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 attraction by the kidneys,[139] and that this attraction does not take place in the way imagined by people who do not allow Nature a faculty of her own.[140] For if it be granted that there is any attractive faculty at all in those things which are governed by Nature,[141] a person who attempted to say anything else about the absorption of nutriment[142] would be considered a fool. XV Epei d' hikanôs êdoleschêsamen ouch hekontes, all', hôs hê paroimia phêsi, mainomenois anankasthentes sym||manênai, palin epi tên tôn ourôn epanelthômen 57 diakrisin, en hê tôn men Asklêpiadou lêrôn epilathômetha, meta de tôn pepeismenôn diêtheisthai ta oura dia tôn nephrôn, tis ho tropos tês energeias estin, episkepsômetha; pantôs gar ê ex hautôn epi tous nephrous pheretai ta oura touto beltion einai nomizonta, kathaper hêmeis, hopotan eis tên agoran apiômen; ê, ei tout' adynaton, heteron ti chrê tês phoras autôn exeurein aition. ti dê tout' estin? ei gar mê tois nephrois dôsomen tina dynamin helktikên tês toiautês poiotêtos, hôs Hippokratês enomizen, ouden heteron exeurêsomen. hoti men gar êtoi toutous helkein auto prosêken ê tas phlebas pempein, eiper ge mê ex heautou pheretai, panti pou dêlon. all' ei men hai phlebes peristellomenai proôthoien, ouk ekeino monon, alla syn autô kai to pan haima to periechomenon en heautais eis tous nephrous ekthlipsousin; ei de tout' adynaton, hôs deixomen, leipetai tous nephrous helkein. Pôs oun adynaton touto? tôn nephrôn hê thesis antibainei. ou gar dê houtô g' hypokeintai tê koilê phlebi || kathaper tois ex enkephalou perittômasin en te 58 tê rhini kai kata tên hyperôan hoi tois êthmois homoioi poroi, all' hekaterôthen autê parakeintai. kai mên, eiper homoiôs tois êthmois hoson an ê leptoteron kai teleôs orrhôdes, touto men hetoimôs diapempousi, to de pachyteron apostegousin, hapan ep' autous ienai chrê to haima to periechomenon en tê koilê phlebi, kathaper eis tous trygêtous ho pas oinos emballetai. kai men ge kai to tou galaktos tou tyroumenou paradeigma saphôs an, ho boulomai legein, endeixaito. kai gar kai touto pan emblêthen eis tous talarous ou pan diêtheitai, all' hoson men an ê leptoteron tês eurytêtos tôn plokamôn, eis to katantes pheretai kai touto men orrhos eponomazetai; to loipon de to pachy to mellon esesthai tyros, hôs an ou paradechomenôn auto tôn en tois talarois porôn, ou diekpiptei katô. kai toinyn, eiper houtô mellei diêtheisthai tôn nephrôn ho tou haimatos orrhos, hapan ep' autous hêkein chrê to haima kai mê to men nai, to d' ou. || 59 Pôs oun echei to phainomenon ek tês anatomês? To men heteron meros tês koilês anô pros tên kardian anapheretai, to loipon d' epibainei tê rhachei kath' holês autês ekteinomenon achri tôn skelôn, hôste to men heteron oud' engys aphikneitai tôn nephrôn, to loipon de plêsiazei men, ou mên eis autous ge kataphyetai. echrên d', eiper emellen hôs di' êthmôn autôn katharthêsesthai to haima, pan empiptein eis autous kapeita katô men pheresthai to lepton, ischesthai d' anô to pachy. nyni d' ouch houtôs echei; plagioi gar hekaterôthen tês koilês phlebos hoi nephroi keintai. oukoun hôs êthmoi diêthousi, pempousês men ekeinês, autoi d' oudemian eispheromenoi dynamin, all' helkousi dêlonoti; touto gar eti leipetai. Pôs oun helkousin? ei men, hôs Epikouros oietai tas holkas hapasas gignesthai kata tas tôn atomôn apopalseis te kai periplokas, ameinon ên ontôs eipein autous mêd' helkein holôs; poly gar an houtô ge tôn epi tês hêrakleias lithou mikrô prosthen eirê||menôn ho logos 60 exetazomenos heuretheiê geloioteros; all' hôs Hippokratês êbouleto. lechthêsetai de saphesteron epi proêkonti tô logô. nyni gar ou touto prokeitai didaskein, all' hôs out' allo ti dynaton eipein aition einai tês tôn ourôn diakriseôs plên tês holkês tôn nephrôn outh' houtô gignesthai tên holkên, hôs hoi mêdemian oikeian didontes tê physei dynamin oiontai gignesthai. Toutou gar homologêthentos, hôs estin holôs tis en tois hypo physeôs dioikoumenois dynamis helktikê, lêrôdês nomizoit' an ho peri anadoseôs trophês allo ti legein epicheirôn. XVI Now, while Erasistratus[143] for some reason replied at great length to certain other foolish doctrines, he entirely passed over the view held by Hippocrates, not even thinking it worth while to mention it, as he did in his work "On Deglutition"; in that work, as may be seen, he did go so far as at least to make mention of the word _attraction_, writing somewhat as follows: "Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any attraction."[143] But when he is dealing with _anadosis_ he does not mention the Hippocratic view even to the extent of a single syllable. Yet we should have been satisfied if he had even merely written this: "Hippocrates lies in saying 'The flesh[144] attracts both from the stomach and from without,' for it cannot attract either from the stomach or from without." Or if he had thought it worth while to state that Hippocrates was wrong in criticizing the weakness of the neck of the uterus, "seeing that the orifice of the uterus has no power of attracting semen,"[145] or if he [Erasistratus] had thought proper to write any other similar opinion, then we in our turn would have defended ourselves in the following terms: "My good sir, do not run us down in this rhetorical fashion without some proof; state some definite objection to our view, in order that either you may convince us by a brilliant refutation of the ancient doctrine, or that, on the other hand, we may convert you from your ignorance." Yet why do I say "rhetorical"? For we too are not to suppose that when certain rhetoricians pour ridicule upon that which they are quite incapable of refuting, without any attempt at argument, their words are really thereby constituted rhetoric. For rhetoric proceeds by persuasive reasoning; words without reasoning are buffoonery rather than rhetoric. Therefore, the reply of Erasistratus in his treatise "On Deglutition" was neither rhetoric nor logic. For what is it that he says? "Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any traction." Let us testify against him in return, and set our argument beside his in the same form. _Now, there appears to be no peristalsis[146] of the gullet._ "And how does this appear?" one of his adherents may perchance ask. "For is it not indicative of _peristalsis_ that always when the upper parts of the gullet contract the lower parts dilate?" Again, then, we say, "And in what way does the attraction of the stomach not appear? For is it not indicative of _attraction_ that always when the lower parts of the gullet dilate the upper parts contract?" Now, if he would but be sensible and recognize that this phenomenon is not more indicative of the one than of the other view, but that it applies equally to both,[147] we should then show him without further delay the proper way to the discovery of truth. We will, however, speak about the stomach again. And the dispersal of nutriment [anadosis] need not make us have recourse to the theory regarding the _natural tendency of a vacuum to become refilled_,[148] when once we have granted the attractive faculty of the kidneys. Now, although Erasistratus knew that this faculty most certainly existed, he neither mentioned it nor denied it, nor did he make any statement as to his views on the secretion of urine. Why did he give notice at the very beginning of his "General Principles" that he was going to speak about natural activities--firstly what they are, how they take place, and in what situations--and then, in the case of urinary secretion, declared that this took place through the kidneys, but left out its method of occurrence? It must, then, have been for no purpose that he told us how digestion occurs, or spends time upon the secretion of biliary superfluities;[149] for in these cases also it would have been sufficient to have named the parts through which the function takes place, and to have omitted the method. On the contrary, in these cases he was able to tell us not merely through what organs, but also in what way it occurs--as he also did, I think, in the case of _anadosis_; for he was not satisfied with saying that this took place through the veins, but he also considered fully the method, which he held to be from the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled. Concerning the secretion of urine, however, he writes that this occurs through the kidneys, but does not add in what _way_ it occurs. I do not think he could say that this was from the tendency of matter to fill a vacuum,[150] for, if this were so, nobody would have ever died of retention of urine, since no more can flow into a vacuum than has run out. For, if no other factor comes into operation[151] save only this tendency by which a vacuum becomes refilled, no more could ever flow in than had been evacuated. Nor could he suggest any other plausible cause, such, for example, as the expression of nutriment by the stomach[152] which occurs in the process of anadosis; this had been entirely disproved in the case of blood in the vena cava;[153] it is excluded, not merely owing to the long distance, but also from the fact that the overlying heart, at each diastole, robs the vena cava by violence of a considerable quantity of blood. In relation to the lower part of the vena cava[154] there would still remain, solitary and abandoned, the specious theory concerning the filling of a vacuum. This, however, is deprived of plausibility by the fact that people die of retention of urine, and also, no less, by the situation of the kidneys. For, if the whole of the blood were carried to the kidneys, one might properly maintain that it all undergoes purification there. But, as a matter of fact, the whole of it does not go to them, but only so much as can be contained in the veins going to the kidneys;[155] this portion only, therefore, will be purified. Further, the thin serous part of this will pass through the kidneys as if through a sieve, while the thick sanguineous portion remaining in the veins will obstruct the blood flowing in from behind; this will first, therefore, have to run back to the vena cava, and so to empty the veins going to the kidneys; these veins will no longer be able to conduct a second quantity of unpurified blood to the kidneys--occupied as they are by the blood which had preceded, there is no passage left. What power have we, then, which will draw back the purified blood from the kidneys? And what power, in the next place, will bid this blood retire to the lower part of the vena cava, and will enjoin on another quantity coming from above not to proceed downwards before turning off into the kidneys? Now Erasistratus realized that all these ideas were open to many objections, and he could only find one idea which held good in all respects--namely, that of _attraction_. Since, therefore, he did not wish either to get into difficulties or to mention the view of Hippocrates, he deemed it better to say nothing at all as to the manner in which secretion occurs. But even if he kept silence, I am not going to do so. For I know that if one passes over the Hippocratic view and makes some other pronouncement about the function of the kidneys, one cannot fail to make oneself utterly ridiculous. It was for this reason that Erasistratus kept silence and Asclepiades lied; they are like slaves who have had plenty to say in the early part of their career, and have managed by excessive rascality to escape many and frequent accusations, but who, later, when caught in the act of thieving, cannot find any excuse; the more modest one then keeps silence, as though thunderstruck, whilst the more shameless continues to hide the missing article beneath his arm and denies on oath that he has ever seen it. For it was in this way also that Asclepiades, when all subtle excuses had failed him and there was no longer any room for nonsense about "conveyance towards the rarefied part [of the air],"[156] and when it was impossible without incurring the greatest derision to say that this superfluity [_i.e._ the urine] is generated by the kidneys as is bile by the canals in the liver--he, then, I say, clearly lied when he swore that the urine does not reach the kidneys, and maintained that it passes, in the form of vapour, straight from the region of the vena cava,[157] to collect in the bladder. Like slaves, then, caught in the act of stealing, these two are quite bewildered, and while the one says nothing, the other indulges in shameless lying. XVI Erasistratos d' ouk oid' hopôs heterais men tisi doxais euêthesin anteipe dia makrôn, hyperebê de teleôs tên Hippokratous, oud' achri tou mnêmoneusai monon autês, hôs en tois peri kataposeôs epoiêsen, axiôsas. en ekeinois men gar achri tosoutou phainetai mnêmoneuôn, hôs tounom' eipein tês holkês monon hôde pôs graphôn; "Holkê men oun tês koilias oudemia phainetai einai"; peri de tês || anadoseôs ton logon poioumenos oud' achri 61 syllabês mias emnêmoneuse tês Hippokrateiou doxês. kaitoi g' epêrkesen an hêmin, ei kai tout' egrapse monon, hôs Hippokratês eipôn "Sarkes holkoi kai ek koiliês kai exôthen" pseudetai; oute gar ek tês koilias out' exôthen helkein dynantai. ei de kai hoti mêtras aitiômenos arrhôston auchena kakôs eipen "Ou gar dynatai auteês ho stomachos eirysai tên gonên," ê ei kai ti toiouton allo graphein ho Erasistratos êxiôse, tot' an kai hêmeis pros auton apologoumenoi eipomen; Ô gennaie, mê rhêtorikôs hêmôn katatreche chôris apodeixeôs, all' eipe tina katêgorian tou dogmatos, hin' ê peisthômen soi hôs kalôs exelenchonti ton palaion logon ê metapeisômen hôs agnoounta. kaitoi ti legô rhêtorikôs? mê gar, epeidê tines tôn rhêtorôn, ha malist' adynatousi dialyesthai, tauta diagelasantes oud' epicheirousin antilegein, êdê pou touto kai hêmeis hêgômeth' einai to rhêtorikôs; to gar dia logou pithanou esti to || rhêtorikôs, to d' aneu logou bômolochikon, ou 62 rhêtorikon. oukoun oute rhêtorikôs oute dialektikôs anteipen ho Erasistratos en tô peri tês kataposeôs logô. ti gar phêsin? "Holkê men oun tês koilias oudemia phainetai einai." palin oun autô par' hêmôn antimartyrôn ho autos logos antiparaballesthô; peristolê men oun tou stomachou oudemia phainetai einai. kai pôs ou phainetai? tach' an isôs eipoi tis tôn ap' autou; to gar aei tôn anôthen autou merôn systellomenôn diastellesthai ta katô pôs ouk esti tês peristolês endeiktikon? authis oun hêmeis, kai pôs ou phainetai, phêsomen, hê tês koilias holkê? to gar aei tôn katôthen merôn tou stomachou diastellomenôn systellesthai ta anô pôs ouk esti tês holkês endeiktikon? ei de sôphronêseie pote kai gnoiê to phainomenon touto mêden mallon tês heteras tôn doxôn hyparchein endeiktikon all' amphoterôn einai koinon, houtôs an êdê deixaimen autô tên orthên hodon tês tou alêthous heureseôs. Alla peri men tês koilias authis. hê de tês trophês anadosis ouden deitai || tês pros to kenoumenon 63 akolouthias hapax ge tês helktikês dynameôs epi tôn nephrôn hômologêmenês, hên kaitoi pany saphôs alêthê gignôskôn hyparchein ho Erasistratos out' emnêmoneusen out' anteipen outh' holôs apephênato, tin' echei doxan hyper tês tôn ourôn diakriseôs. Ê dia ti proeipôn euthys kat' archas tôn kath' holou logôn, hôs hyper tôn physikôn energeiôn erei, prôton tines t' eisi kai pôs gignontai kai dia tinôn topôn, epi tês tôn ourôn diakriseôs, hoti men dia nephrôn, apephênato, to d' hopôs gignetai parelipe? matên oun hêmas kai peri tês pepseôs edidaxen, hopôs gignetai, kai peri tês tou cholôdous perittômatos diakriseôs katatribei. êrkei gar eipein kantautha ta moria, di' hôn gignetai, to d' hopôs paralipein. alla peri men ekeinôn eiche legein, ou monon di' hôn organôn alla kai kath' hontina gignetai tropon, hôsper oimai kai peri tês anadoseôs; ou gar êrkesen eipein autô monon, hoti dia phlebôn, alla kai pôs epexêlthen, hoti tê pros || to 64 kenoumenon akolouthia; peri de tôn ourôn tês diakriseôs, hoti men dia nephrôn gignetai, graphei, to d' hopôs ouketi prostithêsin. oude gar oimai tê pros to kenoumenon akolouthia ên eipein; houtô gar an oudeis hyp' ischourias apethanen oudepote mê dynamenou pleionos epirrhyênai pote para to kenoumenon; allês gar aitias mêdemias prostetheisês, alla monês tês pros to kenoumenon akolouthias podêgousês to syneches, ouk enchôrei pleon epirrhyênai pote tou kenoumenou. all' oud' allên tina prostheinai pithanên aitian eichen, hôs epi tês anadoseôs tên ekthlipsin tês gastros. all' hautê g' epi tou kata tên koilên haimatos apôlôlei teleôs, ou tô mêkei monon tês apostaseôs eklytheisa, alla kai tô tên kardian hyperkeimenên exarpazein autês sphodrôs kath' hekastên diastolên ouk oligon haima. Monê dê tis eti kai pantôn erêmos apeleipeto tôn sophismatôn en tois katô tês koilês hê pros || to 65 kenoumenon akolouthia, dia te tous epi tais ischouriais apothnêskontas apolôlekuia tên pithanotêta kai dia tên tôn nephrôn thesin ouden hêtton, ei men gar hapan ep' autous ephereto to haima, deontôs an tis hapan ephasken auto kathairesthai. nyni de, ou gar holon alla tosouton autou meros, hoson hai mechri nephrôn dechontai phlebes, ep' autous erchetai, monon ekeino katharthêsetai. kai to men orrhôdes autou kai lepton hoion di' êthmôn tinôn tôn nephrôn diadysetai; to d' haimatôdes te kai pachy kata tas phlebas hypomenon empodôn stêsetai tô katopin epirrheonti. palindromein oun auto proteron epi tên koilên anankaion kai kenas houtôs ergazesthai tas epi tous nephrous iousas phlebas, hai deuteron ouketi parakomiousin ep' autous akatharton haima; kateilêphotos gar autas tou proterou parodos oudemia leleiptai. tis oun hêmin hê dynamis apaxei palin opisô tôn nephrôn to katharon haima? tis de touto men diadexamenê keleusei palin pros to katô meros ienai tês koilês, heterô d' anôthen epipheromenô prostaxei, prin || epi tous 66 nephrous apelthein, mê pheresthai katô? Taut' oun hapanta synidôn ho Erasistratos aporiôn mesta kai mian monên doxan euporon heurôn en hapasi tên tês holkês, out' aporeisthai boulomenos oute tên Hippokratous ethelôn legein ameinon hypelabe siôpêteon einai peri tou tropou tês diakriseôs. All' ei kakeinos esigêsen, hêmeis ou siôpêsomen; ismen gar, hôs ouk endechetai parelthonta tên Hippokrateion doxan, eith' heteron ti peri nephrôn energeias eiponta mê ou katagelaston einai pantapasi. dia tout' Erasistratos men esiôpêsen, Asklêpiadês d' epseusato paraplêsiôs oiketais lalois men ta prosthen tou biou kai polla pollakis enklêmata dialysamenois hypo perittês panourgias, ep' autophôrô de pote kateilêmmenois, eit' ouden exeuriskousi sophisma kapeit' entautha tou men aidêmonesterou siôpôntos, hoion apoplêxia tini kateilêmmenou, tou d' anaischyntoterou kryptontos men eth' hypo malês to zêtoumenon, exomnymenou de kai mêd' heôrakenai pôpote phaskontos. houtô gar toi kai ho Asklêpiadês || epileipontôn auton tôn tês panourgias 67 sophismatôn kai mête tês pros to leptomeres phoras echousês eti chôran entauthoi lêreisthai mêth' hôs hypo tôn nephrôn gennatai touti to perittôma, kathaper hypo tôn en hêpati porôn hê cholê, dynaton on eiponta mê ou megiston ophlein gelôta, exomnytai te kai pseudetai phanerôs, ou diêkein legôn epi tous nephrous to ouron all' atmoeidôs euthys ek tôn kata tên koilên merôn eis tên kystin athroizesthai. Houtoi men oun tois ep' autophôrô kateilêmmenois oiketais homoiôs ekplagentes ho men esiôpêsen, ho d' anaischyntôs pseudetai. XVII Now such of the younger men as have dignified themselves with the names of these two authorities by taking the appellations "Erasistrateans" or "Asclepiadeans" are like the _Davi_ and _Getae_--the slaves introduced by the excellent Menander into his comedies. As these slaves held that they had done nothing fine unless they had cheated their master three times, so also the men I am discussing have taken their time over the construction of impudent sophisms, the one party striving to prevent the lies of Asclepiades from ever being refuted, and the other saying stupidly what Erasistratus had the sense to keep silence about. But enough about the Asclepiadeans. The Erasistrateans, in attempting to say how the kidneys let the urine through, will do anything or suffer anything or try any shift in order to find some plausible explanation which does not demand the principle of _attraction_. Now those near the times of Erasistratus maintain that the parts above the kidneys receive pure blood, whilst the watery residue, being heavy, tends to run downwards; that this, after percolating through the kidneys themselves, is thus rendered serviceable, and is sent, as blood, to all the parts below the kidneys. For a certain period at least this view also found favour and flourished, and was held to be true; after a time, however, it became suspect to the Erasistrateans themselves, and at last they abandoned it. For apparently the following two points were assumed, neither of which is conceded by anyone, nor is even capable of being proved. The first is the heaviness of the serous fluid, which was said to be produced in the vena cava, and which did not exist, apparently, at the beginning, when this fluid was being carried up from the stomach to the liver. Why, then, did it not at once run downwards when it was in these situations? And if the watery fluid is so heavy, what plausibility can anyone find in the statement that it assists in the process of _anadosis_? In the second place there is this absurdity, that even if it be agreed that all the watery fluid does fall downwards, and only when it is in the vena cava,[158] still it is difficult, or, rather, impossible, to say through what means it is going to fall into the kidneys, seeing that these are not situated below, but on either side of the vena cava, and that the vena cava is not inserted into them, but merely sends a branch[159] into each of them, as it also does into all the other parts. What doctrine, then, took the place of this one when it was condemned? One which to me seems far more foolish than the first, although it also flourished at one time. For they say, that if oil be mixed with water and poured upon the ground, each will take a different route, the one flowing this way and the other that, and that, therefore, it is not surprising that the watery fluid runs into the kidneys, while the blood falls downwards along the vena cava. Now this doctrine also stands already condemned. For why, of the countless veins which spring from the vena cava, should blood flow into all the others, and the serous fluid be diverted to those going to the kidneys? They have not answered the question which was asked; they merely state what happens and imagine they have thereby assigned the reason. Once again, then (the third cup to the Saviour!),[160] let us now speak of the worst doctrine of all, lately invented by Lycus of Macedonia,[161] but which is popular owing to its novelty. This Lycus, then, maintains, as though uttering an oracle from the inner sanctuary, that urine is _residual matter from the nutrition of the kidneys_![162] Now, the amount of urine passed every day shows clearly that it is the whole of the fluid drunk which becomes urine, except for that which comes away with the dejections or passes off as sweat or insensible perspiration. This is most easily recognized in winter in those who are doing no work but are carousing, especially if the wine be thin and diffusible; these people rapidly pass almost the same quantity as they drink. And that even Erasistratus was aware of this is known to those who have read the first book of his "General Principles."[163] Thus Lycus is speaking neither good Erasistratism, nor good Asclepiadism, far less good Hippocratism. He is, therefore, as the saying is, like a white crow, which cannot mix with the genuine crows owing to its colour, nor with the pigeons owing to its size. For all this, however, he is not to be disregarded; he may, perhaps, be stating some wonderful truth, unknown to any of his predecessors. Now it is agreed that all parts which are undergoing nutrition produce a certain amount of residue, but it is neither agreed nor is it likely, that the kidneys alone, small bodies as they are, could hold four whole _congii_,[164] and sometimes even more, of residual matter. For this surplus must necessarily be greater in quantity in each of the larger viscera; thus, for example, that of the lung, if it corresponds in amount to the size of the viscus, will obviously be many times more than that in the kidneys, and thus the whole of the thorax will become filled, and the animal will be at once suffocated. But if it be said that the residual matter is equal in amount in each of the other parts, where are the _bladders_, one may ask, through which it is excreted? For, if the kidneys produce in drinkers three and sometimes four _congii_ of superfluous matter, that of each of the other viscera will be much more, and thus an enormous barrel will be needed to contain the waste products of them all. Yet one often urinates practically the same quantity as one has drunk, which would show that the whole of what one drinks goes to the kidneys. Thus the author of this third piece of trickery would appear to have achieved nothing, but to have been at once detected, and there still remains the original difficulty which was insoluble by Erasistratus and by all others except Hippocrates. I dwell purposely on this topic, knowing well that nobody else has anything to say about the function of the kidneys, but that either we must prove more foolish than the very butchers[165] if we do not agree that the urine passes through the kidneys; or, if one acknowledges this, that then one cannot possibly give any other reason for the secretion than the principle of attraction. Now, if the movement of urine does not depend on the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled,[166] it is clear that neither does that of the blood nor that of the bile; or if that of these latter does so, then so also does that of the former. For they must all be accomplished in one and the same way, even according to Erasistratus himself. This matter, however, will be discussed more fully in the book following this. XVII Tôn de neôterôn hosoi tois toutôn onomasin heautous esemnynan Erasistrateious te kai Asklêpiadeious eponomasantes, homoiôs tois hypo tou beltistou Menandrou kata tas kômôdias eisagomenois oiketais, Daois te tisi kai Getais, ouden hêgoumenois sphisi peprachthai gennaion, ei mê tris exapatêseian ton despotên, houtô kai autoi kata pollên scholên anaischynta sophismata synethesan, hoi men, hina mêd' holôs exelenchtheiê pot' || Asklêpiadês pseudomenos, hoi d', hina kakôs eipôsin, 68 ha kalôs esiôpêsen Erasistratos. Alla tôn men Asklêpiadeiôn halis. hoi d' Erasistrateioi legein epicheirountes, hopôs hoi nephroi diêthousi to ouron, hapanta drôsi te kai paschousi kai pantoioi gignontai pithanon exeurein ti zêtountes aition holkês mê deomenon. Hoi men dê plêsion Erasistratou tois chronois genomenoi ta men anô tôn nephrôn moria katharon haima lambanein phasi, tô de baros echein to hydatôdes perittôma brithein te kai hyporrhein katô; diêthoumenon d' entautha kata tous nephrous autous chrêston houtô genomenon hapasi tois katô tôn nephrôn epipempesthai to haima. Kai mechri ge tinos eudokimêsen hêde hê doxa kai êkmase kai alêthês enomisthê; chronô d' hysteron kai autois tois Erasistrateiois hypoptos ephanê kai teleutôntes apestêsan autês. aiteisthai gar edokoun dyo tauta mête synchôroumena pros tinos all' oud' apodeichthênai dynamena, prôton men to baros tês orrhôdous hygrotêtos en tê koilê || phlebi gennômenon, hôsper ouk ex archês 69 hyparchon, hopot' ek tês koilias eis hêpar anephereto. ti dê oun ouk euthys en ekeinois tois chôriois hyperrhei katô? pôs d' an tô doxeien eulogôs eirêsthai syntelein eis tên anadosin hê hydatôdês hygrotês, eiper houtôs esti bareia? Deuteron d' atopon, hoti kan katô synchôrêthê pheresthai pasa kai mê kat' allo chôrion ê tên koilên phleba, tina tropon eis tous nephrous empeseitai, chalepon, mallon d' adynaton eipein, mêt' en tois katô meresi keimenôn autôn tês phlebos all' ek tôn plagiôn mêt' emphyomenês eis autous tês koilês all' apophysin tina monon eis hekateron pempousês, hôsper kai eis talla panta moria. Tis oun hê diadexamenê tautên doxa katagnôstheisan? emoi men êlithiôtera makrô phainetai tês proteras. êkmase d' oun kai hautê pote. phasi gar, ei kata tês gês ekchytheiê memigmenon elaion hydati, diaphoron hekateron hodon badieisthai kai rhyêsesthai to men têde, to de têde. thaumaston oun ouden einai phasin, ei to men hydatôdes hygron eis tous ne||phrous rhei, to d' haima 70 dia tês koilês pheretai katô. kategnôstai oun êdê kai hêde hê doxa. dia ti gar apo tês koilês myriôn ekpephykuiôn phlebôn haima men eis tas allas hapasas, hê d' orrhôdês hygrotês eis tas epi tous nephrous pheromenas ektrepetai? tout' auto to zêtoumenon ouk eirêkasin, alla to gignomenon eipontes monon oiontai tên aitian apodedôkenai. Palin oun, to triton tô sôtêri, tên cheiristên hapasôn doxan exeurêmenên nyn hypo Lykou tou Makedonos, eudokimousan de dia to kainon êdê legômen. apephênato gar dê ho Lykos houtos, hôsper ex adytou tinos chrêsmon apophthengomenos, perittôma tês tôn nephrôn threpseôs einai to ouron. hoti men oun auto to pinomenon hapan ouron gignetai, plên ei ti meta tôn diachôrêmatôn hypêlthen ê eis hidrôtas apechôrêsen ê eis tên adêlon diapnoên, enargôs endeiknytai to plêthos tôn kath' hekastên hêmeran ouroumenôn. en cheimôni de malista mathein estin epi tôn argountôn men, kôthônizomenôn de, kai malist' ei leptos ho oinos eiê kai porimos. ourousi || gar houtoi dia tacheôn oligou dein, hosonper kai 71 pinousin. hoti de kai ho Erasistratos houtôs egignôsken, hoi to prôton anegnôkotes autou syngramma tôn katholou logôn epistantai. hôsth' ho Lykos out' alêthê phainetai legôn out' Erasistrateia, dêlon d' hôs oud' Asklêpiadeia, poly de mallon oud' Hippokrateia. leukô toinyn kata tên paroimian eoike koraki mêt' autois tois koraxin anamichthênai dynamenô dia tên chroan mête tais peristerais dia to megethos, all' outi pou toutou g' heneka paropteos; isôs gar ti legei thaumaston, ho mêdeis tôn emprosthen egnô. To men oun hapanta ta trephomena moria poiein ti perittôma synchôroumenon, to de tous nephrous monous, houtô smikra sômata, choas holous tettaras ê kai pleious ischein eniote perittômatos outh' homologoumenon oute logon echon; to gar hekastou tôn meizonôn splanchnôn perittôma pleion anankaion hyparchein. hoion autika to tou pneumonos, eiper analogon tô megethei tou splanchnou gignoito, pollapla||sion estai dêpou tou kata tous 72 nephrous, hôsth' holos men ho thôrax emplêsthêsetai, pnigêsetai d' autika to zôon. all' ei ison phêsei tis gignesthai to kath' hekaston tôn allôn moriôn perittôma, dia poiôn kysteôn ekkrinetai? ei gar hoi nephroi tois kôthônizomenois treis ê tettaras eniote choas poiousi perittômatos, hekastou tôn allôn splanchnôn pollô pleious esontai kai pithou tinos houtô megistou deêsei tou dexomenou ta pantôn perittômata. kaitoi pollakis, hoson epie tis, oligou dein ourêsen hapan, hôs an epi tous nephrous pheromenou tou pomatos hapantos. Eoiken oun ho to triton exapatôn houtos ouden anyein all' euthys gegonenai kataphôros kai menein eti to ex archês aporon Erasistratô te kai tois allois hapasi plên Hippokratous. diatribô d' hekôn en tô topô saphôs eidôs, hoti mêden eipein echei mêdeis allos peri tês tôn nephrôn energeias, all' anankaion ê tôn mageirôn amathesterous phainesthai mêd' hoti diêtheitai di' autôn to ouron homologountas ê || touto synchôrêsantas mêden 73 et' echein eipein heteron aition tês diakriseôs plên tês holkês. All' ei mê tôn ourôn hê phora tê pros to kenoumenon akolouthia gignetai, dêlon, hôs oud' hê tou haimatos oud' hê tês cholês ê eiper ekeinôn kai toutou; panta gar hôsautôs anankaion epiteleisthai kai kat' auton ton Erasistraton. Eirêsetai d' epi pleon hyper autôn en tô meta tauta grammati. [5] That is, "On the Natural Powers," the powers of the _Physis_ or Nature. By that Galen practically means what we would call the physiological or biological powers, the characteristic faculties of the living organism; his Physis is the subconscious vital principle of the animal or plant. Like Aristotle, however, he also ascribes quasi-vital properties to inanimate things, _cf._