois ge tois ergois tôn paidôn enargôs, hoson
eis megethos epididôsin hê entos eurychôria tês kysteôs,
tosouton anankaion eis leptotêta kathaireisthai to sôma
kai ei ge tên leptotêta tautên anatrephein hoioi t' êsan
hoi paides, homoiôs an tê physei tên kystin ek mikras
megalên apeirgazonto. nyni de tout' autois endei to
ergon oude kath' hena tropon eis mimêsin endechomenon
achthênai mê hoti tois || paisin all' oud' allô tini; 18
monês gar tês physeôs idion estin.
Hôst' êdê soi dêlon, hôs anankaia tois auxanomenois hê
threpsis. ei gar diateinoito men, anatrephoito de mê,
phantasian pseudê mallon, ouk auxêsin alêthê ta toiauta
sômata ktêsetai. kaitoi kai to diateinesthai pantê
monois tois hypo physeôs auxanomenois hyparchei. ta gar
hyph' hêmôn diateinomena sômata kata mian tina diastasin
touto paschonta meioutai tais loipais, oud' estin
heurein ouden, ho syneches eti menon kai adiaspaston eis
tas treis diastaseis epekteinai dynametha. monês oun tês
physeôs to pantê diistanai syneches heautô menon eti kai
tên archaian hapasan idean phylatton to sôma.
Kai tout' estin hê auxêsis aneu tês epirrheousês te kai
prosplattomenês trophês mê dynamenê genesthai.
VIII
We have, then, it seems, arrived at the subject of Nutrition, which is
the third and remaining consideration which we proposed at the outset.
For, when the matter which flows to each part of the body in the form
of nutriment is being worked up into it, this activity is _nutrition_,
and its cause is the _nutritive faculty_. Of course, the kind of
activity here involved is also an _alteration_, but not an alteration
like that occurring at the stage of _genesis_.[53] For in the latter
case something comes into existence which did not exist previously,
while in nutrition the inflowing material becomes assimilated to that
which has already come into existence. Therefore, the former kind of
alteration has with reason been termed _genesis_, and the latter,
_assimilation_.
VIII
Kai toinyn ho logos hêkein eoiken ho peri tês threpseôs,
hos dê loipos esti kai tritos hôn ex archês
prouthemetha. tou gar epirrheontos en eidei trophês
panti || moriô tou trephomenou sômatos prosplattomenou 19
threpsis men hê energeia, threptikê de dynamis hê aitia.
alloiôsis men dê kantautha to genos tês energeias, all'
ouch hoiaper hê en tê genesei. ekei men gar ouk on
proteron hysteron egeneto, kata de tên threpsin tô êdê
gegonoti synexomoioutai to epirrheon kai dia tout'
eulogôs ekeinên men tên alloiôsin genesin, tautên d'
exomoiôsin ônomasan.
IX
Now, since the three faculties of Nature have been exhaustively dealt
with, and the animal would appear not to need any others (being
possessed of the means for growing, for attaining completion, and for
maintaining itself as long a time as possible), this treatise might
seem to be already complete, and to constitute an exposition of all
the faculties of Nature. If, however, one considers that it has not
yet touched upon any of _the parts_ of the animal (I mean the stomach,
intestines, liver, and the like), and that it has not dealt with the
faculties resident in these, it will seem as though merely a kind of
introduction had been given to the practical parts of our teaching.
For the whole matter is as follows: Genesis, growth, and nutrition are
the first, and, so to say, the principal effects of Nature; similarly
also the faculties which produce these effects--the first
faculties--are three in number, and are the most dominating of all.
But as has already been shown, these need the service both of each
other, and of yet different faculties. Now, these which the faculties
of generation and growth require have been stated. I shall now say
what ones the nutritive faculty requires.
IX
Epeidê de peri tôn triôn dynameôn tês physeôs autarkôs
eirêtai kai phainetai mêdemias allês prosdeisthai to
zôon, echon ge kai hopôs auxêthê kai hopôs teleiôthê kai
hopôs heôs pleistou diaphylachthê, doxeie men an isôs
hikanôs echein ho logos houtos êdê kai pasas exêgeisthai
tas tês physeôs dynameis. all' ei tis palin ennoêseien,
hôs oudenos oudepô tôn tou zôou moriôn ephêpsato,
koilias legô kai enterôn kai hêpatos kai tôn homoiôn,
oud' exêgêsato tas en autois dynameis, authis doxeien an
hoion prooimion ti monon eirêsthai tês chrêsimou
didaskalias. || to gar sympan hôd' echei. genesis kai 20
auxêsis kai threpsis ta prôta kai hoion kephalaia tôn
ergôn esti tês physeôs; hôste kai hai toutôn ergastikai
dynameis hai prôtai treis eisi kai kyriôtatai; deontai
d' eis hypêresian, hôs êdê dedeiktai, kai allêlôn kai
allôn. tinôn men oun hê gennêtikê te kai auxêtikê
deontai, eirêtai, tinôn d' hê threptikê, nyn eirêsetai.
X
For I believe that I shall prove that the organs which have to do with
the disposal[54] of the nutriment, as also their faculties, exist for
the sake of this _nutritive faculty_. For since the action of this
faculty[55] is _assimilation_, and it is impossible for anything to be
assimilated by, and to change into anything else unless they already
possess a certain _community and affinity_ in their qualities,[56]
therefore, in the first place, any animal cannot naturally derive
nourishment from any kind of food, and secondly, even in the case of
those from which it can do so, it cannot do this at once. Therefore,
by reason of this law,[57] every animal needs several organs for
_altering_ the nutriment. For in order that the yellow may become red,
and the red yellow, one simple process of alteration is required, but
in order that the white may become black, and the black white, all the
intermediate stages are needed.[58] So also, a thing which is very
soft cannot all at once become very hard, nor _vice versa_; nor,
similarly can anything which has a very bad smell suddenly become
quite fragrant, nor again, can the converse happen.
How, then, could blood ever turn into bone, without having first
become, as far as possible, thickened and white? And how could bread
turn into blood without having gradually parted with its whiteness and
gradually acquired redness? Thus it is quite easy for blood to become
flesh; for, if Nature thicken it to such an extent that it acquires a
certain consistency and ceases to be fluid, it thus becomes original
newly-formed flesh; but in order that blood may turn into bone, much
time is needed and much elaboration and transformation of the blood.
Further, it is quite clear that bread, and, more particularly lettuce,
beet, and the like, require a great deal of alteration in order to
become blood.
This, then, is one reason why there are so many organs concerned in
the alteration of food. A second reason is the nature of the
_superfluities_.[59] For, as we are unable to draw any nourishment
from grass, although this is possible for cattle, similarly we can
derive nourishment from radishes, albeit not to the same extent as
from meat; for almost the whole of the latter is mastered by our
natures[60]; it is transformed and altered and constituted useful
blood; but, in the radish, what is appropriate[61] and able of being
altered (and that only with difficulty, and with much labour) is the
very smallest part; almost the whole of it is surplus matter, and
passes through the digestive organs, only a very little being taken up
into the veins as blood--nor is this itself entirely utilisable blood.
Nature, therefore had need of a second process of separation for the
superfluities in the veins. Moreover, these superfluities need, on the
one hand, certain fresh routes to conduct them to the outlets, so that
they may not spoil the useful substances, and they also need certain
_reservoirs_, as it were, in which they are collected till they reach
a sufficient quantity, and are then discharged.
Thus, then, you have discovered bodily parts of a second kind,
consecrated in this case to the [removal of the] superfluities of the
food. There is, however, also a third kind, for carrying the pabulum
in every direction; these are like a number of roads intersecting the
whole body.
Thus there is one entrance--that through the mouth--for all the
various articles of food. What receives nourishment, however, is not
one single part, but a great many parts, and these widely separated;
do not be surprised, therefore, at the abundance of organs which
Nature has created for the purpose of nutrition. For those of them
which have to do with alteration prepare the nutriment suitable for
each part; others separate out the superfluities; some pass these
along, others store them up, others excrete them; some, again, are
paths for the transit[62] in all directions of the _utilisable_
juices. So, if you wish to gain a thorough acquaintance with all the
faculties of Nature,[63] you will have to consider each one of these
organs.
Now in giving an account of these we must begin with those effects of
Nature, together with their corresponding parts and faculties, which
are closely connected with the purpose to be achieved.[64]
X
Dokô gar moi deixein ta peri tên tês trophês oikonomian
organa te kai tas dynameis autôn dia tautên gegonota.
epeidê gar hê energeia tautês tês dynameôs exomoiôsis
estin, homoiousthai de kai metaballein eis allêla pasi
tois ousin adynaton, ei mê tina echoi koinônian êdê kai
syngeneian en tais poiotêsi, dia touto prôton men ouk ek
pantôn edesmatôn pan zôon trephesthai pephyken, epeita
d' oud' ex hôn hoion t' estin oud' ek toutôn parachrêma,
kai dia tautên tên anankên pleionôn organôn alloiôtikôn
tês trophês hekaston || tôn zôôn chrêzei. hina men gar 21
to xanthon erythron genêtai kai to erythron xanthon,
haplês kai mias deitai tês alloiôseôs; hina de to leukon
melan kai to melan leukon, hapasôn tôn metaxy. kai
toinyn kai to malakôtaton ouk an athroôs sklêrotaton kai
to sklêrotaton ouk an athroôs malakôtaton genoito,
hôsper oude to dysôdestaton euôdestaton oud' empalin to
euôdestaton dysôdestaton exaiphnês genoit' an.
Pôs oun ex haimatos ostoun an pote genoito mê
pachynthentos ge proteron epi pleiston autou kai
leukanthentos ê pôs ex artou to haima mê kata brachy men
apothemenou tên leukotêta, kata brachy de lambanontos
tên erythrotêta? sarka men gar ex haimatos genesthai
rhaston; ei gar eis tosouton auto pachyneien hê physis,
hôs systasin tina schein kai mêket' einai rhyton, hê
prôtê kai neopagês houtôs an eiê sarx; ostoun d' hina
genêtai, pollou men deitai chronou, pollês d' ergasias
kai metabolês tô haimati. hoti de kai tô artô kai poly
mallon thrida||kinê kai teutlô kai tois homoiois 22
pampollês deitai tês alloiôseôs eis haimatos genesin,
oude tout' adêlon.
Hen men dê tout' aition tou polla genesthai ta peri tên
tês trophês alloiôsin organa. deuteron d' hê tôn
perittômatôn physis. hôs gar hypo botanôn oud' holôs
dynametha trephesthai, kaitoi tôn boskêmatôn
trephomenôn, houtôs hypo rhaphanidos trephometha men,
all' ouch hôs hypo tôn kreôn. toutôn men gar oligou dein
holôn hê physis hêmôn kratei kai metaballei kai alloioi
kai chrêston ex autôn haima synistêsin; en de tê
rhaphanidi to men oikeion te kai metablêthênai
dynamenon, mogis kai touto kai syn pollê tê katergasia,
pantapasin elachiston; holê d' oligou dein esti
perittômatikê kai diexerchetai ta tês pepseôs organa,
bracheos ex autês eis tas phlebas analêphthentos
haimatos kai oude toutou teleôs chrêstou. deuteras oun
authis edeêse diakriseôs tê physei tôn en tais phlepsi
perittômatôn. kai chreia kai toutois hodôn te tinôn
heterôn epi tas ek||kriseis auta paragousôn, hôs mê 23
lymainoito tois chrêstois, hypodochôn te tinôn hoion
dexamenôn, en hais hotan eis hikanon plêthos aphikêtai,
tênikaut' ekkrithêsetai.
Deuteron dê soi kai touto to genos tôn en tô sômati
moriôn exeurêtai tois perittômasi tês trophês
anakeimenon. allo de triton hyper tou pantê pheresthai,
kathaper tines hodoi pollai dia tou sômatos holou
katatetmêmenai.
Mia men gar eisodos hê dia tou stomatos hapasi tois
sitiois, ouch hen de to trephomenon alla pampolla te kai
pampoly diestôta. mê toinyn thaumaze to plêthos tôn
organôn, hosa threpseôs heneken hê physis edêmiourgêse.
ta men gar alloiounta proparaskeuazei tên epitêdeion
hekastô moriô trophên, ta de diakrinei ta perittômata,
ta de parapempei, ta d' hypodechetai, ta d' ekkrinei, ta
d' hodoi tês pantê phoras eisi tôn chrêstôn chymôn,
hôst', eiper boulei tas dynameis tês physeôs hapasas
ekmathein, hyper hekastou toutôn an eiê soi tôn organôn
episkepteon.
Archê d' autôn tês didaskalias, hosa || tou telous engys 24
erga te tês physeôs esti kai moria kai dynameis autôn.
XI
Let us once more, then, recall the actual purpose for which Nature has
constructed all these parts. Its name, as previously stated, is
_nutrition_, and the definition corresponding to the name is: _an
assimilation of that which nourishes to that which receives
nourishments_.[65] And in order that this may come about, we must
assume a preliminary process of _adhesion_,[66] and for that, again,
one of _presentation_.[67] For whenever the juice which is destined to
nourish any of the parts of the animal is emitted from the vessels, it
is in the first place dispersed all through this part, next it is
presented, and next it adheres, and becomes completely assimilated.
The so-called white [leprosy] shows the difference between
assimilation and adhesion, in the same way that the kind of dropsy
which some people call _anasarca_ clearly distinguishes presentation
from adhesion. For, of course, the genesis of such a dropsy does not
come about as do some of the conditions of atrophy and wasting,[68]
from an insufficient supply of moisture; the flesh is obviously moist
enough,--in fact it is thoroughly saturated,--and each of the solid
parts of the body is in a similar condition. While, however, the
nutriment conveyed to the part does undergo presentation, it is still
too watery, and is not properly transformed into a _juice_,[69] nor
has it acquired that viscous and agglutinative quality which results
from the operation of _innate heat_;[70] therefore, adhesion cannot
come about, since, owing to this abundance of thin, crude liquid, the
pabulum runs off and easily slips away from the solid parts of the
body. In white [leprosy], again, there is adhesion of the nutriment
but no real assimilation. From this it is clear that what I have just
said is correct, namely, that in that part which is to be nourished
there must first occur presentation, next adhesion, and finally
assimilation proper.
Strictly speaking, then, _nutriment_ is that which is actually
nourishing, while the _quasi-nutriment_ which is not yet nourishing
(_e.g._ matter which is undergoing adhesion or presentation) is not,
strictly speaking, nutriment, but is so called only by an
equivocation. Also, that which is still contained in the veins, and
still more, that which is in the stomach, from the fact that it is
destined to nourish if properly elaborated, has been called
"nutriment." Similarly we call the various kinds of food "nutriment,"
not because they are already nourishing the animal, nor because they
exist in the same state as the material which actually is nourishing
it, but because they are able and destined to nourish it if they be
properly elaborated.
This was also what Hippocrates said, viz., "Nutriment is what is
engaged in nourishing, as also is quasi-nutriment, and what is
destined to be nutriment." For to that which is already being
assimilated he gave the name of _nutriment_; to the similar material
which is being presented or becoming adherent, the name of
_quasi-nutriment_; and to everything else--that is, contained in the
stomach and veins--the name of _destined nutriment_.
XI
Autou de dê palin anamnêsteon hêmin tou telous, houper
heneka tosauta te kai toiauta tê physei dedêmiourgêtai
moria. to men oun onoma tou pragmatos, hôsper kai
proteron eirêtai, threpsis; ho de kata tounoma logos
homoiôsis tou trephontos tô trephomenô. hina d' hautê
genêtai, proêgêsasthai chrê prosphysin, hina d' ekeinê,
prosthesin. epeidan gar ekpesê tôn angeiôn ho mellôn
threpsein hotioun tôn tou zôou moriôn chymos, eis hapan
auto diaspeiretai prôton, epeita prostithetai kapeita
prosphyetai kai teleôs homoioutai.
Dêlousi d' hai kaloumenai leukai tên diaphoran
homoiôseôs te kai prosphyseôs, hôsper to genos ekeino
tôn hyderôn, ho tines onomazousin ana sarka, diorizei
saphôs prosthesin prosphyseôs. ou gar endeia dêpou tês
epirrheousês hygrotêtos, hôs eniai tôn atrophiôn te kai
phthiseôn, hê tou toioutou genesis hyderou || 25
synteleitai. phainetai gar hikanôs hê te sarx hygra kai
diabrochos hekaston te tôn stereôn tou sômatos moriôn
hôsautôs diakeimenon. alla prosthesis men tis gignetai
tês epipheromenês trophês, hate d' hydatôdesteras ousês
eti kai mê pany ti kechymômenês mêde to glischron ekeino
kai kollôdes, ho dê tês emphytou thermasias oikonomia
prosgignetai, kektêmenês hê prosphysis adynatos estin
epiteleisthai plêthei leptês hygrotêtos apeptou
diarrheousês te kai rhadiôs olisthainousês apo tôn
stereôn tou sômatos moriôn tês trophês. en de tais
leukais prosphysis men tis gignetai tês trophês, ou mên
exomoiôsis ge. kai dêlon en tôde to mikrô prosthen
rhêthen hôs orthôs elegeto to dein prosthesin men
prôton, ephexês de prosphysin, epeit' exomoiôsin
genesthai tô mellonti trephesthai.
Kyriôs men oun to trephon êdê trophê, to d' hoion men
trophê, oupô de trephon, hopoion esti to prosphyomenon ê
prostithemenon, trophê men ou kyriôs, homônymôs de
trophê; to d' en tais phlepsin eti periechomenon || kai 26
toutou mallon eti to kata tên gastera tô mellein pote
threpsein, ei kalôs katergastheiê, keklêtai trophê. kata
tauta de kai tôn edesmatôn hekaston trophên onomazomen
oute tô trephein êdê to zôon oute tô toiouton hyparchein
hoion to trephon, alla tô dynasthai te kai mellein
trephein, ei kalôs katergastheiê.
Touto gar ên kai to pros Hippokratous legomenon; "Trophê
de to trephon, trophê kai to hoion trophê kai to
mellon." to men gar homoioumenon êdê trophên ônomase, to
d' hoion men ekeino prostithemenon ê prosphyomenon hoion
trophên; to d' allo pan, hoson en tê gastri kai tais
phlepsi periechetai, mellon.
XII
It is quite clear, therefore, that nutrition must necessarily be a
process of assimilation of that which is nourishing to that which is
being nourished. Some, however, say that this assimilation does not
occur in reality, but is merely apparent; these are the people who
think that Nature is not artistic, that she does not show forethought
for the animal's welfare, and that she has absolutely no native powers
whereby she alters some substances, attracts others, and discharges
others.
Now, speaking generally, there have arisen the following two sects in
medicine and philosophy among those who have made any definite
pronouncement regarding Nature. I speak, of course, of such of them as
know what they are talking about, and who realize the logical sequence
of their hypotheses, and stand by them; as for those who cannot
understand even this, but who simply talk any nonsense that comes to
their tongues, and who do not remain definitely attached either to one
sect or the other--such people are not even worth mentioning.
What, then, are these sects, and what are the logical consequences of
their hypotheses?[71] The one class supposes that all substance which
is subject to genesis and destruction is at once _continuous_[72] and
susceptible of _alteration_. The other school assumes substance to be
unchangeable, unalterable, and sub-divided into fine particles, which
are separated from one another by empty spaces.
All people, therefore, who can appreciate the logical sequence of an
hypothesis hold that, according to the second teaching, there does not
exist any substance or faculty peculiar either to Nature or to
Soul,[73] but that these result from the way in which the primary
corpuscles,[74] which are unaffected by change, come together.
According to the first-mentioned teaching, on the other hand, Nature
is not posterior to the corpuscles, but is a long way prior to them
and older than they; and therefore in their view it is Nature which
puts together the bodies both of plants and animals; and this she does
by virtue of certain faculties which she possesses--these being, on
the one hand, attractive and assimilative of what is appropriate, and,
on the other, expulsive of what is foreign. Further, she skilfully
moulds everything during the stage of genesis; and she also provides
for the creatures after birth, employing here other faculties again,
namely, one of affection and forethought for offspring, and one of
sociability and friendship for kindred. According to the other school,
none of these things exist in the natures[75] [of living things], nor
is there in the soul any original innate idea, whether of agreement or
difference, of separation or synthesis, of justice or injustice, of
the beautiful or ugly; all such things, they say, arise in us _from
sensation and through sensation_, and animals are steered by certain
images and memories.
Some of these people have even expressly declared that the soul
possesses no reasoning faculty, but that we are led like cattle by the
impression of our senses, and are unable to refuse or dissent from
anything. In their view, obviously, courage, wisdom, temperance, and
self-control are all mere nonsense, we do not love either each other
or our offspring, nor do the gods care anything for us. This school
also despises dreams, birds, omens, and the whole of astrology,
subjects with which we have dealt at greater length in another
work,[76] in which we discuss the views of Asclepiades the
physician.[77] Those who wish to do so may familiarize themselves with
these arguments, and they may also consider at this point which of the
two roads lying before us is the better one to take. Hippocrates took
the first-mentioned. According to this teaching, substance is one and
is subject to _alteration_; there is a consensus in the movements of
air and fluid throughout the whole body;[78] Nature acts throughout in
an artistic and equitable manner, having certain faculties, by virtue
of which each part of the body draws to itself the juice which is
proper to it, and, having done so, attaches it to every portion of
itself, and completely assimilates it; while such part of the juice as
has not been mastered,[79] and is not capable of undergoing complete
alteration and being assimilated to the part which is being nourished,
is got rid of by yet another (an expulsive) faculty.
XII
Hoti men oun anankaion homoiôsin tin' einai tou
trephontos tô trephomenô tên threpsin, antikrys dêlon.
ou mên hyparchousan ge tautên tên homoiôsin, alla
phainomenên monon einai phasin hoi mête technikên
oiomenoi tên physin einai mête pronoêtikên tou zôou
mêth' holôs tinas oikeias echein dynameis, hais chrômenê
ta men alloioi, ta d' helkei, || ta d' ekkrinei. 27
Kai hautai dyo gegonasin haireseis kata genos en iatrikê
te kai philosophia tôn apophênamenôn ti peri physeôs
andrôn, hosoi g' autôn gignôskousin, ho ti legousi, kai
tên akolouthian hôn hypethento theôrousi th' hama kai
diaphylattousin. hosoi de mêd' auto touto syniasin, all'
haplôs, ho ti an epi glôttan elthê, lêrousin, en
oudetera tôn haireseôn akribôs katamenontes, oude
memnêsthai tôn toioutôn prosêkei.
Tines oun hai dyo haireseis hautai kai tis hê tôn en
autais hypotheseôn akolouthia? tên hypobeblêmenên ousian
genesei kai phthora pasan hênômenên th' hama kai
alloiousthai dynamenên hypetheto thateron genos tês
haireseôs, ametablêton de kai analloiôton kai
katatetmêmenên eis lepta kai kenais tais metaxy chôrais
dieilêmmenên hê loipê.
Kai toinyn hosoi ge tês akolouthias tôn hypotheseôn
aisthanontai, kata men tên deuteran hairesin oute
physeôs oute psychês idian tina nomizousin ousian ê
dynamin hyparchein, || all' en tê poia synodô tôn prôtôn 28
ekeinôn sômatôn tôn apathôn apoteleisthai. kata de tên
proteran eirêmenên hairesin ouch hystera tôn sômatôn hê
physis, alla poly protera te kai presbytera. kai toinyn
kata men toutous hautê ta sômata tôn te phytôn kai tôn
zôôn synistêsi dynameis tinas echousa tas men helktikas
th' hama kai homoiôtikas tôn oikeiôn, tas d' apokritikas
tôn allotriôn, kai technikôs hapanta diaplattei te
gennôsa kai pronoeitai tôn gennômenôn heterais authis
tisi dynamesi, sterktikê men tini kai pronoêtikê tôn
engonôn, koinônikê de kai philikê tôn homogenôn. kata d'
au tous heterous oute toutôn ouden hyparchei tais
physesin out' ennoia tis esti tê psychê symphytos ex
archês ouk akolouthias ou machês, ou diaireseôs ou
syntheseôs, ou dikaiôn ouk adikôn, ou kalôn ouk
aischrôn, all' ex aisthêseôs te kai di' aisthêseôs
hapanta ta toiauth' hêmin engignesthai phasi kai
phantasiais tisi kai mnêmais oiakizesthai ta zôa.
Enioi || d' autôn kai rhêtôs apephênanto mêdemian einai 29
tês psychês dynamin, hê logizometha, all' hypo tôn
aisthêtôn agesthai pathôn hêmas kathaper boskêmata pros
mêden ananeusai mêd' anteipein dynamenous. kath' hous
dêlonoti kai andreia kai phronêsis kai sôphrosynê kai
enkrateia lêros esti makros kai philoumen out' allêlous
oute ta engona kai tois theois ouden hêmôn melei.
kataphronousi de kai tôn oneiratôn kai tôn oiônôn kai
tôn symbolôn kai pasês astrologias, hyper hôn hêmeis men
idia di' heterôn grammatôn epi pleon eskepsametha peri
tôn Asklêpiadou tou iatrou skopoumenoi dogmatôn. enesti
de tois boulomenois kakeinois men homilêsai tois logois
kai nyn d' êdê skopein, hôsper tinôn dyoin hodôn hêmin
prokeimenôn, hopoteran beltion esti trepesthai.
Hippokratês men gar tên proteran rhêtheisan etrapeto,
kath' hên hênôtai men hê ousia kai alloioutai kai
sympnoun holon esti kai syrrhoun to sôma kai hê physis
hapanta technikôs kai dikaiôs prattei dynameis echousa,
kath' has hekaston tôn moriôn helkei men || eph' heauto 30
ton oikeion heautô chymon, helxan de prosphyei te panti
merei tôn en hautô kai teleôs exomoioi, to de mê
kratêthen en toutô mêde tên pantelê dynêthen alloiôsin
te kai homoiotêta tou trephomenou katadexasthai di'
heteras au tinos ekkritikês dynameôs apotribetai.
XIII
Now the extent of exactitude and truth in the doctrines of Hippocrates
may be gauged, not merely from the way in which his opponents are at
variance with obvious facts, but also from the various subjects of
natural research themselves--the functions of animals, and the rest.
For those people who do not believe that there exists in any part of
the animal a faculty for attracting _its own special quality_[80] are
compelled repeatedly to deny obvious facts.[81] For instance,
Asclepiades, the physician,[82] did this in the case of the kidneys.
That these are organs for secreting [separating out] the urine, was
the belief not only of Hippocrates, Diocles, Erasistratus,
Praxagoras,[83] and all other physicians of eminence, but practically
every butcher is aware of this, from the fact that he daily observes
both the position of the kidneys and the duct (termed the ureter)
which runs from each kidney into the bladder, and from this
arrangement he infers their characteristic use and faculty. But, even
leaving the butchers aside, all people who suffer either from frequent
dysuria or from retention of urine call themselves "nephritics,"[84]
when they feel pain in the loins and pass sandy matter in their water.
I do not suppose that Asclepiades ever saw a stone which had been
passed by one of these sufferers, or observed that this was preceded
by a sharp pain in the region between kidneys and bladder as the stone
traversed the ureter, or that, when the stone was passed, both the
pain and the retention at once ceased. It is worth while, then,
learning how his theory accounts for the presence of urine in the
bladder, and one is forced to marvel at the ingenuity of a man who
puts aside these broad, clearly visible routes,[85] and postulates
others which are narrow, invisible--indeed, entirely imperceptible.
His view, in fact, is that the fluid which we drink passes into the
bladder by being resolved into vapours, and that, when these have been
again condensed, it thus regains its previous form, and turns from
vapour into fluid. He simply looks upon the bladder as a sponge or a
piece of wool, and not as the perfectly compact and impervious body
that it is, with two very strong coats. For if we say that the vapours
pass through these coats, why should they not pass through the
peritoneum[86] and the diaphragm, thus filling the whole abdominal
cavity and thorax with water? "But," says he, "of course the
peritoneal coat is more impervious than the bladder, and this is why
it keeps out the vapours, while the bladder admits them." Yet if he
had ever practised anatomy, he might have known that the outer coat of
the bladder springs from the peritoneum and is essentially the same as
it, and that the inner coat, which is peculiar to the bladder, is more
than twice as thick as the former.
Perhaps, however, it is not the thickness or thinness of the coats,
but the _situation_ of the bladder, which is the reason for the
vapours being carried into it? On the contrary, even if it were
probable for every other reason that the vapours accumulate there, yet
the situation of the bladder would be enough in itself to prevent
this. For the bladder is situated below, whereas vapours have a
natural tendency to rise upwards; thus they would fill all the region
of the thorax and lungs long before they came to the bladder.
But why do I mention the situation of the bladder, peritoneum, and
thorax? For surely, when the vapours have passed through the coats of
the stomach and intestines, it is in the space between these and the
peritoneum[87] that they will collect and become liquefied (just as in
dropsical subjects it is in this region that most of the water
gathers).[88] Otherwise the vapours must necessarily pass straight
forward through everything which in any way comes in contact with
them, and will never come to a standstill. But, if this be assumed,
then they will traverse not merely the peritoneum but also the
epigastrium, and will become dispersed into the surrounding air;
otherwise they will certainly collect under the skin.
Even these considerations, however, our present-day Asclepiadeans
attempt to answer, despite the fact that they always get soundly
laughed at by all who happen to be present at their disputations on
these subjects--so difficult an evil to get rid of is this sectarian
partizanship, so excessively resistant to all cleansing processes,
harder to heal than any itch!
Thus, one of our Sophists who is a thoroughly hardened disputer and as
skilful a master of language as there ever was, once got into a
discussion with me on this subject; so far from being put out of
countenance by any of the above-mentioned considerations, he even
expressed his surprise that I should try to overturn obvious facts by
ridiculous arguments! "For," said he, "one may clearly observe any day
in the case of any bladder, that, if one fills it with water or air
and then ties up its neck and squeezes it all round, it does not let
anything out at any point, but accurately retains all its contents.
And surely," said he, "if there were any large and perceptible
channels coming into it from the kidneys the liquid would run out
through these when the bladder was squeezed, in the same way that it
entered?"[89] Having abruptly made these and similar remarks in
precise and clear tones, he concluded by jumping up and
departing--leaving me as though I were quite incapable of finding any
plausible answer!
The fact is that those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely
devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn!
Instead of listening, as they ought, to the reason why liquid can
enter the bladder through the ureters, but is unable to go back again
the same way,--instead of admiring Nature's artistic skill[90]--they
refuse to learn; they even go so far as to scoff, and maintain that
the kidneys, as well as many other things, have been made by Nature
_for no purpose!_[91] And some of them who had allowed themselves to
be shown the ureters coming from the kidneys and becoming implanted in
the bladder, even had the audacity to say that these also existed for
no purpose; and others said that they were spermatic ducts, and that
this was why they were inserted into the neck of the bladder and not
into its cavity. When, therefore, we had demonstrated to them the real
spermatic ducts[92] entering the neck of the bladder lower down than
the ureters, we supposed that, if we had not done so before, we would
now at least draw them away from their false assumptions, and convert
them forthwith to the opposite view. But even this they presumed to
dispute, and said that it was not to be wondered at that the semen
should remain longer in these latter ducts, these being more
constricted, and that it should flow quickly down the ducts which came
from the kidneys, seeing that these were well dilated. We were,
therefore, further compelled to show them in a still living animal,
the urine plainly running out through the ureters into the bladder;
even thus we hardly hoped to check their nonsensical talk.
Now the method of demonstration is as follows. One has to divide the
peritoneum in front of the ureters, then secure these with ligatures,
and next, having bandaged up the animal, let him go (for he will not
continue to urinate). After this one loosens the external bandages and
shows the bladder empty and the ureters quite full and distended--in
fact almost on the point of rupturing; on removing the ligature from
them, one then plainly sees the bladder becoming filled with urine.
When this has been made quite clear, then, before the animal urinates,
one has to tie a ligature round his penis and then to squeeze the
bladder all over; still nothing goes back through the ureters to the
kidneys. Here, then, it becomes obvious that not only in a dead
animal, but in one which is still living, the ureters are prevented
from receiving back the urine from the bladder. These observations
having been made, one now loosens the ligature from the animal's penis
and allows him to urinate, then again ligatures one of the ureters and
leaves the other to discharge into the bladder. Allowing, then, some
time to elapse, one now demonstrates that the ureter which was
ligatured is obviously full and distended on the side next to the
kidneys, while the other one--that from which the ligature had been
taken--is itself flaccid, but has filled the bladder with urine. Then,
again, one must divide the full ureter, and demonstrate how the urine
spurts out of it, like blood in the operation of venesection; and
after this one cuts through the other also, and both being thus
divided, one bandages up the animal externally. Then when enough time
seems to have elapsed, one takes off the bandages; the bladder will
now be found empty, and the whole region between the intestines and
the peritoneum full of urine, as if the animal were suffering from
dropsy. Now, if anyone will but test this for himself on an animal, I
think he will strongly condemn the rashness of Asclepiades, and if he
also learns the reason why nothing regurgitates from the bladder into
the ureters, I think he will be persuaded by this also of the
forethought and art shown by Nature in relation to animals.[93]
Now Hippocrates, who was the first known to us of all those who have
been both physicians and philosophers inasmuch as he was the first to
recognize what Nature effects, expresses his admiration of her, and is
constantly singing her praises and calling her "just." Alone, he says,
she suffices for the animal in every respect, performing of her own
accord and without any teaching all that is required. Being such, she
has, as he supposes, certain _faculties_, one attractive of what is
appropriate,[94] and another eliminative of what is foreign, and she
nourishes the animal, makes it grow, and expels its diseases by
crisis.[95] Therefore he says that there is in our bodies a
concordance in the movements of air and fluid, and that everything is
in sympathy. According to Asclepiades, however, nothing is naturally
in sympathy with anything else, all substance being divided and broken
up into inharmonious elements and absurd "molecules." Necessarily,
then, besides making countless other statements in opposition to plain
fact, he was ignorant of Nature's faculties, both that attracting what
is appropriate, and that expelling what is foreign. Thus he invented
some wretched nonsense to explain blood-production and _anadosis_,[96]
and, being utterly unable to find anything to say regarding the
clearing-out[97] of superfluities, he did not hesitate to join issue
with obvious facts, and, in this matter of urinary secretion, to
deprive both the kidneys and the ureters of their activity, by
assuming that there were certain invisible channels opening into the
bladder. It was, of course, a grand and impressive thing to do, to
mistrust the obvious, and to pin one's faith in things which could not
be seen!
Also, in the matter of the yellow bile, he makes an even grander and
more spirited venture; for he says this is actually generated in the
bile-ducts, not merely separated out.
How comes it, then, that in cases of jaundice two things happen at the
same time--that the dejections contain absolutely no bile, and that
the whole body becomes full of it? He is forced here again to talk
nonsense, just as he did in regard to the urine. He also talks no less
nonsense about the black bile and the spleen, not understanding what
was said by Hippocrates; and he attempts in stupid--I might say
insane--language, to contradict what he knows nothing about.
And what profit did he derive from these opinions from the point of
view of treatment? He neither was able to cure a kidney ailment, nor
jaundice, nor a disease of black bile, nor would he agree with the
view held not merely by Hippocrates but by all men regarding
drugs--that some of them purge away yellow bile, and others black,
some again phlegm, and others the thin and watery superfluity[98]; he
held that all the substances evacuated[99] were _produced by the drugs
themselves_, just as yellow bile is produced by the biliary passages!
It matters nothing, according to this extraordinary man, whether we
give a hydragogue or a cholagogue in a case of dropsy, for these all
equally purge[99] and dissolve the body, and produce a solution having
such and such an appearance, which did not exist as such before![100]
Must we not, therefore, suppose he was either mad, or entirely
unacquainted with practical medicine? For who does not know that if a
drug for attracting phlegm be given in a case of jaundice it will not
even evacuate four _cyathi_[101] of phlegm? Similarly also if one of
the hydragogues be given. A cholagogue, on the other hand, clears away
a great quantity of bile, and the skin of patients so treated at once
becomes clear. I myself have, in many cases, after treating the liver
condition, then removed the disease by means of a single purgation;
whereas, if one had employed a drug for removing phlegm one would have
done no good.
Nor is Hippocrates the only one who knows this to be so, whilst those
who take experience alone as their starting-point[102] know otherwise;
they, as well as all physicians who are engaged in the practice of
medicine, are of this opinion. Asclepiades, however is an exception;
he would hold it a betrayal of his assumed "elements"[103] to confess
the truth about such matters. For if a single drug were to be
discovered which attracted such and such a humour only, there would
obviously be danger of the opinion gaining ground that there is in
every body[104] a faculty which attracts its own particular quality.
He therefore says that safflower,[105] the Cnidian berry,[106] and
_Hippophaes_,[107] do not draw phlegm from the body, but actually make
it. Moreover, he holds that the flower and scales of bronze, and burnt
bronze itself, and germander,[108] and wild mastich[109] dissolve the
body into water, and that dropsical patients derive benefit from these
substances, not because they are purged by them, but because they are
rid of substances which actually help to increase the disease; for, if
the medicine does not evacuate[110] the dropsical fluid contained in
the body, but generates it, it aggravates the condition further.
Moreover, scammony, according to the Asclepiadean argument, not only
fails to evacuate[110] the bile from the bodies of jaundiced subjects,
but actually turns the useful blood into bile, and dissolves the body;
in fact it does all manner of evil and increases the disease.
And yet this drug may be clearly seen to do good to numbers of people!
"Yes," says he, "they derive benefit certainly, but merely in
proportion to the evacuation." ... But if you give these cases a drug
which draws off phlegm they will not be benefited. This is so obvious
that even those who make experience alone their starting-point[111]
are aware of it; and these people make it a cardinal point of their
teaching to trust to no arguments, but only to what can be clearly
seen. In this, then, they show good sense; whereas Asclepiades goes
far astray in bidding us distrust our senses where obvious facts
plainly overturn his hypotheses. Much better would it have been for
him not to assail obvious facts, but rather to devote himself entirely
to these.
Is it, then, these facts only which are plainly irreconcilable with
the views of Asclepiades? Is not also the fact that in summer yellow
bile is evacuated in greater quantity by the same drugs, and in winter
phlegm, and that in a young man more bile is evacuated, and in an old
man more phlegm? Obviously each drug attracts something which already
exists, and does not generate something previously non-existent. Thus
if you give in the summer season a drug which attracts phlegm to a
young man of a lean and warm habit, who has lived neither idly nor too
luxuriously, you will with great difficulty evacuate a very small
quantity of this humour, and you will do the man the utmost harm. On
the other hand, if you give him a cholagogue, you will produce an
abundant evacuation and not injure him at all.
Do we still, then, disbelieve that each drug attracts _that humour
which is proper to it_?[112] Possibly the adherents of Asclepiades
will assent to this--or rather, they will--not possibly, but
certainly--declare that they disbelieve it, lest they should betray
their darling prejudices.
XIII
Mathein d' enestin ou monon ex hôn hoi tanantia
tithemenoi diapherontai tois enargôs phainomenois, eis
hoson orthotêtos te kai alêtheias hêkei ta Hippokratous
dogmata, alla kax autôn tôn kata meros en tê physikê
theôria zêtoumenôn tôn t' allôn hapantôn kai tôn en tois
zôois energeiôn. hosoi gar oudemian oudeni moriô
nomizousin hyparchein helktikên tês oikeias poiotêtos
dynamin, anankazontai pollakis enantia legein tois
enargôs phainomenois, hôsper kai Asklêpiadês ho iatros
epi tôn nephrôn epoiêsen, hous ou monon Hippokratês ê
Dioklês ê Erasistratos ê Praxagoras ê tis allos iatros
aristos organa diakritika tôn ourôn pepisteukasin
hyparchein, alla kai hoi || mageiroi schedon hapantes 31
isasin, hosêmerai theômenoi tên te thesin autôn kai ton
aph' hekaterou poron eis tên kystin emballonta, ton
ourêtêra kaloumenon, ex autês tês kataskeuês
analogizomenoi tên te chreian autôn kai tên dynamin. kai
pro ge tôn mageirôn hapantes anthrôpoi kai dysourountes
pollakis kai pantapasin ischourountes, hotan algôsi men
ta kata tas psoas, psammôdê d' exourôsin, nephritikous
onomazousi sphas autous.
Asklêpiadên d' oimai mêde lithon ourêthenta pote
theasasthai pros tôn houtô paschontôn mêd' hôs
proêgêsato kata tên metaxy tôn nephrôn kai tês kysteôs
chôran odynê tis oxeia dierchomenou tou lithou ton
ourêtêra mêd' hôs ourêthentos autou ta te tês odynês kai
ta tês ischourias epausato parachrêma. pôs oun eis tên
kystin tô logô paragei to ouron, axion akousai kai
thaumasai tandros tên sophian, hos katalipôn houtôs
eureias hodous enargôs phainomenas aphaneis kai stenas
kai pantapasin anaisthêtous || hypetheto. bouletai gar 32
eis atmous analyomenon to pinomenon hygron eis tên
kystin diadidosthai kapeit' ex ekeinôn authis allêlois
syniontôn houtôs apolambanein auto tên archaian idean
kai gignesthai palin hygron ex atmôn atechnôs hôs peri
spongias tinos ê eriou tês kysteôs dianooumenos, all' ou
sômatos akribôs pyknou kai steganou dyo chitônas
ischyrotatous kektêmenou, di' hôn eiper dierchesthai
phêsomen tous atmous, ti dêpot' ouchi dia tou
peritonaiou kai tôn phrenôn dielthontes eneplêsan
hydatos to t' epigastrion hapan kai ton thôraka? alla
pachyteros, phêsin, esti dêladê kai steganôteros ho
peritonaios chitôn tês kysteôs kai dia tout' ekeinos men
apostegei tous atmous, hê de kystis paradechetai. all'
eiper anatetmêkei pote, tach' an êpistato ton men
exôthen chitôna tês kysteôs apo tou peritonaiou
pephykota tên autên ekeinô physin echein, ton d'
endothen ton autês tês kysteôs idion pleon ê diplasion
ekeinou to pachos hyparchein.
All' isôs oute to || pachos outh' hê leptotês tôn 33
chitônôn, all' hê thesis tês kysteôs aitia tou
pheresthai tous atmous eis autên. kai mên ei kai dia
talla panta pithanon ên autous entauthoi
synathroizesthai, to ge tês theseôs monês autarkes
kôlysai. katô men gar hê kystis keitai, tois d' atmois
symphytos hê pros to meteôron phora, hôste poly proteron
an eplêsan hapanta ta kata ton thôraka te kai ton
pneumona, prin epi tên kystin aphikesthai.
Kaitoi ti theseôs kysteôs kai peritonaiou kai thôrakos
mnêmoneuô? diekpesontes gar dêpou tous te tês koilias
kai tôn enterôn chitônas hoi atmoi kata tên metaxy
chôran autôn te toutôn kai tou peritonaiou
synathroisthêsontai kai hygron entauthoi genêsontai,
hôsper kai tois hyderikois en toutô tô chôriô to
pleiston athroizetai tou hydatos, ê pantôs autous chrê
pheresthai prosô dia pantôn tôn hopôsoun homilountôn kai
mêdepoth' histasthai. all' ei kai touto tis hypothoito,
diekpesontes an houtôs ou to peritonaion monon alla kai
to epigastrion, eis to periechon skedastheien ê pantôs
an hypo tô dermati || synathroistheien. 34
Alla kai pros taut' antilegein hoi nyn Asklêpiadeioi
peirôntai, kaitoi pros hapantôn aei tôn paratynchanontôn
autois, hotan peri toutôn erizôsi, katagelômenoi. houtôs
ara dysapotripton ti kakon estin hê peri tas haireseis
philotimia kai dyseknipton en tois malista kai psôras
hapasês dysiatoteron.
Tôn goun kath' hêmas tis sophistôn ta t' alla kai peri
tous eristikous logous hikanôs synkekrotêmenos kai
deinos eipein, eiper tis allos, aphikomenos emoi poth'
hyper toutôn eis logous, tosouton apedei tou
dysôpeisthai pros tinos tôn eirêmenôn, hôste kai
thaumazein ephasken emou ta saphôs phainomena logois
lêrôdesin anatrepein epicheirountos. enargôs gar
hosêmerai theôreisthai tas kysteis hapasas, ei tis autas
emplêseien hydatos ê aeros, eita dêsas ton trachêlon
piezoi pantachothen, oudamothen methieisas ouden, all'
akribôs hapan entos heautôn stegousas. kaitoi g' eiper
êsan tines ek tôn nephrôn eis autas hêkontes aisthêtoi
kai megaloi poroi, pantôs an, ephê, di' ekeinôn, hôsper
eisêei to || hygron eis autas, houtô kai thlibontôn 35
exekrineto. tauta kai ta toiaut' eipôn exaiphnês
aptaistô kai saphei tô stomati teleutôn anapêdêsas apêei
katalipôn hêmas hôs oude pithanês tinos antilogias
euporêsai dynamenous.
Houtôs ou monon hygies ouden isasin hoi tais hairesesi
douleuontes, all' oude mathein hypomenousi. deon gar
akousai tên aitian, di' hên eisienai men dynatai dia tôn
ourêtêrôn eis tên kystin to hygron, exienai d' authis
opisô tên autên hodon ouketh' hoion te, kai thaumasai
tên technên tês physeôs, oute mathein ethelousi kai
loidorountai proseti matên hyp' autês alla te polla kai
tous nephrous gegonenai phaskontes. eisi d' hoi kai
deichthênai parontôn autôn tous apo tôn nephrôn eis tên
kystin emphyomenous ourêtêras hypomeinantes etolmêsan
eipein hoi men, hoti matên kai houtoi gegonasin, hoi d',
hoti spermatikoi tines eisi poroi kai dia touto kata ton
trachêlon autês, ouk eis to kytos emphyontai. deixantes
oun hêmeis autois tous hôs alêthôs spermatikous porous
katôterô tôn ourêtêrôn || emballontas eis ton trachêlon, 36
nyn goun, ei kai mê proteron, ôêthêmen apaxein te tôn
pseudôs hypeilêmmenôn epi te tanantia metastêsein
autika. hoi de kai pros tout' antilegein etolmôn ouden
einai thaumaston eipontes, en ekeinois men hôs an
steganôterois ousin epi pleon hypomenein to sperma, kata
de tous apo tôn nephrôn hôs an hikanôs aneurysmenous
ekrein dia tacheôn. hêmeis oun ênankasthêmen autois tou
loipou deiknyein eisreon tê kystei dia tôn ourêtêrôn to
ouron enargôs epi zôntos eti tou zôou, mogis an houtô
pote tên phlyarian autôn epischêsein elpizontes.
Ho de tropos tês deixeôs esti toiosde. dielein chrê to
pro tôn ourêtêrôn peritonaion, eita brochois autous
eklabein kapeit' epidêsantas easai to zôon; ou gar an
ourêseien eti. meta de tauta lyein men tous exôthen
desmous, deiknynai de kenên men tên kystin, mestous d'
hikanôs kai diatetamenous tous ourêtêras kai
kindyneuontas rhagênai kapeita tous brochous autôn
aphelontas enargôs horan êdê plêroumenên ourou tên
kystin.
Epi de toutô || phanenti, prin ourêsai to zôon, brochon 37
autou peribalein chrê tô aidoiô kapeita thlibein
pantachothen tên kystin. oude gar an ouden eti dia tôn
ourêtêrôn epanelthoi pros tous nephrous. kan toutô dêlon
gignetai to mê monon epi tethneôtos alla kai periontos
eti tou zôou kôlyesthai metalambanein authis ek tês
kysteôs tous ourêtêras to ouron. epi toutois ophtheisin
epitrepein êdê to zôon ourein lyontas autou ton epi tô
aidoiô brochon, eit' authis epibalein men thaterô tôn
ourêtêrôn, easai de ton heteron eis tên kystin syrrhein
kai tina dialipontas chronon epideiknyein êdê, pôs ho
men heteros autôn ho dedemenos mestos kai diatetamenos
kata ta pros tôn nephrôn merê phainetai, ho d' heteros
ho lelymenos autos men chalaros esti, peplêrôke d' ourou
tên kystin. eit' authis diatemein prôton men ton plêrê
kai deixai, pôs exakontizetai to ouron ex autou,
kathaper en tais phlebotomiais to haima, meta tauta de
kai ton heteron authis diatemein kapeit' epidêsai to
zôon exôthen, amphoterôn diêrêmenôn, || eith' hotan 38
hikanôs echein dokê, lysai ton desmon. heurethêsetai gar
hê men kystis kenê, plêres d' ourou to metaxy tôn
enterôn te kai tou peritonaiou chôrion hapan, hôs an ei
kai hyderikon ên to zôon. taut' oun ei tis autos kath'
heauton boulêtheiê basanizein epi zôou, megalôs moi
dokei katagnôsesthai tês Asklêpiadou propeteias. ei de
dê kai tên aitian mathoi, di' hên ouden ek tês kysteôs
eis tous ourêtêras antekrei, peisthênai an moi dokei kai
dia toude tên eis ta zôa pronoian te kai technên tês
physeôs.
Hippokratês men oun hôn ismen iatrôn te kai philosophôn
prôtos hapantôn, hôs an kai prôtos epignous ta tês
physeôs erga, thaumazei te kai dia pantos autên hymnei
dikaian onomazôn kai monên exarkein eis hapanta tois
zôois phêsin, autên ex hautês adidaktôs prattousan
hapanta ta deonta; toiautên d' ousan autên eutheôs kai
dynameis hypelaben echein helktikên men tôn oikeiôn,
apokritikên de tôn allotriôn kai trephein te kai auxein
au||tên ta zôa kai krinein ta nosêmata; kai dia tout' en 39
tois sômasin hêmôn sympnoian te mian einai phêsi kai
syrrhoian kai panta sympathea. kata de ton Asklêpiadên
ouden oudeni sympathes esti physei, diêrêmenês te kai
katatethrausmenês eis anarma stoicheia kai lêrôdeis
onkous hapasês tês ousias. ex anankês oun alla te myria
tois enargôs phainomenois enantiôs apephênato kai tês
physeôs êgnoêse tên te tôn oikeiôn epispastikên dynamin
kai tên tôn allotriôn apokritikên. epi men oun tês
exaimatôseôs te kai anadoseôs exeure tina psychran
adoleschian; eis de tên tôn perittômatôn katharsin ouden
holôs heurôn eipein ouk ôknêsen homose chôrêsai tois
phainomenois, epi men tês tôn ourôn diakriseôs
aposterêsas men tôn te nephrôn kai tôn ourêtêrôn tên
energeian, adêlous de tinas porous eis tên kystin
hypothemenos; touto gar ên dêladê mega kai semnon
apistêsanta tois phainomenois pisteusai tois adêlois.
Epi || de tês xanthês cholês eti meizon autô kai 40
neanikôteron esti to tolmêma; gennasthai gar autên en
tois cholêdochois angeiois, ou diakrinesthai legei.
Pôs oun tois ikterikois ham' amphô sympiptei, ta men
diachôrêmata mêden holôs en hautois echonta cholês,
anapleôn d' autois gignomenon holon to sôma? lêrein
palin entauth' anankazetai tois epi tôn ourôn eirêmenois
paraplêsiôs. lêrei d' ouden hêtton kai peri tês melainês
cholês kai tou splênos oute ti poth' hyph' Hippokratous
eirêtai synieis antilegein t' epicheirôn hois ouk oiden
emplêktô tini kai manikô stomati.
Ti dê to kerdos ek tôn toioutôn dogmatôn eis tas
therapeias ektêsato? mête nephritikon ti nosêma
dynasthai therapeusai mêt' ikterikon mête melancholikon,
alla kai peri tou pasin anthrôpois ouch Hippokratei
monon homologoumenou tou kathairein tôn pharmakôn enia
men tên xanthên cholên, enia de tên melainan, alla de
tina phlegma kai tina to lepton kai hydatôdes perittôma,
mêde peri toutôn synchôrein, all' hyp' autôn tôn
pharmakôn gignesthai legein toiouton hekaston tôn
kenoumenôn, hôsper hypo tôn cholê||dochôn porôn tên 41
cholên; kai mêden diapherein kata ton thaumaston
Asklêpiadên ê hydragôgon didonai tois hyderiôsin ê
cholagôgon pharmakon; hapanta gar homoiôs kenoun kai
syntêkein to sôma kai to syntêgma toionde ti phainesthai
poiein, mê proteron hyparchon toiouton.
Ar' oun ou mainesthai nomisteon auton ê pantapasin
apeiron einai tôn ergôn tês technês? tis gar ouk oiden,
hôs, ei men phlegmatos agôgon dotheiê pharmakon tois
ikteriôsin, ouk an oude tettaras kyathous kathartheien;
houtô d' oud' ei tôn hydragôgôn ti; cholagôgô de
pharmakô pleiston men ekkenoutai cholês, autika de
katharos tois houtô kathartheisin ho chrôs gignetai.
pollous goun hêmeis meta to therapeusai tên en tô hêpati
diathesin hapax kathêrantes apêllaxamen tou pathêmatos.
ou mên oud' ei phlegmatos agôgô kathairois pharmakô,
pleon an ti diapraxaio.
Kai taut' ouch Hippokratês men houtôs oide gignomena,
tois d' apo tês empeirias monês hormômenois heterôs
egnôstai, alla kakei||nois hôsautôs kai pasin iatrois, 42
hois melei tôn ergôn tês technês, houtô dokei plên
Asklêpiadou. prodosian gar einai nenomike tôn stoicheiôn
hôn hypetheto tên alêthê peri tôn toioutôn homologian.
ei gar holôs heuretheiê ti pharmakon helktikon toude
tinos tou chymou monou, kindynos kratein dêladê tô logô
to en hekastô tôn sômatôn einai tina dynamin
epispastikên tês oikeias poiotêtos. dia touto knêkon men
kai kokkon ton knidion kai hippophaes ouch helkein ek
tou sômatos alla poiein to phlegma phêsin; anthos de
chalkou kai lepida kai auton ton kekaumenon chalkon kai
chamaidryn kai chamaileonta eis hydôr analyein to sôma
kai tous hyderikous hypo toutôn ou kathairomenous
oninasthai alla kenoumenous synauxontôn dêladê to
pathos. ei gar ou kenoi to periechomenon en tois sômasin
hydatôdes hygron all' auto genna, tô nosêmati
prostimôreitai. kai men ge kai hê skammônia pros tô mê
kenoun ek tou sômatos tôn ikterikôn tên cholên eti kai
to chrêston haima cholên ergazomenê || kai syntêkousa to 43
sôma kai têlikauta kaka drôsa kai to pathos epauxousa
kata ge ton Asklêpiadou logon.
Homôs enargôs horatai pollous ôphelousa. nai, phêsin,
oninantai men, all' autô monô tô logô tês kenôseôs. kai
mên ei phlegmatos agôgon autois doiês pharmakon, ouk
onêsontai. kai touth' houtôs enarges estin, hôste kai
hoi apo monês tês empeirias hormômenoi gignôskousin
auto. kaitoi toutois ge tois andrasin auto dê tout' esti
philosophêma, to mêdeni logô pisteuein alla monois tois
enargôs phainomenois. ekeinoi men oun sôphronousin;
Asklêpiadês de parapaiei tais aisthêsesin hêmas apistein
keleuôn, entha to phainomenon anatrepei saphôs autou tas
hypotheseis. kaitoi makrô g' ên ameinon ouch homose
chôrein tois phainomenois all' ekeinois anathesthai to
pan.
Ar' oun tauta monon enargôs machetai tois Asklêpiadou
dogmasin ê kai to therous men pleiona kenousthai tên
xanthên cholên hypo tôn autôn pharmakôn, cheimônos de to
phlegma, kai neaniskô men pleiona tên cholên, presbytê
de to phlegma? phainetai || gar hekaston helkein tên 44
ousan, ouk auto gennan tên ouk ousan. ei goun ethelêsais
neaniskô tini tôn ischnôn kai thermôn hôra therous mêt'
argôs bebiôkoti mêt' en plêsmonê phlegmatos agôgon
dounai pharmakon, oligiston men kai meta bias pollês
ekkenôseis tou chymou, blapseis d' eschatôs ton
anthrôpon; empalin d' ei cholagôgon doiês, kai pampoly
kenôseis kai blapseis ouden.
Ar' apistoumen eti tô mê ouch hekaston tôn pharmakôn
epagesthai ton oikeion heautô chymon? isôs phêsousin hoi
ap' Asklêpiadou, mallon d' ouk isôs, alla pantôs
apistein erousin, hina mê prodôsi ta philtata.
XIV
Let us pass on, then, again to another piece of nonsense; for the
sophists do not allow one to engage in enquiries that are of any
worth, albeit there are many such; they compel one to spend one's time
in dissipating the fallacious arguments which they bring forward.
What, then, is this piece of nonsense? It has to do with the famous
and far-renowned stone which draws iron [the lodestone]. It might be
thought that this would draw[113] their minds to a belief that there
are in all bodies certain _faculties_ by which they attract their own
proper qualities.
Now Epicurus, despite the fact that he employs in his _Physics_[114]
elements similar to those of Asclepiades,[115] yet allows that iron is
attracted by the lodestone,[116] and chaff by amber. He even tries to
give the cause of the phenomenon. His view is that the atoms which
flow from the stone are related in shape to those flowing from the
iron, and so they become easily interlocked with one another; thus it
is that, after colliding with each of the two compact masses (the
stone and the iron) they then rebound into the middle and so become
entangled with each other, and draw the iron after them. So far, then,
as his hypotheses regarding causation[117] go, he is perfectly
unconvincing; nevertheless, he does grant that there is an attraction.
Further, he says that it is on similar principles that there occur in
the bodies of animals the dispersal of nutriment[118] and the
discharge of waste matters, as also the actions of cathartic drugs.
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 attrac
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/43383