{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43383/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43383","id":"gutenberg_43383","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43383","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Health & Medicine","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Science - Biology","Medicine, Greek and Roman","Physiology"],"text":"GALEN\n\n                    ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES\n\n                 WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY\n\n                    ARTHUR JOHN BROCK, M.D.\n\n                           EDINBURGH\n\n                  LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN\n\n                NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS\n\n                             MCMXVI\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe text used is (with a few unimportant modifications) that of K\u00fchn\n(Vol. II), as edited by Georg Helmreich; Teubner, Leipzig, 1893. The\nnumbers of the pages of K\u00fchn's edition are printed at the side of the\nGreek text, a parallel mark (||) in the line indicating the exact\npoint of division between K\u00fchn's pages.\n\nWords in the English text which are enclosed in square brackets are\nsupplementary or explanatory; practically all explanations, however,\nare relegated to the footnotes or introduction. In the footnotes,\nalso, attention is drawn to words which are of particular philological\ninterest from the point of view of modern medicine.\n\nI have made the translation directly from the Greek; where passages of\nspecial difficulty occurred, I have been able to compare my own\nversion with Linacre's Latin translation (1523) and the French\nrendering of Charles Daremberg (1854-56); in this respect I am also\npeculiarly fortunate in having had the help of Mr. A. W. Pickard\nCambridge of Balliol College, Oxford, who most kindly went through the\nproofs and made many valuable suggestions from the point of view of\nexact scholarship.\n\nMy best thanks are due to the Editors for their courtesy and for the\nkindly interest they have taken in the work. I have also gratefully to\nacknowledge the receipt of much assistance and encouragement from Sir\nWilliam Osler, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, and from\nDr. J. D. Comrie, first lecturer on the History of Medicine at Edinburgh\nUniversity. Professor D'Arcy W. Thompson of University College,\nDundee, and Sir W. T. Thiselton-Dyer, late director of the Royal\nBotanic Gardens at Kew, have very kindly helped me to identify several\nanimals and plants mentioned by Galen.\n\nI cannot conclude without expressing a word of gratitude to my former\nbiological teachers, Professors Patrick Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson.\nThe experience reared on the foundation of their teaching has gone far\nto help me in interpreting the great medical biologist of Greece.\n\nI should be glad to think that the present work might help, however\nlittle, to hasten the coming reunion between the \"humanities\" and\nmodern biological science; their present separation I believe to be\nagainst the best interest of both.\n\n\n  A. J. B.\n\n  22nd Stationary Hospital, Aldershot.\n            _March_, 1916.\n\n\n\n\n  CONTENTS\n\n\n                             PAGE\n\n  PREFACE                       v\n\n  INTRODUCTION                 ix\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY                xli\n\n  SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS      xliii\n\n  BOOK I                        1\n\n  BOOK II                     115\n\n  BOOK III                    221\n\n  INDEX AND GLOSSARY          333\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\n[Sidenote: Hippocrates and Galen.]\n\nIf the work of Hippocrates be taken as representing the foundation\nupon which the edifice of historical Greek medicine was reared, then\nthe work of Galen, who lived some six hundred years later, may be\nlooked upon as the summit or apex of the same edifice. Galen's merit\nis to have crystallised or brought to a focus all the best work of the\nGreek medical schools which had preceded his own time. It is\nessentially in the form of Galenism that Greek medicine was\ntransmitted to after ages.\n\n[Sidenote: The Beginnings of Medicine in Greece.]\n\nThe ancient Greeks referred the origins of medicine to a god Asklepios\n(called in Latin Aesculapius), thereby testifying to their\nappreciation of the truly divine function of the healing art. The\nemblem of Aesculapius, familiar in medical symbolism at the present\nday, was a staff with a serpent coiled round it, the animal typifying\nwisdom in general, and more particularly the wisdom of the\nmedicine-man, with his semi-miraculous powers over life and death.\n\n\"_Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves._\"\n\n[Sidenote: The Asclepiea or Health-Temples.]\n\nThe temples of Aesculapius were scattered over the ancient Hellenic\nworld. To them the sick and ailing resorted in crowds. The treatment,\nwhich was in the hands of an hereditary priesthood, combined the best\nof the methods carried on at our present-day health-resorts, our\nhydropathics, sanatoriums, and nursing-homes. Fresh air, water-cures,\nmassage, gymnastics, psychotherapy, and natural methods in general\nwere chiefly relied on.\n\n[Sidenote: Hippocrates and the Unity of the Organism.]\n\nHippocrates, the \"Father of Medicine\" (5th to 4th centuries, B.C.) was\nassociated with the Asclepieum of Cos, an island off the south-west\ncoast of Asia Minor, near Rhodes. He apparently revitalized the work\nof the health-temples, which had before his time been showing a\ncertain decline in vigour, coupled with a corresponding excessive\ntendency towards sophistry and priestcraft.\n\nCelsus says: \"_Hippocrates Cous primus quidem ex omnibus memoria\ndignis ab studio sapientiae disciplinam hanc separavit_.\" He means\nthat Hippocrates first gave the physician an independent standing,\nseparating him from the cosmological speculator. Hippocrates confined\nthe medical man to medicine. He did with medical thought what Socrates\ndid with thought in general--he \"brought it down from heaven to\nearth.\" His watchword was \"Back to Nature!\"\n\nAt the same time, while assigning the physician his post, Hippocrates\nwould not let him regard that post as sacrosanct. He set his face\nagainst any tendency to mystery-mongering, to exclusiveness, to\nsacerdotalism. He was, in fact, opposed to the spirit of\ntrade-unionism in medicine. His concern was rather with the\nphysician's duties than his \"rights.\"\n\nAt the dawn of recorded medical history Hippocrates stands for the\nfundamental and primary importance of _seeing clearly_--that is of\n_clinical observation_. And what he observed was that the human\norganism, when exposed to certain abnormal conditions--certain\nstresses--tends to behave in a certain way: that in other words, each\n\"disease\" tends to run a certain definite course. To him a disease was\nessentially a process, one and indivisible, and thus his practical\nproblem was essentially one of _prognosis_--\"what will be the natural\ncourse of this disease, if left to itself?\" Here he found himself to\nno small extent in opposition with the teaching of the neighbouring\nmedical school of Cnidus, where a more static view-point laid special\nemphasis upon the minutiae of _diagnosis_.\n\nObservation taught Hippocrates to place unbounded faith in the\nrecuperative powers of the living organism--in what we sometimes call\nnowadays the _vis medicatrix Naturae_. His observation was that even\nwith a very considerable \"abnormality\" of environmental stress the\norganism, in the large majority of cases, manages eventually by its\nown inherent powers to adjust itself to the new conditions. \"Merely\ngive Nature a chance,\" said the father of medicine in effect, \"and\nmost diseases will cure themselves.\" And accordingly his treatment\nwas mainly directed towards \"giving Nature a chance.\"\n\nHis keen sense of the solidarity (or rather, of the constant\ninterplay) between the organism and its environment (the \"conditions\"\nto which it is exposed) is instanced in his book, \"Airs, Waters, and\nPlaces.\" As we recognise, in our popular everyday psychology, that \"it\ntakes two to make a quarrel,\" so Hippocrates recognised that in\npathology, it takes two (organism and environment) to make a disease.\n\nAs an outstanding example of his power of clinical observation we may\nrecall the _facies Hippocratica_, an accurate study of the countenance\nof a dying man.\n\nHis ideals for the profession are embodied in the \"Hippocratic oath.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Anatomy.]\n\nImpressed by this view of the organism as a unity, the Hippocratic\nschool tended in some degree to overlook the importance of its\nconstituent _parts_. The balance was re-adjusted later on by the\nlabours of the anatomical school of Alexandria, which, under the aegis\nof the enlightened Ptolemies, arose in the 3rd century B.C. Two\nprominent exponents of anatomy belonging to this school were\nHerophilus and Erasistratus, the latter of whom we shall frequently\nmeet with in the following pages (_v._ p. 95 _et seq._).\n\n[Sidenote: The Empirics.]\n\nAfter the death of the Master, the Hippocratic school tended, as so\noften happens with the best of cultural movements, to show signs\nitself of diminishing vitality: the letter began to obscure and hamper\nthe spirit. The comparatively small element of theory which existed in\nthe Hippocratic physiology was made the groundwork of a somewhat\nover-elaborated \"system.\" Against this tendency on the part of the\n\"Dogmatic\" or \"Rationalist\" school there arose, also at Alexandria,\nthe sect of the Empiricists. \"It is not,\" they said, \"the cause but\nthe cure of diseases that concerns us; not how we digest, but what is\ndigestible.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Greek Medicine in Rome.]\n\nHorace said \"_Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit_.\" Political\ndomination, the occupation of territory by armies, does not\nnecessarily mean real conquest. Horace's statement applied to medicine\nas to other branches of culture.\n\nThe introducer of Greek medicine into Rome was Asclepiades (1st\ncentury B.C.). A man of forceful personality, and equipped with a\nfully developed philosophic system of health and disease which\ncommended itself to the Roman _savants_ of the day, he soon attained\nto the pinnacle of professional success in the Latin capital: he is\nindeed to all time the type of the fashionable (and somewhat \"faddy\")\nWest-end physician. His system was a purely mechanistic one, being\nbased upon the atomic doctrine of Leucippus and Democritus, which had\nbeen completed by Epicurus and recently introduced to the Roman public\nin Lucretius's great poem \"_De Rerum Natura_.\" The disbelief of\nAsclepiades in the self-maintaining powers of the living organism are\nexposed and refuted at considerable length by Galen in the volume\nbefore us.\n\n[Sidenote: The Methodists.]\n\nOut of the teaching of Asclepiades that physiological processes depend\nupon the particular way in which the ultimate indivisible molecules\ncome together ([Greek: en t\u00ea poia synod\u00f4 t\u00f4n pr\u00f4t\u00f4n ekein\u00f4n s\u00f4mat\u00f4n\nt\u00f4n apath\u00f4n]) there was developed by his pupil, Themison of Laodicea,\na system of medicine characterised by the most engaging simplicity\nboth of diagnosis and treatment. This so-called \"Methodic\" system was\nintended to strike a balance between the excessive leaning to\napriorism shown by the Rationalist (Hippocratic) school and the\nopposite tendency of the Empiricists. \"A pathological theory we must\nhave,\" said the Methodists in effect, \"but let it be simple.\" They\nheld that the molecular groups constituting the tissues were traversed\nby minute channels ([Greek: poroi], \"pores\"); all diseases belonged to\none or other of two classes; if the channels were constricted the\ndisease was one of _stasis_ ([Greek: stegn\u00f4sis]), and if they were\ndilated the disease was one of _flux_ ([Greek: rhysis]). Flux and\nstasis were indicated respectively by increase and diminution of the\nnatural secretions; treatment was of opposites by opposites--of\nstasis by methods causing dilatation of the channels, and conversely.\n\nWild as it may seem, this pathological theory of the Methodists\ncontained an element of truth; in various guises it has cropped up\nonce and again at different epochs of medical history; even to-day\nthere are pathologists who tend to describe certain classes of disease\nin terms of vaso-constriction and vaso-dilatation. The vice of the\nMethodist teaching was that it looked on a disease too much as\nsomething fixed and finite, an independent _entity_, to be considered\nentirely apart from its particular setting. The Methodists illustrate\nfor us the tyranny of _names_. In its defects as in its virtues this\nschool has analogues at the present day; we are all acquainted with\nthe medical man to whom a name (such, let us say, as \"tuberculosis,\"\n\"gout,\" or \"intestinal auto-intoxication\") stands for an entity, one\nand indivisible, to be treated by a definite and unvarying formula.\n\nTo such an individual the old German saying \"_Jedermann hat am Ende\nein Bischen Tuberkulose_\" is simply--incomprehensible.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen.]\n\nAll the medical schools which I have mentioned were still holding\ntheir ground in the 2nd century A.D., with more or less popular\nacceptance, when the great Galen made his entry into the world of\nGraeco-Roman medicine.\n\n[Sidenote: His Nature and Nurture.]\n\nClaudius Galenus was born at Pergamos in Asia Minor in the year\nA.D. His father was one Nicon, a well-to-do architect of that city. \"I\nhad the great good fortune,\" says Galen,[1] \"to have as a father a\nhighly amiable, just, good, and benevolent man. My mother, on the\nother hand, possessed a very bad temper; she used sometimes to bite\nher serving-maids, and she was perpetually shouting at my father and\nquarrelling with him--worse than Xanthippe with Socrates. When,\ntherefore, I compared the excellence of my father's disposition with\nthe disgraceful passions of my mother, I resolved to embrace and love\nthe former qualities, and to avoid and hate the latter.\"\n\nNicon called his son [Greek: Gal\u00eanos], which means _quiet, peaceable_,\nand although the physician eventually turned out to be a man of\nelevated character, it is possible that his somewhat excessive leaning\ntowards controversy (exemplified in the following pages) may have\nresulted from the fact that he was never quite able to throw off the\nworst side of the maternal inheritance.\n\nHis father, a man well schooled in mathematics and philosophy, saw to\nit that his son should not lack a liberal education. Pergamos itself\nwas an ancient centre of civilisation, containing, among other\nculture-institutions, a library only second in importance to that of\nAlexandria itself; it also contained an Asclepieum.\n\nGalen's training was essentially eclectic: he studied all the chief\nphilosophical systems of the time--Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, and\nEpicurean--and then, at the age of seventeen, entered on a course of\nmedical studies; these he pursued under the best teachers at his own\ncity, and afterwards, during a period of _Wanderjahre_, at Smyrna,\nAlexandria, and other leading medical centres.\n\nReturning to Pergamos, he received his first professional\nappointment--that of surgeon to the gladiators. After four years here\nhe was drawn by ambition to Rome, being at that time about thirty-one\nyears of age. At Rome the young Pergamene attained a brilliant\nreputation both as a practitioner and as a public demonstrator of\nanatomy; among his patients he finally numbered even the Emperor\nMarcus Aurelius himself.\n\nMedical practice in Rome at this time was at a low ebb, and Galen took\nno pains to conceal his contempt for the ignorance, charlatanism, and\nvenality of his fellow-practitioners. Eventually, in spite of his\nsocial popularity, he raised up such odium against himself in medical\ncircles, that he was forced to flee the city. This he did hurriedly\nand secretly in the year 168 A.D., when thirty-six years of age. He\nbetook himself to his old home at Pergamos, where he settled down once\nmore to a literary life.\n\nHis respite was short, however, for within a year he was summoned back\nto Italy by imperial mandate. Marcus Aurelius was about to undertake\nan expedition against the Germans, who at that time were threatening\nthe northern frontiers of the Empire, and he was anxious that his\nconsulting physician should accompany him to the front. \"Patriotism\"\nin this sense, however, seems to have had no charms for the Pergamene,\nand he pleaded vigorously to be excused. Eventually, the Emperor gave\nhim permission to remain at home, entrusting to his care the young\nprince Commodus.\n\nThereafter we know little of Galen's history, beyond the fact that he\nnow entered upon a period of great literary activity. Probably he died\nabout the end of the century.\n\n[Sidenote: Subsequent History of Galen's Works.]\n\nGalen wrote extensively, not only on anatomy, physiology, and medicine\nin general, but also on logic; his logical proclivities, as will be\nshown later, are well exemplified in his medical writings. A\nconsiderable number of undoubtedly genuine works of his have come down\nto us. The full importance of his contributions to medicine does not\nappear to have been recognized till some time after his death, but\neventually, as already pointed out, the terms Galenism and Greek\nmedicine became practically synonymous.\n\nA few words may be devoted to the subsequent history of his writings.\n\n[Sidenote: Byzantine Medicine.]\n\nDuring and after the final break-up of the Roman Empire came times or\nconfusion and of social reconstruction, which left little opportunity\nfor scientific thought and research. The Byzantine Empire, from the\n4th century onwards, was the scene of much internal turmoil, in which\nthe militant activities of the now State-established Christian church\nplayed a not inconsiderable part. The Byzantine medical scholars\nwere at best compilers, and a typical compiler was Oribasius,\nbody-physician to the Emperor Julian (4th century, A.D.); his\nexcellent _Synopsis_ was written in order to make the huge mass of\nthe Galenic writings available for the ordinary practitioner.\n\n[Sidenote: Arabian Medicine.]\n\nGreek medicine spread, with general Greek culture, throughout Syria,\nand from thence was carried by the Nestorians, a persecuted heretical\nsect, into Persia; here it became implanted, and hence eventually\nspread to the Mohammedan world. Several of the Prophet's successors\n(such as the Caliphs Harun-al-Rashid and Abdul-Rahman III) were great\npatrons of Greek learning, and especially of medicine. The Arabian\nscholars imbibed Aristotle and Galen with avidity. A partial\nassimilation, however, was the farthest stage to which they could\nattain; with the exception of pharmacology, the Arabians made\npractically no independent additions to medicine. They were\nessentially systematizers and commentators. \"_Averrois che il gran\ncomento feo_\"[2] may stand as the type _par excellence_ of the Moslem\nsage.\n\nAvicenna (Ebn Sina), (10th to 11th century) is the foremost name in\nArabian medicine: his \"Book of the Canon in Medicine,\" when translated\ninto Latin, even overshadowed the authority of Galen himself for some\nfour centuries. Of this work the medical historian Max Neuburger says:\n\"Avicenna, according to his lights, imparted to contemporary medical\nscience the appearance of almost mathematical accuracy, whilst the art\nof therapeutics, although empiricism did not wholly lack recognition,\nwas deduced as a logical sequence from theoretical (Galenic and\nAristotelian) premises.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Introduction of Arabian Medicine to the West.\nArabo-Scholastic Period.]\n\nHaving arrived at such a condition in the hands of the Mohammedans,\nGalenism was now destined to pass once more to the West. From the 11th\ncentury onwards Latin translations of this \"Arabian\" Medicine (being\nGreek medicine in oriental trappings) began to make their way into\nEurope; here they helped to undermine the authority of the one medical\nschool of native growth which the West produced during the Middle\nAges--namely the School of Salerno.\n\nBlending with the Scholastic philosophy at the universities of Naples\nand Montpellier, the teachings of Aristotle and Galen now assumed a\nposition of supreme authority: from their word, in matters scientific\nand medical, there was no appeal. In reference to this period the\nPergamene was referred to in later times as the \"Medical Pope of the\nMiddle Ages.\"\n\nIt was of course the logical side of Galenism which chiefly commended\nit to the mediaeval Schoolmen, as to the essentially speculative\nMoslems.\n\n[Sidenote: The Renascence.]\n\nThe year 1453, when Constantinople fell into the hands of the Turks,\nis often taken as marking the commencement of the Renascence. Among\nthe many factors which tended to stimulate and awaken men's minds\nduring these spacious times was the rediscovery of the Greek classics,\nwhich were brought to Europe by, among others, the scholars who fled\nfrom Byzantium. The Arabo-Scholastic versions of Aristotle and Galen\nwere now confronted by their Greek originals. A passion for Greek\nlearning was aroused. The freshness and truth of these old writings\nhelped to awaken men to a renewed sense of their own dignity and\nworth, and to brace them in their own struggle for self-expression.\n\nProminent in this \"Humanist\" movement was the English physician,\nThomas Linacre (_c._ 1460-1524) who, having gained in Italy an\nextraordinary zeal for the New Learning, devoted the rest of his life,\nafter returning to England, to the promotion of the _litterae\nhumaniores_, and especially to making Galen accessible to readers of\nLatin. Thus the \"_De Naturalibus Facultatibus_\" appeared in London in\n1523, and was preceded and followed by several other translations,\nall marked by minute accuracy and elegant Latinity.\n\nTwo new parties now arose in the medical world--the so-called \"Greeks\"\nand the more conservative \"Arabists.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Paracelsus.]\n\nBut the swing of the pendulum did not cease with the creation of the\nliberal \"Greek\" party; the dazzling vision of freedom was to drive\nsome to a yet more anarchical position. Paracelsus, who flourished in\nthe first half of the 16th century, may be taken as typifying this\nextremist tendency. His one cry was, \"Let us away with all authority\nwhatsoever, and get back to Nature!\" At his first lecture as professor\nat the medical school of Basle he symbolically burned the works of\nGalen and of his chief Arabian exponent, Avicenna.\n\n[Sidenote: The Renascence Anatomists.]\n\nBut the final collapse of authority in medicine could not be brought\nabout by mere negativism. It was the constructive work of the\nRenascence anatomists, particularly those of the Italian school, which\nfinally brought Galenism to the ground.\n\nVesalius (1514-64), the modern \"Father of Anatomy,\" for dissecting\nhuman bodies, was fiercely assailed by the hosts of orthodoxy,\nincluding that stout Galenist, his old teacher Jacques Dubois (Jacobus\nSylvius). Vesalius held on his way, however, proving, _inter alia_,\nthat Galen had been wrong in saying that the interventricular septum\nof the heart was permeable (_cf._ present volume, p. 321).\n\nMichael Servetus (1509-53) suggested that the blood, in order to get\nfrom the right to the left side of the heart, might have to pass\nthrough the lungs. For his heterodox opinions he was burned at the\nstake.\n\nAnother 16th-century anatomist, Andrea Cesalpino, is considered by the\nItalians to have been a discoverer of the circulation of the blood\nbefore Harvey; he certainly had a more or less clear idea of the\ncirculation, but, as in the case of the \"organic evolutionists before\nDarwin,\" he failed to prove his point by conclusive demonstration.\n\n[Sidenote: William Harvey (1578-1657).]\n\nWilliam Harvey, the great Englishman who founded modern experimental\nphysiology and was the first to establish not only the fact of the\ncirculation but also the physical laws governing it, is commonly\nreckoned the Father of Modern Medicine. He owed his interest in the\nmovements of the blood to Fabricio of Acquapendente, his tutor at\nPadua, who drew his attention to the valves in the veins, thus\nsuggesting the idea of a circular as opposed to a to-and-fro motion.\nHarvey's great generalisation, based upon a long series of experiments\n_in vivo_, was considered to have given the _coup de gr\u00e2ce_ to the\nGalenic physiology, and hence threw temporary discredit upon the whole\nsystem of medicine associated therewith.\n\nModern medicine, based upon a painstaking research into the details\nof physiological function, had begun.\n\n[Sidenote: Back to Galen!]\n\nWhile we cannot sufficiently commend the results of the long modern\nperiod of research-work to which the labours of the Renascence\nanatomists from Vesalius to Harvey form a fitting prelude, we yet by\nno means allow that Galen's general medical outlook was so entirely\ninvalidated as many imagine by the conclusive demonstration of his\nanatomical errors. It is time for us now to turn to Galen again after\nthree hundred years of virtual neglect: it may be that he will help us\nto see something fundamentally important for medical practice which is\nbeyond the power even of our microscopes and _X_-rays to reveal. While\nthe value of his work undoubtedly lies mainly in its enabling us to\nenvisage one of the greatest of the early steps attained by man in\nmedical knowledge, it also has a very definite intrinsic value of its\nown.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen's Debt to his Precursors.]\n\nNo attempt can be made here to determine how much of Galen's work is,\nin the true sense of the word, original, and how much is drawn from\nthe labours of his predecessors. In any case, there is no doubt that\nhe was much more than a mere compiler and systematizer of other men's\nwork: he was great enough to be able not merely to collect, to digest,\nand to assimilate all the best of the work done before his time, but,\nadding to this the outcome of his own observations, experiments, and\nreflections, to present the whole in an articulated \"system\" showing\nthat perfect balance of parts which is the essential criterion of a\nwork of art. Constantly, however, in his writings we shall come across\ntraces of the influence of, among others, Plato, Aristotle, and\nwriters of the Stoic school.\n\n[Sidenote: Influence of Hippocrates on Galen.]\n\nAlthough Galen is an eclectic in the best sense of influence of the\nterm, there is one name to which he pays a very special tribute--that\nof his illustrious forerunner Hippocrates. Him on quite a number of\noccasions he actually calls \"divine\" (_cf._ p. 293).\n\n\"Hippocrates,\" he says, \"was the first known to us of all who have\nbeen both physicians and philosophers, in that _he was the first to\nrecognise what nature does_.\" Here is struck the keynote of the\nteaching of both Hippocrates and Galen; this is shown in the volume\nbefore us, which deals with \"the _natural_ faculties\"--that is with\nthe faculties of this same \"Nature\" or vital principle referred to in\nthe quotation.\n\n[Sidenote: \"The Natural Faculties.\"]\n\nIf Galen be looked on as a crystallisation of Greek medicine, then\nthis book may be looked on as a crystallisation of Galen. Within its\ncomparatively short compass we meet with instances illustrating\nperhaps most of the sides of this many-sided writer. The \"Natural\nFaculties\" therefore forms an excellent prelude to the study of his\nlarger and more specialised works.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen's \"Physiology.\"]\n\nWhat, now, is this \"Nature\" or biological principle upon which Galen,\nlike Hippocrates, bases the whole of his medical teaching, and which,\nwe may add, is constantly overlooked--if indeed ever properly\napprehended--by many physiologists of the present day? By using this\nterm Galen meant simply that, when we deal with a living thing, we are\ndealing primarily with a unity, which, _qu\u00e2_ living, is not further\ndivisible; all its parts can only be understood and dealt with as\nbeing _in relation to_ this principle of unity. Galen was thus led to\ncriticise with considerable severity many of the medical and surgical\nspecialists of his time, who acted on the assumption (implicit if not\nexplicit) that the whole was merely the sum of its parts, and that if,\nin an ailing organism, these parts were treated each in and for\nitself, the health of the whole organism could in this way be\neventually restored.\n\nGalen expressed this idea of the unity of the organism by saying that\nit was governed by a _Physis_ or Nature ([Greek: h\u00ea physis h\u00eaper\ndioikei to z\u00f4on]), with whose \"faculties\" or powers it was the\nprovince of [Greek: physiologia] (physiology, Nature-lore) to deal.\nIt was because Hippocrates had a clear sense of this principle that\nGalen called him master. \"Greatest,\" say the Moslems, \"is Allah, and\nMohammed is his prophet.\" \"Greatest,\" said Galen, \"is the Physis, and\nHippocrates is its prophet.\" Never did Mohammed more zealously\nmaintain the unity of the Godhead than Hippocrates and Galen the unity\nof the organism.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen's Physics.]\n\nBut we shall not have read far before we discover that the term\n_Physiology_, as used by Galen, stands not merely for what we\nunderstand by it nowadays, but also for a large part of _Physics_ as\nwell. This is one of the chief sources of confusion in his writings.\nHaving grasped, for example, the uniqueness of the process of\n_specific selection_ ([Greek: holk\u00ea tou oikeiou]), by which the\ntissues nourish themselves, he proceeds to apply this principle in\nexplanation of entirely different classes of phenomena; thus he mixes\nit up with the physical phenomenon of the attraction of the lodestone\nfor iron, of dry grain for moisture, etc. It is noteworthy, however,\nin these latter instances, that he does not venture to follow out his\ncomparison to its logical conclusion; he certainly stops short of\nhinting that the lodestone (like a living organ or tissue)\n_assimilates_ the metal which it has attracted!\n\nSetting aside, however, these occasional half-hearted attempts to\napply his principle of a [Greek: physis] in regions where it has no\nnatural standing, we shall find that in the field of biology Galen\nmoves with an assurance bred of first-hand experience.\n\n[Sidenote: The Mechanical Physicists.]\n\nAgainst his attempt to \"biologize\" physics may be set the converse\nattempt of the mechanical Atomist school. Thus in Asclepiades he found\na doughty defender of the view that physiology was \"merely\" physics.\nGalen's ire being roused, he is not content with driving the enemy out\nof the biological camp, but must needs attempt also to dislodge him\nfrom that of physics, in which he has every right to be.\n\n[Sidenote: The Anatomists.]\n\nIn defence of the universal validity of his principle, Galen also\ntends to excessive disparagement of morphological factors; witness his\nobjection to the view of the anatomist Erasistratus that the calibre\nof vessels played a part in determining the secretion of fluids (p.\n123), that digestion was caused by the mechanical action of the\nstomach walls (p. 243), and dropsy by induration of the liver (p.\n171).\n\n[Sidenote: Characteristics of the Living Organism.]\n\nWhile combating the atomic explanation of physical processes, Galen of\ncourse realised that there were many of these which could only be\nexplained according to what we should now call \"mechanical laws.\" For\nexample, non-living things could be subjected to [Greek: phora]\n(passive motion), they answered to the laws of gravity ([Greek: tais\nt\u00f4n hyl\u00f4n oiakizomena rhopais], p. 126). Furthermore, Galen did not\nfail to see that living things also were not entirely exempted from\nthe operation of these laws; they too may be at least partly subject\nto gravity (_loc. cit._); a hollow organ exerts, by virtue of its\ncavity, an attraction similar to that of dilating bellows, as well as,\nby virtue of the living tissue of its walls, a specifically \"vital\" or\nselective kind of attraction (p. 325).\n\nAs a type of characteristically vital action we may take _nutrition_,\nin which occurs a phenomenon which Galen calls _active motion_\n([Greek: drastik\u00ea kin\u00easis]) or, more technically, _alteration_\n([Greek: alloi\u00f4sis]). This active type of motion cannot be adequately\nstated in terms of the passive movements (groupings and re-groupings)\nof its constituent parts according to certain empirical \"laws.\"\nAlteration involves _self-movement_, a self-determination of the\norganism or organic part. Galen does not attempt to explain this\nfundamental characteristic of _alteration_ any further; he contents\nhimself with referring his opponents to Aristotle's work on the\n\"Complete Alteration of Substance\" (p. 9).\n\nThe most important characteristic of the Physis or Nature is its\n[Greek: techn\u00ea]--its artistic creativeness. In other words, the living\norganism is a creative artist. This feature may be observed typically\nin its primary functions of _growth_ and _nutrition_; these are\ndependent on the characteristic _faculties_ or powers, by virtue of\nwhich each part draws to itself what is proper or appropriate to it\n([Greek: to oikeion]) and rejects what is foreign ([Greek: to\nallotrion]), thereafter appropriating or assimilating the attracted\nmaterial; this assimilation is an example of the _alteration_ (or\nqualitative change) already alluded to; thus the food eaten is\n\"altered\" into the various tissues of the body, each of these having\nbeen provided by \"Nature\" with its own specific faculties of\nattraction and repulsion.\n\n[Sidenote: The Three Categories.]\n\nAny of the operations of the living part may be looked on in three\nways, either (_a_) as a [Greek: dynamis], faculty, potentiality;\n(_b_) as an [Greek: energeia], which is this [Greek: dynamis] in\noperation; or (_c_) as an [Greek: ergon], the product or effect of the\n[Greek: energeia].[3]\n\n[Sidenote: Galen's Method.]\n\nLike his master Hippocrates, Galen attached fundamental importance to\nclinical observation--to the evidence of the senses as the\nindispensable groundwork of all medical knowledge. He had also,\nhowever, a forte for rapid generalisation from observations, and his\nlogical proclivities disposed him particularly to deductive\nreasoning. Examples of an almost Euclidean method of argument may be\nfound in the _Natural Faculties_ (_e.g._ Book III. chap. i.). While\nthis method undoubtedly gave him much help in his search for truth, it\nalso not unfrequently led him astray. This is evidenced by his\nattempt, already noted, to apply the biological principle of the\n[Greek: physis] in physics. Characteristic examples of attempts to\nforce facts to fit premises will be found in Book II. chap. ix., where\nour author demonstrates that yellow bile is \"virtually\" dry, and also,\nby a process of exclusion, assigns to the spleen the function of\nclearing away black bile. Strangest of all is his attempt to prove\nthat the same principle of specific attraction by which the ultimate\ntissues nourish themselves (and the lodestone attracts iron!) accounts\nfor the reception of food into the stomach, of urine into the kidneys,\nof bile into the gall-bladder, and of semen into the uterus.\n\nThese instances are given, however, without prejudice to the system of\ngeneralisation and deduction which, in Galen's hands, often proved\nexceedingly fruitful. He is said to have tried \"to unite professional\nand scientific medicine with a philosophic link.\" He objected,\nhowever, to such extreme attempts at simplification of medical science\nas that of the Methodists, to whom diseases were isolated entities,\nwithout any relationships in time or space (_v._ p. xv. _supra_).\n\nHe based much of his pathological reasoning upon the \"humoral theory\"\nof Hippocrates, according to which certain diseases were caused by one\nor more of the four humours (blood, phlegm, black and yellow bile)\nbeing in excess--that is, by various _dyscrasiae_. Our modern\nconception of \"hormone\" action shows certain resemblances with this\ntheory.\n\nBesides observation and reasoning, Galen took his stand on\n_experiment_; he was one of the first of experimental physiologists,\nas is illustrated in the present book by his researches into the\nfunction of the kidneys (p. 59 _et seq._). He also conducted a long\nseries of experiments into the physiology of the spinal cord, to\ndetermine what parts controlled movement and what sensibility.\n\nAs a practitioner he modelled his work largely on the broad and simple\nlines laid down by Hippocrates. He had also at his disposal all the\nacquisitions of biological science dating from the time of Aristotle\nfive hundred years earlier, and reinforced by the discoveries in\nanatomy made by the Alexandrian school. To these he added a large\nseries of researches of his own.\n\nGalen never confined himself to what one might call the academic or\nstrictly orthodox sources of information; he roamed the world over for\nanswers to his queries. For example, we find him on his journeys\nbetween Pergamos and Rome twice visiting the island of Lemnos in order\nto procure some of the _terra sigillata_, a kind of earth which had a\nreputation for healing the bites of serpents and other wounds. At\nother times he visited the copper-mines of Cyprus in search for\ncopper, and Palestine for the resin called Balm of Gilead.\n\nBy inclination and training Galen was the reverse of a \"party-man.\" In\nthe _Natural Faculties_ (p. 55) he speaks of the bane of sectarian\npartizanship, \"harder to heal than any itch.\" He pours scorn upon the\nignorant \"Erasistrateans\" and \"Asclepiadeans,\" who attempted to hide\ntheir own incompetence under the shield of some great man's name\n(_cf._ p. 141).\n\nOf the two chief objects of his censure in the _Natural Faculties_,\nGalen deals perhaps less rigorously with Erasistratus than with\nAsclepiades. Erasistratus did at least recognize the existence of a\nvital principle in the organism, albeit, with his eye on the\nstructures which the scalpel displayed he tended frequently to forget\nit. The researches of the anatomical school of Alexandria had been\nnaturally of the greatest service to surgery, but in medicine they\nsometimes had a tendency to check progress by diverting attention from\nthe whole to the part.\n\n[Sidenote: The Pneuma or Spirit.]\n\nAnother novel conception frequently occurring in Galen's writings is\nthat of the _Pneuma_ (_i.e._ the breath, _spiritus_). This word is\nused in two senses, as meaning (1) the inspired air, which was drawn\ninto the left side of the heart and thence carried all over the body\nby the arteries; this has not a few analogies with oxygen,\nparticularly as its action in the tissues is attended with the\nappearance of the so-called \"innate heat.\" (2) A vital principle,\nconceived as being made up of matter in the most subtle imaginable\nstate (_i.e._ air). This vital principle became resolved into three\nkinds: (_a_) [Greek: pneuma physikon] or _spiritus naturalis_, carried\nby the veins, and presiding over the subconscious vegetative life;\nthis \"natural spirit\" is therefore practically equivalent to the\n[Greek: physis] or \"nature\" itself. (_b_) The [Greek: pneuma z\u00f4tikon]\nor _spiritus vitalis_; here particularly is a source of error, since\nthe air already alluded to as being carried by the arteries tends to\nbe confused with this principle of \"individuality\" or relative\nautonomy in the circulatory (including, perhaps, the vasomotor)\nsystem. (_c_) The [Greek: pneuma psychikon] or _spiritus animalis_\n(anima = [Greek: psych\u00ea]), carried by longitudinal canals in the nerves;\nthis corresponds to the [Greek: psych\u00ea].\n\nThis view of a \"vital principle\" as necessarily consisting of matter\nin a finely divided, fluid, or \"etheric\" state is not unknown even in\nour day. Belief in the fundamental importance of the Pneuma formed the\nbasis of the teaching of another vitalist school in ancient Greece,\nthat of the Pneumatists.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen and the Circulation of the Blood.]\n\nIt is unnecessary to detail here the various ways in which Galen's\nphysiological views differ from those of the Moderns, as most of these\nare noticed in footnotes to the text of the present translation. His\nignorance of the circulation of the blood does not lessen the force of\nhis general physiological conclusions to the extent that might be\nanticipated. In his opinion, the great bulk of the blood travelled\nwith a to-and-fro motion in the veins, while a little of it, mixed\nwith inspired air, moved in the same way along the arteries; whereas\nwe now know that all the blood goes outward by the arteries and\nreturns by the veins; in either case blood is carried to the tissues\nby blood-vessels, and Galen's ideas of tissue-nutrition were\nwonderfully sound. The ingenious method by which (in ignorance of the\npulmonary circulation) he makes blood pass from the right to the left\nventricle, may be read in the present work (p. 321). As will be seen,\nhe was conversant with the \"anastomoses\" between the ultimate branches\nof arteries and veins, although he imagined that they were not used\nunder \"normal\" conditions.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen's Character.]\n\nGalen was not only a man of great intellectual gifts, but one also of\nstrong moral fibre. In his short treatise \"That the best Physician is\nalso a Philosopher\" he outlines his professional ideals. It is\nnecessary for the efficient healer to be versed in the three branches\nof \"philosophy,\" viz.: (_a_) _logic_, the science of how to think;\n(_b_) _physics_, the science of what is--_i.e._ of \"Nature\" in the\nwidest sense; (_c_) _ethics_, the science of what to do. The amount of\ntoil which he who wishes to be a physician must undergo--firstly, in\nmastering the work of his predecessors and afterwards in studying\ndisease at first hand--makes it absolutely necessary that he should\npossess perfect self-control, that he should scorn money and the weak\npleasures of the senses, and should live laborious days.\n\nReaders of the following pages will notice that Galen uses what we\nshould call distinctly immoderate language towards those who ventured\nto differ from the views of his master Hippocrates (which were also\nhis own). The employment of such language was one of the few\nweaknesses of his age which he did not transcend. Possibly also his\nmother's choleric temper may have predisposed him to it.\n\nThe fact, too, that his vivisection experiments (_e.g._ pp. 59, 273)\nwere carried out apparently without any kind of anaesthetisation being\neven thought of is abhorrent to the feelings of to-day, but must be\nexcused also on the ground that callousness towards animals was then\ncustomary, men having probably never thought much about the subject.\n\n[Sidenote: Galen's Greek Style.]\n\nGalen is a master of language, using a highly polished variety of\nAttic prose with a precision which can be only very imperfectly\nreproduced in another tongue. Every word he uses has an exact and\ndefinite meaning attached to it. Translation is particularly difficult\nwhen a word stands for a physiological conception which is not now\nheld; instances are the words _anadosis_, _prosthesis_, and\n_prosphysis_, indicating certain steps in the process by which\nnutriment is conveyed from the alimentary canal to the tissues.\n\nReaders will be surprised to find how many words are used by Galen\nwhich they would have thought had been expressly coined to fit modern\nconceptions; thus our author employs not merely such terms as\n_physiology_, _phthisis_, _atrophy_, _anastomosis_, but also\n_haematopoietic_, _anaesthesia_, and even _aseptic_! It is only fair,\nhowever, to remark that these terms, particularly the last, were not\nused by Galen in quite their modern significance.\n\n[Sidenote: Summary.]\n\nTo resume, then: What contribution can Galen bring to the art of\nhealing at the present day? It was not, surely, for nothing that the\ngreat Pergamene gave laws to the medical world for over a thousand\nyears!\n\nLet us draw attention once more to:\n\n(1) The high ideal which he set before the profession.\n\n(2) His insistence on immediate contact with nature as the primary\ncondition for arriving at an understanding of disease; on the need for\ndue consideration of previous authorities; on the need also for\nreflection--for employment of the mind's eye ([Greek: h\u00ea logik\u00ea\nthe\u00f4ria]) as an aid to the physical eye.\n\n(3) His essentially broad outlook, which often helped him in the\ncomprehension of a phenomenon through his knowledge of an analogous\nphenomenon in another field of nature.\n\n(4) His keen appreciation of the unity of the organism, and of the\ninter-dependence of its parts; his realisation that the vital\nphenomena (physiological and pathological) in a living organism can\nonly be understood when considered in relation to the _environment_ of\nthat organism or part. This is the foundation for the war that Galen\nwaged _\u00e0 outrance_ on the Methodists, to whom diseases were things\nwithout relation to anything. This dispute is, unfortunately, not\ntouched upon in the present volume. What Galen combated was the\ntendency, familiar enough in our own day, to reduce medicine to the\nscience of finding a label for each patient, and then treating not the\npatient, but the label. (This tendency, we may remark in parenthesis,\nis one which is obviously well suited for the _standardising_ purposes\nof a State medical service, and is therefore one which all who have\nthe weal of the profession at heart must most jealously watch in the\ndifficult days that lie ahead.)\n\n(5) His realisation of the inappropriateness and inadequacy of\nphysical formulae in explaining physiological activities. Galen's\ndisputes with Asclepiades over [Greek: ta pr\u00f4ta ekeina s\u00f4mata ta\napath\u00ea], over the [Greek: anarma stoicheia kai l\u00ear\u00f4deis onkoi], is but\nanother aspect of his quarrel with the Methodists regarding their\npathological \"units,\" whose primary characteristic was just this same\n[Greek: apatheia] (impassiveness to environment, \"unimpressionability\").\nWe have of course our Physiatric or Iatromechanical school at the\npresent day, to whom such processes as absorption from the alimentary\ncanal, the respiratory interchange of gases, and the action of the renal\nepithelium are susceptible of a purely physical explanation.[4]\n\n(6) His quarrel with the Anatomists, which was in essence the same as\nthat with the Atomists, and which arose from his clear realisation\nthat that primary and indispensable desideratum, a view of the whole,\ncould never be obtained by a mere summation of partial views; hence,\nalso, his sense of the dangers which would beset the medical art if it\nwere allowed to fall into the hands of a mere crowd of competing\nspecialists without any organising head to guide them.\n\n\n    [1] _On the Affections of the Mind_, p. 41 (K\u00fchn's ed.).\n\n    [2] \"Averrho\u00ebs who made the great Commentary\" (Dante). It\n    was Averrho\u00ebs (Ebn Roshd) who, in the 12th century,\n    introduced Aristotle to the Mohammedan world, and the\n    \"Commentary\" referred to was on Aristotle.\n\n    [3] What appear to me to be certain resemblances between\n    the Galenical and the modern vitalistic views of Henri\n    Bergson may perhaps be alluded to here. Galen's vital\n    principle, [Greek: h\u00ea technik\u00ea physis] (\"creative\n    growth\"), presents analogies with _l'Evolution cr\u00e9atrice_:\n    both manifest their activity in producing qualitative\n    change ([Greek: alloi\u00f4sis], _changement_): in both, the\n    creative change cannot be analysed into a series of static\n    states, but is one and continuous. In Galen, however, it\n    comes to an end with the _development of the individual_,\n    whereas in Bergson it continues indefinitely as the\n    _evolution of life_. The three aspects of organic life may\n    be tabulated thus:--\n\n    [Greek: dynamis]  [Greek: energeia]         [Greek: ergon]\n\n    Work to be done.  Work being done.           Work done, finished.\n    Future aspect.      Present aspect.            Past aspect.\n                        Function.                  Structure.\n                        The _\u00e9lan vital_.          A \"thing.\"\n                        A changing which\n                          cannot be understood\n                          as a sum of static\n                          parts; a constant\n                          becoming, never\n                          stopping--at least\n                          till the [Greek: ergon]\n                          is reached.\n\n    Bergson's         Bergson's                  Bergson's \"outlook\n     \"teleological\"     \"philosophical\"            of physical\n      aspect.            aspect.                   science.\"\n\n    Galen recognized \"creativeness\" ([Greek: techn\u00ea]) in the\n    _development_ of the individual and its parts (ontogeny)\n    and in the maintenance of these, but he failed to\n    appreciate the creative _evolution_ of species\n    (phylogeny), which is, of course, part of the same\n    process. To the teleologist the possibilities ([Greek:\n    dynameis]) of the Physis are limited, to Bergson they\n    are unlimited. Galen and Bergson agree in attaching most\n    practical importance to the middle category--that of\n    Function.\n\n    While it must be conceded that Galen, following\n    Aristotle, had never seriously questioned the fixity of\n    species, the following quotation from his work _On\n    Habits_ (chap. ii.) will show that he must have at least\n    had occasional glimmerings of our modern point of view\n    on the matter. Referring to _assimilation_, he says:\n    \"Just as everything we eat or drink becomes _altered in\n    quality_, so of course also does the altering factor\n    itself become altered.... A clear proof of the\n    assimilation of things which are being nourished to that\n    which is nourishing them is the change which occurs in\n    plants and seeds; this often goes so far that what is\n    highly noxious in one soil becomes, when transplanted\n    into another soil, not merely harmless, but actually\n    useful. This has been largely put to the test by those\n    who compose memoirs on farming and on plants, as also by\n    zoological authors who have written on the changes which\n    occur according to the countries in which animals live.\n    Since, therefore, not only is the nourishment altered by\n    the creature nourished, but the latter itself also\n    undergoes some slight alteration, _this slight\n    alteration must necessarily become considerable in the\n    course of time_, and thus properties resulting from\n    prolonged habit must come to be on a par with natural\n    properties.\"\n\n    Galen fails to see the possibility that the \"natural\"\n    properties themselves originated in this way, as\n    activities which gradually became habitual--that is to\n    say, that the effects of _nurture_ may become a \"second\n    nature,\" and so eventually _nature_ itself.\n\n    The whole passage, however, may be commended to modern\n    biologists--particularly, might one say, to those\n    bacteriologists who have not yet realised how\n    extraordinarily _relative_ is the term \"specificity\"\n    when applied to the subject-matter of their science.\n\n    [4] In terms of filtration, diffusion, and osmosis.\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\nCodices\n\nBiblioth\u00e8que Nationale. Paris. No. 2267.\nLibrary of St. Mark. Venice. No. 275.\n\n\nTranslations\n\n  Arabic translations by Honain in the Escurial Library, and\n    in the Library at Leyden. Hebrew translation in the\n    Library at Bonn. Latin translations in the Library of\n    Gonville and Caius College (MSS.), No. 947; also by\n    Linacre in editions published, London, 1523; Paris,\n    1528; Leyden, 1540, 1548, and 1550; also by C.G. K\u00fchn,\n    Leipzig, 1821.\n\n\nCommentaries and Appreciations\n\n  Nic. de Anglia in Bib. Nat. Paris (MSS.), No. 7015; J.\n    Rochon, _ibidem_, No. 7025; J. Segarra, 1528; J. Sylvius,\n    1550, 1560; L. Joubert, 1599; M. Sebitz, 1644, 1645;\n    J.B. Pacuvius, 1554; J.C.G. Ackermann, 1821, in\n    the introduction to K\u00fchn's translation, p. lxxx; Ilberg\n    in articles on \"Die Schriftstellerei des Klaudios\n    Galenos,\" in _Rhein. Mus._, Nos. 44, 47, 51, and 52\n    (years 1889, 1892, 1896 and 1897); I. von Mueller in\n    _Qu\u00e6stiones Criticae de Galeni libris_, Erlangen, 1871;\n    Steinschneider in Virchow's _Archiv_, No. cxxiv. for\n    1891; Wenrich in _De auctorum graecorum versionibus\n    et commentariis syriacis, arabicis, armiacis, persisque_,\n    Leipzig, 1842.\n\n\nSYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS\n\n\n  BOOK I\n\n\n  Chapter I\n\n  Distinction between the effects of (_a_) the organism's\n  _psyche_ or soul (_b_) its _physis_ or nature. The\n  author proposes to confine himself to a consideration of\n  the latter--the vegetative--aspect of life.\n\n\n  Chapter II\n\n  Definition of terms. Different kinds of _motion_.\n  _Alteration_ or qualitative change. Refutation of the\n  Sophists' objection that such change is only apparent,\n  not real. The four fundamental qualities of Hippocrates\n  (later Aristotle). Distinction between _faculty_,\n  _activity_ (function), and _effect_ (work or product).\n\n\n  Chapter III\n\n  It is by virtue of the _four qualities_ that each part\n  functions. Some authorities subordinate the dry and the\n  moist principles to the hot and the cold. Aristotle\n  inconsistent here.\n\n\n  Chapter IV\n\n  We must suppose that there are _faculties_ corresponding\n  in number to the visible _effects_ (or products) with\n  which we are familiar.\n\n\n  Chapter V\n\n  Genesis, growth, and nutrition. Genesis (embryogeny)\n  sub-divided into histogenesis and organogenesis. Growth\n  is a tridimensional expansion of the solid parts formed\n  during genesis. Nutrition.\n\n\n  Chapter VI\n\n  The process of genesis (embryogeny) from insemination\n  onwards. Each of the simple, elementary, homogeneous\n  parts (tissues) is produced by a special blend of the\n  four primary alterative faculties (such secondary\n  alterative faculties being _ostopoietic_,\n  _neuropoietic_, etc.). A special _function_ and _use_\n  also corresponds to each of these special tissues. The\n  bringing of these tissues together into _organs_ and the\n  disposal of these organs is performed by another faculty\n  called _diaplastic_, _moulding_, or _formative_.\n\n\n  Chapter VII\n\n  We now pass from genesis to _growth_. Growth essentially\n  a post-natal process; it involves two factors, expansion\n  and nutrition, explained by analogy of a familiar\n  child's game.\n\n\n  Chapter VIII\n\n  Nutrition.\n\n\n  Chapter IX\n\n  These three primary faculties (genesis, growth,\n  nutrition) have various others subservient to them.\n\n\n  Chapter X\n\n  Nutrition not a simple process. (1) Need of subsidiary\n  organs for the various stages of alteration, _e.g._, of\n  bread into blood, of that into bone, etc. (2) Need also\n  of organs for excreting the non-utilizable portions of\n  the food, _e.g._, much vegetable matter is superfluous.\n  (3) Need of organs of a third kind, for distributing the\n  pabulum through the body.\n\n\n  Chapter XI\n\n  Nutrition analysed into the stages of application\n  (_prosthesis_), adhesion (_prosphysis_), and\n  assimilation. The stages illustrated by certain\n  pathological conditions. Different shades of meaning of\n  the term _nutriment_.\n\n\n  Chapter XII\n\n  The two chief medico-philosophical schools--Atomist and\n  Vitalist. Hippocrates an adherent of the latter\n  school--his doctrine of an original principle or\n  \"nature\" in every living thing (doctrine of the unity of\n  the organism).\n\n\n  Chapter XIII\n\n  Failure of Asclepiades to understand the functions of\n  kidneys and ureters. His hypothesis of vaporization of\n  imbibed fluids is here refuted. A demonstration of\n  urinary secretion in the living animal; the forethought\n  and artistic skill of Nature vindicated. Refutation also\n  of Asclepiades's disbelief in the special selective\n  action of purgative drugs.\n\n\n  Chapter XIV\n\n  While Asclepiades denies _in toto_ the obvious fact of\n  specific attraction, Epicurus grants the fact, although\n  his attempt to explain it by the atomic hypothesis\n  breaks down. Refutation of the Epicurean theory of\n  magnetic attraction. Instances of specific attraction of\n  thorns and animal poisons by medicaments, of moisture by\n  corn, etc.\n\n\n  Chapter XV\n\n  It now being granted that the urine is secreted by the\n  kidneys, the _rationale_ of this secretion is enquired\n  into. The kidneys are not mechanical filters, but are by\n  virtue of their _nature_ possessed of a specific faculty\n  of attraction.\n\n\n  Chapter XVI\n\n  Erasistratus, again, by his favourite principle of\n  _horror vacui_ could never explain the secretion of\n  urine by the kidneys. While, however, he acknowledged\n  that the kidneys do secrete urine, he makes no attempt\n  to explain this; he ignores, but does not attempt to\n  refute, the Hippocratic doctrine of specific\n  _attraction_. \"Servile\" position taken up by Asclepiades\n  and Erasistratus in regard to this function of urinary\n  secretion.\n\n\n  Chapter XVII\n\n  Three other attempts (by adherents of the Erasistratean\n  school and by Lycus of Macedonia) to explain how the\n  kidneys come to separate out urine from the blood. All\n  these ignore the obvious principle of attraction.\n\n\n  BOOK II\n\n\n  Chapter I\n\n  In order to explain dispersal of food from alimentary\n  canal _vi\u00e2_ the veins (_anadosis_) there is no need to\n  invoke with Erasistratus, the _horror vacui_, since here\n  again the principle of specific attraction is operative;\n  moreover, blood is also driven forward by the\n  compressing action of the stomach and the contractions\n  of the veins. Possibility, however, of Erasistratus's\n  factor playing a certain minor _r\u00f4le_.\n\n\n  Chapter II\n\n  The Erasistratean idea that bile becomes separated out\n  from the blood in the liver because, being the thinner\n  fluid, it alone can enter the narrow stomata of the\n  bile-ducts, while the thicker blood can only enter the\n  wider mouths of the hepatic venules.\n\n\n  Chapter III\n\n  The morphological factors suggested by Erasistratus are\n  quite inadequate to explain biological happenings.\n  Erasistratus inconsistent with his own statements. The\n  immanence of the _physis_ or nature; her shaping is not\n  merely external like that of a statuary, but involves\n  the entire substance. In genesis (embryogeny) the semen\n  is the active, and the menstrual blood the passive,\n  principle. Attractive, alterative, and formative\n  faculties of the semen. Embryogeny is naturally followed\n  by growth; these two functions distinguished.\n\n\n  Chapter IV\n\n  Unjustified claim by Erasistrateans that their founder\n  had associations with the Peripatetic (Aristotelian)\n  school. The characteristic physiological tenets of that\n  school (which were all anticipated by Hippocrates) in no\n  way agree with those of Erasistratus, save that both\n  recognize the purposefulness of Nature; in practice,\n  however, Erasistratus assumed numerous exceptions to\n  this principle. Difficulty of understanding why he\n  rejected the biological principle of attraction in\n  favour of anatomical factors.\n\n\n  Chapter V\n\n  A further difficulty raised by Erasistratus's statement\n  regarding secretion of bile in the liver.\n\n\n  Chapter VI\n\n  The same holds with nutrition. Even if we grant that\n  veins may obtain their nutrient blood by virtue of the\n  _horror vacui_ (chap. i.), how could this explain the\n  nutrition of nerves? Erasistratus's hypothesis of minute\n  elemental nerves and vessels within the ordinary visible\n  nerves simply throws the difficulty further back. And is\n  Erasistratus's minute \"simple\" nerve susceptible of\n  further analysis, as the Atomists would assume? If so,\n  this is opposed to the conception of a constructive and\n  artistic Nature which Erasistratus himself shares with\n  Hippocrates and the writer. And if his minute nerve is\n  really elementary and not further divisible, then it\n  cannot, according to his own showing, contain a cavity;\n  therefore the _horror vacui_ does not apply to it. And\n  how could this principle apply to the restoration to its\n  original bulk of a part which had become thin through\n  disease, where more matter must become attached than\n  runs away? A quotation from Erasistratus shows that he\n  did acknowledge an \"attraction,\" although not exactly in\n  the Hippocratic sense.\n\n\n  Chapter VII\n\n  In the last resort, the ultimate living elements\n  (Erasistratus's _simple vessels_) must draw in their\n  food by virtue of an inherent attractive faculty like\n  that which the lodestone exerts on iron. Thus the\n  process of anadosis, from beginning to end, can be\n  explained without assuming a _horror vacui_.\n\n\n  Chapter VIII\n\n  Erasistratus's disregard for the humours. In respect to\n  excessive formation of bile, however, prevention is\n  better than cure: accordingly we must consider its\n  pathology. Does blood pre-exist in the food, or does it\n  come into existence in the body? Erasistratus's purely\n  anatomical explanation of _dropsy_. He entirely avoids\n  the question of the four qualities (_e.g._ the\n  importance of innate heat) in the generation of the\n  humours, etc. Yet the problem of blood-production is no\n  less important than that of gastric digestion. Proof\n  that bile does not pre-exist in the food. The four\n  fundamental qualities of Hippocrates and Aristotle. How\n  the humours are formed from food taken into the veins:\n  when heat is in proportionate amount, blood results;\n  when in excess, bile; when deficient, phlegm. Various\n  conditions determining cold or warm temperaments. The\n  four primary diseases result each from excess of one of\n  the four qualities. Erasistratus unwillingly\n  acknowledges this when he ascribes the indigestion\n  occurring in fever to _impaired function_ of the\n  stomach. For what causes this _functio laesa_? Proof\n  that it is the fever (excess of innate heat).\n\n  If, then, heat plays so important a part in abnormal\n  functioning, so must it also in normal (_i.e._ causes of\n  eucrasia involved in those of dyscrasia, of physiology\n  in those of pathology). A like argument explains the\n  _genesis of the humours_. Addition of warmth to things\n  already warm makes them bitter; thus honey turns to bile\n  in people who are already warm; where warmth deficient,\n  as in old people, it turns to useful blood. This is a\n  proof that bile does not pre-exist, as such, in the\n  food.\n\n\n  Chapter IX\n\n  The _functions of organs_ also depend on the way in\n  which the four qualities are mixed--_e.g._ the\n  contracting function of the stomach. Treatment only\n  possible when we know the _causes_ of errors of\n  function. The Erasistrateans practically Empiricists in\n  this respect. On an appreciation of the meaning of a\n  _dyscrasia_ follows naturally the Hippocratic principle\n  of treating opposites by opposites (_e.g._ cooling the\n  over-heated stomach, warming it when chilled, etc.).\n  Useless in treatment to know merely the function of each\n  organ; we must know the _bodily condition_ which upsets\n  this function. Blood is warm and moist. Yellow bile is\n  warm and (virtually, though not apparently) dry. Phlegm\n  is cold and moist. The fourth possible combination (cold\n  and dry) is represented by _black bile_. For the\n  clearing out of this humour from the blood, Nature has\n  provided the spleen--an organ which, according to\n  Erasistratus, fulfils no purpose. Proof of the\n  importance of the spleen is the jaundice, toxaemia,\n  etc., occurring when it is diseased. Erasistratus's\n  failure to mention the views of leading authorities on\n  this organ shows the hopelessness of his position. The\n  Hippocratic view has now been demonstrated deductively\n  and inductively. The classical view as to the generation\n  of the humours. Normal and pathological forms of yellow\n  and black bile. Part played by the _innate heat_ in\n  their production. Other kinds of bile are merely\n  transition-stages between these extreme types. Abnormal\n  forms removed by liver and spleen respectively. Phlegm,\n  however, does not need a special excretory organ, as it\n  can undergo entire metabolism in the body.\n\n  Need for studying the works of the Ancients carefully,\n  in order to reach a proper understanding of this\n  subject.\n\n\n  BOOK III\n\n\n  Chapter I\n\n  A recapitulation of certain points previously\n  demonstrated. Every part of the animal has an attractive\n  and an alterative (assimilative) faculty; it attracts\n  the nutrient juice which is proper to it. Assimilation\n  is preceded by adhesion (_prosphysis_) and that again,\n  by application (_prosthesis_). Application the goal of\n  attraction. It would not, however, be followed by\n  adhesion and assimilation if each part did not also\n  possess a faculty for _retaining in position_ the\n  nutriment which has been applied. _A priori_ necessity\n  for this _retentive_ faculty.\n\n\n  Chapter II\n\n  The same faculty to be proved _a posteriori_. Its\n  corresponding _function_ (_i.e._ the activation of this\n  faculty or potentiality) well seen in the large hollow\n  organs, notably the uterus and stomach.\n\n\n  Chapter III\n\n  Exercise of the retentive faculty particularly well seen\n  in the uterus. Its object is to allow the embryo to\n  attain full development; this being completed, a new\n  faculty--the expulsive--hitherto quiescent, comes into\n  play. Characteristic signs and symptoms of pregnancy.\n  Tight grip of uterus on growing embryo, and accurate\n  closure of os uteri during operation of the retentive\n  faculty. Dilatation of os and expulsive activities of\n  uterus at full term, or when foetus dies. Prolapse from\n  undue exercise of this faculty. _R\u00f4le_ of the midwife.\n  Accessory muscles in parturition.\n\n\n  Chapter IV\n\n  Same two faculties seen in stomach. _Gurglings_ or\n  _borborygmi_ show that this organ is weak and is not\n  gripping its contents tightly enough. Undue delay of\n  food in a weak stomach proved not to be due to\n  narrowness of pylorus: length of stay depends on whether\n  _digestion_ (another instance of the characteristically\n  vital process of _alteration_) has taken place or not.\n  Erasistratus wrong in attributing digestion merely to\n  the mechanical action of the stomach walls. When\n  digestion completed, then pylorus opens and allows\n  contents to pass downwards, just as os uteri when\n  development of embyro completed.\n\n\n  Chapter V\n\n  If attraction and elimination always proceeded _pari\n  passu_, the content of these hollow organs (including\n  gall-bladder and urinary bladder) would never vary in\n  amount. A _retentive_ faculty, therefore, also logically\n  needed. Its existence demonstrated. Expulsion determined\n  by qualitative and quantitative changes of contents.\n  \"Diarrhoea\" of stomach. Vomiting.\n\n\n  Chapter VI\n\n  Every organic part has an _appetite_ and _aversion_ for\n  the qualities which are appropriate and foreign to it\n  respectively. Attraction necessarily leads to a certain\n  _benefit_ received. This again necessitates _retention_.\n\n\n  Chapter VII\n\n  Interaction between two bodies; the stronger masters the\n  weaker; a deleterious drug masters the forces of the\n  body, whereas food is mastered by them; this mastery is\n  an _alteration_, and the amount of alteration varies\n  with the different organs; thus a partial alteration is\n  effected in mouth by saliva, but much greater in\n  stomach, where not only gastric juice, but also bile,\n  pneuma, innate heat (_i.e._ oxidation?), and other\n  powerful factors are brought to bear on it; need of\n  considerable alteration in stomach as a\n  transition-stage between food and blood; appearance of\n  faeces in intestine another proof of great alteration\n  effected in stomach. Asclepiades's denial of real\n  qualitative change in stomach rebutted. Erasistratus's\n  denial that digestion in any way resembles a _boiling_\n  process comes from his taking words too literally.\n\n\n  Chapter VIII\n\n  Erasistratus denies that the stomach exerts any pull in\n  the act of swallowing. That he is wrong, however, is\n  proved by the anatomical structure of the stomach--its\n  inner coat with longitudinal fibres obviously acts as a\n  _vis a fronte_ (attraction), whilst its outer coat\n  exercises through the contraction of its circular fibres\n  a _vis a tergo_ (propulsion); the latter also comes into\n  play in vomiting. The stomach uses the oesophagus as a\n  kind of hand, to draw in its food with. The functions of\n  the two coats proved also by vivisection. Swallowing\n  cannot be attributed merely to the force of gravity.\n\n\n  Chapter IX\n\n  These four faculties which subserve nutrition are thus\n  apparent in many different parts of the body.\n\n\n  Chapter X\n\n  Need for elaborating the statements of the ancient\n  physicians. Superiority of Ancients to Moderns. This\n  state of affairs can only be rectified by a really\n  efficient education of youth. The chief requisites of\n  such an education.\n\n\n  Chapter XI\n\n  For the sake of the few who realty wish truth, the\n  argument will be continued. A third kind of fibre--the\n  _oblique_--subserves _retention_; the way in which this\n  fibre is disposed in different coats.\n\n\n  Chapter XII\n\n  The factor which brings the expulsive faculty into\n  action is essentially a condition of the organ or its\n  contents which is the reverse of that which determined\n  attraction. Analogy between abortion and normal\n  parturition. Whatever produces _discomfort_ must be\n  expelled. That discomfort also determines expulsion of\n  contents from gall-bladder is not so evident as in the\n  case of stomach, uterus, urinary bladder, etc., but can\n  be logically demonstrated.\n\n\n  Chapter XIII\n\n  Expulsion takes place through the same channel as\n  attraction (_e.g._, in stomach, gall-bladder, uterus).\n  Similarly the delivery (_anadosis_) of nutriment to the\n  liver from the food-canal _vi\u00e2_ the mesenteric veins may\n  have its direction reversed. Continuous give-and-take\n  between different parts of the body; superior strength\n  of certain parts is natural, of others acquired. When\n  liver contains abundant food and stomach depleted,\n  latter may draw on former; this occurs when animal can\n  get nothing to eat, and so prevents starvation.\n  Similarly, when one part becomes over-distended, it\n  tends to deposit its excess in some weaker part near it;\n  this passes it on to some still weaker part, which\n  cannot get rid of it; hence _deposits_ of various kinds.\n  Further instances of reversal of the normal direction of\n  anadosis from the food canal through the veins. Such\n  reversal of functions would in any case be expected _a\n  priori_. In the vomiting of intestinal obstruction,\n  matter may be carried backwards all the way from the\n  intestine to the mouth; not surprising, therefore, that,\n  under certain circumstances, food-material might be\n  driven right back from the skin-surface to the\n  alimentary canal (_e.g._ in excessive chilling of\n  surface); not much needed to determine this reversal of\n  direction. Action of purgative drugs upon terminals of\n  veins; one part draws from another until whole body\n  participates; similarly in intestinal obstruction, each\n  part passes on the irritating substance to its weaker\n  neighbour. Reversal of direction of flow occurs not\n  merely on occasion but also constantly (as in arteries,\n  lungs, heart, etc.). The various stages of normal\n  nutrition described. Why the stomach sometimes draws\n  back the nutriment it had passed on to portal veins and\n  liver. A similar ebb and flow in relation to the spleen.\n  Comparison of the parts of the body to a lot of animals\n  at a feast. The valves of the heart are a provision of\n  Nature to prevent this otherwise inevitable\n  regurgitation, though even they are not quite efficient.\n\n\n  Chapter XIV\n\n  The superficial arteries, when they dilate, draw in air\n  from the atmosphere, and the deeper ones a fine,\n  vaporous blood from the veins and heart. Lighter matter\n  such as air will always be drawn in preference to\n  heavier; this is why the arteries in the food-canal draw\n  in practically none of the nutrient matter contained in\n  it.\n\n\n  Chapter XV\n\n  The two kinds of attraction--the mechanical attraction\n  of dilating bellows and the \"physical\" (vital)\n  attraction by living tissue of nutrient matter which is\n  specifically allied or appropriate to it. The former\n  kind--that resulting from _horror vacui_--acts primarily\n  on light matter, whereas vital attraction has no\n  essential concern with such mechanical factors. A hollow\n  organ exercises, by virtue of its cavity, the former\n  kind of attraction, and by virtue of the living tissue\n  of its walls, the second kind. Application of this to\n  question of contents of arteries; _anastomoses of\n  arteries and veins_. _Foramina in interventricular\n  septum of heart_, allowing some blood to pass from right\n  to left ventricle. Large size of aorta probably due to\n  fact that it not merely carries the pneuma received from\n  the lungs, but also some of the blood which percolates\n  through septum from right ventricle. Thus arteries carry\n  not merely pneuma, but also some light vaporous blood,\n  which certain parts need more than the ordinary thick\n  blood of the veins. The organic parts must have their\n  blood-supply sufficiently near to allow them to absorb\n  it; comparison with an irrigation system in a garden.\n  Details of the process of nutrition in the ultimate\n  specific tissues; some are nourished from the blood\n  directly; in others a series of intermediate stages must\n  precede complete assimilation; for example, marrow is an\n  intermediate stage between blood and bone.\n\n  From the generalisations arrived at in the present work\n  we can deduce the explanation of all kinds of particular\n  phenomena; an instance is given, showing the\n  co-operation of various factors previously discussed.\n\n\n\n\n                              GALEN\n\n                   ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES[5]\n\n\n                              BOOK I\n\n\n                                I\n\nSince feeling and voluntary motion are peculiar to animals, whilst\ngrowth and nutrition are common to plants as well, we may look on the\nformer as effects[6] of the _soul_[7] and the latter as effects of the\n_nature_.[8] And if there be anyone who allows a share in soul to\nplants as well, and separates the two kinds of soul, naming the kind\nin question _vegetative_, and the other _sensory_, this person is not\nsaying anything else, although his language is somewhat unusual. We,\nhowever, for our part, are convinced that the chief merit of language\nis clearness, and we know that nothing detracts so much from this as\ndo unfamiliar terms; accordingly we employ those terms which the bulk\nof people are accustomed to use, and we say that animals are governed\nat once by their soul and by their nature, and plants by their nature\nalone, and that growth and nutrition are the effects of nature, not of\nsoul.\n\n\n                    GAL\u00caNOU\n\n             PERI PHYSIK\u00d4N DYNAME\u00d4N\n\n\n                        A\n\n\n                        I\n\n  Epeid\u00ea to men aisthanesthai te kai kineisthai kata              1\n  proairesin idia t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n esti, to d' auxanesthai te kai\n  trephesthai koina kai tois phytois, ei\u00ea an ta men\n  protera t\u00eas psych\u00eas, ta de deutera t\u00eas physe\u00f4s erga. ei\n  de tis kai tois phytois psych\u00eas metadid\u00f4si kai\n  diairoumenos autas onomazei phytik\u00ean men taut\u00ean,\n  aisth\u00eatik\u00ean de t\u00ean heteran, legei men oud' houtos alla,\n  t\u00ea lexei d' ou pany t\u00ea syn\u00eathei kechr\u00eatai. all' h\u00eameis\n  ge megist\u00ean lexe\u00f4s aret\u00ean saph\u00eaneian einai pepeismenoi\n  kai taut\u00ean eidotes || hyp' oudenos hout\u00f4s h\u00f4s hypo t\u00f4n          2\n  asyn\u00eath\u00f4n onomat\u00f4n diaphtheiromen\u00ean, h\u00f4s tois pollois\n  ethos, hout\u00f4s onomazontes hypo men psych\u00eas th' hama kai\n  physe\u00f4s ta z\u00f4a dioikeisthai phamen, hypo de physe\u00f4s\n  mon\u00eas ta phyta kai to g' auxanesthai te kai trephesthai\n  physe\u00f4s erga phamen, ou psych\u00eas.\n\n\n                              II\n\nThus we shall enquire, in the course of this treatise, from what\n_faculties_ these effects themselves, as well as any other effects of\nnature which there may be, take their origin.\n\nFirst, however, we must distinguish and explain clearly the various\nterms which we are going to use in this treatise, and to what things\nwe apply them; and this will prove to be not merely an explanation of\nterms but at the same time a demonstration of the effects of nature.\n\nWhen, therefore, such and such a body undergoes no change from its\nexisting state, we say that it is _at rest_; but, if it departs from\nthis in any respect we then say that in this respect it _undergoes\nmotion_.[9] Accordingly, when it departs in various ways from its\npre-existing state, it will be said to undergo various kinds of\nmotion. Thus, if that which is white becomes black, or what is black\nbecomes white, it undergoes motion in respect to _colour_; or if what\nwas previously sweet now becomes bitter, or, conversely, from being\nbitter now becomes sweet, it will be said to undergo motion in respect\nto _flavour_; to both of these instances, as well as to those\npreviously mentioned, we shall apply the term _qualitative motion_.\nAnd further, it is not only things which are altered in regard to\ncolour and flavour which, we say, undergo motion; when a warm thing\nbecomes cold, and a cold warm, here, too we speak of its undergoing\nmotion; similarly also when anything moist becomes dry, or dry\nmoist. Now, the common term which we apply to all these cases is\n_alteration_.\n\nThis is one kind of motion. But there is another kind which occurs in\nbodies which change their position, or as we say, pass from one place\nto another; the name of this is _transference_.[10]\n\nThese two kinds of motion, then, are simple and primary, while\ncompounded from them we have _growth_ and _decay_,[11] as when a small\nthing becomes bigger, or a big thing smaller, each retaining at the\nsame time its particular form. And two other kinds of motion are\n_genesis_ and _destruction_,[12] genesis being a coming into\nexistence,[13] and destruction being the opposite.\n\nNow, common to all kinds of motion is _change from the pre-existing\nstate_, while common to all conditions of rest is _retention of the\npre-existing state_. The Sophists, however, while allowing that bread\nin turning into blood becomes changed as regards sight, taste, and\ntouch, will not agree that this change occurs in reality. Thus some of\nthem hold that all such phenomena are tricks and illusions of our\nsenses; the senses, they say, are affected now in one way, now in\nanother, whereas the underlying substance does not admit of any of\nthese changes to which the names are given. Others (such as\nAnaxagoras)[14] will have it that the qualities do exist in it, but\nthat they are unchangeable and immutable from eternity to eternity,\nand that these apparent alterations are brought about by _separation_\nand _combination_.\n\nNow, if I were to go out of my way to confute these people, my\nsubsidiary task would be greater than my main one. Thus, if they do\nnot know all that has been written, \"On Complete Alteration of\nSubstance\"[15] by Aristotle, and after him by Chrysippus,[16] I must\nbeg of them to make themselves familiar with these men's writings. If,\nhowever, they know these, and yet willingly prefer the worse views to\nthe better, they will doubtless consider my arguments foolish also. I\nhave shown elsewhere that these opinions were shared by Hippocrates,\nwho lived much earlier than Aristotle. In fact, of all those known to\nus who have been both physicians and philosophers Hippocrates was the\nfirst who took in hand to demonstrate that there are, in all, four\nmutually interacting _qualities_, and that to the operation of these\nis due the genesis and destruction of all things that come into and\npass out of being. Nay, more; Hippocrates was also the first to\nrecognise that all these qualities undergo an intimate mingling with\none another; and at least the beginnings of the proofs to which\nAristotle later set his hand are to be found first in the writings of\nHippocrates.\n\nAs to whether we are to suppose that the _substances_ as well as their\n_qualities_ undergo this intimate mingling, as Zeno of Citium\nafterwards declared, I do not think it necessary to go further into\nthis question in the present treatise;[17] for immediate purposes we\nonly need to recognize the _complete alteration of substance_. In\nthis way, nobody will suppose that bread represents a kind of\nmeeting-place[18] for bone, flesh, nerve, and all the other parts, and\nthat each of these subsequently becomes separated in the body and goes\nto join its own kind;[19] before any separation takes place, the whole\nof the bread obviously becomes blood; (at any rate, if a man takes no\nother food for a prolonged period, he will have blood enclosed in his\nveins all the same).[20] And clearly this disproves the view of those\nwho consider the elements[21] unchangeable, as also, for that matter,\ndoes the oil which is entirely used up in the flame of the lamp, or\nthe faggots which, in a somewhat longer time, turn into fire.\n\nI said, however, that I was not going to enter into an argument with\nthese people, and it was only because the example was drawn from the\nsubject-matter of medicine, and because I need it for the present\ntreatise, that I have mentioned it. We shall then, as I said, renounce\nour controversy with them, since those who wish may get a good grasp\nof the views of the ancients from our own personal investigations into\nthese matters.\n\nThe discussion which follows we shall devote entirely, as we\noriginally proposed, to an enquiry into the number and character of\nthe _faculties_ of Nature, and what is the effect which each naturally\nproduces. Now, of course, I mean by an effect[22] that which has\nalready come into existence and has been completed by the\n_activity_[23] of these faculties--for example, blood, flesh, or\nnerve. And _activity_ is the name I give to the active change or\n_motion_, and the _cause_ of this I call a _faculty_. Thus, when food\nturns into blood, the motion of the food is passive, and that of the\nvein active. Similarly, when the limbs have their position altered, it\nis the muscle which produces, and the bones which undergo the motion.\nIn these cases I call the motion of the vein and of the muscle an\n_activity_, and that of the food and the bones a _symptom_ or\n_affection_,[24] since the first group undergoes _alteration_ and the\nsecond group is merely _transported_. One might, therefore, also speak\nof the _activity_ as an _effect_ of Nature[25]--for example,\ndigestion, absorption,[26] blood-production; one could not, however,\nin every case call the effect an activity; thus flesh is an effect of\nNature, but it is, of course, not an activity. It is, therefore, clear\nthat one of these terms is used in two senses, but not the other.\n\n\n                       II\n\n  Kai z\u00eat\u00easomen kata tonde ton logon, hypo tin\u00f4n gignetai\n  dyname\u00f4n auta d\u00ea tauta kai ei d\u00ea ti allo physe\u00f4s ergon\n  estin.\n\n  Alla proteron ge dielesthai te chr\u00ea kai m\u00eanysai saph\u00f4s\n  hekaston t\u00f4n onomat\u00f4n, hois chr\u00easometha kata tonde ton\n  logon, kai eph' ho ti pheromen pragma. gen\u00easetai de\n  tout' euthys erg\u00f4n physik\u00f4n didaskalia syn tais t\u00f4n\n  onomat\u00f4n ex\u00eag\u00easesin.\n\n  Hotan oun ti s\u00f4ma kata m\u00eaden exallatt\u00eatai t\u00f4n\n  pro\u00ffparchont\u00f4n, h\u00easychazein auto phamen; ei d' existaito\n  p\u00ea, kat' ekeino kineisthai. kai toinyn epei polyeid\u00f4s\n  existatai, polyeid\u00f4s kai kin\u00eath\u00easetai. kai gar ei leukon\n  hyparchon melainoito kai ei melan leukainoito, kineitai\n  kata chroan, kai ei glyky te\u00f4s hyparchon authis ||              3\n  aust\u00earon \u00ea empalin ex aust\u00earou glyky genoito, kai tout'\n  an kineisthai legoito kata ton chymon. amph\u00f4 de tauta te\n  kai ta proeir\u00eamena kata t\u00ean poiot\u00eata kineisthai\n  lechth\u00easetai kai ou monon ge ta kata t\u00ean chroan \u00ea ton\n  chymon exallattomena kineisthai phamen, alla kai to\n  thermoteron ek psychroterou genomenon \u00ea psychroteron ek\n  thermoterou kineisthai kai touto legomen, h\u00f4sper ge kai\n  ei ti x\u00earon ex hygrou \u00ea hygron ek x\u00earou gignoito. koinon\n  de kata tout\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n onoma pheromen t\u00ean alloi\u00f4sin.\n\n  Hen ti touto genos kin\u00ease\u00f4s. heteron de genos epi tois\n  tas ch\u00f4ras ameibousi s\u00f4masi kai topon ek topou\n  metallattein legomenois, onoma de kai tout\u00f4 phora.\n\n  Hautai men oun hai dyo kin\u00easeis haplai kai pr\u00f4tai,\n  synthetoi d' ex aut\u00f4n aux\u00easis te kai phthisis, hotan ex\n  elattonos ti meizon \u00ea ek meizonos elatton gen\u00eatai\n  phylatton to oikeion eidos. heterai de dyo kin\u00easeis\n  genesis kai phthora, genesis men h\u00ea eis ousian ag\u00f4g\u00ea,\n  phthora d' h\u00ea enantia.\n\n  Pasais de tais kin\u00easesi koinon exallaxis tou ||                 4\n  pro\u00ffparchontos, h\u00f4sper oun kai tais h\u00easychiais h\u00ea\n  phylak\u00ea t\u00f4n pro\u00ffparchont\u00f4n. all' hoti men exallattetai\n  kai pros t\u00ean opsin kai pros t\u00ean geusin kai pros t\u00ean\n  haph\u00ean haima gignomena ta sitia, synch\u00f4rousin; hoti de\n  kai kat' al\u00eatheian, ouketi touth' homologousin hoi\n  sophistai. hoi men gar tines aut\u00f4n hapanta ta toiauta\n  t\u00f4n h\u00eameter\u00f4n aisth\u00ease\u00f4n apatas tinas kai parag\u00f4gas\n  nomizousin allot' all\u00f4s paschous\u00f4n, t\u00eas hypokeimen\u00eas\n  ousias m\u00eaden tout\u00f4n, hois eponomazetai, dechomen\u00eas; hoi\n  de tines einai men en aut\u00ea boulontai tas poiot\u00eatas,\n  ametabl\u00eatous de kai atreptous ex ai\u00f4nos eis ai\u00f4na kai\n  tas phainomenas tautas alloi\u00f4seis t\u00ea diakrisei te kai\n  synkrisei gignesthai phasin h\u00f4s Anaxagoras.\n\n  Ei d\u00ea toutous ektrapomenos exelenchoimi, meizon an moi\n  to parergon tou ergou genoito. ei men gar ouk isasin,\n  hosa peri t\u00eas kath' hol\u00ean t\u00ean ousian alloi\u00f4se\u00f4s\n  Aristotelei te kai met' auton Chrysipp\u00f4 gegraptai,\n  parakalesai chr\u00ea tois ekein\u00f4n autous homil\u00easai\n  grammasin; ei de gign\u00f4skontes epeith' hekontes ta cheir\u00f4\n  pro t\u00f4n beltion\u00f4n || hairountai, mataia d\u00eapou kai ta            5\n  h\u00eametera nomiousin. hoti de kai Hippokrat\u00eas hout\u00f4s\n  egign\u00f4sken Aristotelous eti proteros \u00f4n, en heterois\n  h\u00eamin apodedeiktai. pr\u00f4tos gar houtos hapant\u00f4n h\u00f4n ismen\n  iatr\u00f4n te kai philosoph\u00f4n apodeiknyein epecheir\u00ease\n  tettaras einai tas pasas drastikas eis all\u00ealas\n  poiot\u00eatas, hyph' h\u00f4n gignetai te kai phtheiretai panth',\n  hosa genesin te kai phthoran epidechetai. kai mentoi kai\n  to kerannysthai di' all\u00eal\u00f4n autas holas di' hol\u00f4n\n  Hippokrat\u00eas hapant\u00f4n pr\u00f4tos egn\u00f4; kai tas archas ge t\u00f4n\n  apodeixe\u00f4n, h\u00f4n hysteron Aristotel\u00eas metecheirisato,\n  par' ekein\u00f4 pr\u00f4t\u00f4 gegrammenas estin heurein.\n\n  Ei d' h\u00f4sper tas poiot\u00eatas hout\u00f4 kai tas ousias di'\n  hol\u00f4n kerannysthai chr\u00ea nomizein, h\u00f4s hysteron\n  apeph\u00eanato Z\u00ean\u00f4n ho Kittieus, ouch h\u00eagoumai dein eti\n  peri toutou kata tonde ton logon epexienai. mon\u00ean gar\n  eis ta paronta deomai gign\u00f4skesthai t\u00ean di' hol\u00eas t\u00eas\n  ousias alloi\u00f4sin, hina m\u00ea tis ostou kai sarkos kai\n  neurou kai t\u00f4n all\u00f4n hekastou mori\u00f4n hoionei misgankeian\n  tina t\u00f4 art\u00f4 nomis\u00ea periechesthai kapeit' en || t\u00f4              6\n  s\u00f4mati diakrinomenon h\u00f4s to homophylon hekaston ienai.\n  kaitoi pro ge t\u00eas diakrise\u00f4s haima phainetai gignomenos\n  ho pas artos. ei goun pampoll\u00f4 tis chron\u00f4 m\u00eaden all' ei\u00ea\n  sition prospheromenos, ouden h\u00eatton en tais phlepsin\n  haima periechomenon hexei. kai phaner\u00f4s touto t\u00ean t\u00f4n\n  ametabl\u00eata ta stoicheia tithemen\u00f4n exelenchei doxan,\n  h\u00f4sper oimai kai toulaion eis t\u00ean tou lychnou phloga\n  katanaliskomenon hapan kai ta xyla pyr mikron hysteron\n  gignomena.\n\n  Kaitoi to g' antilegein autois \u00earn\u00easam\u00ean, all' epei t\u00eas\n  iatrik\u00eas hyl\u00eas \u00ean to paradeigma kai chr\u00eaz\u00f4 pros ton\n  paronta logon autou, dia tout' emn\u00eamoneusa. katalipontes\n  oun, h\u00f4s eph\u00ean, t\u00ean pros toutous antilogian, <enon> tois\n  boulomenois ta t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n ekmanthanein kax h\u00f4n h\u00eameis\n  idia peri aut\u00f4n epeskemmetha.\n\n  Ton ephex\u00eas logon hapanta poi\u00easometha z\u00eatountes hyper\n  h\u00f4n ex arch\u00eas prouthemetha, posai te kai tines eisin hai\n  t\u00eas physe\u00f4s dynameis kai ti poiein ergon hekast\u00ea\n  pephyken. ergon de d\u00ealonoti kal\u00f4 to gegonos \u00ead\u00ea kai\n  sympepl\u00ea||r\u00f4menon hypo t\u00eas energeias aut\u00f4n, hoion to            7\n  haima, t\u00ean sarka, to neuron; energeian de t\u00ean drastik\u00ean\n  onomaz\u00f4 kin\u00easin kai t\u00ean taut\u00eas aitian dynamin. epei gar\n  en t\u00f4 to sition haima gignesthai path\u00eatik\u00ea men h\u00ea tou\n  sitiou, drastik\u00ea d' h\u00ea t\u00eas phlebos gignetai kin\u00easis,\n  h\u00f4saut\u00f4s de kan t\u00f4 metapherein ta k\u00f4la kinei men ho mys,\n  kineitai de ta osta, t\u00ean men t\u00eas phlebos kai t\u00f4n my\u00f4n\n  kin\u00easin energeian einai ph\u00eami, t\u00ean de t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n te kai\n  t\u00f4n ost\u00f4n sympt\u00f4ma te kai path\u00eama; ta men gar\n  alloioutai, ta de pheretai. t\u00ean men oun energeian\n  ench\u00f4rei kalein kai ergon t\u00eas physe\u00f4s, hoion t\u00ean pepsin,\n  t\u00ean anadosin, t\u00ean haimat\u00f4sin, ou m\u00ean to g' ergon ex\n  hapantos energeian; h\u00ea gar toi sarx ergon men esti t\u00eas\n  physe\u00f4s, ou m\u00ean energeia ge. d\u00ealon oun, h\u00f4s thateron men\n  t\u00f4n onomat\u00f4n dich\u00f4s legetai, thateron d' ou.\n\n\n                             III\n\nIt appears to me, then, that the vein, as well as each of the other\nparts, functions in such and such a way according to the manner in\nwhich _the four qualities_[27] are mixed. There are, however, a\nconsiderable number of not undistinguished men--philosophers and\nphysicians--who refer action to the Warm and the Cold, and who\nsubordinate to these, as passive, the Dry and the Moist; Aristotle, in\nfact, was the first who attempted to bring back the causes of the\nvarious special activities to these principles, and he was followed\nlater by the Stoic school. These latter, of course, could logically\nmake active principles of the Warm and Cold, since they refer the\nchange of the elements themselves into one another to certain\n_diffusions_ and _condensations_.[28] This does not hold of Aristotle,\nhowever; seeing that he employed the four qualities to explain the\ngenesis of the elements, he ought properly to have also referred the\ncauses of all the special activities to these. How is it that he uses\nthe four qualities in his book \"On Genesis and Destruction,\" whilst in\nhis \"Meteorology,\" his \"Problems,\" and many other works he uses the\ntwo only? Of course, if anyone were to maintain that in the case of\nanimals and plants the Warm and Cold are _more_ active, the Dry and\nMoist _less_ so, he might perhaps have even Hippocrates on his side;\nbut if he were to say that this happens in all cases, he would, I\nimagine, lack support, not merely from Hippocrates, but even from\nAristotle himself--if, at least, Aristotle chose to remember what he\nhimself taught us in his work \"On Genesis and Destruction,\" not as a\nmatter of simple statement, but with an accompanying demonstration. I\nhave, however, also investigated these questions, in so far as they\nare of value to a physician, in my work \"On Temperaments.\"\n\n\n                      III\n\n  Emoi men oun kai h\u00ea phleps kai t\u00f4n all\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n\n  hekaston dia t\u00ean ek t\u00f4n tettar\u00f4n poian krasin h\u00f4di p\u00f4s\n  energein dokei. eisi de ge m\u00ean ouk oligoi tines andres\n  || oud' adoxoi, philosophoi te kai iatroi, t\u00f4 men therm\u00f4        8\n  kai t\u00f4 psychr\u00f4 to dran anapherontes, hypoballontes d'\n  autois path\u00eatika to x\u00earon te kai to hygron. kai pr\u00f4tos\n  g' Aristotel\u00eas tas t\u00f4n kata meros hapant\u00f4n aitias eis\n  tautas anagein peiratai tas archas, \u00eakolouth\u00ease d'\n  hysteron aut\u00f4 kai ho apo t\u00eas stoas choros. kaitoi\n  toutois men, h\u00f4s an kai aut\u00f4n t\u00f4n stoichei\u00f4n t\u00ean eis\n  all\u00eala metabol\u00ean chysesi te tisi kai pil\u00easesin\n  anapherousin, eulogon \u00ean archas drastikas poi\u00easasthai to\n  thermon kai to psychron, Aristotelei d' ouch hout\u00f4s,\n  alla tais tettarsi poiot\u00easin eis t\u00ean t\u00f4n stoichei\u00f4n\n  genesin chr\u00f4men\u00f4 beltion \u00ean kai tas t\u00f4n kata meros\n  aitias hapasas eis tautas anagein. ti d\u00eapot' oun en men\n  tois peri genese\u00f4s kai phthoras tais tettarsi chr\u00eatai,\n  en de tois mete\u00f4rologikois kai tois probl\u00eamasi kai\n  allothi pollachothi tais dyo monais? ei men gar h\u00f4s en\n  tois z\u00f4ois te kai tois phytois mallon men dra to thermon\n  kai to psychron, h\u00eatton de to x\u00earon kai to hygron\n  apophainoito tis, is\u00f4s an echoi kai ton Hippokrat\u00ean\n  symps\u00eaphon; ei d' h\u00f4saut\u00f4s en || hapasin, ouket' oimai          9\n  synch\u00f4r\u00easein touto m\u00ea hoti ton Hippokrat\u00ean alla m\u00ead'\n  auton ton Aristotel\u00ean memn\u00easthai ge boulomenon h\u00f4n en\n  tois peri genese\u00f4s kai phthoras ouch hapl\u00f4s alla met'\n  apodeixe\u00f4s autos h\u00eamas edidaxen. alla peri men tout\u00f4n\n  kan tois peri krase\u00f4n, eis hoson iatr\u00f4 chr\u00easimon,\n  epeskepsametha.\n\n\n                              IV\n\nThe so-called _blood-making_[29] faculty in the veins, then, as well\nas all the other faculties, fall within the category of relative\nconcepts; primarily because the faculty is the cause of the activity,\nbut also, accidentally, because it is the cause of the effect. But if\nthe cause is relative to something--for it is the cause of what\nresults from it, and of nothing else--it is obvious that the faculty\nalso falls into the category of the relative; and so long as we are\nignorant of the true essence of the cause which is operating, we call\nit a _faculty_. Thus we say that there exists in the veins a\nblood-making faculty, as also a digestive[30] faculty in the stomach,\na pulsatile[31] faculty in the heart, and in each of the other parts a\nspecial faculty corresponding to the function or activity of that\npart. If, therefore, we are to investigate methodically the number and\nkinds of faculties, we must begin with the effects; for each of these\neffects comes from a certain activity, and each of these again is\npreceded by a cause.\n\n\n                       IV\n\n  H\u00ea d' oun dynamis h\u00ea en tais phlepsin h\u00ea haimatopoi\u00eatik\u00ea\n  prosagoreuomen\u00ea kai pasa d' all\u00ea dynamis en t\u00f4 pros ti\n  neno\u00eatai; pr\u00f4t\u00f4s men gar t\u00eas energeias aitia, \u00ead\u00ea de kai\n  tou ergou kata symbeb\u00eakos. all' eiper h\u00ea aitia pros ti,\n  tou gar hyp' aut\u00eas genomenou monou, t\u00f4n d' all\u00f4n\n  oudenos, eud\u00ealon, hoti kai h\u00ea dynamis en t\u00f4 pros ti. kai\n  mechri g' an agno\u00f4men t\u00ean ousian t\u00eas energous\u00eas aitias,\n  dynamin aut\u00ean onomazomen, einai tina legontes en tais\n  phlepsin haimatopoi\u00eatik\u00ean, h\u00f4saut\u00f4s de kan t\u00ea koilia\n  peptik\u00ean kan t\u00ea kardia sphygmik\u00ean kai kath' hekaston t\u00f4n\n  all\u00f4n idian tina t\u00eas || kata to morion energeias. eiper        10\n  oun method\u00f4 melloimen exeur\u00easein, hoposai te kai hopoiai\n  tines hai dynameis eisin, apo t\u00f4n erg\u00f4n aut\u00f4n arkteon;\n  hekaston gar aut\u00f4n hypo tinos energeias gignetai kai\n  tout\u00f4n hekast\u00eas pro\u00eageitai tis aitia.\n\n\n                               V\n\nThe effects of Nature, then, while the animal is still being formed in\nthe womb, are all the different _parts_ of its body; and after it has\nbeen born, an effect in which all parts share is the progress of each\nto its full size, and thereafter its maintenance of itself as long as\npossible.\n\nThe activities corresponding to the three effects mentioned are\nnecessarily three--one to each--namely, Genesis, Growth, and\nNutrition. Genesis, however, is not a simple activity of Nature, but\nis compounded of _alteration_ and of _shaping_.[32] That is to say, in\norder that bone, nerve, veins, and all other [tissues] may come into\nexistence, the _underlying substance_ from which the animal springs\nmust be _altered_; and in order that the substance so altered may\nacquire its appropriate shape and position, its cavities, outgrowths,\nattachments, and so forth, it has to undergo a _shaping_ or\n_formative_ process.[33] One would be justified in calling this\nsubstance which undergoes alteration the _material_ of the animal,\njust as wood is the material of a ship, and wax of an image.\n\n_Growth_ is an increase and expansion in length, breadth, and\nthickness of the solid parts of the animal (those which have been\nsubjected to the moulding or shaping process). _Nutrition_ is an\naddition to these, without expansion.\n\n\n                        V\n\n  Erga toinyn t\u00eas physe\u00f4s eti men kyoumenou te kai\n  diaplattomenou tou z\u00f4ou ta sympant' esti tou s\u00f4matos\n  moria, genn\u00eathentos de koinon eph' hapasin ergon h\u00ea eis\n  to teleion hekast\u00f4 megethos ag\u00f4g\u00ea kai meta tauth' h\u00ea\n  mechri tou dynatou diamon\u00ea.\n\n  Energeiai d' epi trisi tois eir\u00eamenois ergois treis ex\n  anank\u00eas, eph' hekast\u00f4 mia, genesis te kai aux\u00easis kai\n  threpsis. all' h\u00ea men genesis ouch hapl\u00ea tis energeia\n  t\u00eas physe\u00f4s, all' ex alloi\u00f4se\u00f4s te kai diaplase\u00f4s esti\n  synthetos. hina men gar ostoun gen\u00eatai kai neuron kai\n  phleps kai t\u00f4n all\u00f4n hekaston, alloiousthai chr\u00ea t\u00ean\n  hypobebl\u00eamen\u00ean ousian, ex h\u00eas gignetai to z\u00f4on; hina de\n  kai sch\u00eama to deon kai thesin kai koilot\u00eatas tinas kai\n  apophyseis kai symphyseis kai talla || ta toiauta              11\n  kt\u00eas\u00eatai, diaplattesthai chr\u00ea t\u00ean alloioumen\u00ean ousian,\n  h\u00ean d\u00ea kai hyl\u00ean tou z\u00f4ou kal\u00f4n, h\u00f4s t\u00eas ne\u00f4s ta xyla\n  kai t\u00eas eikonos ton k\u00earon, ouk an hamartois.\n\n  H\u00ea d' aux\u00easis epidosis esti kai diastasis kata m\u00eakos kai\n  platos kai bathos t\u00f4n stere\u00f4n tou z\u00f4ou mori\u00f4n, h\u00f4nper\n  kai h\u00ea diaplasis \u00ean, h\u00ea de threpsis prosthesis tois\n  autois aneu diastase\u00f4s.\n\n\n                              VI\n\nLet us speak then, in the first place, of Genesis, which, as we have\nsaid, results from _alteration_ together with _shaping_.\n\nThe seed having been cast into the womb or into the earth (for there\nis no difference),[34] then, after a certain definite period, a great\nnumber of parts become constituted in the substance which is being\ngenerated; these differ as regards moisture, dryness, coldness and\nwarmth,[35] and in all the other qualities which naturally derive\ntherefrom.[36] These derivative qualities, you are acquainted with, if\nyou have given any sort of scientific consideration to the question of\ngenesis and destruction. For, first and foremost after the qualities\nmentioned come the other so-called _tangible_ distinctions, and after\nthem those which appeal to taste, smell, and sight. Now, tangible\ndistinctions are hardness and softness, viscosity, friability,\nlightness, heaviness, density, rarity, smoothness, roughness,\nthickness and thinness; all of these have been duly mentioned by\nAristotle.[37] And of course you know those which appeal to taste,\nsmell, and sight. Therefore, if you wish to know which alterative\nfaculties are primary and elementary, they are moisture, dryness,\ncoldness, and warmth, and if you wish to know which ones arise from\nthe combination of these, they will be found to be in each animal of a\nnumber corresponding to its _sensible elements_. The name _sensible\nelements_ is given to all the _homogeneous_[38] parts of the body, and\nthese are to be detected not by any system, but by personal\nobservation of dissections.[39]\n\nNow Nature constructs bone, cartilage, nerve, membrane, ligament,\nvein, and so forth, at the first stage of the animal's genesis,[40]\nemploying at this task a faculty which is, in general terms,\ngenerative and alterative, and, in more detail, warming, chilling,\ndrying, or moistening; or such as spring from the blending of\nthese, for example, the bone-producing, nerve-producing, and\ncartilage-producing faculties[41] (since for the sake of clearness\nthese names must be used as well).\n\nNow the peculiar[42] flesh of the liver is of this kind as well, also\nthat of the spleen, that of the kidneys, that of the lungs, and that\nof the heart; so also the proper substance of the brain, stomach,\ngullet, intestines, and uterus is _a sensible element_, of similar\nparts all through, simple, and uncompounded. That is to say, if you\nremove from each of the organs mentioned its arteries, veins, and\nnerves,[43] the substance remaining in each organ is, from the point\nof view of the senses, simple and elementary. As regards those organs\nconsisting of two dissimilar _coats_,[44] of which each is simple, of\nthese organs the coats are the elements--for example, the coats of the\nstomach, oesophagus, intestines, and arteries; each of these two coats\nhas an alterative faculty peculiar to it, which has engendered it from\nthe menstrual blood of the mother. Thus the _special_ alterative\nfaculties in each animal are of the same number as the elementary\nparts[45]; and further, the _activities_ must necessarily correspond\neach to one of the special parts, just as each part has its special\n_use_--for example, those ducts which extend from the kidneys into the\nbladder, and which are called _ureters_; for these are not arteries,\nsince they do not pulsate nor do they consist of two coats; and they\nare not veins, since they neither contain blood, nor do their coats\nin any way resemble those of veins; from nerves they differ still more\nthan from the structures mentioned.\n\n\"What, then, are they?\" someone asks--as though every part must\nnecessarily be either an artery, a vein, a nerve, or a complex of\nthese,[46] and as though the truth were not what I am now stating,\nnamely, that every one of the various organs has its own particular\nsubstance. For in fact the two bladders--that which receives the\nurine, and that which receives the yellow bile--not only differ from\nall other organs, but also from one another. Further, the ducts which\nspring out like kinds of conduits from the gall-bladder and which pass\ninto the liver have no resemblance either to arteries, veins or\nnerves. But these parts have been treated at a greater length in my\nwork \"On the Anatomy of Hippocrates,\" as well as elsewhere.\n\nAs for the actual substance of the coats of the stomach, intestine,\nand uterus, each of these has been rendered what it is by a special\nalterative faculty of Nature; while the bringing of these\ntogether,[47] the combination therewith of the structures which are\ninserted into them, the outgrowth into the intestine,[48] the shape of\nthe inner cavities, and the like, have all been determined by a\nfaculty which we call the shaping or formative faculty[49]; this\nfaculty we also state to be _artistic_--nay, the best and highest\nart--doing everything for some purpose, so that there is nothing\nineffective or superfluous, or capable of being better disposed. This,\nhowever, I shall demonstrate in my work \"On the Use of Parts.\"\n\n\n                       VI\n\n  Peri pr\u00f4t\u00eas oun t\u00eas genese\u00f4s eip\u00f4men, h\u00ean ex alloi\u00f4se\u00f4s\n  th' hama kai diaplase\u00f4s elegomen gignesthai.\n\n  Katabl\u00eathentos d\u00ea tou spermatos eis t\u00ean m\u00eatran \u00ea eis t\u00ean\n  g\u00ean, ouden gar diapherei, chronois tisin h\u00f4rismenois\n  pampolla synistatai moria t\u00eas genn\u00f4men\u00eas ousias\n  hygrot\u00eati kai x\u00earot\u00eati kai psychrot\u00eati kai thermot\u00eati\n  kai tois allois hapasin, hosa toutois hepetai,\n  diapheronta. ta d' hepomena gign\u00f4skeis, eiper hol\u00f4s\n  ephilosoph\u00easas ti peri genese\u00f4s kai phthoras; hai loipai\n  gar t\u00f4n hapt\u00f4n onomazomen\u00f4n diaphor\u00f4n tais eir\u00eamenais\n  hepontai pr\u00f4tai kai malista, meta de tau||tas hai              12\n  geustai te kai osphr\u00eatai kai horatai. skl\u00earot\u00eas men oun\n  kai malakot\u00eas kai glischrot\u00eas kai kraurot\u00eas kai\n  kouphot\u00eas kai baryt\u00eas kai pyknot\u00eas kai araiot\u00eas kai\n  leiot\u00eas kai trachyt\u00eas kai pachyt\u00eas kai leptot\u00eas haptai\n  diaphorai kai eir\u00eatai peri pas\u00f4n Aristotelei kal\u00f4s.\n  oistha de d\u00eapou kai tas geustas te kai osphr\u00eatas kai\n  horatas diaphoras. h\u00f4st', ei men tas pr\u00f4tas te kai\n  stoichei\u00f4deis alloi\u00f4tikas dynameis z\u00eatoi\u00eas, hygrot\u00eas\n  esti kai x\u00earot\u00eas kai psychrot\u00eas kai thermot\u00eas; ei de tas\n  ek t\u00eas tout\u00f4n krase\u00f4s genomenas, tosautai kath' hekaston\n  esontai z\u00f4on, hosaper an autou ta aisth\u00eata stoicheia\n  hyparch\u00ea; kaleitai d' aisth\u00eata stoicheia ta homoiomer\u00ea\n  panta tou s\u00f4matos moria; kai taut' ouk ek methodou tinos\n  all' autopt\u00ean genomenon ekmathein chr\u00ea dia t\u00f4n anatom\u00f4n.\n\n  Ostoun d\u00ea kai chondron kai neuron kai hymena kai\n  syndesmon kai phleba kai panth' hosa toiauta kata t\u00ean\n  pr\u00f4t\u00ean tou z\u00f4ou genesin h\u00ea physis apergazetai dynamei\n  chr\u00f4men\u00ea katholou men eipein t\u00ea genn\u00eatik\u00ea te kai\n  alloi\u00f4||tik\u00ea, kata meros de thermantik\u00ea te kai psyktik\u00ea        13\n  kai x\u00earantik\u00ea kai hygrantik\u00ea kai tais ek t\u00eas tout\u00f4n\n  krase\u00f4s genomenais, hoion ostopoi\u00eatik\u00ea te kai\n  neuropoi\u00eatik\u00ea kai chondropoi\u00eatik\u00ea; saph\u00eaneias gar heneka\n  kai toutois tois onomasi chr\u00easteon.\n\n  Esti goun kai h\u00ea idia sarx tou h\u00eapatos ek toutou tou\n  genous kai h\u00ea tou spl\u00eanos kai h\u00ea t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n kai h\u00ea tou\n  pneumonos kai h\u00ea t\u00eas kardias hout\u00f4 de kai tou enkephalou\n  to idion s\u00f4ma kai t\u00eas gastros kai tou stomachou kai t\u00f4n\n  enter\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n hyster\u00f4n aisth\u00eaton stoicheion estin\n  homoiomeres te kai haploun kai asyntheton; ean gar\n  exel\u00eas hekastou t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n tas art\u00earias te kai tas\n  phlebas kai ta neura, to hypoloipon s\u00f4ma to kath'\n  hekaston organon haploun esti kai stoichei\u00f4des h\u00f4s pros\n  aisth\u00easin. hosa de t\u00f4n toiout\u00f4n organ\u00f4n ek dyoin\n  synkeitai chit\u00f4n\u00f4n ouch homoi\u00f4n men all\u00ealois, haplou d'\n  hekaterou, tout\u00f4n hoi chit\u00f4nes eisi ta stoicheia\n  kathaper t\u00eas te gastros kai tou stomachou kai t\u00f4n\n  enter\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n art\u00eari\u00f4n, kai kath' hekateron ge t\u00f4n\n  chit\u00f4n\u00f4n idios h\u00ea alloi\u00f4tik\u00ea dynamis h\u00ea ek tou para t\u00eas\n  || m\u00eatros epim\u00eaniou genn\u00easasa to morion, h\u00f4ste tas kata        14\n  meros alloi\u00f4tikas dynameis tosautas einai kath' hekaston\n  z\u00f4on, hosaper an ech\u00ea ta stoichei\u00f4d\u00ea moria. kai men ge\n  kai tas energeias idias hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n kata meros anankaion\n  hyparchein h\u00f4sper kai tas chreias, hoion kai t\u00f4n apo t\u00f4n\n  nephr\u00f4n eis t\u00ean kystin di\u00eakont\u00f4n por\u00f4n, hoi d\u00ea kai\n  our\u00eat\u00eares kalountai. houtoi gar out' art\u00eariai eisin,\n  hoti m\u00eate sphyzousi m\u00eat' ek dyoin chit\u00f4n\u00f4n synest\u00eakasin,\n  oute phlebes, hoti m\u00eath' haima periechousi m\u00eat' eoiken\n  aut\u00f4n ho chit\u00f4n kata ti t\u00f4 t\u00eas phlebos; alla kai neur\u00f4n\n  epi pleon aphest\u00eakasin \u00ea t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n.\n\n  Ti pot' oun eisin? er\u00f4ta tis, h\u00f4sper anankaion on hapan\n  morion \u00ea art\u00earian \u00ea phleba \u00ea neuron hyparchein \u00ea ek\n  tout\u00f4n peplechthai kai m\u00ea tout' auto to nyn legomenon,\n  h\u00f4s idios hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n kata meros organ\u00f4n estin h\u00ea ousia.\n  kai gar kai hai kysteis hekaterai h\u00ea te to ouron\n  hypodechomen\u00ea kai h\u00ea t\u00ean xanth\u00ean chol\u00ean ou monon t\u00f4n\n  all\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n alla kai all\u00eal\u00f4n diapherousi kai hoi eis\n  to h\u00eapar apophyomenoi || poroi, kathaper stomachoi tines       15\n  apo t\u00eas chol\u00eadochou kyste\u00f4s, ouden out' art\u00eariais oute\n  phlepsin oute neurois eoikasin. alla peri men tout\u00f4n epi\n  pleon en allois te tisi kan tois peri t\u00eas Hippokratous\n  anatom\u00eas eir\u00eatai.\n\n  Hai de kata meros hapasai dynameis t\u00eas physe\u00f4s hai\n  alloi\u00f4tikai aut\u00ean men t\u00ean ousian t\u00f4n chit\u00f4n\u00f4n t\u00eas\n  koilias kai t\u00f4n enter\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n hyster\u00f4n apetelesan,\n  hoiaper esti; t\u00ean de synthesin aut\u00f4n kai t\u00ean t\u00f4n\n  emphyomen\u00f4n plok\u00ean kai t\u00ean eis to enteron ekphysin kai\n  t\u00ean t\u00eas endon koilot\u00eatos idean kai tall' hosa toiauta\n  dynamis tis hetera dieplasen, h\u00ean diaplastik\u00ean\n  onomazomen, h\u00ean d\u00ea kai technik\u00ean einai legomen, mallon\n  d' arist\u00ean kai akran techn\u00ean kai panta tinos heneka\n  poiousan, h\u00f4s m\u00eaden argon einai m\u00eade peritton m\u00ead' hol\u00f4s\n  hout\u00f4s echon, h\u00f4s dynasthai beltion heter\u00f4s echein. alla\n  touto men en tois peri chreias mori\u00f4n apodeixomen. ||          16\n\n\n                             VII\n\nPassing now to the faculty of Growth[50] let us first mention that\nthis, too, is present in the foetus _in utero_ as is also the\nnutritive faculty, but that at that stage these two faculties are, as\nit were, _handmaids_ to those already mentioned,[51] and do not\npossess in themselves supreme authority. When, however, the animal[52]\nhas attained its complete size, then, during the whole period\nfollowing its birth and until the acme is reached, the faculty of\ngrowth is predominant, while the alterative and nutritive faculties\nare accessory--in fact, act as its handmaids. What, then, is the\nproperty of this faculty of growth? To extend in every direction that\nwhich has already come into existence--that is to say, the solid parts\nof the body, the arteries, veins, nerves, bones, cartilages,\nmembranes, ligaments, and the various _coats_ which we have just\ncalled elementary, homogeneous, and simple. And I shall state in what\nway they gain this extension in every direction, first giving an\nillustration for the sake of clearness.\n\nChildren take the bladders of pigs, fill them with air, and then rub\nthem on ashes near the fire, so as to warm, but not to injure them.\nThis is a common game in the district of Ionia, and among not a few\nother nations. As they rub, they sing songs, to a certain measure,\ntime, and rhythm, and all their words are an exhortation to the\nbladder to increase in size. When it appears to them fairly well\ndistended, they again blow air into it and expand it further; then\nthey rub it again. This they do several times, until the bladder seems\nto them to have become large enough. Now, clearly, in these doings of\nthe children, the more the interior cavity of the bladder increases in\nsize, the thinner, necessarily, does its substance become. But, if the\nchildren were able to bring nourishment to this thin part, then they\nwould make the bladder big in the same way that Nature does. As it is,\nhowever, they cannot do what Nature does, for to imitate this is\nbeyond the power not only of children, but of any one soever; it is a\nproperty of Nature alone.\n\nIt will now, therefore, be clear to you that _nutrition_ is a\nnecessity for growing things. For if such bodies were distended, but\nnot at the same time nourished, they would take on a false appearance\nof growth, not a true growth. And further, to be distended _in all\ndirections_ belongs only to bodies whose growth is directed by Nature;\nfor those which are distended by us undergo this distension in one\ndirection but grow less in the others; it is impossible to find a body\nwhich will remain entire and not be torn through whilst we stretch it\nin the three dimensions. Thus Nature alone has the power to expand a\nbody in all directions so that it remains unruptured and preserves\ncompletely its previous form.\n\nSuch then is _growth_, and it cannot occur without the nutriment which\nflows to the part and is worked up into it.\n\n\n                      VII\n\n  Epi de t\u00ean aux\u00eatik\u00ean \u00ead\u00ea metabantes dynamin auto touth'\n  hypomn\u00eas\u00f4men pr\u00f4ton, h\u00f4s hyparchei men kai aut\u00ea tois\n  kyoumenois h\u00f4sper kai h\u00ea threptik\u00ea; all' hoion\n  hyp\u00earetides tines eisi t\u00eanikauta t\u00f4n proeir\u00eamen\u00f4n\n  dyname\u00f4n, ouk en hautais echousai to pan kyros. epeidan\n  de to teleion apolab\u00ea megethos to z\u00f4on, en t\u00f4 meta t\u00ean\n  apoky\u00easin chron\u00f4 panti mechri t\u00eas akm\u00eas h\u00ea men aux\u00eatik\u00ea\n  t\u00eanikauta kratei; bo\u00eathoi d' aut\u00eas kai hoion hyp\u00earetides\n  h\u00ea t' alloi\u00f4tik\u00ea dynamis esti kai h\u00ea threptik\u00ea. ti oun\n  to idion esti t\u00eas aux\u00eatik\u00eas dyname\u00f4s? eis pan meros\n  ekteinai ta pephykota. kaleitai d' hout\u00f4 ta sterea moria\n  tou s\u00f4matos, art\u00eariai kai phlebes kai neura kai osta kai\n  chondroi kai hymenes kai syndesmoi kai hoi chit\u00f4nes\n  hapantes, hous stoichei\u00f4deis te kai homoiomereis kai\n  haplous oligon emprosthen ekaloumen. hot\u00f4 de trop\u00f4 t\u00ean\n  eis pan meros ektasin ischousin, eg\u00f4 phras\u00f4 paradeigma\n  ti proteron eip\u00f4n heneka tou saphous. ||                       17\n\n  Tas kysteis t\u00f4n hy\u00f4n labontes hoi paides pl\u00earousi te\n  pneumatos kai tribousin epi t\u00eas tephras pl\u00easion tou\n  pyros, h\u00f4s aleainesthai men, blaptesthai de m\u00eaden; kai\n  poll\u00ea g' haut\u00ea h\u00ea paidia peri te t\u00ean I\u00f4nian kai en\n  allois ethnesin ouk oligois estin. epilegousi de d\u00ea kai\n  tin' ep\u00ea tribontes en metr\u00f4 te tini kai melei kai\n  rhythm\u00f4 kai esti panta ta rh\u00eamata tauta parakeleusis t\u00ea\n  kystei pros t\u00ean aux\u00easin. epeidan d' hikan\u00f4s autois\n  diatetasthai dok\u00ea, palin emphys\u00f4si te kai epidiateinousi\n  kai authis tribousi kai touto pleonakis poiousin, achris\n  an autois h\u00ea kystis hikan\u00f4s echein dok\u00ea t\u00eas aux\u00ease\u00f4s.\n  all' en toutois ge tois ergois t\u00f4n paid\u00f4n enarg\u00f4s, hoson\n  eis megethos epidid\u00f4sin h\u00ea entos eurych\u00f4ria t\u00eas kyste\u00f4s,\n  tosouton anankaion eis leptot\u00eata kathaireisthai to s\u00f4ma\n  kai ei ge t\u00ean leptot\u00eata taut\u00ean anatrephein hoioi t' \u00easan\n  hoi paides, homoi\u00f4s an t\u00ea physei t\u00ean kystin ek mikras\n  megal\u00ean apeirgazonto. nyni de tout' autois endei to\n  ergon oude kath' hena tropon eis mim\u00easin endechomenon\n  achth\u00eanai m\u00ea hoti tois || paisin all' oud' all\u00f4 tini;          18\n  mon\u00eas gar t\u00eas physe\u00f4s idion estin.\n\n  H\u00f4st' \u00ead\u00ea soi d\u00ealon, h\u00f4s anankaia tois auxanomenois h\u00ea\n  threpsis. ei gar diateinoito men, anatrephoito de m\u00ea,\n  phantasian pseud\u00ea mallon, ouk aux\u00easin al\u00eath\u00ea ta toiauta\n  s\u00f4mata kt\u00easetai. kaitoi kai to diateinesthai pant\u00ea\n  monois tois hypo physe\u00f4s auxanomenois hyparchei. ta gar\n  hyph' h\u00eam\u00f4n diateinomena s\u00f4mata kata mian tina diastasin\n  touto paschonta meioutai tais loipais, oud' estin\n  heurein ouden, ho syneches eti menon kai adiaspaston eis\n  tas treis diastaseis epekteinai dynametha. mon\u00eas oun t\u00eas\n  physe\u00f4s to pant\u00ea diistanai syneches heaut\u00f4 menon eti kai\n  t\u00ean archaian hapasan idean phylatton to s\u00f4ma.\n\n  Kai tout' estin h\u00ea aux\u00easis aneu t\u00eas epirrheous\u00eas te kai\n  prosplattomen\u00eas troph\u00eas m\u00ea dynamen\u00ea genesthai.\n\n\n                            VIII\n\nWe have, then, it seems, arrived at the subject of Nutrition, which is\nthe third and remaining consideration which we proposed at the outset.\nFor, when the matter which flows to each part of the body in the form\nof nutriment is being worked up into it, this activity is _nutrition_,\nand its cause is the _nutritive faculty_. Of course, the kind of\nactivity here involved is also an _alteration_, but not an alteration\nlike that occurring at the stage of _genesis_.[53] For in the latter\ncase something comes into existence which did not exist previously,\nwhile in nutrition the inflowing material becomes assimilated to that\nwhich has already come into existence. Therefore, the former kind of\nalteration has with reason been termed _genesis_, and the latter,\n_assimilation_.\n\n\n                     VIII\n\n  Kai toinyn ho logos h\u00eakein eoiken ho peri t\u00eas threpse\u00f4s,\n  hos d\u00ea loipos esti kai tritos h\u00f4n ex arch\u00eas\n  prouthemetha. tou gar epirrheontos en eidei troph\u00eas\n  panti || mori\u00f4 tou trephomenou s\u00f4matos prosplattomenou         19\n  threpsis men h\u00ea energeia, threptik\u00ea de dynamis h\u00ea aitia.\n  alloi\u00f4sis men d\u00ea kantautha to genos t\u00eas energeias, all'\n  ouch hoiaper h\u00ea en t\u00ea genesei. ekei men gar ouk on\n  proteron hysteron egeneto, kata de t\u00ean threpsin t\u00f4 \u00ead\u00ea\n  gegonoti synexomoioutai to epirrheon kai dia tout'\n  eulog\u00f4s ekein\u00ean men t\u00ean alloi\u00f4sin genesin, taut\u00ean d'\n  exomoi\u00f4sin \u00f4nomasan.\n\n\n                              IX\n\nNow, since the three faculties of Nature have been exhaustively dealt\nwith, and the animal would appear not to need any others (being\npossessed of the means for growing, for attaining completion, and for\nmaintaining itself as long a time as possible), this treatise might\nseem to be already complete, and to constitute an exposition of all\nthe faculties of Nature. If, however, one considers that it has not\nyet touched upon any of _the parts_ of the animal (I mean the stomach,\nintestines, liver, and the like), and that it has not dealt with the\nfaculties resident in these, it will seem as though merely a kind of\nintroduction had been given to the practical parts of our teaching.\nFor the whole matter is as follows: Genesis, growth, and nutrition are\nthe first, and, so to say, the principal effects of Nature; similarly\nalso the faculties which produce these effects--the first\nfaculties--are three in number, and are the most dominating of all.\nBut as has already been shown, these need the service both of each\nother, and of yet different faculties. Now, these which the faculties\nof generation and growth require have been stated. I shall now say\nwhat ones the nutritive faculty requires.\n\n\n                       IX\n\n  Epeid\u00ea de peri t\u00f4n tri\u00f4n dyname\u00f4n t\u00eas physe\u00f4s autark\u00f4s\n  eir\u00eatai kai phainetai m\u00eademias all\u00eas prosdeisthai to\n  z\u00f4on, echon ge kai hop\u00f4s aux\u00eath\u00ea kai hop\u00f4s telei\u00f4th\u00ea kai\n  hop\u00f4s he\u00f4s pleistou diaphylachth\u00ea, doxeie men an is\u00f4s\n  hikan\u00f4s echein ho logos houtos \u00ead\u00ea kai pasas ex\u00eageisthai\n  tas t\u00eas physe\u00f4s dynameis. all' ei tis palin enno\u00easeien,\n  h\u00f4s oudenos oudep\u00f4 t\u00f4n tou z\u00f4ou mori\u00f4n eph\u00eapsato,\n  koilias leg\u00f4 kai enter\u00f4n kai h\u00eapatos kai t\u00f4n homoi\u00f4n,\n  oud' ex\u00eag\u00easato tas en autois dynameis, authis doxeien an\n  hoion prooimion ti monon eir\u00easthai t\u00eas chr\u00easimou\n  didaskalias. || to gar sympan h\u00f4d' echei. genesis kai          20\n  aux\u00easis kai threpsis ta pr\u00f4ta kai hoion kephalaia t\u00f4n\n  erg\u00f4n esti t\u00eas physe\u00f4s; h\u00f4ste kai hai tout\u00f4n ergastikai\n  dynameis hai pr\u00f4tai treis eisi kai kyri\u00f4tatai; deontai\n  d' eis hyp\u00earesian, h\u00f4s \u00ead\u00ea dedeiktai, kai all\u00eal\u00f4n kai\n  all\u00f4n. tin\u00f4n men oun h\u00ea genn\u00eatik\u00ea te kai aux\u00eatik\u00ea\n  deontai, eir\u00eatai, tin\u00f4n d' h\u00ea threptik\u00ea, nyn eir\u00easetai.\n\n\n                               X\n\nFor I believe that I shall prove that the organs which have to do with\nthe disposal[54] of the nutriment, as also their faculties, exist for\nthe sake of this _nutritive faculty_. For since the action of this\nfaculty[55] is _assimilation_, and it is impossible for anything to be\nassimilated by, and to change into anything else unless they already\npossess a certain _community and affinity_ in their qualities,[56]\ntherefore, in the first place, any animal cannot naturally derive\nnourishment from any kind of food, and secondly, even in the case of\nthose from which it can do so, it cannot do this at once. Therefore,\nby reason of this law,[57] every animal needs several organs for\n_altering_ the nutriment. For in order that the yellow may become red,\nand the red yellow, one simple process of alteration is required, but\nin order that the white may become black, and the black white, all the\nintermediate stages are needed.[58] So also, a thing which is very\nsoft cannot all at once become very hard, nor _vice versa_; nor,\nsimilarly can anything which has a very bad smell suddenly become\nquite fragrant, nor again, can the converse happen.\n\nHow, then, could blood ever turn into bone, without having first\nbecome, as far as possible, thickened and white? And how could bread\nturn into blood without having gradually parted with its whiteness and\ngradually acquired redness? Thus it is quite easy for blood to become\nflesh; for, if Nature thicken it to such an extent that it acquires a\ncertain consistency and ceases to be fluid, it thus becomes original\nnewly-formed flesh; but in order that blood may turn into bone, much\ntime is needed and much elaboration and transformation of the blood.\nFurther, it is quite clear that bread, and, more particularly lettuce,\nbeet, and the like, require a great deal of alteration in order to\nbecome blood.\n\nThis, then, is one reason why there are so many organs concerned in\nthe alteration of food. A second reason is the nature of the\n_superfluities_.[59] For, as we are unable to draw any nourishment\nfrom grass, although this is possible for cattle, similarly we can\nderive nourishment from radishes, albeit not to the same extent as\nfrom meat; for almost the whole of the latter is mastered by our\nnatures[60]; it is transformed and altered and constituted useful\nblood; but, in the radish, what is appropriate[61] and able of being\naltered (and that only with difficulty, and with much labour) is the\nvery smallest part; almost the whole of it is surplus matter, and\npasses through the digestive organs, only a very little being taken up\ninto the veins as blood--nor is this itself entirely utilisable blood.\nNature, therefore had need of a second process of separation for the\nsuperfluities in the veins. Moreover, these superfluities need, on the\none hand, certain fresh routes to conduct them to the outlets, so that\nthey may not spoil the useful substances, and they also need certain\n_reservoirs_, as it were, in which they are collected till they reach\na sufficient quantity, and are then discharged.\n\nThus, then, you have discovered bodily parts of a second kind,\nconsecrated in this case to the [removal of the] superfluities of the\nfood. There is, however, also a third kind, for carrying the pabulum\nin every direction; these are like a number of roads intersecting the\nwhole body.\n\nThus there is one entrance--that through the mouth--for all the\nvarious articles of food. What receives nourishment, however, is not\none single part, but a great many parts, and these widely separated;\ndo not be surprised, therefore, at the abundance of organs which\nNature has created for the purpose of nutrition. For those of them\nwhich have to do with alteration prepare the nutriment suitable for\neach part; others separate out the superfluities; some pass these\nalong, others store them up, others excrete them; some, again, are\npaths for the transit[62] in all directions of the _utilisable_\njuices. So, if you wish to gain a thorough acquaintance with all the\nfaculties of Nature,[63] you will have to consider each one of these\norgans.\n\nNow in giving an account of these we must begin with those effects of\nNature, together with their corresponding parts and faculties, which\nare closely connected with the purpose to be achieved.[64]\n\n\n                        X\n\n  Dok\u00f4 gar moi deixein ta peri t\u00ean t\u00eas troph\u00eas oikonomian\n  organa te kai tas dynameis aut\u00f4n dia taut\u00ean gegonota.\n  epeid\u00ea gar h\u00ea energeia taut\u00eas t\u00eas dyname\u00f4s exomoi\u00f4sis\n  estin, homoiousthai de kai metaballein eis all\u00eala pasi\n  tois ousin adynaton, ei m\u00ea tina echoi koin\u00f4nian \u00ead\u00ea kai\n  syngeneian en tais poiot\u00easi, dia touto pr\u00f4ton men ouk ek\n  pant\u00f4n edesmat\u00f4n pan z\u00f4on trephesthai pephyken, epeita\n  d' oud' ex h\u00f4n hoion t' estin oud' ek tout\u00f4n parachr\u00eama,\n  kai dia taut\u00ean t\u00ean anank\u00ean pleion\u00f4n organ\u00f4n alloi\u00f4tik\u00f4n\n  t\u00eas troph\u00eas hekaston || t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n chr\u00eazei. hina men gar         21\n  to xanthon erythron gen\u00eatai kai to erythron xanthon,\n  hapl\u00eas kai mias deitai t\u00eas alloi\u00f4se\u00f4s; hina de to leukon\n  melan kai to melan leukon, hapas\u00f4n t\u00f4n metaxy. kai\n  toinyn kai to malak\u00f4taton ouk an athro\u00f4s skl\u00earotaton kai\n  to skl\u00earotaton ouk an athro\u00f4s malak\u00f4taton genoito,\n  h\u00f4sper oude to dys\u00f4destaton eu\u00f4destaton oud' empalin to\n  eu\u00f4destaton dys\u00f4destaton exaiphn\u00eas genoit' an.\n\n  P\u00f4s oun ex haimatos ostoun an pote genoito m\u00ea\n  pachynthentos ge proteron epi pleiston autou kai\n  leukanthentos \u00ea p\u00f4s ex artou to haima m\u00ea kata brachy men\n  apothemenou t\u00ean leukot\u00eata, kata brachy de lambanontos\n  t\u00ean erythrot\u00eata? sarka men gar ex haimatos genesthai\n  rhaston; ei gar eis tosouton auto pachyneien h\u00ea physis,\n  h\u00f4s systasin tina schein kai m\u00eaket' einai rhyton, h\u00ea\n  pr\u00f4t\u00ea kai neopag\u00eas hout\u00f4s an ei\u00ea sarx; ostoun d' hina\n  gen\u00eatai, pollou men deitai chronou, poll\u00eas d' ergasias\n  kai metabol\u00eas t\u00f4 haimati. hoti de kai t\u00f4 art\u00f4 kai poly\n  mallon thrida||kin\u00ea kai teutl\u00f4 kai tois homoiois               22\n  pampoll\u00eas deitai t\u00eas alloi\u00f4se\u00f4s eis haimatos genesin,\n  oude tout' ad\u00ealon.\n\n  Hen men d\u00ea tout' aition tou polla genesthai ta peri t\u00ean\n  t\u00eas troph\u00eas alloi\u00f4sin organa. deuteron d' h\u00ea t\u00f4n\n  peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n physis. h\u00f4s gar hypo botan\u00f4n oud' hol\u00f4s\n  dynametha trephesthai, kaitoi t\u00f4n bosk\u00eamat\u00f4n\n  trephomen\u00f4n, hout\u00f4s hypo rhaphanidos trephometha men,\n  all' ouch h\u00f4s hypo t\u00f4n kre\u00f4n. tout\u00f4n men gar oligou dein\n  hol\u00f4n h\u00ea physis h\u00eam\u00f4n kratei kai metaballei kai alloioi\n  kai chr\u00easton ex aut\u00f4n haima synist\u00easin; en de t\u00ea\n  rhaphanidi to men oikeion te kai metabl\u00eath\u00eanai\n  dynamenon, mogis kai touto kai syn poll\u00ea t\u00ea katergasia,\n  pantapasin elachiston; hol\u00ea d' oligou dein esti\n  peritt\u00f4matik\u00ea kai diexerchetai ta t\u00eas pepse\u00f4s organa,\n  bracheos ex aut\u00eas eis tas phlebas anal\u00eaphthentos\n  haimatos kai oude toutou tele\u00f4s chr\u00eastou. deuteras oun\n  authis ede\u00ease diakrise\u00f4s t\u00ea physei t\u00f4n en tais phlepsi\n  peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n. kai chreia kai toutois hod\u00f4n te tin\u00f4n\n  heter\u00f4n epi tas ek||kriseis auta paragous\u00f4n, h\u00f4s m\u00ea            23\n  lymainoito tois chr\u00eastois, hypodoch\u00f4n te tin\u00f4n hoion\n  dexamen\u00f4n, en hais hotan eis hikanon pl\u00eathos aphik\u00eatai,\n  t\u00eanikaut' ekkrith\u00easetai.\n\n  Deuteron d\u00ea soi kai touto to genos t\u00f4n en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati\n  mori\u00f4n exeur\u00eatai tois peritt\u00f4masi t\u00eas troph\u00eas\n  anakeimenon. allo de triton hyper tou pant\u00ea pheresthai,\n  kathaper tines hodoi pollai dia tou s\u00f4matos holou\n  katatetm\u00eamenai.\n\n  Mia men gar eisodos h\u00ea dia tou stomatos hapasi tois\n  sitiois, ouch hen de to trephomenon alla pampolla te kai\n  pampoly diest\u00f4ta. m\u00ea toinyn thaumaze to pl\u00eathos t\u00f4n\n  organ\u00f4n, hosa threpse\u00f4s heneken h\u00ea physis ed\u00eamiourg\u00ease.\n  ta men gar alloiounta proparaskeuazei t\u00ean epit\u00eadeion\n  hekast\u00f4 mori\u00f4 troph\u00ean, ta de diakrinei ta peritt\u00f4mata,\n  ta de parapempei, ta d' hypodechetai, ta d' ekkrinei, ta\n  d' hodoi t\u00eas pant\u00ea phoras eisi t\u00f4n chr\u00east\u00f4n chym\u00f4n,\n  h\u00f4st', eiper boulei tas dynameis t\u00eas physe\u00f4s hapasas\n  ekmathein, hyper hekastou tout\u00f4n an ei\u00ea soi t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n\n  episkepteon.\n\n  Arch\u00ea d' aut\u00f4n t\u00eas didaskalias, hosa || tou telous engys       24\n  erga te t\u00eas physe\u00f4s esti kai moria kai dynameis aut\u00f4n.\n\n\n                              XI\n\nLet us once more, then, recall the actual purpose for which Nature has\nconstructed all these parts. Its name, as previously stated, is\n_nutrition_, and the definition corresponding to the name is: _an\nassimilation of that which nourishes to that which receives\nnourishments_.[65] And in order that this may come about, we must\nassume a preliminary process of _adhesion_,[66] and for that, again,\none of _presentation_.[67] For whenever the juice which is destined to\nnourish any of the parts of the animal is emitted from the vessels, it\nis in the first place dispersed all through this part, next it is\npresented, and next it adheres, and becomes completely assimilated.\n\nThe so-called white [leprosy] shows the difference between\nassimilation and adhesion, in the same way that the kind of dropsy\nwhich some people call _anasarca_ clearly distinguishes presentation\nfrom adhesion. For, of course, the genesis of such a dropsy does not\ncome about as do some of the conditions of atrophy and wasting,[68]\nfrom an insufficient supply of moisture; the flesh is obviously moist\nenough,--in fact it is thoroughly saturated,--and each of the solid\nparts of the body is in a similar condition. While, however, the\nnutriment conveyed to the part does undergo presentation, it is still\ntoo watery, and is not properly transformed into a _juice_,[69] nor\nhas it acquired that viscous and agglutinative quality which results\nfrom the operation of _innate heat_;[70] therefore, adhesion cannot\ncome about, since, owing to this abundance of thin, crude liquid, the\npabulum runs off and easily slips away from the solid parts of the\nbody. In white [leprosy], again, there is adhesion of the nutriment\nbut no real assimilation. From this it is clear that what I have just\nsaid is correct, namely, that in that part which is to be nourished\nthere must first occur presentation, next adhesion, and finally\nassimilation proper.\n\nStrictly speaking, then, _nutriment_ is that which is actually\nnourishing, while the _quasi-nutriment_ which is not yet nourishing\n(_e.g._ matter which is undergoing adhesion or presentation) is not,\nstrictly speaking, nutriment, but is so called only by an\nequivocation. Also, that which is still contained in the veins, and\nstill more, that which is in the stomach, from the fact that it is\ndestined to nourish if properly elaborated, has been called\n\"nutriment.\" Similarly we call the various kinds of food \"nutriment,\"\nnot because they are already nourishing the animal, nor because they\nexist in the same state as the material which actually is nourishing\nit, but because they are able and destined to nourish it if they be\nproperly elaborated.\n\nThis was also what Hippocrates said, viz., \"Nutriment is what is\nengaged in nourishing, as also is quasi-nutriment, and what is\ndestined to be nutriment.\" For to that which is already being\nassimilated he gave the name of _nutriment_; to the similar material\nwhich is being presented or becoming adherent, the name of\n_quasi-nutriment_; and to everything else--that is, contained in the\nstomach and veins--the name of _destined nutriment_.\n\n\n                       XI\n\n  Autou de d\u00ea palin anamn\u00easteon h\u00eamin tou telous, houper\n  heneka tosauta te kai toiauta t\u00ea physei ded\u00eamiourg\u00eatai\n  moria. to men oun onoma tou pragmatos, h\u00f4sper kai\n  proteron eir\u00eatai, threpsis; ho de kata tounoma logos\n  homoi\u00f4sis tou trephontos t\u00f4 trephomen\u00f4. hina d' haut\u00ea\n  gen\u00eatai, pro\u00eag\u00easasthai chr\u00ea prosphysin, hina d' ekein\u00ea,\n  prosthesin. epeidan gar ekpes\u00ea t\u00f4n angei\u00f4n ho mell\u00f4n\n  threpsein hotioun t\u00f4n tou z\u00f4ou mori\u00f4n chymos, eis hapan\n  auto diaspeiretai pr\u00f4ton, epeita prostithetai kapeita\n  prosphyetai kai tele\u00f4s homoioutai.\n\n  D\u00ealousi d' hai kaloumenai leukai t\u00ean diaphoran\n  homoi\u00f4se\u00f4s te kai prosphyse\u00f4s, h\u00f4sper to genos ekeino\n  t\u00f4n hyder\u00f4n, ho tines onomazousin ana sarka, diorizei\n  saph\u00f4s prosthesin prosphyse\u00f4s. ou gar endeia d\u00eapou t\u00eas\n  epirrheous\u00eas hygrot\u00eatos, h\u00f4s eniai t\u00f4n atrophi\u00f4n te kai\n  phthise\u00f4n, h\u00ea tou toioutou genesis hyderou ||                  25\n  synteleitai. phainetai gar hikan\u00f4s h\u00ea te sarx hygra kai\n  diabrochos hekaston te t\u00f4n stere\u00f4n tou s\u00f4matos mori\u00f4n\n  h\u00f4saut\u00f4s diakeimenon. alla prosthesis men tis gignetai\n  t\u00eas epipheromen\u00eas troph\u00eas, hate d' hydat\u00f4desteras ous\u00eas\n  eti kai m\u00ea pany ti kechym\u00f4men\u00eas m\u00eade to glischron ekeino\n  kai koll\u00f4des, ho d\u00ea t\u00eas emphytou thermasias oikonomia\n  prosgignetai, kekt\u00eamen\u00eas h\u00ea prosphysis adynatos estin\n  epiteleisthai pl\u00eathei lept\u00eas hygrot\u00eatos apeptou\n  diarrheous\u00eas te kai rhadi\u00f4s olisthainous\u00eas apo t\u00f4n\n  stere\u00f4n tou s\u00f4matos mori\u00f4n t\u00eas troph\u00eas. en de tais\n  leukais prosphysis men tis gignetai t\u00eas troph\u00eas, ou m\u00ean\n  exomoi\u00f4sis ge. kai d\u00ealon en t\u00f4de to mikr\u00f4 prosthen\n  rh\u00eathen h\u00f4s orth\u00f4s elegeto to dein prosthesin men\n  pr\u00f4ton, ephex\u00eas de prosphysin, epeit' exomoi\u00f4sin\n  genesthai t\u00f4 mellonti trephesthai.\n\n  Kyri\u00f4s men oun to trephon \u00ead\u00ea troph\u00ea, to d' hoion men\n  troph\u00ea, oup\u00f4 de trephon, hopoion esti to prosphyomenon \u00ea\n  prostithemenon, troph\u00ea men ou kyri\u00f4s, hom\u00f4nym\u00f4s de\n  troph\u00ea; to d' en tais phlepsin eti periechomenon || kai        26\n  toutou mallon eti to kata t\u00ean gastera t\u00f4 mellein pote\n  threpsein, ei kal\u00f4s katergasthei\u00ea, kekl\u00eatai troph\u00ea. kata\n  tauta de kai t\u00f4n edesmat\u00f4n hekaston troph\u00ean onomazomen\n  oute t\u00f4 trephein \u00ead\u00ea to z\u00f4on oute t\u00f4 toiouton hyparchein\n  hoion to trephon, alla t\u00f4 dynasthai te kai mellein\n  trephein, ei kal\u00f4s katergasthei\u00ea.\n\n  Touto gar \u00ean kai to pros Hippokratous legomenon; \"Troph\u00ea\n  de to trephon, troph\u00ea kai to hoion troph\u00ea kai to\n  mellon.\" to men gar homoioumenon \u00ead\u00ea troph\u00ean \u00f4nomase, to\n  d' hoion men ekeino prostithemenon \u00ea prosphyomenon hoion\n  troph\u00ean; to d' allo pan, hoson en t\u00ea gastri kai tais\n  phlepsi periechetai, mellon.\n\n\n                             XII\n\nIt is quite clear, therefore, that nutrition must necessarily be a\nprocess of assimilation of that which is nourishing to that which is\nbeing nourished. Some, however, say that this assimilation does not\noccur in reality, but is merely apparent; these are the people who\nthink that Nature is not artistic, that she does not show forethought\nfor the animal's welfare, and that she has absolutely no native powers\nwhereby she alters some substances, attracts others, and discharges\nothers.\n\nNow, speaking generally, there have arisen the following two sects in\nmedicine and philosophy among those who have made any definite\npronouncement regarding Nature. I speak, of course, of such of them as\nknow what they are talking about, and who realize the logical sequence\nof their hypotheses, and stand by them; as for those who cannot\nunderstand even this, but who simply talk any nonsense that comes to\ntheir tongues, and who do not remain definitely attached either to one\nsect or the other--such people are not even worth mentioning.\n\nWhat, then, are these sects, and what are the logical consequences of\ntheir hypotheses?[71] The one class supposes that all substance which\nis subject to genesis and destruction is at once _continuous_[72] and\nsusceptible of _alteration_. The other school assumes substance to be\nunchangeable, unalterable, and sub-divided into fine particles, which\nare separated from one another by empty spaces.\n\nAll people, therefore, who can appreciate the logical sequence of an\nhypothesis hold that, according to the second teaching, there does not\nexist any substance or faculty peculiar either to Nature or to\nSoul,[73] but that these result from the way in which the primary\ncorpuscles,[74] which are unaffected by change, come together.\nAccording to the first-mentioned teaching, on the other hand, Nature\nis not posterior to the corpuscles, but is a long way prior to them\nand older than they; and therefore in their view it is Nature which\nputs together the bodies both of plants and animals; and this she does\nby virtue of certain faculties which she possesses--these being, on\nthe one hand, attractive and assimilative of what is appropriate, and,\non the other, expulsive of what is foreign. Further, she skilfully\nmoulds everything during the stage of genesis; and she also provides\nfor the creatures after birth, employing here other faculties again,\nnamely, one of affection and forethought for offspring, and one of\nsociability and friendship for kindred. According to the other school,\nnone of these things exist in the natures[75] [of living things], nor\nis there in the soul any original innate idea, whether of agreement or\ndifference, of separation or synthesis, of justice or injustice, of\nthe beautiful or ugly; all such things, they say, arise in us _from\nsensation and through sensation_, and animals are steered by certain\nimages and memories.\n\nSome of these people have even expressly declared that the soul\npossesses no reasoning faculty, but that we are led like cattle by the\nimpression of our senses, and are unable to refuse or dissent from\nanything. In their view, obviously, courage, wisdom, temperance, and\nself-control are all mere nonsense, we do not love either each other\nor our offspring, nor do the gods care anything for us. This school\nalso despises dreams, birds, omens, and the whole of astrology,\nsubjects with which we have dealt at greater length in another\nwork,[76] in which we discuss the views of Asclepiades the\nphysician.[77] Those who wish to do so may familiarize themselves with\nthese arguments, and they may also consider at this point which of the\ntwo roads lying before us is the better one to take. Hippocrates took\nthe first-mentioned. According to this teaching, substance is one and\nis subject to _alteration_; there is a consensus in the movements of\nair and fluid throughout the whole body;[78] Nature acts throughout in\nan artistic and equitable manner, having certain faculties, by virtue\nof which each part of the body draws to itself the juice which is\nproper to it, and, having done so, attaches it to every portion of\nitself, and completely assimilates it; while such part of the juice as\nhas not been mastered,[79] and is not capable of undergoing complete\nalteration and being assimilated to the part which is being nourished,\nis got rid of by yet another (an expulsive) faculty.\n\n\n                      XII\n\n  Hoti men oun anankaion homoi\u00f4sin tin' einai tou\n  trephontos t\u00f4 trephomen\u00f4 t\u00ean threpsin, antikrys d\u00ealon.\n  ou m\u00ean hyparchousan ge taut\u00ean t\u00ean homoi\u00f4sin, alla\n  phainomen\u00ean monon einai phasin hoi m\u00eate technik\u00ean\n  oiomenoi t\u00ean physin einai m\u00eate prono\u00eatik\u00ean tou z\u00f4ou\n  m\u00eath' hol\u00f4s tinas oikeias echein dynameis, hais chr\u00f4men\u00ea\n  ta men alloioi, ta d' helkei, || ta d' ekkrinei.               27\n\n  Kai hautai dyo gegonasin haireseis kata genos en iatrik\u00ea\n  te kai philosophia t\u00f4n apoph\u00eanamen\u00f4n ti peri physe\u00f4s\n  andr\u00f4n, hosoi g' aut\u00f4n gign\u00f4skousin, ho ti legousi, kai\n  t\u00ean akolouthian h\u00f4n hypethento the\u00f4rousi th' hama kai\n  diaphylattousin. hosoi de m\u00ead' auto touto syniasin, all'\n  hapl\u00f4s, ho ti an epi gl\u00f4ttan elth\u00ea, l\u00earousin, en\n  oudetera t\u00f4n hairese\u00f4n akrib\u00f4s katamenontes, oude\n  memn\u00easthai t\u00f4n toiout\u00f4n pros\u00eakei.\n\n  Tines oun hai dyo haireseis hautai kai tis h\u00ea t\u00f4n en\n  autais hypothese\u00f4n akolouthia? t\u00ean hypobebl\u00eamen\u00ean ousian\n  genesei kai phthora pasan h\u00ean\u00f4men\u00ean th' hama kai\n  alloiousthai dynamen\u00ean hypetheto thateron genos t\u00eas\n  hairese\u00f4s, ametabl\u00eaton de kai analloi\u00f4ton kai\n  katatetm\u00eamen\u00ean eis lepta kai kenais tais metaxy ch\u00f4rais\n  dieil\u00eammen\u00ean h\u00ea loip\u00ea.\n\n  Kai toinyn hosoi ge t\u00eas akolouthias t\u00f4n hypothese\u00f4n\n  aisthanontai, kata men t\u00ean deuteran hairesin oute\n  physe\u00f4s oute psych\u00eas idian tina nomizousin ousian \u00ea\n  dynamin hyparchein, || all' en t\u00ea poia synod\u00f4 t\u00f4n pr\u00f4t\u00f4n       28\n  ekein\u00f4n s\u00f4mat\u00f4n t\u00f4n apath\u00f4n apoteleisthai. kata de t\u00ean\n  proteran eir\u00eamen\u00ean hairesin ouch hystera t\u00f4n s\u00f4mat\u00f4n h\u00ea\n  physis, alla poly protera te kai presbytera. kai toinyn\n  kata men toutous haut\u00ea ta s\u00f4mata t\u00f4n te phyt\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n\n  z\u00f4\u00f4n synist\u00easi dynameis tinas echousa tas men helktikas\n  th' hama kai homoi\u00f4tikas t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n, tas d' apokritikas\n  t\u00f4n allotri\u00f4n, kai technik\u00f4s hapanta diaplattei te\n  genn\u00f4sa kai pronoeitai t\u00f4n genn\u00f4men\u00f4n heterais authis\n  tisi dynamesi, sterktik\u00ea men tini kai prono\u00eatik\u00ea t\u00f4n\n  engon\u00f4n, koin\u00f4nik\u00ea de kai philik\u00ea t\u00f4n homogen\u00f4n. kata d'\n  au tous heterous oute tout\u00f4n ouden hyparchei tais\n  physesin out' ennoia tis esti t\u00ea psych\u00ea symphytos ex\n  arch\u00eas ouk akolouthias ou mach\u00eas, ou diairese\u00f4s ou\n  synthese\u00f4s, ou dikai\u00f4n ouk adik\u00f4n, ou kal\u00f4n ouk\n  aischr\u00f4n, all' ex aisth\u00ease\u00f4s te kai di' aisth\u00ease\u00f4s\n  hapanta ta toiauth' h\u00eamin engignesthai phasi kai\n  phantasiais tisi kai mn\u00eamais oiakizesthai ta z\u00f4a.\n\n  Enioi || d' aut\u00f4n kai rh\u00eat\u00f4s apeph\u00eananto m\u00eademian einai        29\n  t\u00eas psych\u00eas dynamin, h\u00ea logizometha, all' hypo t\u00f4n\n  aisth\u00eat\u00f4n agesthai path\u00f4n h\u00eamas kathaper bosk\u00eamata pros\n  m\u00eaden ananeusai m\u00ead' anteipein dynamenous. kath' hous\n  d\u00ealonoti kai andreia kai phron\u00easis kai s\u00f4phrosyn\u00ea kai\n  enkrateia l\u00earos esti makros kai philoumen out' all\u00ealous\n  oute ta engona kai tois theois ouden h\u00eam\u00f4n melei.\n  kataphronousi de kai t\u00f4n oneirat\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n oi\u00f4n\u00f4n kai\n  t\u00f4n symbol\u00f4n kai pas\u00eas astrologias, hyper h\u00f4n h\u00eameis men\n  idia di' heter\u00f4n grammat\u00f4n epi pleon eskepsametha peri\n  t\u00f4n Askl\u00eapiadou tou iatrou skopoumenoi dogmat\u00f4n. enesti\n  de tois boulomenois kakeinois men homil\u00easai tois logois\n  kai nyn d' \u00ead\u00ea skopein, h\u00f4sper tin\u00f4n dyoin hod\u00f4n h\u00eamin\n  prokeimen\u00f4n, hopoteran beltion esti trepesthai.\n  Hippokrat\u00eas men gar t\u00ean proteran rh\u00eatheisan etrapeto,\n  kath' h\u00ean h\u00ean\u00f4tai men h\u00ea ousia kai alloioutai kai\n  sympnoun holon esti kai syrrhoun to s\u00f4ma kai h\u00ea physis\n  hapanta technik\u00f4s kai dikai\u00f4s prattei dynameis echousa,\n  kath' has hekaston t\u00f4n mori\u00f4n helkei men || eph' heauto        30\n  ton oikeion heaut\u00f4 chymon, helxan de prosphyei te panti\n  merei t\u00f4n en haut\u00f4 kai tele\u00f4s exomoioi, to de m\u00ea\n  krat\u00eathen en tout\u00f4 m\u00eade t\u00ean pantel\u00ea dyn\u00eathen alloi\u00f4sin\n  te kai homoiot\u00eata tou trephomenou katadexasthai di'\n  heteras au tinos ekkritik\u00eas dyname\u00f4s apotribetai.\n\n\n                            XIII\n\nNow the extent of exactitude and truth in the doctrines of Hippocrates\nmay be gauged, not merely from the way in which his opponents are at\nvariance with obvious facts, but also from the various subjects of\nnatural research themselves--the functions of animals, and the rest.\nFor those people who do not believe that there exists in any part of\nthe animal a faculty for attracting _its own special quality_[80] are\ncompelled repeatedly to deny obvious facts.[81] For instance,\nAsclepiades, the physician,[82] did this in the case of the kidneys.\nThat these are organs for secreting [separating out] the urine, was\nthe belief not only of Hippocrates, Diocles, Erasistratus,\nPraxagoras,[83] and all other physicians of eminence, but practically\nevery butcher is aware of this, from the fact that he daily observes\nboth the position of the kidneys and the duct (termed the ureter)\nwhich runs from each kidney into the bladder, and from this\narrangement he infers their characteristic use and faculty. But, even\nleaving the butchers aside, all people who suffer either from frequent\ndysuria or from retention of urine call themselves \"nephritics,\"[84]\nwhen they feel pain in the loins and pass sandy matter in their water.\n\nI do not suppose that Asclepiades ever saw a stone which had been\npassed by one of these sufferers, or observed that this was preceded\nby a sharp pain in the region between kidneys and bladder as the stone\ntraversed the ureter, or that, when the stone was passed, both the\npain and the retention at once ceased. It is worth while, then,\nlearning how his theory accounts for the presence of urine in the\nbladder, and one is forced to marvel at the ingenuity of a man who\nputs aside these broad, clearly visible routes,[85] and postulates\nothers which are narrow, invisible--indeed, entirely imperceptible.\nHis view, in fact, is that the fluid which we drink passes into the\nbladder by being resolved into vapours, and that, when these have been\nagain condensed, it thus regains its previous form, and turns from\nvapour into fluid. He simply looks upon the bladder as a sponge or a\npiece of wool, and not as the perfectly compact and impervious body\nthat it is, with two very strong coats. For if we say that the vapours\npass through these coats, why should they not pass through the\nperitoneum[86] and the diaphragm, thus filling the whole abdominal\ncavity and thorax with water? \"But,\" says he, \"of course the\nperitoneal coat is more impervious than the bladder, and this is why\nit keeps out the vapours, while the bladder admits them.\" Yet if he\nhad ever practised anatomy, he might have known that the outer coat of\nthe bladder springs from the peritoneum and is essentially the same as\nit, and that the inner coat, which is peculiar to the bladder, is more\nthan twice as thick as the former.\n\nPerhaps, however, it is not the thickness or thinness of the coats,\nbut the _situation_ of the bladder, which is the reason for the\nvapours being carried into it? On the contrary, even if it were\nprobable for every other reason that the vapours accumulate there, yet\nthe situation of the bladder would be enough in itself to prevent\nthis. For the bladder is situated below, whereas vapours have a\nnatural tendency to rise upwards; thus they would fill all the region\nof the thorax and lungs long before they came to the bladder.\n\nBut why do I mention the situation of the bladder, peritoneum, and\nthorax? For surely, when the vapours have passed through the coats of\nthe stomach and intestines, it is in the space between these and the\nperitoneum[87] that they will collect and become liquefied (just as in\ndropsical subjects it is in this region that most of the water\ngathers).[88] Otherwise the vapours must necessarily pass straight\nforward through everything which in any way comes in contact with\nthem, and will never come to a standstill. But, if this be assumed,\nthen they will traverse not merely the peritoneum but also the\nepigastrium, and will become dispersed into the surrounding air;\notherwise they will certainly collect under the skin.\n\nEven these considerations, however, our present-day Asclepiadeans\nattempt to answer, despite the fact that they always get soundly\nlaughed at by all who happen to be present at their disputations on\nthese subjects--so difficult an evil to get rid of is this sectarian\npartizanship, so excessively resistant to all cleansing processes,\nharder to heal than any itch!\n\nThus, one of our Sophists who is a thoroughly hardened disputer and as\nskilful a master of language as there ever was, once got into a\ndiscussion with me on this subject; so far from being put out of\ncountenance by any of the above-mentioned considerations, he even\nexpressed his surprise that I should try to overturn obvious facts by\nridiculous arguments! \"For,\" said he, \"one may clearly observe any day\nin the case of any bladder, that, if one fills it with water or air\nand then ties up its neck and squeezes it all round, it does not let\nanything out at any point, but accurately retains all its contents.\nAnd surely,\" said he, \"if there were any large and perceptible\nchannels coming into it from the kidneys the liquid would run out\nthrough these when the bladder was squeezed, in the same way that it\nentered?\"[89] Having abruptly made these and similar remarks in\nprecise and clear tones, he concluded by jumping up and\ndeparting--leaving me as though I were quite incapable of finding any\nplausible answer!\n\nThe fact is that those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely\ndevoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn!\nInstead of listening, as they ought, to the reason why liquid can\nenter the bladder through the ureters, but is unable to go back again\nthe same way,--instead of admiring Nature's artistic skill[90]--they\nrefuse to learn; they even go so far as to scoff, and maintain that\nthe kidneys, as well as many other things, have been made by Nature\n_for no purpose!_[91] And some of them who had allowed themselves to\nbe shown the ureters coming from the kidneys and becoming implanted in\nthe bladder, even had the audacity to say that these also existed for\nno purpose; and others said that they were spermatic ducts, and that\nthis was why they were inserted into the neck of the bladder and not\ninto its cavity. When, therefore, we had demonstrated to them the real\nspermatic ducts[92] entering the neck of the bladder lower down than\nthe ureters, we supposed that, if we had not done so before, we would\nnow at least draw them away from their false assumptions, and convert\nthem forthwith to the opposite view. But even this they presumed to\ndispute, and said that it was not to be wondered at that the semen\nshould remain longer in these latter ducts, these being more\nconstricted, and that it should flow quickly down the ducts which came\nfrom the kidneys, seeing that these were well dilated. We were,\ntherefore, further compelled to show them in a still living animal,\nthe urine plainly running out through the ureters into the bladder;\neven thus we hardly hoped to check their nonsensical talk.\n\nNow the method of demonstration is as follows. One has to divide the\nperitoneum in front of the ureters, then secure these with ligatures,\nand next, having bandaged up the animal, let him go (for he will not\ncontinue to urinate). After this one loosens the external bandages and\nshows the bladder empty and the ureters quite full and distended--in\nfact almost on the point of rupturing; on removing the ligature from\nthem, one then plainly sees the bladder becoming filled with urine.\n\nWhen this has been made quite clear, then, before the animal urinates,\none has to tie a ligature round his penis and then to squeeze the\nbladder all over; still nothing goes back through the ureters to the\nkidneys. Here, then, it becomes obvious that not only in a dead\nanimal, but in one which is still living, the ureters are prevented\nfrom receiving back the urine from the bladder. These observations\nhaving been made, one now loosens the ligature from the animal's penis\nand allows him to urinate, then again ligatures one of the ureters and\nleaves the other to discharge into the bladder. Allowing, then, some\ntime to elapse, one now demonstrates that the ureter which was\nligatured is obviously full and distended on the side next to the\nkidneys, while the other one--that from which the ligature had been\ntaken--is itself flaccid, but has filled the bladder with urine. Then,\nagain, one must divide the full ureter, and demonstrate how the urine\nspurts out of it, like blood in the operation of venesection; and\nafter this one cuts through the other also, and both being thus\ndivided, one bandages up the animal externally. Then when enough time\nseems to have elapsed, one takes off the bandages; the bladder will\nnow be found empty, and the whole region between the intestines and\nthe peritoneum full of urine, as if the animal were suffering from\ndropsy. Now, if anyone will but test this for himself on an animal, I\nthink he will strongly condemn the rashness of Asclepiades, and if he\nalso learns the reason why nothing regurgitates from the bladder into\nthe ureters, I think he will be persuaded by this also of the\nforethought and art shown by Nature in relation to animals.[93]\n\nNow Hippocrates, who was the first known to us of all those who have\nbeen both physicians and philosophers inasmuch as he was the first to\nrecognize what Nature effects, expresses his admiration of her, and is\nconstantly singing her praises and calling her \"just.\" Alone, he says,\nshe suffices for the animal in every respect, performing of her own\naccord and without any teaching all that is required. Being such, she\nhas, as he supposes, certain _faculties_, one attractive of what is\nappropriate,[94] and another eliminative of what is foreign, and she\nnourishes the animal, makes it grow, and expels its diseases by\ncrisis.[95] Therefore he says that there is in our bodies a\nconcordance in the movements of air and fluid, and that everything is\nin sympathy. According to Asclepiades, however, nothing is naturally\nin sympathy with anything else, all substance being divided and broken\nup into inharmonious elements and absurd \"molecules.\" Necessarily,\nthen, besides making countless other statements in opposition to plain\nfact, he was ignorant of Nature's faculties, both that attracting what\nis appropriate, and that expelling what is foreign. Thus he invented\nsome wretched nonsense to explain blood-production and _anadosis_,[96]\nand, being utterly unable to find anything to say regarding the\nclearing-out[97] of superfluities, he did not hesitate to join issue\nwith obvious facts, and, in this matter of urinary secretion, to\ndeprive both the kidneys and the ureters of their activity, by\nassuming that there were certain invisible channels opening into the\nbladder. It was, of course, a grand and impressive thing to do, to\nmistrust the obvious, and to pin one's faith in things which could not\nbe seen!\n\nAlso, in the matter of the yellow bile, he makes an even grander and\nmore spirited venture; for he says this is actually generated in the\nbile-ducts, not merely separated out.\n\nHow comes it, then, that in cases of jaundice two things happen at the\nsame time--that the dejections contain absolutely no bile, and that\nthe whole body becomes full of it? He is forced here again to talk\nnonsense, just as he did in regard to the urine. He also talks no less\nnonsense about the black bile and the spleen, not understanding what\nwas said by Hippocrates; and he attempts in stupid--I might say\ninsane--language, to contradict what he knows nothing about.\n\nAnd what profit did he derive from these opinions from the point of\nview of treatment? He neither was able to cure a kidney ailment, nor\njaundice, nor a disease of black bile, nor would he agree with the\nview held not merely by Hippocrates but by all men regarding\ndrugs--that some of them purge away yellow bile, and others black,\nsome again phlegm, and others the thin and watery superfluity[98]; he\nheld that all the substances evacuated[99] were _produced by the drugs\nthemselves_, just as yellow bile is produced by the biliary passages!\nIt matters nothing, according to this extraordinary man, whether we\ngive a hydragogue or a cholagogue in a case of dropsy, for these all\nequally purge[99] and dissolve the body, and produce a solution having\nsuch and such an appearance, which did not exist as such before![100]\n\nMust we not, therefore, suppose he was either mad, or entirely\nunacquainted with practical medicine? For who does not know that if a\ndrug for attracting phlegm be given in a case of jaundice it will not\neven evacuate four _cyathi_[101] of phlegm? Similarly also if one of\nthe hydragogues be given. A cholagogue, on the other hand, clears away\na great quantity of bile, and the skin of patients so treated at once\nbecomes clear. I myself have, in many cases, after treating the liver\ncondition, then removed the disease by means of a single purgation;\nwhereas, if one had employed a drug for removing phlegm one would have\ndone no good.\n\nNor is Hippocrates the only one who knows this to be so, whilst those\nwho take experience alone as their starting-point[102] know otherwise;\nthey, as well as all physicians who are engaged in the practice of\nmedicine, are of this opinion. Asclepiades, however is an exception;\nhe would hold it a betrayal of his assumed \"elements\"[103] to confess\nthe truth about such matters. For if a single drug were to be\ndiscovered which attracted such and such a humour only, there would\nobviously be danger of the opinion gaining ground that there is in\nevery body[104] a faculty which attracts its own particular quality.\nHe therefore says that safflower,[105] the Cnidian berry,[106] and\n_Hippophaes_,[107] do not draw phlegm from the body, but actually make\nit. Moreover, he holds that the flower and scales of bronze, and burnt\nbronze itself, and germander,[108] and wild mastich[109] dissolve the\nbody into water, and that dropsical patients derive benefit from these\nsubstances, not because they are purged by them, but because they are\nrid of substances which actually help to increase the disease; for, if\nthe medicine does not evacuate[110] the dropsical fluid contained in\nthe body, but generates it, it aggravates the condition further.\nMoreover, scammony, according to the Asclepiadean argument, not only\nfails to evacuate[110] the bile from the bodies of jaundiced subjects,\nbut actually turns the useful blood into bile, and dissolves the body;\nin fact it does all manner of evil and increases the disease.\n\nAnd yet this drug may be clearly seen to do good to numbers of people!\n\"Yes,\" says he, \"they derive benefit certainly, but merely in\nproportion to the evacuation.\" ... But if you give these cases a drug\nwhich draws off phlegm they will not be benefited. This is so obvious\nthat even those who make experience alone their starting-point[111]\nare aware of it; and these people make it a cardinal point of their\nteaching to trust to no arguments, but only to what can be clearly\nseen. In this, then, they show good sense; whereas Asclepiades goes\nfar astray in bidding us distrust our senses where obvious facts\nplainly overturn his hypotheses. Much better would it have been for\nhim not to assail obvious facts, but rather to devote himself entirely\nto these.\n\nIs it, then, these facts only which are plainly irreconcilable with\nthe views of Asclepiades? Is not also the fact that in summer yellow\nbile is evacuated in greater quantity by the same drugs, and in winter\nphlegm, and that in a young man more bile is evacuated, and in an old\nman more phlegm? Obviously each drug attracts something which already\nexists, and does not generate something previously non-existent. Thus\nif you give in the summer season a drug which attracts phlegm to a\nyoung man of a lean and warm habit, who has lived neither idly nor too\nluxuriously, you will with great difficulty evacuate a very small\nquantity of this humour, and you will do the man the utmost harm. On\nthe other hand, if you give him a cholagogue, you will produce an\nabundant evacuation and not injure him at all.\n\nDo we still, then, disbelieve that each drug attracts _that humour\nwhich is proper to it_?[112] Possibly the adherents of Asclepiades\nwill assent to this--or rather, they will--not possibly, but\ncertainly--declare that they disbelieve it, lest they should betray\ntheir darling prejudices.\n\n\n                     XIII\n\n  Mathein d' enestin ou monon ex h\u00f4n hoi tanantia\n  tithemenoi diapherontai tois enarg\u00f4s phainomenois, eis\n  hoson orthot\u00eatos te kai al\u00eatheias h\u00eakei ta Hippokratous\n  dogmata, alla kax aut\u00f4n t\u00f4n kata meros en t\u00ea physik\u00ea\n  the\u00f4ria z\u00eatoumen\u00f4n t\u00f4n t' all\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n en tois\n  z\u00f4ois energei\u00f4n. hosoi gar oudemian oudeni mori\u00f4\n  nomizousin hyparchein helktik\u00ean t\u00eas oikeias poiot\u00eatos\n  dynamin, anankazontai pollakis enantia legein tois\n  enarg\u00f4s phainomenois, h\u00f4sper kai Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas ho iatros\n  epi t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n epoi\u00easen, hous ou monon Hippokrat\u00eas \u00ea\n  Diokl\u00eas \u00ea Erasistratos \u00ea Praxagoras \u00ea tis allos iatros\n  aristos organa diakritika t\u00f4n our\u00f4n pepisteukasin\n  hyparchein, alla kai hoi || mageiroi schedon hapantes          31\n  isasin, hos\u00eamerai the\u00f4menoi t\u00ean te thesin aut\u00f4n kai ton\n  aph' hekaterou poron eis t\u00ean kystin emballonta, ton\n  our\u00eat\u00eara kaloumenon, ex aut\u00eas t\u00eas kataskeu\u00eas\n  analogizomenoi t\u00ean te chreian aut\u00f4n kai t\u00ean dynamin. kai\n  pro ge t\u00f4n mageir\u00f4n hapantes anthr\u00f4poi kai dysourountes\n  pollakis kai pantapasin ischourountes, hotan alg\u00f4si men\n  ta kata tas psoas, psamm\u00f4d\u00ea d' exour\u00f4sin, nephritikous\n  onomazousi sphas autous.\n\n  Askl\u00eapiad\u00ean d' oimai m\u00eade lithon our\u00eathenta pote\n  theasasthai pros t\u00f4n hout\u00f4 paschont\u00f4n m\u00ead' h\u00f4s\n  pro\u00eag\u00easato kata t\u00ean metaxy t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n kai t\u00eas kyste\u00f4s\n  ch\u00f4ran odyn\u00ea tis oxeia dierchomenou tou lithou ton\n  our\u00eat\u00eara m\u00ead' h\u00f4s our\u00eathentos autou ta te t\u00eas odyn\u00eas kai\n  ta t\u00eas ischourias epausato parachr\u00eama. p\u00f4s oun eis t\u00ean\n  kystin t\u00f4 log\u00f4 paragei to ouron, axion akousai kai\n  thaumasai tandros t\u00ean sophian, hos katalip\u00f4n hout\u00f4s\n  eureias hodous enarg\u00f4s phainomenas aphaneis kai stenas\n  kai pantapasin anaisth\u00eatous || hypetheto. bouletai gar         32\n  eis atmous analyomenon to pinomenon hygron eis t\u00ean\n  kystin diadidosthai kapeit' ex ekein\u00f4n authis all\u00ealois\n  syniont\u00f4n hout\u00f4s apolambanein auto t\u00ean archaian idean\n  kai gignesthai palin hygron ex atm\u00f4n atechn\u00f4s h\u00f4s peri\n  spongias tinos \u00ea eriou t\u00eas kyste\u00f4s dianooumenos, all' ou\n  s\u00f4matos akrib\u00f4s pyknou kai steganou dyo chit\u00f4nas\n  ischyrotatous kekt\u00eamenou, di' h\u00f4n eiper dierchesthai\n  ph\u00easomen tous atmous, ti d\u00eapot' ouchi dia tou\n  peritonaiou kai t\u00f4n phren\u00f4n dielthontes enepl\u00easan\n  hydatos to t' epigastrion hapan kai ton th\u00f4raka? alla\n  pachyteros, ph\u00easin, esti d\u00ealad\u00ea kai stegan\u00f4teros ho\n  peritonaios chit\u00f4n t\u00eas kyste\u00f4s kai dia tout' ekeinos men\n  apostegei tous atmous, h\u00ea de kystis paradechetai. all'\n  eiper anatetm\u00eakei pote, tach' an \u00eapistato ton men\n  ex\u00f4then chit\u00f4na t\u00eas kyste\u00f4s apo tou peritonaiou\n  pephykota t\u00ean aut\u00ean ekein\u00f4 physin echein, ton d'\n  endothen ton aut\u00eas t\u00eas kyste\u00f4s idion pleon \u00ea diplasion\n  ekeinou to pachos hyparchein.\n\n  All' is\u00f4s oute to || pachos outh' h\u00ea leptot\u00eas t\u00f4n              33\n  chit\u00f4n\u00f4n, all' h\u00ea thesis t\u00eas kyste\u00f4s aitia tou\n  pheresthai tous atmous eis aut\u00ean. kai m\u00ean ei kai dia\n  talla panta pithanon \u00ean autous entauthoi\n  synathroizesthai, to ge t\u00eas these\u00f4s mon\u00eas autarkes\n  k\u00f4lysai. kat\u00f4 men gar h\u00ea kystis keitai, tois d' atmois\n  symphytos h\u00ea pros to mete\u00f4ron phora, h\u00f4ste poly proteron\n  an epl\u00easan hapanta ta kata ton th\u00f4raka te kai ton\n  pneumona, prin epi t\u00ean kystin aphikesthai.\n\n  Kaitoi ti these\u00f4s kyste\u00f4s kai peritonaiou kai th\u00f4rakos\n  mn\u00eamoneu\u00f4? diekpesontes gar d\u00eapou tous te t\u00eas koilias\n  kai t\u00f4n enter\u00f4n chit\u00f4nas hoi atmoi kata t\u00ean metaxy\n  ch\u00f4ran aut\u00f4n te tout\u00f4n kai tou peritonaiou\n  synathroisth\u00easontai kai hygron entauthoi gen\u00easontai,\n  h\u00f4sper kai tois hyderikois en tout\u00f4 t\u00f4 ch\u00f4ri\u00f4 to\n  pleiston athroizetai tou hydatos, \u00ea pant\u00f4s autous chr\u00ea\n  pheresthai pros\u00f4 dia pant\u00f4n t\u00f4n hop\u00f4soun homilount\u00f4n kai\n  m\u00eadepoth' histasthai. all' ei kai touto tis hypothoito,\n  diekpesontes an hout\u00f4s ou to peritonaion monon alla kai\n  to epigastrion, eis to periechon skedastheien \u00ea pant\u00f4s\n  an hypo t\u00f4 dermati || synathroistheien.                        34\n\n  Alla kai pros taut' antilegein hoi nyn Askl\u00eapiadeioi\n  peir\u00f4ntai, kaitoi pros hapant\u00f4n aei t\u00f4n paratynchanont\u00f4n\n  autois, hotan peri tout\u00f4n eriz\u00f4si, katagel\u00f4menoi. hout\u00f4s\n  ara dysapotripton ti kakon estin h\u00ea peri tas haireseis\n  philotimia kai dyseknipton en tois malista kai ps\u00f4ras\n  hapas\u00eas dysiatoteron.\n\n  T\u00f4n goun kath' h\u00eamas tis sophist\u00f4n ta t' alla kai peri\n  tous eristikous logous hikan\u00f4s synkekrot\u00eamenos kai\n  deinos eipein, eiper tis allos, aphikomenos emoi poth'\n  hyper tout\u00f4n eis logous, tosouton apedei tou\n  dys\u00f4peisthai pros tinos t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n, h\u00f4ste kai\n  thaumazein ephasken emou ta saph\u00f4s phainomena logois\n  l\u00ear\u00f4desin anatrepein epicheirountos. enarg\u00f4s gar\n  hos\u00eamerai the\u00f4reisthai tas kysteis hapasas, ei tis autas\n  empl\u00easeien hydatos \u00ea aeros, eita d\u00easas ton trach\u00ealon\n  piezoi pantachothen, oudamothen methieisas ouden, all'\n  akrib\u00f4s hapan entos heaut\u00f4n stegousas. kaitoi g' eiper\n  \u00easan tines ek t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n eis autas h\u00eakontes aisth\u00eatoi\n  kai megaloi poroi, pant\u00f4s an, eph\u00ea, di' ekein\u00f4n, h\u00f4sper\n  eis\u00eaei to || hygron eis autas, hout\u00f4 kai thlibont\u00f4n            35\n  exekrineto. tauta kai ta toiaut' eip\u00f4n exaiphn\u00eas\n  aptaist\u00f4 kai saphei t\u00f4 stomati teleut\u00f4n anap\u00ead\u00easas ap\u00eaei\n  katalip\u00f4n h\u00eamas h\u00f4s oude pithan\u00eas tinos antilogias\n  eupor\u00easai dynamenous.\n\n  Hout\u00f4s ou monon hygies ouden isasin hoi tais hairesesi\n  douleuontes, all' oude mathein hypomenousi. deon gar\n  akousai t\u00ean aitian, di' h\u00ean eisienai men dynatai dia t\u00f4n\n  our\u00eat\u00ear\u00f4n eis t\u00ean kystin to hygron, exienai d' authis\n  opis\u00f4 t\u00ean aut\u00ean hodon ouketh' hoion te, kai thaumasai\n  t\u00ean techn\u00ean t\u00eas physe\u00f4s, oute mathein ethelousi kai\n  loidorountai proseti mat\u00ean hyp' aut\u00eas alla te polla kai\n  tous nephrous gegonenai phaskontes. eisi d' hoi kai\n  deichth\u00eanai paront\u00f4n aut\u00f4n tous apo t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n eis t\u00ean\n  kystin emphyomenous our\u00eat\u00earas hypomeinantes etolm\u00easan\n  eipein hoi men, hoti mat\u00ean kai houtoi gegonasin, hoi d',\n  hoti spermatikoi tines eisi poroi kai dia touto kata ton\n  trach\u00ealon aut\u00eas, ouk eis to kytos emphyontai. deixantes\n  oun h\u00eameis autois tous h\u00f4s al\u00eath\u00f4s spermatikous porous\n  kat\u00f4ter\u00f4 t\u00f4n our\u00eat\u00ear\u00f4n || emballontas eis ton trach\u00ealon,       36\n  nyn goun, ei kai m\u00ea proteron, \u00f4\u00eath\u00eamen apaxein te t\u00f4n\n  pseud\u00f4s hypeil\u00eammen\u00f4n epi te tanantia metast\u00easein\n  autika. hoi de kai pros tout' antilegein etolm\u00f4n ouden\n  einai thaumaston eipontes, en ekeinois men h\u00f4s an\n  stegan\u00f4terois ousin epi pleon hypomenein to sperma, kata\n  de tous apo t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n h\u00f4s an hikan\u00f4s aneurysmenous\n  ekrein dia tache\u00f4n. h\u00eameis oun \u00eanankasth\u00eamen autois tou\n  loipou deiknyein eisreon t\u00ea kystei dia t\u00f4n our\u00eat\u00ear\u00f4n to\n  ouron enarg\u00f4s epi z\u00f4ntos eti tou z\u00f4ou, mogis an hout\u00f4\n  pote t\u00ean phlyarian aut\u00f4n episch\u00easein elpizontes.\n\n  Ho de tropos t\u00eas deixe\u00f4s esti toiosde. dielein chr\u00ea to\n  pro t\u00f4n our\u00eat\u00ear\u00f4n peritonaion, eita brochois autous\n  eklabein kapeit' epid\u00easantas easai to z\u00f4on; ou gar an\n  our\u00easeien eti. meta de tauta lyein men tous ex\u00f4then\n  desmous, deiknynai de ken\u00ean men t\u00ean kystin, mestous d'\n  hikan\u00f4s kai diatetamenous tous our\u00eat\u00earas kai\n  kindyneuontas rhag\u00eanai kapeita tous brochous aut\u00f4n\n  aphelontas enarg\u00f4s horan \u00ead\u00ea pl\u00earoumen\u00ean ourou t\u00ean\n  kystin.\n\n  Epi de tout\u00f4 || phanenti, prin our\u00easai to z\u00f4on, brochon        37\n  autou peribalein chr\u00ea t\u00f4 aidoi\u00f4 kapeita thlibein\n  pantachothen t\u00ean kystin. oude gar an ouden eti dia t\u00f4n\n  our\u00eat\u00ear\u00f4n epanelthoi pros tous nephrous. kan tout\u00f4 d\u00ealon\n  gignetai to m\u00ea monon epi tethne\u00f4tos alla kai periontos\n  eti tou z\u00f4ou k\u00f4lyesthai metalambanein authis ek t\u00eas\n  kyste\u00f4s tous our\u00eat\u00earas to ouron. epi toutois ophtheisin\n  epitrepein \u00ead\u00ea to z\u00f4on ourein lyontas autou ton epi t\u00f4\n  aidoi\u00f4 brochon, eit' authis epibalein men thater\u00f4 t\u00f4n\n  our\u00eat\u00ear\u00f4n, easai de ton heteron eis t\u00ean kystin syrrhein\n  kai tina dialipontas chronon epideiknyein \u00ead\u00ea, p\u00f4s ho\n  men heteros aut\u00f4n ho dedemenos mestos kai diatetamenos\n  kata ta pros t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n mer\u00ea phainetai, ho d' heteros\n  ho lelymenos autos men chalaros esti, pepl\u00ear\u00f4ke d' ourou\n  t\u00ean kystin. eit' authis diatemein pr\u00f4ton men ton pl\u00ear\u00ea\n  kai deixai, p\u00f4s exakontizetai to ouron ex autou,\n  kathaper en tais phlebotomiais to haima, meta tauta de\n  kai ton heteron authis diatemein kapeit' epid\u00easai to\n  z\u00f4on ex\u00f4then, amphoter\u00f4n di\u00ear\u00eamen\u00f4n, || eith' hotan            38\n  hikan\u00f4s echein dok\u00ea, lysai ton desmon. heureth\u00easetai gar\n  h\u00ea men kystis ken\u00ea, pl\u00eares d' ourou to metaxy t\u00f4n\n  enter\u00f4n te kai tou peritonaiou ch\u00f4rion hapan, h\u00f4s an ei\n  kai hyderikon \u00ean to z\u00f4on. taut' oun ei tis autos kath'\n  heauton boul\u00eathei\u00ea basanizein epi z\u00f4ou, megal\u00f4s moi\n  dokei katagn\u00f4sesthai t\u00eas Askl\u00eapiadou propeteias. ei de\n  d\u00ea kai t\u00ean aitian mathoi, di' h\u00ean ouden ek t\u00eas kyste\u00f4s\n  eis tous our\u00eat\u00earas antekrei, peisth\u00eanai an moi dokei kai\n  dia toude t\u00ean eis ta z\u00f4a pronoian te kai techn\u00ean t\u00eas\n  physe\u00f4s.\n\n  Hippokrat\u00eas men oun h\u00f4n ismen iatr\u00f4n te kai philosoph\u00f4n\n  pr\u00f4tos hapant\u00f4n, h\u00f4s an kai pr\u00f4tos epignous ta t\u00eas\n  physe\u00f4s erga, thaumazei te kai dia pantos aut\u00ean hymnei\n  dikaian onomaz\u00f4n kai mon\u00ean exarkein eis hapanta tois\n  z\u00f4ois ph\u00easin, aut\u00ean ex haut\u00eas adidakt\u00f4s prattousan\n  hapanta ta deonta; toiaut\u00ean d' ousan aut\u00ean euthe\u00f4s kai\n  dynameis hypelaben echein helktik\u00ean men t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n,\n  apokritik\u00ean de t\u00f4n allotri\u00f4n kai trephein te kai auxein\n  au||t\u00ean ta z\u00f4a kai krinein ta nos\u00eamata; kai dia tout' en       39\n  tois s\u00f4masin h\u00eam\u00f4n sympnoian te mian einai ph\u00easi kai\n  syrrhoian kai panta sympathea. kata de ton Askl\u00eapiad\u00ean\n  ouden oudeni sympathes esti physei, di\u00ear\u00eamen\u00eas te kai\n  katatethrausmen\u00eas eis anarma stoicheia kai l\u00ear\u00f4deis\n  onkous hapas\u00eas t\u00eas ousias. ex anank\u00eas oun alla te myria\n  tois enarg\u00f4s phainomenois enanti\u00f4s apeph\u00eanato kai t\u00eas\n  physe\u00f4s \u00eagno\u00ease t\u00ean te t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n epispastik\u00ean dynamin\n  kai t\u00ean t\u00f4n allotri\u00f4n apokritik\u00ean. epi men oun t\u00eas\n  exaimat\u00f4se\u00f4s te kai anadose\u00f4s exeure tina psychran\n  adoleschian; eis de t\u00ean t\u00f4n peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n katharsin ouden\n  hol\u00f4s heur\u00f4n eipein ouk \u00f4kn\u00easen homose ch\u00f4r\u00easai tois\n  phainomenois, epi men t\u00eas t\u00f4n our\u00f4n diakrise\u00f4s\n  aposter\u00easas men t\u00f4n te nephr\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n our\u00eat\u00ear\u00f4n t\u00ean\n  energeian, ad\u00ealous de tinas porous eis t\u00ean kystin\n  hypothemenos; touto gar \u00ean d\u00ealad\u00ea mega kai semnon\n  apist\u00easanta tois phainomenois pisteusai tois ad\u00ealois.\n\n  Epi || de t\u00eas xanth\u00eas chol\u00eas eti meizon aut\u00f4 kai               40\n  neanik\u00f4teron esti to tolm\u00eama; gennasthai gar aut\u00ean en\n  tois chol\u00eadochois angeiois, ou diakrinesthai legei.\n\n  P\u00f4s oun tois ikterikois ham' amph\u00f4 sympiptei, ta men\n  diach\u00f4r\u00eamata m\u00eaden hol\u00f4s en hautois echonta chol\u00eas,\n  anaple\u00f4n d' autois gignomenon holon to s\u00f4ma? l\u00earein\n  palin entauth' anankazetai tois epi t\u00f4n our\u00f4n eir\u00eamenois\n  parapl\u00easi\u00f4s. l\u00earei d' ouden h\u00eatton kai peri t\u00eas melain\u00eas\n  chol\u00eas kai tou spl\u00eanos oute ti poth' hyph' Hippokratous\n  eir\u00eatai synieis antilegein t' epicheir\u00f4n hois ouk oiden\n  empl\u00eakt\u00f4 tini kai manik\u00f4 stomati.\n\n  Ti d\u00ea to kerdos ek t\u00f4n toiout\u00f4n dogmat\u00f4n eis tas\n  therapeias ekt\u00easato? m\u00eate nephritikon ti nos\u00eama\n  dynasthai therapeusai m\u00eat' ikterikon m\u00eate melancholikon,\n  alla kai peri tou pasin anthr\u00f4pois ouch Hippokratei\n  monon homologoumenou tou kathairein t\u00f4n pharmak\u00f4n enia\n  men t\u00ean xanth\u00ean chol\u00ean, enia de t\u00ean melainan, alla de\n  tina phlegma kai tina to lepton kai hydat\u00f4des peritt\u00f4ma,\n  m\u00eade peri tout\u00f4n synch\u00f4rein, all' hyp' aut\u00f4n t\u00f4n\n  pharmak\u00f4n gignesthai legein toiouton hekaston t\u00f4n\n  kenoumen\u00f4n, h\u00f4sper hypo t\u00f4n chol\u00ea||doch\u00f4n por\u00f4n t\u00ean            41\n  chol\u00ean; kai m\u00eaden diapherein kata ton thaumaston\n  Askl\u00eapiad\u00ean \u00ea hydrag\u00f4gon didonai tois hyderi\u00f4sin \u00ea\n  cholag\u00f4gon pharmakon; hapanta gar homoi\u00f4s kenoun kai\n  synt\u00eakein to s\u00f4ma kai to synt\u00eagma toionde ti phainesthai\n  poiein, m\u00ea proteron hyparchon toiouton.\n\n  Ar' oun ou mainesthai nomisteon auton \u00ea pantapasin\n  apeiron einai t\u00f4n erg\u00f4n t\u00eas techn\u00eas? tis gar ouk oiden,\n  h\u00f4s, ei men phlegmatos ag\u00f4gon dothei\u00ea pharmakon tois\n  ikteri\u00f4sin, ouk an oude tettaras kyathous kathartheien;\n  hout\u00f4 d' oud' ei t\u00f4n hydrag\u00f4g\u00f4n ti; cholag\u00f4g\u00f4 de\n  pharmak\u00f4 pleiston men ekkenoutai chol\u00eas, autika de\n  katharos tois hout\u00f4 kathartheisin ho chr\u00f4s gignetai.\n  pollous goun h\u00eameis meta to therapeusai t\u00ean en t\u00f4 h\u00eapati\n  diathesin hapax kath\u00earantes ap\u00eallaxamen tou path\u00eamatos.\n  ou m\u00ean oud' ei phlegmatos ag\u00f4g\u00f4 kathairois pharmak\u00f4,\n  pleon an ti diapraxaio.\n\n  Kai taut' ouch Hippokrat\u00eas men hout\u00f4s oide gignomena,\n  tois d' apo t\u00eas empeirias mon\u00eas horm\u00f4menois heter\u00f4s\n  egn\u00f4stai, alla kakei||nois h\u00f4saut\u00f4s kai pasin iatrois,         42\n  hois melei t\u00f4n erg\u00f4n t\u00eas techn\u00eas, hout\u00f4 dokei pl\u00ean\n  Askl\u00eapiadou. prodosian gar einai nenomike t\u00f4n stoichei\u00f4n\n  h\u00f4n hypetheto t\u00ean al\u00eath\u00ea peri t\u00f4n toiout\u00f4n homologian.\n  ei gar hol\u00f4s heurethei\u00ea ti pharmakon helktikon toude\n  tinos tou chymou monou, kindynos kratein d\u00ealad\u00ea t\u00f4 log\u00f4\n  to en hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n s\u00f4mat\u00f4n einai tina dynamin\n  epispastik\u00ean t\u00eas oikeias poiot\u00eatos. dia touto kn\u00eakon men\n  kai kokkon ton knidion kai hippophaes ouch helkein ek\n  tou s\u00f4matos alla poiein to phlegma ph\u00easin; anthos de\n  chalkou kai lepida kai auton ton kekaumenon chalkon kai\n  chamaidryn kai chamaileonta eis hyd\u00f4r analyein to s\u00f4ma\n  kai tous hyderikous hypo tout\u00f4n ou kathairomenous\n  oninasthai alla kenoumenous synauxont\u00f4n d\u00ealad\u00ea to\n  pathos. ei gar ou kenoi to periechomenon en tois s\u00f4masin\n  hydat\u00f4des hygron all' auto genna, t\u00f4 nos\u00eamati\n  prostim\u00f4reitai. kai men ge kai h\u00ea skamm\u00f4nia pros t\u00f4 m\u00ea\n  kenoun ek tou s\u00f4matos t\u00f4n ikterik\u00f4n t\u00ean chol\u00ean eti kai\n  to chr\u00easton haima chol\u00ean ergazomen\u00ea || kai synt\u00eakousa to       43\n  s\u00f4ma kai t\u00ealikauta kaka dr\u00f4sa kai to pathos epauxousa\n  kata ge ton Askl\u00eapiadou logon.\n\n  Hom\u00f4s enarg\u00f4s horatai pollous \u00f4phelousa. nai, ph\u00easin,\n  oninantai men, all' aut\u00f4 mon\u00f4 t\u00f4 log\u00f4 t\u00eas ken\u00f4se\u00f4s. kai\n  m\u00ean ei phlegmatos ag\u00f4gon autois doi\u00eas pharmakon, ouk\n  on\u00easontai. kai touth' hout\u00f4s enarges estin, h\u00f4ste kai\n  hoi apo mon\u00eas t\u00eas empeirias horm\u00f4menoi gign\u00f4skousin\n  auto. kaitoi toutois ge tois andrasin auto d\u00ea tout' esti\n  philosoph\u00eama, to m\u00eadeni log\u00f4 pisteuein alla monois tois\n  enarg\u00f4s phainomenois. ekeinoi men oun s\u00f4phronousin;\n  Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas de parapaiei tais aisth\u00easesin h\u00eamas apistein\n  keleu\u00f4n, entha to phainomenon anatrepei saph\u00f4s autou tas\n  hypotheseis. kaitoi makr\u00f4 g' \u00ean ameinon ouch homose\n  ch\u00f4rein tois phainomenois all' ekeinois anathesthai to\n  pan.\n\n  Ar' oun tauta monon enarg\u00f4s machetai tois Askl\u00eapiadou\n  dogmasin \u00ea kai to therous men pleiona kenousthai t\u00ean\n  xanth\u00ean chol\u00ean hypo t\u00f4n aut\u00f4n pharmak\u00f4n, cheim\u00f4nos de to\n  phlegma, kai neanisk\u00f4 men pleiona t\u00ean chol\u00ean, presbyt\u00ea\n  de to phlegma? phainetai || gar hekaston helkein t\u00ean           44\n  ousan, ouk auto gennan t\u00ean ouk ousan. ei goun ethel\u00easais\n  neanisk\u00f4 tini t\u00f4n ischn\u00f4n kai therm\u00f4n h\u00f4ra therous m\u00eat'\n  arg\u00f4s bebi\u00f4koti m\u00eat' en pl\u00easmon\u00ea phlegmatos ag\u00f4gon\n  dounai pharmakon, oligiston men kai meta bias poll\u00eas\n  ekken\u00f4seis tou chymou, blapseis d' eschat\u00f4s ton\n  anthr\u00f4pon; empalin d' ei cholag\u00f4gon doi\u00eas, kai pampoly\n  ken\u00f4seis kai blapseis ouden.\n\n  Ar' apistoumen eti t\u00f4 m\u00ea ouch hekaston t\u00f4n pharmak\u00f4n\n  epagesthai ton oikeion heaut\u00f4 chymon? is\u00f4s ph\u00easousin hoi\n  ap' Askl\u00eapiadou, mallon d' ouk is\u00f4s, alla pant\u00f4s\n  apistein erousin, hina m\u00ea prod\u00f4si ta philtata.\n\n\n                             XIV\n\nLet us pass on, then, again to another piece of nonsense; for the\nsophists do not allow one to engage in enquiries that are of any\nworth, albeit there are many such; they compel one to spend one's time\nin dissipating the fallacious arguments which they bring forward.\n\nWhat, then, is this piece of nonsense? It has to do with the famous\nand far-renowned stone which draws iron [the lodestone]. It might be\nthought that this would draw[113] their minds to a belief that there\nare in all bodies certain _faculties_ by which they attract their own\nproper qualities.\n\nNow Epicurus, despite the fact that he employs in his _Physics_[114]\nelements similar to those of Asclepiades,[115] yet allows that iron is\nattracted by the lodestone,[116] and chaff by amber. He even tries to\ngive the cause of the phenomenon. His view is that the atoms which\nflow from the stone are related in shape to those flowing from the\niron, and so they become easily interlocked with one another; thus it\nis that, after colliding with each of the two compact masses (the\nstone and the iron) they then rebound into the middle and so become\nentangled with each other, and draw the iron after them. So far, then,\nas his hypotheses regarding causation[117] go, he is perfectly\nunconvincing; nevertheless, he does grant that there is an attraction.\nFurther, he says that it is on similar principles that there occur in\nthe bodies of animals the dispersal of nutriment[118] and the\ndischarge of waste matters, as also the actions of cathartic drugs.\n\nAsclepiades, however, who viewed with suspicion the incredible\ncharacter of the cause mentioned, and who saw no other credible cause\non the basis of his supposed elements, shamelessly had recourse to the\nstatement that nothing is in any way attracted by anything else. Now,\nif he was dissatisfied with what Epicurus said, and had nothing better\nto say himself, he ought to have refrained from making hypotheses, and\nshould have said that Nature is a constructive artist and that the\nsubstance of things is always tending towards unity and also towards\nalteration because its own parts act upon and are acted upon by one\nanother.[119] For, if he had assumed this, it would not have been\ndifficult to allow that this constructive nature has powers which\nattract appropriate and expel alien matter. For in no other way could\nshe be constructive, preservative of the animal, and eliminative of\nits diseases,[120] unless it be allowed that she conserves what is\nappropriate and discharges what is foreign.\n\nBut in this matter, too, Asclepiades realized the logical sequence of\nthe principles he had assumed; he showed no scruples, however, in\nopposing plain fact; he joins issue in this matter also, not merely\nwith all physicians, but with everyone else, and maintains that there\nis no such thing as a crisis, or critical day,[121] and that Nature\ndoes absolutely nothing for the preservation of the animal. For his\nconstant aim is to follow out logical consequences and to upset\nobvious fact, in this respect being opposed to Epicurus; for the\nlatter always stated the observed fact, although he gives an\nineffective explanation of it. For, that these small corpuscles\nbelonging to the lodestone rebound, and become entangled with other\nsimilar particles of the iron, and that then, by means of this\nentanglement (which cannot be seen anywhere) such a heavy substance as\niron is attracted--I fail to understand how anybody could believe\nthis. Even if we admit this, the same principle will not explain the\nfact that, when the iron has another piece brought in contact with it,\nthis becomes attached to it.\n\nFor what are we to say? That, forsooth, some of the particles that\nflow from the lodestone collide with the iron and then rebound back,\nand that it is by these that the iron becomes suspended? that others\npenetrate into it, and rapidly pass through it by way of its empty\nchannels?[122] that these then collide with the second piece of iron\nand are not able to penetrate it although they penetrated the first\npiece? and that they then course back to the first piece, and produce\nentanglements like the former ones?\n\nThe hypothesis here becomes clearly refuted by its absurdity. As a\nmatter of fact, I have seen five writing-stylets of iron attached to\none another in a line, only the first one being in contact with the\nlodestone, and the power[123] being transmitted through it to the\nothers. Moreover, it cannot be said that if you bring a second stylet\ninto contact with the lower end of the first, it becomes held,\nattached, and suspended, whereas, if you apply it to any other part of\nthe side it does not become attached. For the power of the lodestone\nis distributed in all directions; it merely needs to be in contact\nwith the first stylet at any point; from this stylet again the power\nflows, as quick as a thought, all through the second, and from that\nagain to the third. Now, if you imagine a small lodestone hanging in a\nhouse, and in contact with it all round a large number of pieces of\niron, from them again others, from these others, and so on,--all these\npieces of iron must surely become filled with the corpuscles which\nemanate from the stone; therefore, this first little stone is likely\nto become dissipated by disintegrating into these emanations.[124]\nFurther, even if there be no iron in contact with it, it still\ndisperses into the air, particularly if this be also warm.\n\n\"Yes,\" says Epicurus, \"but these corpuscles must be looked on as\nexceedingly small, so that some of them are a ten-thousandth part of\nthe size of the very smallest particles carried in the air.\" Then do\nyou venture to say that so great a weight of iron can be suspended by\nsuch small bodies? If each of them is a ten-thousandth part as large\nas the dust particles which are borne in the atmosphere, how big must\nwe suppose the hook-like extremities by which they interlock with each\nother[125] to be? For of course this is quite the smallest portion of\nthe whole particle.\n\nThen, again, when a small body becomes entangled with another small\nbody, or when a body in motion becomes entangled with another also in\nmotion, they do not rebound at once. For, further, there will of\ncourse be others which break in upon them from above, from below, from\nfront and rear, from right and left, and which shake and agitate them\nand never let them rest. Moreover, we must perforce suppose that each\nof these small bodies has a large number of these hook-like\nextremities. For by one it attaches itself to its neighbours, by\nanother--the topmost one--to the lodestone, and by the bottom one to\nthe iron. For if it were attached to the stone above and not\ninterlocked with the iron below, this would be of no use.[126] Thus,\nthe upper part of the superior extremity must hang from the lodestone,\nand the iron must be attached to the lower end of the inferior\nextremity; and, since they interlock with each other by their sides as\nwell, they must, of course, have hooks there too. Keep in mind also,\nabove everything, what small bodies these are which possess all these\ndifferent kinds of outgrowths. Still more, remember how, in order that\nthe second piece of iron may become attached to the first, the third\nto the second, and to that the fourth, these absurd little particles\nmust both penetrate the passages in the first piece of iron and at the\nsame time rebound from the piece coming next in the series, although\nthis second piece is naturally in every way similar to the first.\n\nSuch an hypothesis, once again, is certainly not lacking in audacity;\nin fact, to tell the truth, it is far more shameless than the previous\nones; according to it, when five similar pieces of iron are arranged\nin a line, the particles of the lodestone which easily traverse the\nfirst piece of iron rebound from the second, and do not pass readily\nthrough it in the same way. Indeed, it is nonsense, whichever\nalternative is adopted. For, if they do rebound, how then do they pass\nthrough into the third piece? And if they do not rebound, how does the\nsecond piece become suspended to the first? For Epicurus himself\nlooked on the rebound as the active agent in attraction.\n\nBut, as I have said, one is driven to talk nonsense whenever one gets\ninto discussion with such men. Having, therefore, given a concise and\nsummary statement of the matter, I wish to be done with it. For if one\ndiligently familiarizes oneself with the writings of Asclepiades, one\nwill see clearly their logical dependence on his first principles, but\nalso their disagreement with observed facts. Thus, Epicurus, in his\ndesire to adhere to the facts, cuts an awkward figure by aspiring to\nshow that these agree with his principles, whereas Asclepiades\nsafeguards the sequence of principles, but pays no attention to the\nobvious fact. Whoever, therefore, wishes to expose the absurdity of\ntheir hypotheses, must, if the argument be in answer to Asclepiades,\nkeep in mind his disagreement with observed fact; or if in answer to\nEpicurus, his discordance with his principles. Almost all the other\nsects depending on similar principles are now entirely extinct, while\nthese alone maintain a respectable existence still. Yet the tenets of\nAsclepiades have been unanswerably confuted by Menodotus the\nEmpiricist, who draws his attention to their opposition to phenomena\nand to each other; and, again, those of Epicurus have been confuted by\nAsclepiades, who adhered always to logical sequence, about which\nEpicurus evidently cares little.\n\nNow people of the present day do not begin by getting a clear\ncomprehension of these sects, as well as of the better ones,\nthereafter devoting a long time to judging and testing the true and\nfalse in each of them; despite their ignorance, they style themselves,\nsome \"physicians\" and others \"philosophers.\" No wonder, then, that\nthey honour the false equally with the true. For everyone becomes like\nthe first teacher that he comes across, without waiting to learn\nanything from anybody else. And there are some of them, who, even if\nthey meet with more than one teacher, are yet so unintelligent and\nslow-witted that even by the time they have reached old age they are\nstill incapable of understanding the steps of an argument.... In the\nold days such people used to be set to menial tasks.... What will be\nthe end of it God knows!\n\nNow, we usually refrain from arguing with people whose principles are\nwrong from the outset. Still, having been compelled by the natural\ncourse of events to enter into some kind of a discussion with them, we\nmust add this further to what was said--that it is not only cathartic\ndrugs which naturally attract their special qualities,[127] but also\nthose which remove thorns and the points of arrows such as sometimes\nbecome deeply embedded in the flesh. Those drugs also which draw out\nanimal poisons or poisons applied to arrows all show the same faculty\nas does the lodestone. Thus, I myself have seen a thorn which was\nembedded in a young man's foot fail to come out when we exerted\nforcible traction with our fingers, and yet come away painlessly and\nrapidly on the application of a medicament. Yet even to this some\npeople will object, asserting that when the inflammation is dispersed\nfrom the part the thorn comes away of itself, without being pulled out\nby anything. But these people seem, in the first place, to be unaware\nthat there are certain drugs for drawing out inflammation and\ndifferent ones for drawing out embedded substances; and surely if it\nwas on the cessation of an inflammation that the abnormal matters were\nexpelled, then all drugs which disperse inflammations ought, _ipso\nfacto_, to possess the power of extracting these substances as\nwell.[128]\n\nAnd secondly, these people seem to be unaware of a still more\nsurprising fact, namely, that not merely do certain medicaments draw\nout thorns and others poisons, but that of the latter there are some\nwhich attract the poison of the viper, others that of the\nsting-ray,[129] and others that of some other animal; we can, in fact,\nplainly observe these poisons deposited on the medicaments. Here,\nthen, we must praise Epicurus for the respect he shows towards obvious\nfacts, but find fault with his views as to causation. For how can it\nbe otherwise than extremely foolish to suppose that a thorn which we\nfailed to remove by digital traction could be drawn out by these\nminute particles?\n\nHave we now, therefore, convinced ourselves that everything which\nexists[130] possesses a faculty by which it attracts its proper\nquality, and that some things do this more, and some less?\n\nOr shall we also furnish our argument with the illustration afforded\nby _corn_?[131] For those who refuse to admit that anything is\nattracted by anything else, will, I imagine, be here proved more\nignorant regarding Nature than the very peasants. When, for my own\npart, I first learned of what happens, I was surprised, and felt\nanxious to see it with my own eyes. Afterwards, when experience also\nhad confirmed its truth, I sought long among the various sects for an\nexplanation, and, with the exception of that which gave the first\nplace to _attraction_, I could find none which even approached\nplausibility, all the others being ridiculous and obviously quite\nuntenable.\n\nWhat happens, then, is the following. When our peasants are bringing\ncorn from the country into the city in wagons, and wish to filch some\naway without being detected, they fill earthen jars with water and\nstand them among the corn; the corn then draws the moisture into\nitself through the jar and acquires additional bulk and weight, but\nthe fact is never detected by the onlookers unless someone who knew\nabout the trick before makes a more careful inspection. Yet, if you\ncare to set down the same vessel in the very hot sun, you will find\nthe daily loss to be very little indeed. Thus corn has a greater power\nthan extreme solar heat of drawing to itself the moisture in its\nneighbourhood.[132] Thus the theory that the water is carried towards\nthe rarefied part of the air surrounding us[133] (particularly when\nthat is distinctly warm) is utter nonsense; for although it is much\nmore rarefied there than it is amongst the corn, yet it does not take\nup a tenth part of the moisture which the corn does.\n\n\n                      XIV\n\n  Palin oun kai h\u00eameis eph' heteran metab\u00f4men adoleschian;\n  ou gar epitrepousin hoi sophistai t\u00f4n axi\u00f4n ti z\u00eat\u00eamat\u00f4n\n  procheirizesthai kaitoi pampoll\u00f4n hyparchont\u00f4n, alla\n  katatribein anankazousi ton chronon eis t\u00ean t\u00f4n\n  sophismat\u00f4n, h\u00f4n proballousi, lysin.\n\n  Tis oun h\u00ea adoleschia? h\u00ea endoxos haut\u00ea kai\n  polythryl\u00eatos lithos h\u00ea ton sid\u00earon || episp\u00f4men\u00ea. tacha       45\n  gar an haut\u00ea pote t\u00ean psych\u00ean aut\u00f4n epispasaito\n  pisteuein einai tinas en hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n s\u00f4mat\u00f4n helktikas\n  t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n poiot\u00eat\u00f4n dynameis.\n\n  Epikouros men oun kaitoi parapl\u00easiois Askl\u00eapiad\u00ea\n  stoicheiois pros t\u00ean physiologian chr\u00f4menos hom\u00f4s\n  homologei, pros men t\u00eas h\u00earakleias lithou ton sid\u00earon\n  helkesthai, pros de t\u00f4n \u00ealektr\u00f4n ta kyr\u00eabia kai peiratai\n  ge kai t\u00ean aitian apodidonai tou phainomenou. tas gar\n  aporrheousas atomous apo t\u00eas lithou tais aporrheousais\n  apo tou sid\u00earou tois sch\u00eamasin oikeias einai ph\u00easin,\n  h\u00f4ste periplekesthai rhadi\u00f4s. proskrouousas oun autas\n  tois synkrimasin hekaterois t\u00eas te lithou kai tou\n  sid\u00earou kapeit' eis to meson apopallomenas hout\u00f4s\n  all\u00ealais te periplekesthai kai synepispasthai ton\n  sid\u00earon. to men oun t\u00f4n hypothese\u00f4n eis t\u00ean aitiologian\n  apithanon antikrys d\u00ealon, hom\u00f4s d' oun homologei t\u00ean\n  holk\u00ean. kai hout\u00f4 ge kai kata ta s\u00f4mata t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n ph\u00easi\n  gignesthai tas t' anadoseis kai tas diakriseis t\u00f4n\n  peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n kai tas t\u00f4n kathairont\u00f4n pharmak\u00f4n\n  energeias.\n\n  Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas d\u00ea to te t\u00eas eir\u00eamen\u00eas aitias apithanon ||         46\n  hypidomenos kai m\u00eademian all\u00ean eph' hois hypetheto\n  stoicheiois exeurisk\u00f4n pithan\u00ean epi to m\u00ead' hol\u00f4s\n  helkesthai legein hypo m\u00eadenos m\u00eaden anaischynt\u00easas\n  etrapeto, deon, ei m\u00eath' hois Epikouros eipen \u00earesketo\n  m\u00eat' alla belti\u00f4 legein eichen, apost\u00eanai t\u00f4n\n  hypothese\u00f4n kai t\u00ean te physin eipein technik\u00ean kai t\u00ean\n  ousian t\u00f4n ont\u00f4n henoumen\u00ean te pros heaut\u00ean aei kai\n  alloioumen\u00ean hypo t\u00f4n heaut\u00eas mori\u00f4n eis all\u00eala dr\u00f4nt\u00f4n\n  te kai paschont\u00f4n. ei gar tauth' hypetheto, chalepon\n  ouden \u00ean t\u00ean technik\u00ean ekein\u00ean physin homolog\u00easai\n  dynameis echein epispastik\u00ean men t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n,\n  apokritik\u00ean de t\u00f4n allotri\u00f4n. ou gar di' allo ti g' \u00ean\n  aut\u00ea to technik\u00ea t' einai kai tou z\u00f4ou dias\u00f4stik\u00ea kai\n  t\u00f4n nos\u00eamat\u00f4n kritik\u00ea para to prosiesthai men kai\n  phylattein to oikeion, apokrinein de to allotrion.\n\n  All' Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas kantautha to men akolouthon tais\n  archais hais hypetheto syneiden, ou m\u00ean t\u00ean ge pros to\n  phainomenon enarg\u00f4s \u00eadesth\u00ea mach\u00ean, all' homose ||             47\n  ch\u00f4rei kai peri toutou pasin ouk iatrois monon all' \u00ead\u00ea\n  kai tois allois anthr\u00f4pois oute krisin einai tina leg\u00f4n\n  outh' h\u00eameran krisimon outh' hol\u00f4s ouden epi s\u00f4t\u00earia tou\n  z\u00f4ou pragmateusasthai t\u00ean physin. aei gar to men\n  akolouthon phylattein bouletai, to d' enarg\u00f4s\n  phainomenon anatrepein empalin Epikour\u00f4. titheis gar\n  ekeinos aei to phainomenon aitian autou psychran\n  apodid\u00f4si. ta gar apopallomena smikra s\u00f4mata t\u00eas\n  h\u00earakleias lithou toioutois heterois periplekesthai\n  moriois tou sid\u00earou kapeita dia t\u00eas periplok\u00eas taut\u00eas\n  m\u00eadamou phainomen\u00eas epispasthai bareian hout\u00f4s ousian\n  ouk oid' hop\u00f4s an tis peisthei\u00ea. kai gar ei touto\n  synch\u00f4r\u00easomen, to ge t\u00f4 sid\u00ear\u00f4 palin heteron prostethen\n  ti synaptesthai t\u00ean aut\u00ean aitian ouketi prosietai.\n\n  Ti gar eroumen? \u00ea d\u00ealad\u00ea t\u00f4n aporrheont\u00f4n t\u00eas lithou\n  mori\u00f4n enia men proskrousanta t\u00f4 sid\u00ear\u00f4 palin\n  apopallesthai kai tauta men einai, di' h\u00f4n kremannysthai\n  symbainei ton sid\u00earon, ta d' eis auton eisdyomena dia\n  t\u00f4n || ken\u00f4n por\u00f4n diexerchesthai tachista kapeita t\u00f4          48\n  parakeimen\u00f4 sid\u00ear\u00f4 proskrouonta m\u00eat' ekeinon diadynai\n  dynasthai, kaitoi ton ge pr\u00f4ton diadynta, palindromounta\n  d' authis epi ton proteron heteras authis ergazesthai\n  tais proterais homoias periplokas?\n\n  Enarg\u00f4s gar entautha to l\u00ear\u00f4des t\u00eas aitias elenchetai.\n  grapheia goun oida pote sid\u00eara pente kata to syneches\n  all\u00ealois synaphthenta, tou pr\u00f4tou men monou t\u00eas lithou\n  psausantos, ex ekeinou d' eis talla t\u00eas dyname\u00f4s\n  diadotheis\u00eas; kai ouk estin eipein, h\u00f4s, ei men t\u00f4 kat\u00f4\n  tou grapheiou perati prosagois heteron, echetai te kai\n  synaptetai kai krematai to prosenechthen; ei d' all\u00f4\n  tini merei t\u00f4n plagi\u00f4n prosthei\u00eas, ou synaptetai. pant\u00ea\n  gar homoi\u00f4s h\u00ea t\u00eas lithou diadidotai dynamis, ei monon\n  hapsaito kata ti tou pr\u00f4tou grapheiou. kai mentoi kak\n  toutou palin eis to deuteron holon h\u00ea dynamis hama\n  no\u00eamati diarrhei kax ekeinou palin eis to triton holon.\n  ei d\u00ea no\u00easais smikran tina lithon h\u00earakleian en oik\u00f4\n  tini kremamen\u00ean, eit' en kykl\u00f4 psauonta pampolla sid\u00earia\n  kakein\u00f4n palin hetera kakein\u00f4n alla kai tout' achri\n  pleionos, hapanta || d\u00eapou pimplasthai dei ta sid\u00earia          49\n  t\u00f4n aporrheont\u00f4n t\u00eas lithou s\u00f4mat\u00f4n. kai kindyneuei\n  diaphor\u00eath\u00eanai to smikron ekeino lithidion eis tas\n  aporrhoas dialythen. kaitoi, kan ei m\u00eaden parakeoit'\n  aut\u00f4 sid\u00earion, eis ton aera skedannytai, malist' ei kai\n  thermos hyparchoi.\n\n  Nai, ph\u00easi, smikra gar auta chr\u00ea pany noein, h\u00f4ste t\u00f4n\n  empheromen\u00f4n t\u00f4 aeri ps\u00eagmat\u00f4n tout\u00f4n d\u00ea t\u00f4n smikrotat\u00f4n\n  ekein\u00f4n enia myrioston einai meros. eit' ex hout\u00f4\n  smikr\u00f4n tolmate legein kremannysthai bar\u00ea t\u00ealikauta\n  sid\u00earou? ei gar hekaston aut\u00f4n myrioston esti meros t\u00f4n\n  en t\u00f4 aeri pheromen\u00f4n ps\u00eagmat\u00f4n, p\u00ealikon chr\u00ea no\u00easai to\n  peras aut\u00f4n to ankistroeides, h\u00f4 peripleketai pros\n  all\u00eala? pant\u00f4s gar d\u00eapou touto smikrotaton estin holou\n  tou ps\u00eagmatos.\n\n  Eita mikron mikr\u00f4, kinoumenon kinoumen\u00f4 periplaken ouk\n  euthys apopalletai. kai gar d\u00ea kai all' atta pant\u00f4s\n  autois, ta men an\u00f4then, ta de kat\u00f4then, kai ta men\n  emprosthen, ta d' opisthen, ta d' ek t\u00f4n dexi\u00f4n, ta d'\n  ek t\u00f4n arister\u00f4n || ekr\u00eagnymena seiei te kai brattei kai       50\n  menein ouk ea. kai mentoi kai polla chr\u00ea noein ex\n  anank\u00eas hekaston ekein\u00f4n t\u00f4n smikr\u00f4n s\u00f4mat\u00f4n echein\n  ankistr\u00f4d\u00ea perata. di' henos men gar all\u00ealois\n  synaptetai, di' heterou d' henos tou men hyperkeimenou\n  t\u00ea lith\u00f4, tou d' hypokeimenou t\u00f4 sid\u00ear\u00f4. ei gar an\u00f4 men\n  exaphthei\u00ea t\u00eas lithou, kat\u00f4 de t\u00f4 sid\u00ear\u00f4 m\u00ea symplakei\u00ea,\n  pleon ouden. h\u00f4ste tou men hyperkeimenou to an\u00f4 meros\n  ekkremasthai chr\u00ea t\u00eas lithou, tou d' hypokeimenou t\u00f4\n  kat\u00f4 perati syn\u00eaphthai ton sid\u00earon. epei de kak t\u00f4n\n  plagi\u00f4n all\u00ealois peripleketai, pant\u00f4s pou kantautha\n  echei ta ankistra. kai memn\u00easo moi pro pant\u00f4n, hop\u00f4s\n  onta smikra tas toiautas kai tosautas apophyseis echei.\n  kai toutou mallon eti, p\u00f4s, hina to deuteron sid\u00earion\n  synaphth\u00ea t\u00f4 pr\u00f4t\u00f4 kai t\u00f4 deuter\u00f4 to triton kakein\u00f4 to\n  tetarton, hama men diexerchesthai chr\u00ea tous porous tauti\n  ta smikra kai l\u00ear\u00f4d\u00ea ps\u00eagmata, hama d' apopallesthai tou\n  met' auto || tetagmenou, kaitoi kata pan homoiou t\u00ean           51\n  physin hyparchontos.\n\n  Oude gar h\u00ea toiaut\u00ea palin hypothesis atolmos, all', ei\n  chr\u00ea tal\u00eathes eipein, makr\u00f4 t\u00f4n emprosthen\n  anaischyntotera, pente sid\u00eari\u00f4n homoi\u00f4n all\u00ealois ephex\u00eas\n  tetagmen\u00f4n dia tou pr\u00f4tou diadyomena rhadi\u00f4s t\u00eas lithou\n  ta moria kata to deuteron apopallesthai kai m\u00ea dia\n  toutou kata ton auton tropon hetoim\u00f4s diexerchesthai.\n  kai m\u00ean hekater\u00f4s atopon. ei men gar apopalletai, p\u00f4s\n  eis to triton \u00f4ke\u00f4s diexerchetai? ei d' ouk apopalletai,\n  p\u00f4s kremannytai to deuteron ek tou pr\u00f4tou? t\u00ean gar\n  apopalsin autos hypetheto d\u00eamiourgon t\u00eas holk\u00eas.\n\n  All', hoper eph\u00ean, eis adoleschian anankaion empiptein,\n  epeidan tis toioutois andrasi dialeg\u00eatai. syntomon oun\n  tina kai kephalai\u00f4d\u00ea logon eip\u00f4n apallattesthai\n  boulomai. tois Askl\u00eapiadou grammasin ei tis epimel\u00f4s\n  homil\u00easeie, t\u00ean te pros tas archas akolouthian t\u00f4n\n  toiout\u00f4n dogmat\u00f4n akrib\u00f4s an ekmathoi kai t\u00ean pros ta\n  phainomena mach\u00ean. ho men oun Epikouros ta phainomena\n  phylattein boulomenos asch\u00eamonei || philotimoumenos            52\n  epideiknyein auta tais archais homologounta; ho d'\n  Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas to men akolouthon tais archais phylattei,\n  tou phainomenou d' ouden aut\u00f4 melei. hostis oun bouletai\n  t\u00ean atopian exelenchein t\u00f4n hypothese\u00f4n, ei men pros\n  Askl\u00eapiad\u00ean ho logos aut\u00f4 gignoito, t\u00eas pros to\n  phainomenon hypomimn\u00easket\u00f4 mach\u00eas; ei de pros Epikouron,\n  t\u00eas pros tas archas diaph\u00f4nias. hai d' allai schedon\n  haireseis hai t\u00f4n homoi\u00f4n arch\u00f4n echomenai tele\u00f4s\n  apesb\u00easan, hautai d' eti monai diarkousin ouk agenn\u00f4s.\n  kaitoi ta men Askl\u00eapiadou M\u00eanodotos ho empeirikos\n  aphykt\u00f4s exelenchei, t\u00ean te pros ta phainomena mach\u00ean\n  hypomimn\u00eask\u00f4n auton kai t\u00ean pros all\u00eala; ta d' Epikourou\n  palin ho Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas echomenos aei t\u00eas akolouthias, h\u00eas\n  ekeinos ou pany ti phainetai phrontiz\u00f4n.\n\n  All' hoi nyn anthr\u00f4poi, prin kai tautas ekmathein tas\n  haireseis kai tas allas tas beltious kapeita chron\u00f4\n  poll\u00f4 krinai te kai basanisai to kath' hekast\u00ean aut\u00f4n\n  al\u00eathes te kai pseudos, hoi men iatrous heautous, hoi de\n  philosophous onomazousi m\u00eaden eidotes. || ouden oun            53\n  thaumaston epis\u00eas tois al\u00eathesi ta pseud\u00ea tetim\u00easthai.\n  hot\u00f4 gar an hekastos pr\u00f4t\u00f4 peritych\u00ea didaskal\u00f4, toioutos\n  egeneto, m\u00ea perimeinas m\u00eaden eti par' allou mathein.\n  enioi d' aut\u00f4n, ei kai pleiosin entychoien, all' hout\u00f4\n  g' eisin asynetoi te kai bradeis t\u00ean dianoian, h\u00f4ste kai\n  geg\u00earakotes oup\u00f4 syniasin akolouthian logou. palai de\n  tous toioutous epi tas banausous apelyon technas. alla\n  tauta men es ho ti teleut\u00easei theos oiden.\n\n  H\u00eameis d' epeid\u00ea, kaitoi pheugontes antilegein tois en\n  autais tais archais euthys esphalmenois, hom\u00f4s\n  \u00eanankasth\u00eamen hyp' aut\u00eas t\u00f4n pragmat\u00f4n t\u00eas akolouthias\n  eipein tina kai dialechth\u00eanai pros autous, eti kai touto\n  prosth\u00easomen tois eir\u00eamenois, h\u00f4s ou monon ta\n  kathaironta pharmaka pephyken epispasthai tas oikeias\n  poiot\u00eatas alla kai ta tous skolopas anagonta kai tas t\u00f4n\n  bel\u00f4n akidas eis poly bathos sarkos empeparmenas eniote.\n  kai mentoi kai hosa tous ious t\u00f4n th\u00eari\u00f4n \u00ea tous\n  empepharmagmenous tois belesin anelkei, kai tauta t\u00ean\n  aut\u00ean tais h\u00earakleiais lithois epi||deiknytai dynamin.         54\n  eg\u00f4g' oun oida pote katapeparmenon en podi neaniskou\n  skolopa tois men daktylois helkousin h\u00eamin biai\u00f4s ouk\n  akolouth\u00easanta, pharmakou d' epitethentos alyp\u00f4s te kai\n  dia tache\u00f4n anelthonta. kaitoi kai pros touto tines\n  antilegousi phaskontes, hotan h\u00ea phlegmon\u00ea lyth\u00ea tou\n  merous, automaton exienai ton skolopa pros oudenos\n  anelkomenon. all' houtoi ge pr\u00f4ton men agnoein eoikasin,\n  h\u00f4s alla men esti phlegmon\u00eas, alla de t\u00f4n hout\u00f4\n  katapeparmen\u00f4n helktika pharmaka; kaitoi g' eiper\n  aphlegmant\u00f4n genomen\u00f4n exekrineto ta para physin, hosa\n  phlegmon\u00eas esti lytika, taut' euthys an \u00ean kakein\u00f4n\n  helktika.\n\n  Deuteron d', ho kai mallon an tis thaumaseien, h\u00f4s ou\n  monon alla men tous skolopas, alla de tous ious exagei\n  pharmaka, alla kai aut\u00f4n t\u00f4n tous ious helkont\u00f4n ta men\n  ton t\u00eas echidn\u00eas, ta de ton t\u00eas trygonos, ta d' allou\n  tinos epispatai kai saph\u00f4s estin idein tois pharmakois\n  epikeimenous autous. entauth' oun Epikouron men epainein\n  chr\u00ea t\u00eas pros || to phainomenon aidous, memphesthai de         55\n  ton logon t\u00eas aitias. hon gar h\u00eameis helkontes tois\n  daktylois ouk an\u00eagagomen skolopa, touton hypo t\u00f4n\n  smikr\u00f4n ekein\u00f4n anelkesthai ps\u00eagmat\u00f4n, p\u00f4s ou pantapasin\n  atopon einai chr\u00ea nomizein?\n\n  Ar' oun \u00ead\u00ea pepeismetha t\u00f4n ont\u00f4n hekast\u00f4 dynamin tin'\n  hyparchein, h\u00ea t\u00ean oikeian helkei poiot\u00eata, to men\n  mallon, to d' h\u00eatton?\n\n  \u00ca kai to t\u00f4n pyr\u00f4n eti paradeigma procheirisometha t\u00f4\n  log\u00f4? phan\u00easontai gar oimai kai t\u00f4n ge\u00f4rg\u00f4n aut\u00f4n\n  amathesteroi peri t\u00ean physin hoi m\u00eaden hol\u00f4s hypo\n  m\u00eadenos helkesthai synch\u00f4rountes; h\u00f4s eg\u00f4ge pr\u00f4ton men\n  akousas to gignomenon ethaumasa kai autos \u00eaboul\u00eath\u00ean\n  autopt\u00eas autou katast\u00eanai. meta tauta de, h\u00f4s kai ta t\u00eas\n  peiras h\u00f4mologei, t\u00ean aitian skopoumenos en pampoll\u00f4\n  chron\u00f4 kata pasas tas haireseis oudemian all\u00ean heurein\n  hoios t' \u00ean oud' achri tou pithanou pro\u00efousan alla\n  katagelastous te kai saph\u00f4s exelenchomenas tas allas\n  hapasas pl\u00ean t\u00eas t\u00ean holk\u00ean presbeuous\u00eas.\n\n  Esti de to gignomenon toionde. katakomizontes hoi par'\n  h\u00eamin ge\u00f4rgoi tous || ek t\u00f4n agr\u00f4n pyrous eis t\u00ean polin        56\n  en hamaxais tisin, hotan hyphelesthai boul\u00eath\u00f4sin, h\u00f4ste\n  m\u00ea ph\u00f4rath\u00eanai, kerami' atta pl\u00ear\u00f4santes hydatos mesois\n  autois enistasin. helkontes oun ekeinoi dia tou keramiou\n  to hygron eis hautous onkon men kai baros proskt\u00f4ntai,\n  katad\u00ealoi d' ou pany gignontai tois hor\u00f4sin, ei m\u00ea tis\n  propepysmenos \u00ead\u00ea periergoteron episkopoito. kaitoi g'\n  ei boul\u00eathei\u00eas en h\u00eali\u00f4 katatheinai pany therm\u00f4 tauton\n  angeion, elachiston pantel\u00f4s heur\u00easeis to dapan\u00f4menon\n  eph' hekast\u00eas h\u00eameras. hout\u00f4s ara kai t\u00eas h\u00ealiak\u00eas\n  thermasias t\u00eas sphodras ischyroteran hoi pyroi dynamin\n  echousin helkein eis heautous t\u00ean pl\u00easiazousan\n  hygrot\u00eata. l\u00earos oun entautha makros h\u00ea pros to\n  leptomeres phora tou periechontos h\u00eamas aeros kai\n  malisth' hotan hikan\u00f4s \u00ea thermos, poly men hyparchontos\n  \u00ea kata tous pyrous leptomeresterou, dechomenou d' oude\n  to dekaton meros t\u00eas eis ekeinous metalambanomen\u00eas\n  hygrot\u00eatos.\n\n\n                              XV\n\nSince then, we have talked sufficient nonsense--not willingly, but\nbecause we were forced, as the proverb says, \"to behave madly among\nmadmen\"--let us return again to the subject of urinary secretion. Here\nlet us forget the absurdities of Asclepiades, and, in company with\nthose who are persuaded that the urine does pass through the kidneys,\nlet us consider what is the character of this function. For, most\nassuredly, either the urine is conveyed by its own motion to the\nkidneys, considering this the better course (as do we when we go off\nto market![134]), or, if this be impossible, then some other reason\nfor its conveyance must be found. What, then, is this? If we are not\ngoing to grant the kidneys a faculty for attracting this particular\nquality,[135] as Hippocrates held, we shall discover no other reason.\nFor, surely everyone sees that either the kidneys must attract the\nurine, or the veins must propel it--if, that is, it does not move of\nitself. But if the veins did exert a propulsive action when they\ncontract, they would squeeze out into the kidneys not merely the\nurine, but along with it the whole of the blood which they\ncontain.[136] And if this is impossible, as we shall show, the\nremaining explanation is that the kidneys do exert traction.\n\nAnd how is propulsion by the veins impossible? The situation of the\nkidneys is against it. They do not occupy a position beneath the\nhollow vein [vena cava] as does the sieve-like [ethmoid] passage in\nthe nose and palate in relation to the surplus matter from the\nbrain;[137] they are situated on both sides of it. Besides, if the\nkidneys are like sieves, and readily let the thinner serous\n[whey-like] portion through, and keep out the thicker portion, then\nthe whole of the blood contained in the vena cava must go to them,\njust as the whole of the wine is thrown into the filters. Further, the\nexample of milk being made into cheese will show clearly what I mean.\nFor this, too, although it is all thrown into the wicker strainers,\ndoes not all percolate through; such part of it as is too fine in\nproportion to the width of the meshes passes downwards, and this is\ncalled _whey_ [serum]; the remaining thick portion which is destined\nto become cheese cannot get down, since the pores of the strainers\nwill not admit it. Thus it is that, if the blood-serum has similarly\nto percolate through the kidneys, the whole of the blood must come to\nthem, and not merely one part of it.\n\nWhat, then, is the appearance as found on dissection?\n\nOne division of the vena cava is carried upwards[138] to the heart,\nand the other mounts upon the spine and extends along its whole length\nas far as the legs; thus one division does not even come near the\nkidneys, while the other approaches them but is certainly not inserted\ninto them. Now, if the blood were destined to be purified by them as\nif they were sieves, the whole of it would have to fall into them, the\nthin part being thereafter conveyed downwards, and the thick part\nretained above. But, as a matter of fact, this is not so. For the\nkidneys lie on either side of the vena cava. They therefore do not act\nlike sieves, filtering fluid sent to them by the vena cava, and\nthemselves contributing no force. They obviously exert traction; for\nthis is the only remaining alternative.\n\n_How_, then, do they exert this traction? If, as Epicurus thinks, all\nattraction takes place by virtue of the _rebounds_ and _entanglements_\nof atoms, it would be certainly better to maintain that the kidneys\nhave no attractive action at all; for his theory, when examined, would\nbe found as it stands to be much more ridiculous even than the theory\nof the lodestone, mentioned a little while ago. Attraction occurs in\nthe way that Hippocrates laid down; this will be stated more clearly\nas the discussion proceeds; for the present our task is not to\ndemonstrate this, but to point out that no other cause of the\nsecretion of urine can be given except that of attraction by the\nkidneys,[139] and that this attraction does not take place in the way\nimagined by people who do not allow Nature a faculty of her own.[140]\n\nFor if it be granted that there is any attractive faculty at all in\nthose things which are governed by Nature,[141] a person who attempted\nto say anything else about the absorption of nutriment[142] would be\nconsidered a fool.\n\n\n                       XV\n\n  Epei d' hikan\u00f4s \u00eadolesch\u00easamen ouch hekontes, all', h\u00f4s\n  h\u00ea paroimia ph\u00easi, mainomenois anankasthentes\n  sym||man\u00eanai, palin epi t\u00ean t\u00f4n our\u00f4n epanelth\u00f4men             57\n  diakrisin, en h\u00ea t\u00f4n men Askl\u00eapiadou l\u00ear\u00f4n\n  epilath\u00f4metha, meta de t\u00f4n pepeismen\u00f4n di\u00eatheisthai ta\n  oura dia t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n, tis ho tropos t\u00eas energeias estin,\n  episkeps\u00f4metha; pant\u00f4s gar \u00ea ex haut\u00f4n epi tous nephrous\n  pheretai ta oura touto beltion einai nomizonta, kathaper\n  h\u00eameis, hopotan eis t\u00ean agoran api\u00f4men; \u00ea, ei tout'\n  adynaton, heteron ti chr\u00ea t\u00eas phoras aut\u00f4n exeurein\n  aition. ti d\u00ea tout' estin? ei gar m\u00ea tois nephrois\n  d\u00f4somen tina dynamin helktik\u00ean t\u00eas toiaut\u00eas poiot\u00eatos,\n  h\u00f4s Hippokrat\u00eas enomizen, ouden heteron exeur\u00easomen.\n  hoti men gar \u00eatoi toutous helkein auto pros\u00eaken \u00ea tas\n  phlebas pempein, eiper ge m\u00ea ex heautou pheretai, panti\n  pou d\u00ealon. all' ei men hai phlebes peristellomenai\n  pro\u00f4thoien, ouk ekeino monon, alla syn aut\u00f4 kai to pan\n  haima to periechomenon en heautais eis tous nephrous\n  ekthlipsousin; ei de tout' adynaton, h\u00f4s deixomen,\n  leipetai tous nephrous helkein.\n\n  P\u00f4s oun adynaton touto? t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n h\u00ea thesis\n  antibainei. ou gar d\u00ea hout\u00f4 g' hypokeintai t\u00ea koil\u00ea\n  phlebi || kathaper tois ex enkephalou peritt\u00f4masin en te       58\n  t\u00ea rhini kai kata t\u00ean hyper\u00f4an hoi tois \u00eathmois homoioi\n  poroi, all' hekater\u00f4then aut\u00ea parakeintai. kai m\u00ean,\n  eiper homoi\u00f4s tois \u00eathmois hoson an \u00ea leptoteron kai\n  tele\u00f4s orrh\u00f4des, touto men hetoim\u00f4s diapempousi, to de\n  pachyteron apostegousin, hapan ep' autous ienai chr\u00ea to\n  haima to periechomenon en t\u00ea koil\u00ea phlebi, kathaper eis\n  tous tryg\u00eatous ho pas oinos emballetai. kai men ge kai\n  to tou galaktos tou tyroumenou paradeigma saph\u00f4s an, ho\n  boulomai legein, endeixaito. kai gar kai touto pan\n  embl\u00eathen eis tous talarous ou pan di\u00eatheitai, all'\n  hoson men an \u00ea leptoteron t\u00eas euryt\u00eatos t\u00f4n plokam\u00f4n,\n  eis to katantes pheretai kai touto men orrhos\n  eponomazetai; to loipon de to pachy to mellon esesthai\n  tyros, h\u00f4s an ou paradechomen\u00f4n auto t\u00f4n en tois\n  talarois por\u00f4n, ou diekpiptei kat\u00f4. kai toinyn, eiper\n  hout\u00f4 mellei di\u00eatheisthai t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n ho tou haimatos\n  orrhos, hapan ep' autous h\u00eakein chr\u00ea to haima kai m\u00ea to\n  men nai, to d' ou. ||                                          59\n\n  P\u00f4s oun echei to phainomenon ek t\u00eas anatom\u00eas?\n\n  To men heteron meros t\u00eas koil\u00eas an\u00f4 pros t\u00ean kardian\n  anapheretai, to loipon d' epibainei t\u00ea rhachei kath'\n  hol\u00eas aut\u00eas ekteinomenon achri t\u00f4n skel\u00f4n, h\u00f4ste to men\n  heteron oud' engys aphikneitai t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n, to loipon de\n  pl\u00easiazei men, ou m\u00ean eis autous ge kataphyetai. echr\u00ean\n  d', eiper emellen h\u00f4s di' \u00eathm\u00f4n aut\u00f4n katharth\u00easesthai\n  to haima, pan empiptein eis autous kapeita kat\u00f4 men\n  pheresthai to lepton, ischesthai d' an\u00f4 to pachy. nyni\n  d' ouch hout\u00f4s echei; plagioi gar hekater\u00f4then t\u00eas\n  koil\u00eas phlebos hoi nephroi keintai. oukoun h\u00f4s \u00eathmoi\n  di\u00eathousi, pempous\u00eas men ekein\u00eas, autoi d' oudemian\n  eispheromenoi dynamin, all' helkousi d\u00ealonoti; touto gar\n  eti leipetai.\n\n  P\u00f4s oun helkousin? ei men, h\u00f4s Epikouros oietai tas\n  holkas hapasas gignesthai kata tas t\u00f4n atom\u00f4n apopalseis\n  te kai periplokas, ameinon \u00ean ont\u00f4s eipein autous m\u00ead'\n  helkein hol\u00f4s; poly gar an hout\u00f4 ge t\u00f4n epi t\u00eas\n  h\u00earakleias lithou mikr\u00f4 prosthen eir\u00ea||men\u00f4n ho logos          60\n  exetazomenos heurethei\u00ea geloioteros; all' h\u00f4s\n  Hippokrat\u00eas \u00eabouleto. lechth\u00easetai de saphesteron epi\n  pro\u00eakonti t\u00f4 log\u00f4. nyni gar ou touto prokeitai\n  didaskein, all' h\u00f4s out' allo ti dynaton eipein aition\n  einai t\u00eas t\u00f4n our\u00f4n diakrise\u00f4s pl\u00ean t\u00eas holk\u00eas t\u00f4n\n  nephr\u00f4n outh' hout\u00f4 gignesthai t\u00ean holk\u00ean, h\u00f4s hoi\n  m\u00eademian oikeian didontes t\u00ea physei dynamin oiontai\n  gignesthai.\n\n  Toutou gar homolog\u00eathentos, h\u00f4s estin hol\u00f4s tis en tois\n  hypo physe\u00f4s dioikoumenois dynamis helktik\u00ea, l\u00ear\u00f4d\u00eas\n  nomizoit' an ho peri anadose\u00f4s troph\u00eas allo ti legein\n  epicheir\u00f4n.\n\n\n                             XVI\n\nNow, while Erasistratus[143] for some reason replied at great length\nto certain other foolish doctrines, he entirely passed over the view\nheld by Hippocrates, not even thinking it worth while to mention it,\nas he did in his work \"On Deglutition\"; in that work, as may be seen,\nhe did go so far as at least to make mention of the word _attraction_,\nwriting somewhat as follows:\n\n\"Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any attraction.\"[143]\nBut when he is dealing with _anadosis_ he does not mention the\nHippocratic view even to the extent of a single syllable. Yet we\nshould have been satisfied if he had even merely written this:\n\"Hippocrates lies in saying 'The flesh[144] attracts both from the\nstomach and from without,' for it cannot attract either from the\nstomach or from without.\" Or if he had thought it worth while to state\nthat Hippocrates was wrong in criticizing the weakness of the neck of\nthe uterus, \"seeing that the orifice of the uterus has no power of\nattracting semen,\"[145] or if he [Erasistratus] had thought proper to\nwrite any other similar opinion, then we in our turn would have\ndefended ourselves in the following terms:\n\n\"My good sir, do not run us down in this rhetorical fashion without\nsome proof; state some definite objection to our view, in order that\neither you may convince us by a brilliant refutation of the ancient\ndoctrine, or that, on the other hand, we may convert you from your\nignorance.\" Yet why do I say \"rhetorical\"? For we too are not to\nsuppose that when certain rhetoricians pour ridicule upon that which\nthey are quite incapable of refuting, without any attempt at argument,\ntheir words are really thereby constituted rhetoric. For rhetoric\nproceeds by persuasive reasoning; words without reasoning are\nbuffoonery rather than rhetoric. Therefore, the reply of Erasistratus\nin his treatise \"On Deglutition\" was neither rhetoric nor logic. For\nwhat is it that he says? \"Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise\nany traction.\" Let us testify against him in return, and set our\nargument beside his in the same form. _Now, there appears to be no\nperistalsis[146] of the gullet._ \"And how does this appear?\" one of\nhis adherents may perchance ask. \"For is it not indicative of\n_peristalsis_ that always when the upper parts of the gullet contract\nthe lower parts dilate?\" Again, then, we say, \"And in what way does\nthe attraction of the stomach not appear? For is it not indicative of\n_attraction_ that always when the lower parts of the gullet dilate the\nupper parts contract?\" Now, if he would but be sensible and recognize\nthat this phenomenon is not more indicative of the one than of the\nother view, but that it applies equally to both,[147] we should then\nshow him without further delay the proper way to the discovery of\ntruth.\n\nWe will, however, speak about the stomach again. And the dispersal of\nnutriment [anadosis] need not make us have recourse to the theory\nregarding the _natural tendency of a vacuum to become refilled_,[148]\nwhen once we have granted the attractive faculty of the kidneys. Now,\nalthough Erasistratus knew that this faculty most certainly existed,\nhe neither mentioned it nor denied it, nor did he make any statement\nas to his views on the secretion of urine.\n\nWhy did he give notice at the very beginning of his \"General\nPrinciples\" that he was going to speak about natural\nactivities--firstly what they are, how they take place, and in what\nsituations--and then, in the case of urinary secretion, declared that\nthis took place through the kidneys, but left out its method of\noccurrence? It must, then, have been for no purpose that he told us\nhow digestion occurs, or spends time upon the secretion of biliary\nsuperfluities;[149] for in these cases also it would have been\nsufficient to have named the parts through which the function takes\nplace, and to have omitted the method. On the contrary, in these cases\nhe was able to tell us not merely through what organs, but also in\nwhat way it occurs--as he also did, I think, in the case of\n_anadosis_; for he was not satisfied with saying that this took place\nthrough the veins, but he also considered fully the method, which he\nheld to be from the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled.\nConcerning the secretion of urine, however, he writes that this occurs\nthrough the kidneys, but does not add in what _way_ it occurs. I do\nnot think he could say that this was from the tendency of matter to\nfill a vacuum,[150] for, if this were so, nobody would have ever died\nof retention of urine, since no more can flow into a vacuum than has\nrun out. For, if no other factor comes into operation[151] save only\nthis tendency by which a vacuum becomes refilled, no more could ever\nflow in than had been evacuated. Nor could he suggest any other\nplausible cause, such, for example, as the expression of nutriment by\nthe stomach[152] which occurs in the process of anadosis; this had\nbeen entirely disproved in the case of blood in the vena cava;[153] it\nis excluded, not merely owing to the long distance, but also from the\nfact that the overlying heart, at each diastole, robs the vena cava by\nviolence of a considerable quantity of blood.\n\nIn relation to the lower part of the vena cava[154] there would still\nremain, solitary and abandoned, the specious theory concerning the\nfilling of a vacuum. This, however, is deprived of plausibility by the\nfact that people die of retention of urine, and also, no less, by the\nsituation of the kidneys. For, if the whole of the blood were carried\nto the kidneys, one might properly maintain that it all undergoes\npurification there. But, as a matter of fact, the whole of it does not\ngo to them, but only so much as can be contained in the veins going to\nthe kidneys;[155] this portion only, therefore, will be purified.\nFurther, the thin serous part of this will pass through the kidneys as\nif through a sieve, while the thick sanguineous portion remaining in\nthe veins will obstruct the blood flowing in from behind; this will\nfirst, therefore, have to run back to the vena cava, and so to empty\nthe veins going to the kidneys; these veins will no longer be able to\nconduct a second quantity of unpurified blood to the kidneys--occupied\nas they are by the blood which had preceded, there is no passage left.\nWhat power have we, then, which will draw back the purified blood from\nthe kidneys? And what power, in the next place, will bid this blood\nretire to the lower part of the vena cava, and will enjoin on another\nquantity coming from above not to proceed downwards before turning off\ninto the kidneys?\n\nNow Erasistratus realized that all these ideas were open to many\nobjections, and he could only find one idea which held good in all\nrespects--namely, that of _attraction_. Since, therefore, he did not\nwish either to get into difficulties or to mention the view of\nHippocrates, he deemed it better to say nothing at all as to the\nmanner in which secretion occurs.\n\nBut even if he kept silence, I am not going to do so. For I know that\nif one passes over the Hippocratic view and makes some other\npronouncement about the function of the kidneys, one cannot fail to\nmake oneself utterly ridiculous. It was for this reason that\nErasistratus kept silence and Asclepiades lied; they are like slaves\nwho have had plenty to say in the early part of their career, and have\nmanaged by excessive rascality to escape many and frequent\naccusations, but who, later, when caught in the act of thieving,\ncannot find any excuse; the more modest one then keeps silence, as\nthough thunderstruck, whilst the more shameless continues to hide the\nmissing article beneath his arm and denies on oath that he has ever\nseen it. For it was in this way also that Asclepiades, when all subtle\nexcuses had failed him and there was no longer any room for nonsense\nabout \"conveyance towards the rarefied part [of the air],\"[156] and\nwhen it was impossible without incurring the greatest derision to say\nthat this superfluity [_i.e._ the urine] is generated by the kidneys\nas is bile by the canals in the liver--he, then, I say, clearly lied\nwhen he swore that the urine does not reach the kidneys, and\nmaintained that it passes, in the form of vapour, straight from the\nregion of the vena cava,[157] to collect in the bladder.\n\nLike slaves, then, caught in the act of stealing, these two are quite\nbewildered, and while the one says nothing, the other indulges in\nshameless lying.\n\n\n                      XVI\n\n  Erasistratos d' ouk oid' hop\u00f4s heterais men tisi doxais\n  eu\u00eathesin anteipe dia makr\u00f4n, hypereb\u00ea de tele\u00f4s t\u00ean\n  Hippokratous, oud' achri tou mn\u00eamoneusai monon aut\u00eas,\n  h\u00f4s en tois peri katapose\u00f4s epoi\u00easen, axi\u00f4sas. en\n  ekeinois men gar achri tosoutou phainetai mn\u00eamoneu\u00f4n,\n  h\u00f4s tounom' eipein t\u00eas holk\u00eas monon h\u00f4de p\u00f4s graph\u00f4n;\n\n  \"Holk\u00ea men oun t\u00eas koilias oudemia phainetai einai\";\n  peri de t\u00eas || anadose\u00f4s ton logon poioumenos oud' achri       61\n  syllab\u00eas mias emn\u00eamoneuse t\u00eas Hippokrateiou dox\u00eas.\n  kaitoi g' ep\u00earkesen an h\u00eamin, ei kai tout' egrapse\n  monon, h\u00f4s Hippokrat\u00eas eip\u00f4n \"Sarkes holkoi kai ek\n  koili\u00eas kai ex\u00f4then\" pseudetai; oute gar ek t\u00eas koilias\n  out' ex\u00f4then helkein dynantai. ei de kai hoti m\u00eatras\n  aiti\u00f4menos arrh\u00f4ston auchena kak\u00f4s eipen \"Ou gar dynatai\n  aute\u00eas ho stomachos eirysai t\u00ean gon\u00ean,\" \u00ea ei kai ti\n  toiouton allo graphein ho Erasistratos \u00eaxi\u00f4se, tot' an\n  kai h\u00eameis pros auton apologoumenoi eipomen;\n\n  \u00d4 gennaie, m\u00ea rh\u00eatorik\u00f4s h\u00eam\u00f4n katatreche ch\u00f4ris\n  apodeixe\u00f4s, all' eipe tina kat\u00eagorian tou dogmatos, hin'\n  \u00ea peisth\u00f4men soi h\u00f4s kal\u00f4s exelenchonti ton palaion\n  logon \u00ea metapeis\u00f4men h\u00f4s agnoounta. kaitoi ti leg\u00f4\n  rh\u00eatorik\u00f4s? m\u00ea gar, epeid\u00ea tines t\u00f4n rh\u00eator\u00f4n, ha\n  malist' adynatousi dialyesthai, tauta diagelasantes oud'\n  epicheirousin antilegein, \u00ead\u00ea pou touto kai h\u00eameis\n  h\u00eag\u00f4meth' einai to rh\u00eatorik\u00f4s; to gar dia logou pithanou\n  esti to || rh\u00eatorik\u00f4s, to d' aneu logou b\u00f4molochikon, ou       62\n  rh\u00eatorikon. oukoun oute rh\u00eatorik\u00f4s oute dialektik\u00f4s\n  anteipen ho Erasistratos en t\u00f4 peri t\u00eas katapose\u00f4s log\u00f4.\n  ti gar ph\u00easin? \"Holk\u00ea men oun t\u00eas koilias oudemia\n  phainetai einai.\" palin oun aut\u00f4 par' h\u00eam\u00f4n antimartyr\u00f4n\n  ho autos logos antiparaballesth\u00f4; peristol\u00ea men oun tou\n  stomachou oudemia phainetai einai. kai p\u00f4s ou phainetai?\n  tach' an is\u00f4s eipoi tis t\u00f4n ap' autou; to gar aei t\u00f4n\n  an\u00f4then autou mer\u00f4n systellomen\u00f4n diastellesthai ta kat\u00f4\n  p\u00f4s ouk esti t\u00eas peristol\u00eas endeiktikon? authis oun\n  h\u00eameis, kai p\u00f4s ou phainetai, ph\u00easomen, h\u00ea t\u00eas koilias\n  holk\u00ea? to gar aei t\u00f4n kat\u00f4then mer\u00f4n tou stomachou\n  diastellomen\u00f4n systellesthai ta an\u00f4 p\u00f4s ouk esti t\u00eas\n  holk\u00eas endeiktikon? ei de s\u00f4phron\u00easeie pote kai gnoi\u00ea to\n  phainomenon touto m\u00eaden mallon t\u00eas heteras t\u00f4n dox\u00f4n\n  hyparchein endeiktikon all' amphoter\u00f4n einai koinon,\n  hout\u00f4s an \u00ead\u00ea deixaimen aut\u00f4 t\u00ean orth\u00ean hodon t\u00eas tou\n  al\u00eathous heurese\u00f4s.\n\n  Alla peri men t\u00eas koilias authis. h\u00ea de t\u00eas troph\u00eas\n  anadosis ouden deitai || t\u00eas pros to kenoumenon                63\n  akolouthias hapax ge t\u00eas helktik\u00eas dyname\u00f4s epi t\u00f4n\n  nephr\u00f4n h\u00f4molog\u00eamen\u00eas, h\u00ean kaitoi pany saph\u00f4s al\u00eath\u00ea\n  gign\u00f4sk\u00f4n hyparchein ho Erasistratos out' emn\u00eamoneusen\n  out' anteipen outh' hol\u00f4s apeph\u00eanato, tin' echei doxan\n  hyper t\u00eas t\u00f4n our\u00f4n diakrise\u00f4s.\n\n  \u00ca dia ti proeip\u00f4n euthys kat' archas t\u00f4n kath' holou\n  log\u00f4n, h\u00f4s hyper t\u00f4n physik\u00f4n energei\u00f4n erei, pr\u00f4ton\n  tines t' eisi kai p\u00f4s gignontai kai dia tin\u00f4n top\u00f4n, epi\n  t\u00eas t\u00f4n our\u00f4n diakrise\u00f4s, hoti men dia nephr\u00f4n,\n  apeph\u00eanato, to d' hop\u00f4s gignetai parelipe? mat\u00ean oun\n  h\u00eamas kai peri t\u00eas pepse\u00f4s edidaxen, hop\u00f4s gignetai, kai\n  peri t\u00eas tou chol\u00f4dous peritt\u00f4matos diakrise\u00f4s\n  katatribei. \u00earkei gar eipein kantautha ta moria, di' h\u00f4n\n  gignetai, to d' hop\u00f4s paralipein. alla peri men ekein\u00f4n\n  eiche legein, ou monon di' h\u00f4n organ\u00f4n alla kai kath'\n  hontina gignetai tropon, h\u00f4sper oimai kai peri t\u00eas\n  anadose\u00f4s; ou gar \u00earkesen eipein aut\u00f4 monon, hoti dia\n  phleb\u00f4n, alla kai p\u00f4s epex\u00ealthen, hoti t\u00ea pros || to           64\n  kenoumenon akolouthia; peri de t\u00f4n our\u00f4n t\u00eas diakrise\u00f4s,\n  hoti men dia nephr\u00f4n gignetai, graphei, to d' hop\u00f4s\n  ouketi prostith\u00easin. oude gar oimai t\u00ea pros to\n  kenoumenon akolouthia \u00ean eipein; hout\u00f4 gar an oudeis\n  hyp' ischourias apethanen oudepote m\u00ea dynamenou pleionos\n  epirrhy\u00eanai pote para to kenoumenon; all\u00eas gar aitias\n  m\u00eademias prostetheis\u00eas, alla mon\u00eas t\u00eas pros to\n  kenoumenon akolouthias pod\u00eagous\u00eas to syneches, ouk\n  ench\u00f4rei pleon epirrhy\u00eanai pote tou kenoumenou. all'\n  oud' all\u00ean tina prostheinai pithan\u00ean aitian eichen, h\u00f4s\n  epi t\u00eas anadose\u00f4s t\u00ean ekthlipsin t\u00eas gastros. all' haut\u00ea\n  g' epi tou kata t\u00ean koil\u00ean haimatos ap\u00f4l\u00f4lei tele\u00f4s, ou\n  t\u00f4 m\u00eakei monon t\u00eas apostase\u00f4s eklytheisa, alla kai t\u00f4\n  t\u00ean kardian hyperkeimen\u00ean exarpazein aut\u00eas sphodr\u00f4s\n  kath' hekast\u00ean diastol\u00ean ouk oligon haima.\n\n  Mon\u00ea d\u00ea tis eti kai pant\u00f4n er\u00eamos apeleipeto t\u00f4n\n  sophismat\u00f4n en tois kat\u00f4 t\u00eas koil\u00eas h\u00ea pros || to              65\n  kenoumenon akolouthia, dia te tous epi tais ischouriais\n  apothn\u00easkontas apol\u00f4lekuia t\u00ean pithanot\u00eata kai dia t\u00ean\n  t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n thesin ouden h\u00eatton, ei men gar hapan ep'\n  autous ephereto to haima, deont\u00f4s an tis hapan ephasken\n  auto kathairesthai. nyni de, ou gar holon alla tosouton\n  autou meros, hoson hai mechri nephr\u00f4n dechontai phlebes,\n  ep' autous erchetai, monon ekeino katharth\u00easetai. kai to\n  men orrh\u00f4des autou kai lepton hoion di' \u00eathm\u00f4n tin\u00f4n t\u00f4n\n  nephr\u00f4n diadysetai; to d' haimat\u00f4des te kai pachy kata\n  tas phlebas hypomenon empod\u00f4n st\u00easetai t\u00f4 katopin\n  epirrheonti. palindromein oun auto proteron epi t\u00ean\n  koil\u00ean anankaion kai kenas hout\u00f4s ergazesthai tas epi\n  tous nephrous iousas phlebas, hai deuteron ouketi\n  parakomiousin ep' autous akatharton haima; kateil\u00eaphotos\n  gar autas tou proterou parodos oudemia leleiptai. tis\n  oun h\u00eamin h\u00ea dynamis apaxei palin opis\u00f4 t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n to\n  katharon haima? tis de touto men diadexamen\u00ea keleusei\n  palin pros to kat\u00f4 meros ienai t\u00eas koil\u00eas, heter\u00f4 d'\n  an\u00f4then epipheromen\u00f4 prostaxei, prin || epi tous               66\n  nephrous apelthein, m\u00ea pheresthai kat\u00f4?\n\n  Taut' oun hapanta synid\u00f4n ho Erasistratos apori\u00f4n mesta\n  kai mian mon\u00ean doxan euporon heur\u00f4n en hapasi t\u00ean t\u00eas\n  holk\u00eas, out' aporeisthai boulomenos oute t\u00ean\n  Hippokratous ethel\u00f4n legein ameinon hypelabe si\u00f4p\u00eateon\n  einai peri tou tropou t\u00eas diakrise\u00f4s.\n\n  All' ei kakeinos esig\u00easen, h\u00eameis ou si\u00f4p\u00easomen; ismen\n  gar, h\u00f4s ouk endechetai parelthonta t\u00ean Hippokrateion\n  doxan, eith' heteron ti peri nephr\u00f4n energeias eiponta\n  m\u00ea ou katagelaston einai pantapasi. dia tout'\n  Erasistratos men esi\u00f4p\u00easen, Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas d' epseusato\n  parapl\u00easi\u00f4s oiketais lalois men ta prosthen tou biou kai\n  polla pollakis enkl\u00eamata dialysamenois hypo peritt\u00eas\n  panourgias, ep' autoph\u00f4r\u00f4 de pote kateil\u00eammenois, eit'\n  ouden exeuriskousi sophisma kapeit' entautha tou men\n  aid\u00eamonesterou si\u00f4p\u00f4ntos, hoion apopl\u00eaxia tini\n  kateil\u00eammenou, tou d' anaischyntoterou kryptontos men\n  eth' hypo mal\u00eas to z\u00eatoumenon, exomnymenou de kai m\u00ead'\n  he\u00f4rakenai p\u00f4pote phaskontos. hout\u00f4 gar toi kai ho\n  Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas || epileipont\u00f4n auton t\u00f4n t\u00eas panourgias           67\n  sophismat\u00f4n kai m\u00eate t\u00eas pros to leptomeres phoras\n  echous\u00eas eti ch\u00f4ran entauthoi l\u00eareisthai m\u00eath' h\u00f4s hypo\n  t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n gennatai touti to peritt\u00f4ma, kathaper hypo\n  t\u00f4n en h\u00eapati por\u00f4n h\u00ea chol\u00ea, dynaton on eiponta m\u00ea ou\n  megiston ophlein gel\u00f4ta, exomnytai te kai pseudetai\n  phaner\u00f4s, ou di\u00eakein leg\u00f4n epi tous nephrous to ouron\n  all' atmoeid\u00f4s euthys ek t\u00f4n kata t\u00ean koil\u00ean mer\u00f4n eis\n  t\u00ean kystin athroizesthai.\n\n  Houtoi men oun tois ep' autoph\u00f4r\u00f4 kateil\u00eammenois\n  oiketais homoi\u00f4s ekplagentes ho men esi\u00f4p\u00easen, ho d'\n  anaischynt\u00f4s pseudetai.\n\n\n                            XVII\n\nNow such of the younger men as have dignified themselves with the\nnames of these two authorities by taking the appellations\n\"Erasistrateans\" or \"Asclepiadeans\" are like the _Davi_ and\n_Getae_--the slaves introduced by the excellent Menander into his\ncomedies. As these slaves held that they had done nothing fine unless\nthey had cheated their master three times, so also the men I am\ndiscussing have taken their time over the construction of impudent\nsophisms, the one party striving to prevent the lies of Asclepiades\nfrom ever being refuted, and the other saying stupidly what\nErasistratus had the sense to keep silence about.\n\nBut enough about the Asclepiadeans. The Erasistrateans, in attempting\nto say how the kidneys let the urine through, will do anything or\nsuffer anything or try any shift in order to find some plausible\nexplanation which does not demand the principle of _attraction_.\n\nNow those near the times of Erasistratus maintain that the parts above\nthe kidneys receive pure blood, whilst the watery residue, being\nheavy, tends to run downwards; that this, after percolating through\nthe kidneys themselves, is thus rendered serviceable, and is sent, as\nblood, to all the parts below the kidneys.\n\nFor a certain period at least this view also found favour and\nflourished, and was held to be true; after a time, however, it became\nsuspect to the Erasistrateans themselves, and at last they abandoned\nit. For apparently the following two points were assumed, neither of\nwhich is conceded by anyone, nor is even capable of being proved. The\nfirst is the heaviness of the serous fluid, which was said to be\nproduced in the vena cava, and which did not exist, apparently, at the\nbeginning, when this fluid was being carried up from the stomach to\nthe liver. Why, then, did it not at once run downwards when it was in\nthese situations? And if the watery fluid is so heavy, what\nplausibility can anyone find in the statement that it assists in the\nprocess of _anadosis_?\n\nIn the second place there is this absurdity, that even if it be agreed\nthat all the watery fluid does fall downwards, and only when it is in\nthe vena cava,[158] still it is difficult, or, rather, impossible, to\nsay through what means it is going to fall into the kidneys, seeing\nthat these are not situated below, but on either side of the vena\ncava, and that the vena cava is not inserted into them, but merely\nsends a branch[159] into each of them, as it also does into all the\nother parts.\n\nWhat doctrine, then, took the place of this one when it was condemned?\nOne which to me seems far more foolish than the first, although it\nalso flourished at one time. For they say, that if oil be mixed with\nwater and poured upon the ground, each will take a different route,\nthe one flowing this way and the other that, and that, therefore, it\nis not surprising that the watery fluid runs into the kidneys, while\nthe blood falls downwards along the vena cava. Now this doctrine also\nstands already condemned. For why, of the countless veins which spring\nfrom the vena cava, should blood flow into all the others, and the\nserous fluid be diverted to those going to the kidneys? They have not\nanswered the question which was asked; they merely state what happens\nand imagine they have thereby assigned the reason.\n\nOnce again, then (the third cup to the Saviour!),[160] let us now\nspeak of the worst doctrine of all, lately invented by Lycus of\nMacedonia,[161] but which is popular owing to its novelty. This Lycus,\nthen, maintains, as though uttering an oracle from the inner\nsanctuary, that urine is _residual matter from the nutrition of the\nkidneys_![162] Now, the amount of urine passed every day shows clearly\nthat it is the whole of the fluid drunk which becomes urine, except\nfor that which comes away with the dejections or passes off as sweat\nor insensible perspiration. This is most easily recognized in winter\nin those who are doing no work but are carousing, especially if the\nwine be thin and diffusible; these people rapidly pass almost the same\nquantity as they drink. And that even Erasistratus was aware of this\nis known to those who have read the first book of his \"General\nPrinciples.\"[163] Thus Lycus is speaking neither good Erasistratism,\nnor good Asclepiadism, far less good Hippocratism. He is, therefore,\nas the saying is, like a white crow, which cannot mix with the genuine\ncrows owing to its colour, nor with the pigeons owing to its size. For\nall this, however, he is not to be disregarded; he may, perhaps, be\nstating some wonderful truth, unknown to any of his predecessors.\n\nNow it is agreed that all parts which are undergoing nutrition produce\na certain amount of residue, but it is neither agreed nor is it\nlikely, that the kidneys alone, small bodies as they are, could hold\nfour whole _congii_,[164] and sometimes even more, of residual matter.\nFor this surplus must necessarily be greater in quantity in each of\nthe larger viscera; thus, for example, that of the lung, if it\ncorresponds in amount to the size of the viscus, will obviously be\nmany times more than that in the kidneys, and thus the whole of the\nthorax will become filled, and the animal will be at once suffocated.\nBut if it be said that the residual matter is equal in amount in each\nof the other parts, where are the _bladders_, one may ask, through\nwhich it is excreted? For, if the kidneys produce in drinkers three\nand sometimes four _congii_ of superfluous matter, that of each of the\nother viscera will be much more, and thus an enormous barrel will be\nneeded to contain the waste products of them all. Yet one often\nurinates practically the same quantity as one has drunk, which would\nshow that the whole of what one drinks goes to the kidneys.\n\nThus the author of this third piece of trickery would appear to have\nachieved nothing, but to have been at once detected, and there still\nremains the original difficulty which was insoluble by Erasistratus\nand by all others except Hippocrates. I dwell purposely on this topic,\nknowing well that nobody else has anything to say about the function\nof the kidneys, but that either we must prove more foolish than the\nvery butchers[165] if we do not agree that the urine passes through\nthe kidneys; or, if one acknowledges this, that then one cannot\npossibly give any other reason for the secretion than the principle of\nattraction.\n\nNow, if the movement of urine does not depend on the tendency of a\nvacuum to become refilled,[166] it is clear that neither does that of\nthe blood nor that of the bile; or if that of these latter does so,\nthen so also does that of the former. For they must all be\naccomplished in one and the same way, even according to Erasistratus\nhimself.\n\nThis matter, however, will be discussed more fully in the book\nfollowing this.\n\n\n                     XVII\n\n  T\u00f4n de ne\u00f4ter\u00f4n hosoi tois tout\u00f4n onomasin heautous\n  esemnynan Erasistrateious te kai Askl\u00eapiadeious\n  eponomasantes, homoi\u00f4s tois hypo tou beltistou Menandrou\n  kata tas k\u00f4m\u00f4dias eisagomenois oiketais, Daois te tisi\n  kai Getais, ouden h\u00eagoumenois sphisi peprachthai\n  gennaion, ei m\u00ea tris exapat\u00easeian ton despot\u00ean, hout\u00f4\n  kai autoi kata poll\u00ean schol\u00ean anaischynta sophismata\n  synethesan, hoi men, hina m\u00ead' hol\u00f4s exelenchthei\u00ea pot'\n  || Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas pseudomenos, hoi d', hina kak\u00f4s eip\u00f4sin,        68\n  ha kal\u00f4s esi\u00f4p\u00easen Erasistratos.\n\n  Alla t\u00f4n men Askl\u00eapiadei\u00f4n halis. hoi d' Erasistrateioi\n  legein epicheirountes, hop\u00f4s hoi nephroi di\u00eathousi to\n  ouron, hapanta dr\u00f4si te kai paschousi kai pantoioi\n  gignontai pithanon exeurein ti z\u00eatountes aition holk\u00eas\n  m\u00ea deomenon.\n\n  Hoi men d\u00ea pl\u00easion Erasistratou tois chronois genomenoi\n  ta men an\u00f4 t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n moria katharon haima lambanein\n  phasi, t\u00f4 de baros echein to hydat\u00f4des peritt\u00f4ma\n  brithein te kai hyporrhein kat\u00f4; di\u00eathoumenon d'\n  entautha kata tous nephrous autous chr\u00easton hout\u00f4\n  genomenon hapasi tois kat\u00f4 t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n epipempesthai to\n  haima.\n\n  Kai mechri ge tinos eudokim\u00easen h\u00eade h\u00ea doxa kai \u00eakmase\n  kai al\u00eath\u00eas enomisth\u00ea; chron\u00f4 d' hysteron kai autois\n  tois Erasistrateiois hypoptos ephan\u00ea kai teleut\u00f4ntes\n  apest\u00easan aut\u00eas. aiteisthai gar edokoun dyo tauta m\u00eate\n  synch\u00f4roumena pros tinos all' oud' apodeichth\u00eanai\n  dynamena, pr\u00f4ton men to baros t\u00eas orrh\u00f4dous hygrot\u00eatos\n  en t\u00ea koil\u00ea || phlebi genn\u00f4menon, h\u00f4sper ouk ex arch\u00eas         69\n  hyparchon, hopot' ek t\u00eas koilias eis h\u00eapar anephereto.\n  ti d\u00ea oun ouk euthys en ekeinois tois ch\u00f4riois hyperrhei\n  kat\u00f4? p\u00f4s d' an t\u00f4 doxeien eulog\u00f4s eir\u00easthai syntelein\n  eis t\u00ean anadosin h\u00ea hydat\u00f4d\u00eas hygrot\u00eas, eiper hout\u00f4s\n  esti bareia?\n\n  Deuteron d' atopon, hoti kan kat\u00f4 synch\u00f4r\u00eath\u00ea pheresthai\n  pasa kai m\u00ea kat' allo ch\u00f4rion \u00ea t\u00ean koil\u00ean phleba, tina\n  tropon eis tous nephrous empeseitai, chalepon, mallon d'\n  adynaton eipein, m\u00eat' en tois kat\u00f4 meresi keimen\u00f4n aut\u00f4n\n  t\u00eas phlebos all' ek t\u00f4n plagi\u00f4n m\u00eat' emphyomen\u00eas eis\n  autous t\u00eas koil\u00eas all' apophysin tina monon eis\n  hekateron pempous\u00eas, h\u00f4sper kai eis talla panta moria.\n\n  Tis oun h\u00ea diadexamen\u00ea taut\u00ean doxa katagn\u00f4stheisan? emoi\n  men \u00ealithi\u00f4tera makr\u00f4 phainetai t\u00eas proteras. \u00eakmase d'\n  oun kai haut\u00ea pote. phasi gar, ei kata t\u00eas g\u00eas\n  ekchythei\u00ea memigmenon elaion hydati, diaphoron hekateron\n  hodon badieisthai kai rhy\u00easesthai to men t\u00eade, to de\n  t\u00eade. thaumaston oun ouden einai phasin, ei to men\n  hydat\u00f4des hygron eis tous ne||phrous rhei, to d' haima         70\n  dia t\u00eas koil\u00eas pheretai kat\u00f4. kategn\u00f4stai oun \u00ead\u00ea kai\n  h\u00eade h\u00ea doxa. dia ti gar apo t\u00eas koil\u00eas myri\u00f4n\n  ekpephykui\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n haima men eis tas allas hapasas, h\u00ea\n  d' orrh\u00f4d\u00eas hygrot\u00eas eis tas epi tous nephrous\n  pheromenas ektrepetai? tout' auto to z\u00eatoumenon ouk\n  eir\u00eakasin, alla to gignomenon eipontes monon oiontai t\u00ean\n  aitian apoded\u00f4kenai.\n\n  Palin oun, to triton t\u00f4 s\u00f4t\u00eari, t\u00ean cheirist\u00ean hapas\u00f4n\n  doxan exeur\u00eamen\u00ean nyn hypo Lykou tou Makedonos,\n  eudokimousan de dia to kainon \u00ead\u00ea leg\u00f4men. apeph\u00eanato\n  gar d\u00ea ho Lykos houtos, h\u00f4sper ex adytou tinos chr\u00easmon\n  apophthengomenos, peritt\u00f4ma t\u00eas t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n threpse\u00f4s\n  einai to ouron. hoti men oun auto to pinomenon hapan\n  ouron gignetai, pl\u00ean ei ti meta t\u00f4n diach\u00f4r\u00eamat\u00f4n\n  hyp\u00ealthen \u00ea eis hidr\u00f4tas apech\u00f4r\u00easen \u00ea eis t\u00ean ad\u00ealon\n  diapno\u00ean, enarg\u00f4s endeiknytai to pl\u00eathos t\u00f4n kath'\n  hekast\u00ean h\u00eameran ouroumen\u00f4n. en cheim\u00f4ni de malista\n  mathein estin epi t\u00f4n argount\u00f4n men, k\u00f4th\u00f4nizomen\u00f4n de,\n  kai malist' ei leptos ho oinos ei\u00ea kai porimos. ourousi\n  || gar houtoi dia tache\u00f4n oligou dein, hosonper kai            71\n  pinousin. hoti de kai ho Erasistratos hout\u00f4s egign\u00f4sken,\n  hoi to pr\u00f4ton anegn\u00f4kotes autou syngramma t\u00f4n katholou\n  log\u00f4n epistantai. h\u00f4sth' ho Lykos out' al\u00eath\u00ea phainetai\n  leg\u00f4n out' Erasistrateia, d\u00ealon d' h\u00f4s oud'\n  Askl\u00eapiadeia, poly de mallon oud' Hippokrateia. leuk\u00f4\n  toinyn kata t\u00ean paroimian eoike koraki m\u00eat' autois tois\n  koraxin anamichth\u00eanai dynamen\u00f4 dia t\u00ean chroan m\u00eate tais\n  peristerais dia to megethos, all' outi pou toutou g'\n  heneka paropteos; is\u00f4s gar ti legei thaumaston, ho\n  m\u00eadeis t\u00f4n emprosthen egn\u00f4.\n\n  To men oun hapanta ta trephomena moria poiein ti\n  peritt\u00f4ma synch\u00f4roumenon, to de tous nephrous monous,\n  hout\u00f4 smikra s\u00f4mata, choas holous tettaras \u00ea kai pleious\n  ischein eniote peritt\u00f4matos outh' homologoumenon oute\n  logon echon; to gar hekastou t\u00f4n meizon\u00f4n splanchn\u00f4n\n  peritt\u00f4ma pleion anankaion hyparchein. hoion autika to\n  tou pneumonos, eiper analogon t\u00f4 megethei tou splanchnou\n  gignoito, pollapla||sion estai d\u00eapou tou kata tous             72\n  nephrous, h\u00f4sth' holos men ho th\u00f4rax empl\u00easth\u00easetai,\n  pnig\u00easetai d' autika to z\u00f4on. all' ei ison ph\u00easei tis\n  gignesthai to kath' hekaston t\u00f4n all\u00f4n mori\u00f4n peritt\u00f4ma,\n  dia poi\u00f4n kyste\u00f4n ekkrinetai? ei gar hoi nephroi tois\n  k\u00f4th\u00f4nizomenois treis \u00ea tettaras eniote choas poiousi\n  peritt\u00f4matos, hekastou t\u00f4n all\u00f4n splanchn\u00f4n poll\u00f4\n  pleious esontai kai pithou tinos hout\u00f4 megistou de\u00easei\n  tou dexomenou ta pant\u00f4n peritt\u00f4mata. kaitoi pollakis,\n  hoson epie tis, oligou dein our\u00easen hapan, h\u00f4s an epi\n  tous nephrous pheromenou tou pomatos hapantos.\n\n  Eoiken oun ho to triton exapat\u00f4n houtos ouden anyein\n  all' euthys gegonenai kataph\u00f4ros kai menein eti to ex\n  arch\u00eas aporon Erasistrat\u00f4 te kai tois allois hapasi pl\u00ean\n  Hippokratous. diatrib\u00f4 d' hek\u00f4n en t\u00f4 top\u00f4 saph\u00f4s eid\u00f4s,\n  hoti m\u00eaden eipein echei m\u00eadeis allos peri t\u00eas t\u00f4n\n  nephr\u00f4n energeias, all' anankaion \u00ea t\u00f4n mageir\u00f4n\n  amathesterous phainesthai m\u00ead' hoti di\u00eatheitai di' aut\u00f4n\n  to ouron homologountas \u00ea || touto synch\u00f4r\u00easantas m\u00eaden         73\n  et' echein eipein heteron aition t\u00eas diakrise\u00f4s pl\u00ean t\u00eas\n  holk\u00eas.\n\n  All' ei m\u00ea t\u00f4n our\u00f4n h\u00ea phora t\u00ea pros to kenoumenon\n  akolouthia gignetai, d\u00ealon, h\u00f4s oud' h\u00ea tou haimatos\n  oud' h\u00ea t\u00eas chol\u00eas \u00ea eiper ekein\u00f4n kai toutou; panta gar\n  h\u00f4saut\u00f4s anankaion epiteleisthai kai kat' auton ton\n  Erasistraton.\n\n  Eir\u00easetai d' epi pleon hyper aut\u00f4n en t\u00f4 meta tauta\n  grammati.\n\n\n    [5] That is, \"On the Natural Powers,\" the powers of the\n    _Physis_ or Nature. By that Galen practically means what\n    we would call the physiological or biological powers,\n    the characteristic faculties of the living organism; his\n    Physis is the subconscious vital principle of the animal\n    or plant. Like Aristotle, however, he also ascribes\n    quasi-vital properties to inanimate things, _cf._\n    Introduction, p. xxvii.\n\n    [6] _Ergon_, here rendered an _effect_, is literally a\n    _work_ or _deed_; strictly speaking, it is something\n    _done_, _completed_, as distinguished from _energeia_,\n    which is the actual _doing_, the _activity_ which\n    produces this _ergon_, _cf._ p. 13, and Introduction, p.\n    xxx.\n\n    [7] Gk. _psyche_, Lat. _anima_.\n\n    [8] Gk. _physis_, Lat. _natura_.\n\n    [9] _Motion_ (kinesis) is Aristotle's general term for\n    what we would rather call _change_. It includes various\n    kinds of change, as well as movement proper, _cf._\n    Introduction, p. xxix.\n\n    [10] \"Conveyance,\" \"transport,\" \"transit\"; purely\n    mechanical or passive motion, as distinguished from\n    _alteration_ (qualitative change).\n\n    [11] \"Waxing and waning,\" the latter literally\n    _phthisis_, a wasting or \"decline;\" _cf._ Scotch\n    _divining_, Dutch _verdwijnen_.\n\n    [12] Becoming and perishing: Latin, _generatio et\n    corruptio_.\n\n    [13] \"Ad substantiam productio seu ad formam processus\"\n    (Linacre).\n\n    [14] \"Preformationist\" doctrine of Anaxagoras. To him\n    the apparent alteration in qualities took place when a\n    number of minute pre-existing bodies, all bearing the\n    same quality, came together in sufficient numbers to\n    impress that quality on the senses. The factor which\n    united the minute quality-bearers was Nous. \"In the\n    beginning,\" says Anaxagoras, \"all things existed\n    together--then came Nous and brought them into order.\"\n\n    [15] \"De ea alteratione quae per totam fit substantiam\"\n    (Linacre).\n\n    [16] The systematizer of Stoicism and successor of Zeno.\n\n    [17] Note characteristic impatience with metaphysics. To\n    Galen, as to Hippocrates and Aristotle, it sufficed to\n    look on the qualitative differences apprehended by the\n    senses as fundamental. Zeno of Citium was the founder of\n    the Stoic school; on the further analysis by this school\n    of the _qualities_ into _bodies_ _cf._ p. 144, note 3\n    (203).\n\n    [18] A rallying-ground: lit. a place where two glens\n    meet.\n\n    [19] Thus according to Gomperz (_Greek Thinkers_), the\n    hypothesis of Anaxagoras was that \"the bread ... already\n    contained the countless forms of matter as such which\n    the human body displays. Their minuteness of size would\n    withdraw them from our perception. For the defect or\n    'weakness' of the senses is the narrowness of their\n    receptive area. These elusive particles are rendered\n    visible and tangible by the process of _nutrition_,\n    which combines them.\"\n\n    [20] Therefore the blood must have come from the bread.\n    The food from the alimentary canal was supposed by Galen\n    to be converted into blood in and by the portal veins,\n    _cf._ p. 17.\n\n    [21] By \"elements\" is meant all homogeneous, amorphous\n    substances, such as metals, &c., as well as the\n    elementary _tissues_.\n\n    [22] Work or product. Lat. _opus_. _cf._ p. 3, note 2\n    (6).\n\n    [23] Operation, activation, or functioning. Lat.\n    _actio_. _cf._ _loc. cit._\n\n    [24] _i.e._ a concomitant (secondary) or passive\n    affection. Galen is contrasting active and passive\n    \"motion.\" _cf._ p. 6, note 1 (10).\n\n    [25] As already indicated, there is no exact English\n    equivalent for the Greek term _physis_, which is a\n    principle immanent in the animal itself, whereas our\n    term \"Nature\" suggests something more transcendent; we\n    are forced often, however, to employ it in default of a\n    better word. _cf._ p. 2, note 1 (5).\n\n    [26] In Greek _anadosis_. This process includes two\n    stages: (1) transmission of food from alimentary canal\n    to liver (rather more than our \"absorption\"); (2)\n    further transmission from liver to tissues. _Anadosis_\n    is lit. a yielding-up, a \"delivery;\" it may sometimes be\n    rendered \"dispersal.\" \"Distribution\" (_diadosis_) is a\n    further stage; _cf._ p. 163, note 4 (230).\n\n    [27] _cf._ p. 9.\n\n    [28] Since heat and cold tend to cause diffusion and\n    condensation respectively.\n\n    [29] Lit. _haematopoietic_. _cf._ p. 11, note 3 (20).\n\n    [30] Lit. _peptic_.\n\n    [31] Lit. _sphygmic_.\n\n    [32] _Genesis_ corresponds to the intrauterine life, or\n    what we may call _embryogeny_. _Alteration_ here means\n    histogenesis or tissue-production; _shaping_ or\n    _moulding_ (in Greek _diaplasis_) means the ordering of\n    these tissues into organs (organogenesis).\n\n    [33] _cf._ p. 25, note 4 (49).\n\n    [34] Note inadequate analogy of semen with fertilised\n    seeds of plants (_i.e._ of gamete with zygote). Strictly\n    speaking, of course, semen corresponds to pollen. _cf._\n    p. 130, note 2 (188).\n\n    [35] _i.e._ the four primary qualities; _cf._ chap. iii.\n    _supra_.\n\n    [36] Various secondary or derivative differences in the\n    tissues. Note pre-eminence of sense of touch.\n\n    [37] _De Anima_, ii. _et seq._\n\n    [38] Lit. _homoeomerous_ = of similar parts throughout,\n    \"the same all through.\" He refers to the elementary\n    tissues, conceived as not being susceptible of further\n    analysis.\n\n    [39] That is, by the bodily eye, and not by the mind's\n    eye. The observer is here called an _autoptes_ or\n    \"eye-witness.\" Our medical term _autopsy_ thus means\n    literally a _persona inspection_ of internal parts,\n    ordinarily hidden.\n\n    [40] _i.e._ \"alteration\" is the earlier of the two\n    stages which constitute embryogeny or \"genesis.\" _cf._\n    p. 18, note 1 (32).\n\n    [41] The terms Galen actually uses are: _ostopoietic_,\n    _neuropoietic_, _chondropoietic_.\n\n    [42] As we should say, _parenchyma_ (a term used by\n    Erasistratus).\n\n    [43] Those were all the elemental tissues that\n    Aristotle, for example, had recognized; other tissues\n    (_e.g._ flesh or muscle) he believed to be complexes of\n    these.\n\n    [44] Or _tunics_.\n\n    [45] _i.e._ tissues.\n\n    [46] As, for example, Aristotle had held; _cf._ p. 23,\n    note 3 (43). Galen added many new tissues to those described\n    by Aristotle.\n\n    [47] Lit. _synthesis_.\n\n    [48] By this is meant the _duodenum_, considered as an\n    outgrowth or prolongation of the stomach towards the\n    intestines.\n\n    [49] _cf._ p. 19, note 2 (33).\n\n    [50] Lit. the _auxetic_ or _incremental_ faculty.\n\n    [51] _i.e._ to the alterative and shaping faculties\n    (histogenetic and organogenetic).\n\n    [52] If the reading is correct we can only suppose that\n    Galen meant _the embryo_.\n\n    [53] _i.e._ not the pre-natal development of tissue\n    already described. _cf._ chap. vi.\n\n    [54] Administration, lit. \"economy.\"\n\n    [55] The _activation_ or _functioning_ of this faculty,\n    the faculty _in actual operation_. _cf._ p. 3, note 2\n    (6).\n\n    [56] \"Un rapport commun et une affinit\u00e9\" (Daremberg).\n    \"Societatem aliquam cognationemque in qualitatibus\"\n    (Linacre). _cf._ p. 36, note 2 (61).\n\n    [57] Lit. \"necessity\"; more _restrictive_, however, than\n    our \"law of Nature.\" _cf._ p. 314, note 1 (386).\n\n    [58] His point is that no great change, in colours or in\n    anything else, can take place at one step.\n\n    [59] Not quite our \"waste _products_,\" since these are\n    considered as being partly synthetic, whereas the Greek\n    _perittomata_ were simply superfluous substances which\n    could not be used and were thrown aside.\n\n    [60] Note \"our natures,\" _cf._ p. 12, note 4 (25); p. 47,\n    note 1 (75).\n\n    [61] The term [Greek: oikeios], here rendered\n    _appropriate_, is explained on p. 33. _cf._ also\n    footnote on same page. Linacre often translated it\n    _conveniens_, and it may usually be rendered _proper_,\n    _peculiar_, _own special_, or _own particular_ in\n    English. Sometimes it is almost equal to _akin_,\n    _cognate_, _related_: _cf._ p. 319, note 2 (394). With\n    Galen's [Greek: oikeios] and [Greek: allotrios] we may\n    compare the German terms _eigen_ and _fremd_ used by\n    Aberhalden in connection with his theory of defensive\n    ferments in the blood-serum.\n\n    [62] Transit, _cf._ p. 6, note 1 (10).\n\n    [63] _i.e._ of the living organism, _cf._ p. 2, note 1\n    (5).\n\n    [64] _i.e._ with nutrition.\n\n    [65] We might perhaps say, more shortly, \"assimilation\n    of food to feeder,\" or, \"of food to fed\"; Linacre\n    renders, \"nutrimenti cum nutrito assimilatio.\"\n\n    [66] Lit. _prosphysis_, _i.e._ attachment, implantation.\n\n    [67] Lit. _prosthesis_, \"apposition.\" One is almost\n    tempted to retain the terms _prosthesis_ and\n    _prosphysis_ in translation, as they obviously\n    correspond much more closely to Galen's physiological\n    conceptions than any English or semi-English words can.\n\n    [68] Lit. _phthisis_. _cf._ p. 6, note 2 (11). Now\n    means _tuberculosis_ only.\n\n    [69] More literally, \"chymified.\" In _anasarca_ the\n    subcutaneous tissue is soft, and pits on pressure. In\n    the \"white\" disease referred to here (by which is\n    probably meant _nodular leprosy_) the same tissues are\n    indurated and \"brawny.\" The principle of certain\n    diseases being best explained as cases of _arrest_ at\n    various stages of the metabolic path is recognized in\n    modern pathology, although of course the instances given\n    by Galen are too crude to stand.\n\n    [70] The effects of _oxidation_ attributed to the heat\n    which accompanies it? _cf._ p. 141, note 1 (199); p.\n    254, note 1 (332).\n\n    [71] Here follows a contrast between the Vitalists and\n    the Epicurean Atomists. _cf._ p. 153 _et seq._\n\n    [72] A unity or _continuum_, an _individuum_.\n\n    [73] Lit. to the _physis_ or the _psyche_; that is, a\n    denial of the autonomy of physiology and psychology.\n\n    [74] Lit. _somata_.\n\n    [75] For \"natures\" in the plural, involving the idea of\n    a separate nature immanent in each individual, _cf._ p.\n    36, note 1 (60).\n\n    [76] A lost work.\n\n    [77] For Asclepiades _v._ p. 49, note 5 (82).\n\n    [78] \"Le corps tout entier a unit\u00e9 de souffle\n    (_perspiration et expiration_) et unit\u00e9 de flux\n    (_courants_, _circulation des liquides_)\" (Daremberg).\n    \"Conspirabile et confluxile corpus esse\" (Linacre).\n    Apparently Galen refers to the pneuma and the various\n    humours. _cf._ p. 293, note 2 (366).\n\n    [79] _i.e._ \"appropriated\"; very nearly \"assimilated.\"\n\n    [80] \"Attractricem convenientis qualitatis vim\"\n    (Linacre). _cf._ p. 36, note 2 (61).\n\n    [81] Lit. \"obvious phenomena.\"\n\n    [82] Asclepiades of Bithynia, who flourished in the\n    first half of the first century B.C., was an adherent of\n    the atomistic philosophy of Democritus, and is the\n    typical representative of the Mechanistic school in\n    Graeco-Roman medicine; he disbelieved in any principle\n    of individuality (\"nature\") in the organism, and his\n    methods of treatment, in accordance with his pathology,\n    were mechano-therapeutical. _cf._ p. 64, note 3 (100).\n\n    [83] Diocles of Carystus was the chief representative of\n    the Dogmatic or Hippocratic school in the first half of\n    the fourth century B.C. Praxagoras was his disciple, and\n    followed him in the leadership of the school. For\n    Erasistratus, _cf._ p. 95 _et seq._\n\n    [84] Sufferers from kidney-trouble.\n\n    [85] The ureters.\n\n    [86] Unless otherwise stated, \"peritoneum\" stands for\n    parietal peritoneum alone.\n\n    [87] In the peritoneal cavity.\n\n    [88] Contrast, however, _anasarca_, p. 41.\n\n    [89] Regurgitation, however, is prevented by the fact\n    that the ureter runs for nearly one inch obliquely\n    through the bladder wall before opening into its cavity,\n    and thus an efficient _valve_ is produced.\n\n    [90] On the [Greek: techn\u00ea] (artistic or creative skill)\n    shown by the living organism ([Greek: physis]) _v._ pp.\n    25, 45, 47; Introduction, p. xxix.\n\n    [91] Direct denial of Aristotle's dictum that \"Nature\n    does nothing in vain.\" We are reminded of the view of\n    certain modern laboratory physicians and surgeons that\n    the _colon_ is a \"useless\" organ, _cf._ Erasistratus, p.\n    143.\n\n    [92] The _vasa deferentia_.\n\n    [93] \"De l'habilet\u00e9 et de la pr\u00e9voyance de la nature \u00e0\n    l'\u00e9gard des animaux\" (Daremberg). _cf._ p. 56, note 1\n    (90).\n\n    [94] _cf._ p. 36, note 2 (61).\n\n    [95] The morbid material passed successively through the\n    stages of \"crudity,\" \"coction\" (_pepsis_), and\n    \"elimination\" (_crisis_). For \"critical days\" _cf._ p.\n    74, note 1 (121).\n\n    [96] This was the process by which nutriment was taken\n    up from the alimentary canal; \"absorption,\" \"dispersal;\"\n    _cf._ p. 13, note 5 (26). The subject is dealt with more\n    fully in chap. xvi.\n\n    [97] Lit. _catharsis_.\n\n    [98] _i.e._ urine.\n\n    [99] On use of [Greek: keno\u00f4] _v._ p. 67, note 9 (110).\n\n    [100] _i.e._ bile and phlegm had no existence as such\n    before the drugs were given; they are the products of\n    dissolved tissue. Asclepiades did not believe that\n    diseases were due to a _materia peccans_, but to\n    disturbances in the movements of the molecules ([Greek:\n    onkoi]) which constitute the body; thus, in opposition\n    to the humoralists such as Galen, he had no use for\n    drugs. _cf._ p. 49, note 5 (82).\n\n    [101] About 4 oz., or one-third of a pint.\n\n    [102] The Empiricists, _cf._ Introduction, p. xiii.\n\n    [103] His [Greek: onkoi] or molecules.\n\n    [104] He does not say \"organized\" or \"living\" body;\n    inanimate things were also thought to possess \"natures\";\n    _cf._ p. 2, note 1 (5).\n\n    [105] Carthamus tinctorius.\n\n    [106] Daphne Gnidium.\n\n    [107] Euphorbia acanthothamnos.\n\n    [108] Teucrium chamaedrys.\n\n    [109] Atractylis gummifera.\n\n    [110] On use of [Greek: keno\u00f4] _cf._ p. 98, note 1 (148).\n\n    [111] Empiricist physicians.\n\n    [112] Note that drugs also have \"natures\"; _cf._ p. 66,\n    note 3 (104), and pp. 83-84.\n\n    [113] Pun here.\n\n    [114] Lit. _physiology_, _i.e._ _nature-lore_, almost\n    our \"Natural Philosophy\"; _cf._ Introduction, p. xxvi.\n\n    [115] The ultimate particle of Epicurus was the [Greek:\n    atomos] or atom (lit. \"non-divisible\"), of Asclepiades,\n    the [Greek: onkos] or molecule. Asclepiades took his\n    atomic theory from Epicurus, and he again from\n    Democritus; _cf._ p. 49, note 5 (82).\n\n    [116] Lit. _Herculean stone_.\n\n    [117] Lit. _aetiology_.\n\n    [118] _Anadosis_; _cf._ p. 62, note 1 (96).\n\n    [119] _cf._ p. 45.\n\n    [120] The _vis conservatrix et medicatrix Naturae_.\n\n    [121] _cf._ p. 61, note 3 (95). The _crisis_ or resolution in\n    fevers was observed to take place with a certain\n    regularity; hence arose the doctrine of \"critical days.\"\n\n    [122] These were hypothetical spaces or channels between\n    the atoms; _cf._ Introduction, p. xiv.\n\n    [123] He means the specific drawing power or faculty of\n    the lodestone.\n\n    [124] _cf._ our modern \"radium-emanations.\"\n\n    [125] _cf._ Ehrlich's hypothesis of \"receptors\" in\n    explanation of the \"affinities\" of animal cells.\n\n    [126] _i.e._ from the point of view of the theory.\n\n    [127] _cf._ p. 69, note 2 (112).\n\n    [128] That is to say, the two properties should go\n    together in all cases--which they do not.\n\n    [129] _Trygon pastinaca_.\n\n    [130] _cf._ p. 66, note 3 (104).\n\n    [131] The way that corn can attract moisture.\n\n    [132] Specific attraction of the \"proper\" quality; _cf._\n    p. 85, note 3 (130).\n\n    [133] Theory of evaporation insufficient to account for\n    it. _cf._ p. 104, note 1 (156).\n\n    [134] Playful suggestion of free-will in the urine.\n\n    [135] Specific attraction, _cf._ p. 87, note 2 (233).\n\n    [136] _i.e._ there would be no selective action.\n\n    [137] Nasal mucus was supposed to be the non-utilizable\n    part of the nutriment conveyed to the brain, _cf._ p.\n    214, note 3 (297).\n\n    [138] He means from its origin in the liver (_i.e._ in\n    the three hepatic veins). His idea was that the upper\n    division took nutriment to heart, lungs, head, etc., and\n    the lower division to lower part of body. On the\n    relation of right auricle to vena cava and right\n    ventricle, _cf._ p. 321, notes 4 (398) and 5 (399).\n\n    [139] We arrive at our belief by excluding other\n    possibilities.\n\n    [140] _i.e._ the mechanistic physicists. _cf._ pp.\n    45-47.\n\n    [141] _cf._ p. 85, note 3 (130).\n\n    [142] The subject of _anadosis_ is taken up in the next\n    chapter. _cf._ also p. 62, note 1 (96).\n\n    [143] On Erasistratus _v._ Introd. p. xii. His view that the\n    stomach exerts no _holk\u00e9_, or attraction, is dealt with\n    more fully in Book III., chap. viii.\n\n    [144] _i.e._ the tissues.\n\n    [145] _cf._ p. 291.\n\n    [146] _Peristalsis_ may be used here to translate Gk.\n    _peristol\u00e9_, meaning the contraction and dilation of\n    muscle-fibres _circularly_ round a lumen, _cf._ p. 263,\n    note 2 (341).\n\n    [147] For a demonstration that this phenomenon is a\n    conclusive proof neither of _peristol\u00e9_ nor of real\n    vital _attraction_, but is found even in dead bodies\n    _v._ p. 267.\n\n    [148] This was Erasistratus's favourite principle, known\n    in Latin as the \"horror vacui\" and in English as\n    \"Nature's abhorrence of a vacuum,\" although these terms\n    are not an exact translation of the Greek. [Greek: to\n    kenoumenon] probably means _the vacuum_, not the _matter\n    evacuated_, although Galen elsewhere uses [Greek: keno\u00f4]\n    in the latter (non-classical) sense, _e.g._ pp. 67, 215.\n    Akolouthia is a _following-up_, a _sequence_, almost a\n    _consequence_.\n\n    [149] _v._ p. 123.\n\n    [150] _cf._ Book II., chap. i.\n\n    [151] Vital factor necessary over and above the\n    mechanical.\n\n    [152] _cf._ p. 119, note 2 (173).\n\n    [153] pp. 91, 93.\n\n    [154] _i.e._ the part below the liver; _cf._ p. 91, note\n    2 (138).\n\n    [155] Renal veins.\n\n    [156] _cf._ p. 87, note 3 (133).\n\n    [157] [Greek: koil\u00ean]: the usual reading is [Greek:\n    koilian], which would make it \"from the region of the\n    alimentary canal.\" _cf._ p. 118, note 1 (171).\n\n    [158] Not at an earlier stage, when it is still on its\n    way from the alimentary canal to the liver.\n\n    [159] _i.e._ a renal vein.\n\n    [160] In a toast, the third cup was drunk to Zeus S\u00f4t\u00ear\n    (the Saviour).\n\n    [161] An anatomist of the Alexandrian school.\n\n    [162] _cf._ nasal mucus, p. 90, note 1 (137).\n\n    [163] \"Sur l'Ensemble des Choses\" (Daremberg).\n\n    [164] About twelve quarts. This is about five times as\n    much as the average daily excretion, and could only be\n    passed if a very large amount of wine were drunk.\n\n    [165] _cf._ p. 51.\n\n    [166] Horror vacui. Note analogical reasoning; _cf._ p.\n    289, note 1 (360).\n\n\n\n\n                            BOOK II\n\n\n                               I\n\nIn the previous book we demonstrated that not only Erasistratus, but\nalso all others who would say anything to the purpose about urinary\nsecretion, must acknowledge that the kidneys possess some faculty\nwhich attracts to them this particular quality existing in the\nurine.[167] Besides this we drew attention to the fact that the urine\nis not carried through the kidneys into the bladder by one method, the\nblood into parts of the animal by another, and the yellow bile\nseparated out on yet another principle. For when once there has been\ndemonstrated in any one organ, the drawing, or so-called\n_epispastic_[168] faculty, there is then no difficulty in transferring\nit to the rest. Certainly Nature did not give a power such as this to\nthe kidneys without giving it also to the vessels which abstract the\nbiliary fluid,[169] nor did she give it to the latter without also\ngiving it to each of the other parts. And, assuredly, if this is true,\nwe must marvel that Erasistratus should make statements concerning the\ndelivery of nutriment from the food-canal[170] which are so false as\nto be detected even by Asclepiades. Now, Erasistratus considers it\nabsolutely certain that, if anything flows from the veins, one of two\nthings must happen: either a completely empty space will result, or\nthe contiguous quantum of fluid will run in and take the place of that\nwhich has been evacuated. Asclepiades, however, holds that not one of\ntwo, but one of three things must be said to result in the emptied\nvessels: either there will be an entirely empty space, or the\ncontiguous portion will flow in, or the vessel will contract. For\nwhereas, in the case of reeds and tubes it is true to say that, if\nthese be submerged in water, and are emptied of the air which they\ncontain in their lumens, then either a completely empty space will be\nleft, or the contiguous portion will move onwards; in the case of\nveins this no longer holds, since their coats can collapse and so fall\nin upon the interior cavity. It may be seen, then, how false this\nhypothesis--by Zeus, I cannot call it a demonstration!--of\nErasistratus is.\n\nAnd, from another point of view, even if it were true, it is\nsuperfluous, if the stomach[171] has the power of compressing the\nveins, as he himself supposed, and the veins again of contracting upon\ntheir contents and propelling them forwards.[172] For, apart from\nother considerations, no _plethora_[173] would ever take place in the\nbody, if delivery of nutriment resulted merely from the tendency of a\nvacuum to become refilled. Now, if the compression of the stomach\nbecomes weaker the further it goes, and cannot reach to an indefinite\ndistance, and if, therefore, there is need of some other mechanism to\nexplain why the blood is conveyed in all directions, then the\nprinciple of the refilling of a vacuum may be looked on as a necessary\naddition;[174] there will not, however, be a plethora in any of the\nparts coming after the liver,[175] or, if there be, it will be in the\nregion of the heart and lungs; for the heart alone of the parts which\ncome after the liver draws the nutriment into its right ventricle,\nthereafter sending it through the _arterioid vein_[176] to the lungs\n(for Erasistratus himself will have it that, owing to the membranous\nexcrescences,[177] no other parts save the lungs receive nourishment\nfrom the heart). If, however, in order to explain how plethora comes\nabout, we suppose the force of compression by the stomach to persist\nindefinitely, we have no further need of the principle of the\nrefilling of a vacuum, especially if we assume contraction of the\nveins in addition--as is, again, agreeable to Erasistratus himself.\n\n\n                     BOOK II\n\n                        B\n\n\n                        I\n\n  Hoti men oun anankaion estin ouk Erasistrat\u00f4 monon alla        74\n  kai tois allois hapasin, hosoi mellousi peri diakrise\u00f4s\n  our\u00f4n erein ti chr\u00easton, homolog\u00easai dynamin tin'\n  hyparchein tois nephrois helkousan eis heautous poiot\u00eata\n  toiaut\u00ean, hoia en tois ourois esti, dia tou prosthen\n  epidedeiktai grammatos, anamimn\u00easkont\u00f4n ham' aut\u00f4 kai\n  touth' h\u00eam\u00f4n, h\u00f4s ouk all\u00f4s men eis t\u00ean kystin pheretai\n  ta oura dia t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n, all\u00f4s d' eis hapanta tou z\u00f4ou\n  ta moria to haima, kat' allon de tina tropon h\u00ea xanth\u00ea\n  chol\u00ea diakrinetai. deichtheis\u00eas gar enarg\u00f4s eph' henos\n  || houtinosoun organou t\u00eas helktik\u00eas te kai epispastik\u00eas       75\n  onomazomen\u00eas dyname\u00f4s ouden eti chalepon epi ta loipa\n  metapherein aut\u00ean; ou gar d\u00ea tois men nephrois h\u00ea physis\n  ed\u00f4ke tina toiaut\u00ean dynamin, ouchi de ge kai tois to\n  chol\u00f4des hygron helkousin angeiois oude toutois men,\n  ouketi de kai t\u00f4n all\u00f4n mori\u00f4n hekast\u00f4. kai m\u00ean ei tout'\n  al\u00eathes esti, thaumazein chr\u00ea tou Erasistratou pseudeis\n  hout\u00f4 logous hyper anadose\u00f4s troph\u00eas eipontos, h\u00f4s m\u00ead'\n  Askl\u00eapiad\u00ean lathein. kaitoi g' oietai pantos mallon\n  al\u00eathes hyparchein, h\u00f4s, eiper ek t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n aporrheoi\n  ti, dyoin thateron \u00ea kenos estai topos athro\u00f4s \u00ea to\n  syneches epirrhy\u00easetai t\u00ean basin anapl\u00earoun tou\n  kenoumenou. all' ho g' Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas ou dyoin thateron\n  ph\u00easin, alla tri\u00f4n hen ti chr\u00eanai legein epi tois\n  kenoumenois angeiois hepesthai \u00ea kenon athro\u00f4s topon \u00ea\n  to syneches akolouth\u00easein \u00ea systal\u00easesthai to angeion.\n  epi men gar t\u00f4n kalam\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n aulisk\u00f4n t\u00f4n eis to\n  hyd\u00f4r kathiemen\u00f4n al\u00eathes eipein, hoti kenoumenou tou\n  periechomenou kata t\u00ean || eurych\u00f4rian aut\u00f4n aeros \u00ea            76\n  kenos athro\u00f4s estai topos \u00ea akolouth\u00easei to syneches;\n  epi de t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n ouket' ench\u00f4rei, dynamenou d\u00ea tou\n  chit\u00f4nos aut\u00f4n eis heauton synizanein kai dia touto\n  katapiptein eis t\u00ean entos eurych\u00f4rian. hout\u00f4 men d\u00ea\n  pseud\u00eas h\u00ea peri t\u00eas pros to kenoumenon akolouthias ouk\n  apodeixis ma Di' eipoim' an all' hypothesis\n  Erasistrateios.\n\n  Kath' heteron d' au tropon, ei kai al\u00eath\u00eas ei\u00ea, peritt\u00ea,\n  t\u00eas men koilias enthlibein tais phlepsi dynamen\u00eas, h\u00f4s\n  autos hypetheto, t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n d' au peristellesthai t\u00f4\n  enyparchonti kai pro\u00f4thein auto. ta te gar alla kai\n  pl\u00eathos ouk an en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati genoito, t\u00ea pros to\n  kenoumenon akolouthia mon\u00ea t\u00eas anadose\u00f4s epiteloumen\u00eas.\n  ei men oun h\u00ea t\u00eas gastros enthlipsis eklyetai pro\u00efousa\n  kai mechri pantos adynatos estin exikneisthai kai dia\n  tout' all\u00eas tinos dei m\u00eachan\u00eas eis t\u00ean pant\u00ea phoran tou\n  haimatos, anankaia men h\u00ea pros to kenoumenon akolouthia\n  prosexeur\u00eatai; pl\u00eathos d' en oudeni t\u00f4n meth' h\u00eapar\n  estai || mori\u00f4n, \u00ea, eiper ara, peri t\u00ean kardian te kai         77\n  ton pneumona. mon\u00ea gar haut\u00ea t\u00f4n meth' h\u00eapar eis t\u00ean\n  dexian haut\u00eas koilian helkei t\u00ean troph\u00ean, eita dia t\u00eas\n  phlebos t\u00eas art\u00eari\u00f4dous ekpempei t\u00f4 pneumoni; t\u00f4n gar\n  all\u00f4n ouden oud' autos ho Erasistratos ek kardias\n  bouletai trephesthai dia t\u00ean t\u00f4n hymen\u00f4n epiphysin. ei\n  de g', hina pl\u00eathos gen\u00eatai, phylaxomen achri pantos t\u00ean\n  rh\u00f4m\u00ean t\u00eas kata t\u00ean koilian enthlipse\u00f4s, ouden eti\n  deometha t\u00eas pros to kenoumenon akolouthias, malist' ei\n  kai t\u00ean t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n synypothoimetha peristol\u00ean, h\u00f4s au\n  kai tout' aut\u00f4 palin areskei t\u00f4 Erasistrat\u00f4.\n\n\n                              II\n\nLet me draw his attention, then, once again, even if he does not wish\nit, to the kidneys, and let me state that these confute in the very\nclearest manner such people as object to the principle of\n_attraction_. Nobody has ever said anything plausible, nor, as we\npreviously showed, has anyone been able to discover, by any means,\nany other cause for the secretion of urine; we necessarily appear mad\nif we maintain that the urine passes into the kidneys in the form of\nvapour, and we certainly cut a poor figure when we talk about the\ntendency of a vacuum to become refilled;[178] this idea is foolish in\nthe case of blood, and impossible, nay, perfectly nonsensical, in the\ncase of the urine.[179]\n\nThis, then, is one blunder made by those who dissociate themselves\nfrom the principle of attraction. Another is that which they make\nabout the _secretion of yellow bile_. For in this case, too, it is not\na fact that when the blood runs past the mouths [stomata] of the\nbile-ducts there will be a thorough separation out [secretion] of\nbiliary waste-matter. \"Well,\" say they, \"let us suppose that it is not\nsecreted but carried with the blood all over the body.\" But, you\nsapient folk, Erasistratus himself supposed that Nature took thought\nfor the animals' future, and was workmanlike in her method; and at the\nsame time he maintained that the biliary fluid was useless in every\nway for the animals. Now these two things are incompatible. For how\ncould Nature be still looked on as exercising forethought for the\nanimal when she allowed a noxious humour such as this to be carried\noff and distributed with the blood?...\n\nThis, however, is a small matter. I shall again point out here the\ngreatest and most obvious error. For if the yellow bile adjusts itself\nto the narrower vessels and stomata, and the blood to the wider ones,\nfor no other reason than that blood is thicker and bile thinner, and\nthat the stomata of the veins are wider and those of the bile-ducts\nnarrower,[180] then it is clear that this watery and serous\nsuperfluity,[181] too, will run out into the bile-ducts quicker than\ndoes the bile, exactly in proportion as it is thinner than the bile!\nHow is it, then, that it does not run out? \"Because,\" it may be said,\n\"urine is thicker than bile!\" This was what one of our Erasistrateans\nventured to say, herein clearly disregarding the evidence of his\nsenses, although he had trusted these in the case of the bile and\nblood. For, if it be that we are to look on bile as thinner than blood\nbecause it runs more, then, since the serous residue[181] passes\nthrough fine linen or lint or a sieve more easily even than does bile,\nby these tokens bile must also be thicker than the watery fluid. For\nhere, again, there is no argument which will demonstrate that bile is\nthinner than the serous superfluities.\n\nBut when a man shamelessly goes on using circumlocutions, and never\nacknowledges when he has had a fall, he is like the amateur wrestlers,\nwho, when they have been overthrown by the experts and are lying on\ntheir backs on the ground, so far from recognizing their fall,\nactually seize their victorious adversaries by the necks and prevent\nthem from getting away, thus supposing themselves to be the winners!\n\n\n                       II\n\n  Anamn\u00easteon oun authis auton, kan m\u00ea boul\u00eatai, t\u00f4n\n  nephr\u00f4n kai lekteon, h\u00f4s elenchos houtoi phaner\u00f4tatos\n  hapant\u00f4n t\u00f4n apoch\u00f4rount\u00f4n t\u00eas holk\u00eas; oudeis gar ouden\n  out' eipe pithanon, all' oud' exeurein eiche kat' oudena\n  tropon, h\u00f4s emprosthen edeiknymen, heteron aition our\u00f4n\n  diakrise\u00f4s, all' anankaion \u00ea mainesthai dokein, ei\n  ph\u00easaimen atmoei||d\u00f4s eis t\u00ean kystin ienai to ouron \u00ea          78\n  asch\u00eamonein t\u00eas pros to kenoumenon akolouthias\n  mn\u00eamoneuontas, l\u00ear\u00f4dous men ous\u00eas kapi tou haimatos,\n  adynatou de kai \u00ealithiou pantapasin epi t\u00f4n our\u00f4n.\n\n  Hen men d\u00ea touto sphalma t\u00f4n apostant\u00f4n t\u00eas holk\u00eas;\n  heteron de to peri t\u00eas kata t\u00ean xanth\u00ean chol\u00ean\n  diakrise\u00f4s. oude gar oud' ekei pararrheontos tou\n  haimatos ta stomata t\u00f4n chol\u00eadoch\u00f4n angei\u00f4n akrib\u00f4s\n  diakrith\u00easetai to chol\u00f4des peritt\u00f4ma. kai m\u00ea\n  diakrinesth\u00f4, phasin, alla synanapheresth\u00f4 t\u00f4 haimati\n  pant\u00ea tou s\u00f4matos. all', \u00f4 soph\u00f4tatoi, prono\u00eatik\u00ean tou\n  z\u00f4ou kai technik\u00ean autos ho Erasistratos hypetheto t\u00ean\n  physin. alla kai to chol\u00f4des hygron achr\u00easton einai\n  pantapasi tois z\u00f4ois ephasken. ou symbainei d' all\u00ealois\n  amph\u00f4 tauta. p\u00f4s gar an eti pronoeisthai tou z\u00f4ou\n  doxeien epitrepousa synanapheresthai t\u00f4 haimati\n  mochth\u00earon hout\u00f4 chymon?\n\n  Alla tauta men smikra; to de megiston kai saphestaton\n  palin entauth' hamart\u00eama kai d\u00ea phras\u00f4. eiper gar di'\n  ouden all' \u00ea hoti pachyteron men esti to haima,\n  leptotera d' h\u00ea || xanth\u00ea chol\u00ea kai ta men t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n         79\n  eurytera stomata, ta de t\u00f4n chol\u00eadoch\u00f4n angei\u00f4n\n  stenotera, dia touth' h\u00ea men chol\u00ea tois stenoterois\n  angeiois te kai stomasin enarmottei, to d' haima tois\n  euryterois, d\u00ealon, h\u00f4s kai to hydat\u00f4des touto kai\n  orrh\u00f4des peritt\u00f4ma tosout\u00f4 proteron eisry\u00easetai tois\n  chol\u00eadochois angeiois, hos\u00f4 leptoteron esti t\u00eas chol\u00eas.\n  p\u00f4s oun ouk eisrei? hoti pachyteron esti n\u00ea Dia to ouron\n  t\u00eas chol\u00eas; touto gar etolm\u00ease tis eipein t\u00f4n kath'\n  h\u00eamas Erasistratei\u00f4n apostas d\u00ealonoti t\u00f4n aisth\u00ease\u00f4n,\n  hais episteusen epi te t\u00eas chol\u00eas kai tou haimatos. eite\n  gar hoti mallon h\u00ea chol\u00ea tou haimatos rhei, dia touto\n  leptoteran aut\u00ean h\u00eamin esti nomisteon, eith' hoti di'\n  othon\u00eas \u00ea rhakous \u00ea tinos \u00eathmou rhaon diexerchetai kai\n  taut\u00eas to orrh\u00f4des peritt\u00f4ma, kata tauta ta gn\u00f4rismata\n  pachytera t\u00eas hydat\u00f4dous hygrot\u00eatos kai haut\u00ea gen\u00easetai.\n  palin gar oud' entautha logos oudeis estin, hos\n  apodeixei leptoteran t\u00ean chol\u00ean t\u00f4n orrh\u00f4d\u00f4n\n  peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n.\n\n  All' hotan tis anaischynt\u00ea periplek\u00f4n te kai m\u00eap\u00f4\n  katapept\u00f4kenai synch\u00f4r\u00f4n, || homoios estai tois idi\u00f4tais       80\n  t\u00f4n palaist\u00f4n, hoi katabl\u00eathentes hypo t\u00f4n palaistrik\u00f4n\n  kai kata t\u00eas g\u00eas hyptioi keimenoi tosoutou deousi to\n  pt\u00f4ma gn\u00f4rizein, h\u00f4ste kai kratousi t\u00f4n auchen\u00f4n autous\n  tous katabalontas ouk e\u00f4ntes apallattesthai, kan tout\u00f4\n  nikan hypolambanousi.\n\n\n                             III\n\nThus, every hypothesis of _channels_[182] as an explanation of natural\nfunctioning is perfect nonsense. For, if there were not _an inborn\nfaculty_ given by Nature to each one of the organs at the very\nbeginning, then animals could not continue to live even for a few\ndays, far less for the number of years which they actually do. For let\nus suppose they were under no guardianship, lacking in creative\ningenuity[183] and forethought; let us suppose they were steered only\nby material forces,[184] and not by any special _faculties_ (the one\nattracting what is proper to it, another rejecting what is foreign,\nand yet another causing alteration and adhesion of the matter destined\nto nourish it); if we suppose this, I am sure it would be ridiculous\nfor us to discuss natural, or, still more, psychical, activities--or,\nin fact, life as a whole.[185]\n\nFor there is not a single animal which could live or endure for the\nshortest time if, possessing within itself so many different parts, it\ndid not employ faculties which were attractive of what is appropriate,\neliminative of what is foreign, and alterative of what is destined for\nnutrition. On the other hand, if we have these faculties, we no longer\nneed _channels_, little or big, resting on an unproven hypothesis, for\nexplaining the secretion of urine and bile, and the conception of some\n_favourable situation_ (in which point alone Erasistratus shows some\ncommon sense, since he does regard all the parts of the body as having\nbeen well and truly placed and shaped by Nature).\n\nBut let us suppose he remained true to his own statement that Nature\nis \"artistic\"--this Nature which, at the beginning, well and truly\nshaped and disposed all the parts of the animal,[186] and, after\ncarrying out this function (for she left nothing undone), brought it\nforward to the light of day, endowed with certain faculties necessary\nfor its very existence, and, thereafter, gradually increased it until\nit reached its due size. If he argued consistently on this principle,\nI fail to see how he can continue to refer natural functions to the\nsmallness or largeness of canals, or to any other similarly absurd\nhypothesis. For this Nature which shapes and gradually adds to the\nparts is most certainly extended throughout their whole substance. Yes\nindeed, she shapes and nourishes and increases them through and\nthrough, not on the outside only. For Praxiteles and Phidias and all\nthe other statuaries used merely to decorate their material on the\noutside, in so far as they were able to touch it; but its inner parts\nthey left unembellished, unwrought, unaffected by art or forethought,\nsince they were unable to penetrate therein and to reach and handle\nall portions of the material. It is not so, however, with Nature.\nEvery part of a bone she makes bone, every part of the flesh she makes\nflesh, and so with fat and all the rest; there is no part which she\nhas not touched, elaborated, and embellished. Phidias, on the other\nhand, could not turn wax into ivory and gold, nor yet gold into wax:\nfor each of these remains as it was at the commencement, and becomes a\nperfect statue simply by being clothed externally in a form and\nartificial shape. But Nature does not preserve the original character\nof any kind of matter; if she did so then all parts of the animal\nwould be blood--that blood, namely, which flows to the semen from the\nimpregnated female and which is, so to speak, like the statuary's wax,\na single uniform matter, subjected to the artificer. From this blood\nthere arises no part of the animal which is as red and moist [as blood\nis], for bone, artery, vein, nerve, cartilage, fat, gland, membrane,\nand marrow are not blood, though they arise from it.\n\nI would then ask Erasistratus himself to inform me what the altering,\ncoagulating, and shaping agent is. He would doubtless say, \"Either\nNature or the semen,\" meaning the same thing in both cases, but\nexplaining it by different devices. For that which was previously\nsemen, when it begins to procreate and to shape the animal, becomes,\nso to say, a special _nature_.[187] For in the same way that Phidias\npossessed the faculties of his art even before touching his material,\nand then activated these in connection with this material (for every\nfaculty remains inoperative in the absence of its proper material), so\nit is with the semen: its faculties it possessed from the\nbeginning,[188] while its activities it does not receive from its\nmaterial, but it manifests them in connection therewith.\n\nAnd, of course, if it were to be overwhelmed with a great quantity of\nblood, it would perish, while if it were to be entirely deprived of\nblood it would remain inoperative and would not turn into a _nature_.\nTherefore, in order that it may not perish, but may become a _nature_\nin place of semen, there must be an afflux to it of a little\nblood--or, rather, one should not say a little, but a quantity\ncommensurate with that of the semen. What is it then that measures the\nquantity of this afflux? What prevents more from coming? What ensures\nagainst a deficiency? What is this third overseer of animal generation\nthat we are to look for, which will furnish the semen with a due\namount of blood? What would Erasistratus have said if he had been\nalive, and had been asked this question? Obviously, the semen itself.\nThis, in fact, is the artificer analogous with Phidias, whilst the\nblood corresponds to the statuary's wax.\n\nNow, it is not for the wax to discover for itself how much of it is\nrequired; that is the business of Phidias. Accordingly the artificer\nwill draw to itself as much blood as it needs. Here, however, we must\npay attention and take care not unwittingly to credit the semen with\nreason and intelligence; if we were to do this, we would be making\nneither semen nor a nature, but an actual living animal.[189] And if\nwe retain these two principles--that of proportionate attraction[190]\nand that of the non-participation of intelligence--we shall ascribe to\nthe semen a faculty for attracting blood similar to that possessed by\nthe lodestone for iron.[191] Here, then, again, in the case of the\nsemen, as in so many previous instances, we have been compelled to\nacknowledge some kind of attractive faculty.\n\nAnd what is the semen? Clearly the active principle of the animal, the\nmaterial principle being the menstrual blood.[192] Next, seeing that\nthe active principle employs this faculty primarily, therefore, in\norder that any one of the things fashioned by it may come into\nexistence, it [the principle] must necessarily be possessed of its own\nfaculty. How, then, was Erasistratus unaware of it, if the primary\nfunction of the semen be to draw to itself a due proportion of blood?\nNow, this fluid would be in due proportion if it were so thin and\nvaporous, that, as soon as it was drawn like dew into every part of\nthe semen, it would everywhere cease to display its own particular\ncharacter; for so the semen will easily dominate and quickly\nassimilate it--in fact, will use it as food. It will then, I imagine,\ndraw to itself a second and a third quantum, and thus by feeding it\nacquires for itself considerable bulk and quantity.[193] In fact, _the\nalterative faculty_ has now been discovered as well, although about\nthis also Erasistratus has not written a word. And, thirdly the\n_shaping_[194] faculty will become evident, by virtue of which the\nsemen firstly surrounds itself with a thin membrane like a kind of\nsuperficial condensation; this is what was described by Hippocrates in\nthe sixth-day birth, which, according to his statement, fell from the\nsinging-girl and resembled the pellicle of an egg. And following this\nall the other stages will occur, such as are described by him in his\nwork \"On the Child's Nature.\"\n\nBut if each of the parts formed were to remain as small as when it\nfirst came into existence, of what use would that be? They have, then,\nto grow. Now, how will they grow? By becoming extended in all\ndirections and at the same time receiving nourishment. And if you will\nrecall what I previously said about the bladder which the children\nblew up and rubbed,[195] you will also understand my meaning better as\nexpressed in what I am now about to say.\n\nImagine the heart to be, at the beginning, so small as to differ in no\nrespect from a millet-seed, or, if you will, a bean; and consider how\notherwise it is to become large than by being extended in all\ndirections and acquiring nourishment throughout its whole substance,\nin the way that, as I showed a short while ago, the semen is\nnourished. But even this was unknown to Erasistratus--the man who\nsings the artistic skill of Nature! He imagines that animals grow like\nwebs, ropes, sacks, or baskets, each of which has, woven on to its end\nor margin, other material similar to that of which it was originally\ncomposed.\n\nBut this, most sapient sir, is not growth, but genesis! For a bag,\nsack, garment, house, ship, or the like is said to be still coming\ninto existence [undergoing genesis] so long as the appropriate form\nfor the sake of which it is being constructed by the artificer is\nstill incomplete. Then, when does it grow? Only when the basket, being\ncomplete, with a bottom, a mouth, and a belly, as it were, as well as\nthe intermediate parts, now becomes larger in all these respects. \"And\nhow can this happen?\" someone will ask. Only by our basket suddenly\nbecoming an animal or a plant; for growth belongs to living things\nalone. Possibly you imagine that a house _grows_ when it is being\nbuilt, or a basket when being plaited, or a garment when being woven?\nIt is not so however. Growth belongs to that which has already been\ncompleted in respect to its form, whereas the process by which that\nwhich is still _becoming_ attains its form is termed not growth but\ngenesis. That which _is_, grows, while that which _is not_, becomes.\n\n\n                      III\n\n  L\u00earos oun makros hapasa por\u00f4n hypothesis eis physik\u00ean\n  energeian. ei m\u00ea gar dynamis tis symphytos hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n\n  organ\u00f4n hypo t\u00eas physe\u00f4s euthys ex arch\u00eas dothei\u00ea,\n  diarkein ou dyn\u00easetai ta z\u00f4a, m\u00ea hoti tosouton arithmon\n  et\u00f4n all' oud' h\u00eamer\u00f4n oligist\u00f4n; anepitropeuta gar\n  easantes auta kai techn\u00eas kai pronoias er\u00eama monais tais\n  t\u00f4n hyl\u00f4n oiakizomena rhopais, oudamou dyname\u00f4s oudemias\n  t\u00eas men helkous\u00eas to pros\u00eakon heaut\u00ea, t\u00eas d' ap\u00f4thous\u00eas\n  to allotrion, t\u00eas d' alloious\u00eas te kai prosphyous\u00eas to\n  threpson, ouk oid' hop\u00f4s ouk an ei\u00eamen katagelastoi peri\n  te t\u00f4n physik\u00f4n energei\u00f4n dialegomenoi kai poly mallon\n  eti peri t\u00f4n psychik\u00f4n kai || sympas\u00eas ge t\u00eas z\u00f4\u00eas.            81\n\n  Oude gar z\u00ean oude diamenein oudeni t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n oud' eis\n  elachiston chronon estai dynaton, ei tosauta kekt\u00eamenon\n  en heaut\u00f4 moria kai hout\u00f4 diapheronta m\u00eath' helktik\u00ea t\u00f4n\n  oikei\u00f4n chr\u00easetai dynamei m\u00eat' apokritik\u00ea t\u00f4n allotri\u00f4n\n  m\u00eat' alloi\u00f4tik\u00ea t\u00f4n threpsont\u00f4n. kai m\u00ean ei tautas\n  echoimen, ouden eti por\u00f4n mikr\u00f4n \u00ea megal\u00f4n ex\n  hypothese\u00f4s anapodeiktou lambanomen\u00f4n eis ourou kai\n  chol\u00eas diakrisin deometha kai tinos epikairou these\u00f4s,\n  en h\u00f4 mon\u00f4 s\u00f4phronein eoiken ho Erasistratos hapanta\n  kal\u00f4s teth\u00eanai te kai diaplasth\u00eanai ta moria tou s\u00f4matos\n  hypo t\u00eas physe\u00f4s oiomenos.\n\n  All' ei parakolouth\u00easeien heaut\u00f4 physin onomazonti\n  technik\u00ean, euthys men ex arch\u00eas hapanta kal\u00f4s\n  diaplasasan te kai diatheisan tou z\u00f4ou ta moria, meta de\n  t\u00ean toiaut\u00ean energeian, h\u00f4s ouden eleipen, eti\n  proagagousan eis ph\u00f4s auto syn tisi dynamesin, h\u00f4n aneu\n  z\u00ean ouk \u00eadynato, kai meta tauta kata brachy\n  prosaux\u00easasan achri tou prepontos megethous, ouk oida\n  p\u00f4s hypomenei por\u00f4n smikrot\u00easin || \u00ea megethesin \u00ea tisin        82\n  allais hout\u00f4 l\u00ear\u00f4desin hypothesesi physikas energeias\n  epitrepein. h\u00ea gar diaplattousa ta moria physis ekein\u00ea\n  kai kata brachy prosauxousa pant\u00f4s d\u00eapou di' hol\u00f4n aut\u00f4n\n  ektetatai; kai gar hola di' hol\u00f4n ouk ex\u00f4then monon auta\n  diaplattei te kai trephei kai prosauxei. Praxitel\u00eas men\n  gar \u00ea Pheidias \u00ea tis allos agalmatopoios ex\u00f4then monon\n  ekosmoun tas hylas, katha kai psauein aut\u00f4n \u00eadynanto, to\n  bathos d' akosm\u00eaton kai argon kai atechnon kai\n  aprono\u00eaton apelipon, h\u00f4s an m\u00ea dynamenoi katelthein eis\n  auto kai katadynai kai thigein hapant\u00f4n t\u00eas hyl\u00eas t\u00f4n\n  mer\u00f4n. h\u00ea physis d' ouch hout\u00f4s, alla to men ostou meros\n  hapan ostoun apotelei, to de sarkos sarka, to de pimel\u00eas\n  pimel\u00ean kai t\u00f4n all\u00f4n hekaston; ouden gar estin\n  apsauston aut\u00ea meros oud' anexergaston oud' akosm\u00eaton.\n  alla ton men k\u00earon ho Pheidias ouk \u00eadynato poiein\n  elephanta kai chryson, all' oude ton chryson k\u00earon;\n  hekaston gar aut\u00f4n menon, hoion \u00ean ex arch\u00eas, ex\u00f4then\n  monon \u00eamphiesmenon eidos ti kai sch\u00eama technikon, agalma\n  teleion || gegonen. h\u00ea physis d' oudemias eti phylattei        83\n  t\u00f4n hyl\u00f4n t\u00ean archaian idean; haima gar an \u00ean hout\u00f4s\n  hapanta tou z\u00f4ou ta moria, to para t\u00eas kyous\u00eas epirrheon\n  t\u00f4 spermati, dik\u00ean k\u00earou tinos hyl\u00ea mia kai monoeid\u00eas\n  hypobebl\u00eamen\u00ea t\u00f4 technit\u00ea. gignetai d' ex aut\u00eas ouden\n  t\u00f4n tou z\u00f4ou mori\u00f4n out' erythron hout\u00f4s outh' hygron.\n  ostoun gar kai art\u00earia kai phleps kai neuron kai\n  chondros kai pimel\u00ea kai ad\u00ean kai hym\u00ean kai myelos anaima\n  men, ex haimatos de gegone.\n\n  Tinos alloi\u00f4santos kai tinos p\u00eaxantos kai tinos\n  diaplasantos edeom\u00ean an moi ton Erasistraton auton\n  apokrinasthai. pant\u00f4s gar an eipen \u00eatoi t\u00ean physin \u00ea to\n  sperma, tauton men leg\u00f4n kath' hekateron, diaphorois d'\n  epinoiais herm\u00eaneu\u00f4n; ho gar \u00ean proteron sperma, touth',\n  hotan arx\u00eatai phyein te kai diaplattein to z\u00f4on, physis\n  tis gignetai. kathaper gar ho Pheidias eiche men tas\n  dynameis t\u00eas techn\u00eas kai prin psauein t\u00eas hyl\u00eas, en\u00eargei\n  d' autais peri t\u00ean hyl\u00ean--hapasa gar dynamis argei\n  aporousa t\u00eas oikeias hyl\u00eas--, hout\u00f4 kai to sperma tas\n  men || dynameis oikothen ekekt\u00eato, tas d' energeias ouk        84\n  ek t\u00eas hyl\u00eas elaben, alla peri t\u00ean hyl\u00ean epedeixato.\n\n  Kai m\u00ean ei poll\u00f4 men epiklyzoito t\u00f4 haimati to sperma,\n  diaphtheiroit' an; ei d' hol\u00f4s aporoi\u00ea pantapasin\n  argoun, ouk an genoito physis. hin' oun m\u00eate phtheir\u00eatai\n  kai gign\u00eatai physis anti spermatos, oligon epirrhein\n  anankaion aut\u00f4 tou haimatos, mallon d' ouk oligon legein\n  chr\u00ea, alla symmetron t\u00f4 pl\u00eathei tou spermatos. tis oun\n  ho metr\u00f4n autou to poson t\u00eas epirrho\u00eas? tis ho k\u00f4ly\u00f4n\n  ienai pleon? tis ho protrep\u00f4n, hin' endeesteron m\u00ea i\u00ea?\n  tina z\u00eat\u00easomen entautha triton epistat\u00ean tou z\u00f4ou t\u00eas\n  genese\u00f4s, hos chor\u00eag\u00easei t\u00f4 spermati to symmetron haima?\n  ti an eipen Erasistratos, ei z\u00f4n taut' \u00ear\u00f4t\u00eath\u00ea? to\n  sperma auto d\u00ealonoti; touto gar estin ho technit\u00eas ho\n  analog\u00f4n t\u00f4 Pheidia, to d' haima t\u00f4 k\u00ear\u00f4 proseoiken.\n\n  Oukoun prepei ton k\u00earon auton heaut\u00f4 to metron\n  exeuriskein, alla ton Pheidian. helxei d\u00ea tosouton\n  haimatos ho technit\u00eas eis heauton, hoposou deitai. all'\n  en||tautha chr\u00ea prosechein \u00ead\u00ea ton noun kai skopein, m\u00ea        85\n  p\u00f4s lath\u00f4men t\u00f4 spermati logismon tina kai noun\n  charisamenoi; hout\u00f4 gar an oute sperma poi\u00easaimen oute\n  physin all' \u00ead\u00ea z\u00f4on auto. kai m\u00ean ei phylaxomen\n  amphotera, t\u00ean th' holk\u00ean tou symmetrou kai to ch\u00f4ris\n  logismou, dynamin tina, kathaper h\u00ea lithos helktik\u00ean\n  eiche tou sid\u00earou, kai t\u00f4 spermati ph\u00easomen hyparchein\n  haimatos epispastik\u00ean. \u00eanankasth\u00eamen oun palin\n  kantautha, kathaper \u00ead\u00ea pollakis emprosthen, helktik\u00ean\n  tina dynamin homolog\u00easai kata to sperma.\n\n  Ti d' \u00ean to sperma? h\u00ea arch\u00ea tou z\u00f4ou d\u00ealonoti h\u00ea\n  drastik\u00ea; h\u00ea gar hylik\u00ea to katam\u00eanion estin. eit' aut\u00eas\n  t\u00eas arch\u00eas pr\u00f4t\u00ea taut\u00ea t\u00ea dynamei chr\u00f4men\u00eas, hina\n  gen\u00eatai t\u00f4n hyp' aut\u00eas ti ded\u00eamiourg\u00eamen\u00f4n, amoiron\n  einai t\u00eas oikeias dyname\u00f4s ouk endechetai. p\u00f4s oun\n  Erasistratos aut\u00ean ouk oiden, ei d\u00ea pr\u00f4t\u00ea men haut\u00ea tou\n  spermatos energeia to symmetron haimatos epispasthai\n  pros heauto? symmetron d' an ei\u00ea to lepton hout\u00f4 kai\n  atm\u00f4des, h\u00f4st' euthys eis pan morion helkomenon tou\n  spermatos drosoeid\u00f4s m\u00eadamou t\u00ean || heautou                    86\n  paremphainein idean. hout\u00f4 gar autou kai krat\u00easei\n  rhadi\u00f4s to sperma kai tache\u00f4s exomoi\u00f4sei kai troph\u00ean\n  heaut\u00f4 poi\u00easetai kapeit' oimai deuteron epispasetai kai\n  triton, h\u00f4s onkon heaut\u00f4 kai pl\u00eathos axiologon\n  ergasasthai traphenti. kai m\u00ean \u00ead\u00ea kai h\u00ea alloi\u00f4tik\u00ea\n  dynamis exeur\u00eatai m\u00ead' aut\u00ea pros Erasistratou\n  gegrammen\u00ea. trit\u00ea d' an h\u00ea diaplastik\u00ea phanei\u00ea, kath'\n  h\u00ean pr\u00f4ton men hoion epipagon tina lepton hymena\n  peritith\u00easin heaut\u00f4 to sperma, ton hyph' Hippokratous\n  epi t\u00eas hektaias gon\u00eas, h\u00ean ekpesein elege t\u00eas\n  mousourgou, t\u00f4 t\u00f4n \u00f4\u00f4n eikasthenta chit\u00f4ni; meta de\n  touton \u00ead\u00ea kai tall', hosa pros ekeinou legetai dia tou\n  peri physios paidiou syngrammatos.\n\n  All' ei t\u00f4n diaplasthent\u00f4n hekaston hout\u00f4 meineie\n  smikron, h\u00f4s ex arch\u00eas egeneto, ti an ei\u00ea pleon?\n  auxanesthai toinyn auta chr\u00ea. p\u00f4s oun aux\u00eath\u00easetai?\n  pant\u00ea diateinomena th' hama kai trephomena. kai moi t\u00f4n\n  emprosthen eir\u00eamen\u00f4n epi t\u00eas kyste\u00f4s, h\u00ean hoi paides\n  emphys\u00f4ntes etribon, anamn\u00eastheis math\u00eas\u00ea mallon || kak        87\n  t\u00f4n nyn rh\u00eath\u00easomen\u00f4n.\n\n  Enno\u00eason gar d\u00ea t\u00ean kardian hout\u00f4 men mikran einai kat'\n  archas, h\u00f4s kenchrou m\u00eaden diapherein \u00ea, ei boulei,\n  kyamou, kai z\u00eat\u00eason, hop\u00f4s an all\u00f4s haut\u00ea genoito megal\u00ea\n  ch\u00f4ris tou pant\u00ea diateinomen\u00ean trephesthai di' hol\u00eas\n  heaut\u00eas, h\u00f4s olig\u00f4 prosthen edeiknyto to sperma\n  trephomenon. all' oude tout' Erasistratos oiden ho t\u00ean\n  techn\u00ean t\u00eas physe\u00f4s hymn\u00f4n, all' hout\u00f4s auxanesthai ta\n  z\u00f4a nomizei kathaper tina kr\u00easeran \u00ea seiran \u00ea sakkon \u00ea\n  talaron, h\u00f4n hekast\u00f4 kata to peras epiplekomen\u00f4n homoi\u00f4n\n  heter\u00f4n tois ex arch\u00eas auta syntitheisin h\u00ea prosthesis\n  gignetai.\n\n  Alla touto g' ouk aux\u00easis estin alla genesis, \u00f4\n  soph\u00f4tate; gignetai gar ho thylakos eti kai ho sakkos\n  kai thoimation kai h\u00ea oikia kai to ploion kai t\u00f4n all\u00f4n\n  hekaston, hotan m\u00eadep\u00f4 to pros\u00eakon eidos, hou charin\n  hypo tou technitou d\u00eamiourgeitai, sympepl\u00ear\u00f4menon \u00ea.\n  pot' oun auxanetai? hotan \u00ead\u00ea teleios \u00f4n ho talaros, h\u00f4s\n  echein pythmena te tina kai stoma kai hoion gastera kai\n  ta tout\u00f4n metaxy, meiz\u00f4n hapasi toutois gen\u00eatai. kai p\u00f4s\n  || estai touto? ph\u00easei tis. p\u00f4s d' all\u00f4s \u00ea ei z\u00f4on             88\n  exaiphn\u00eas \u00ea phyton ho talaros h\u00eamin genoito? mon\u00f4n gar\n  t\u00f4n z\u00f4nt\u00f4n h\u00ea aux\u00easis. sy d' is\u00f4s oiei t\u00ean oikian\n  oikodomoumen\u00ean auxanesthai kai ton talaron plekomenon\n  kai thoimation hyphainomenon. all' ouch h\u00f4d' echei; tou\n  men gar \u00ead\u00ea sympepl\u00ear\u00f4menou kata to eidos h\u00ea aux\u00easis,\n  tou d' eti gignomenou h\u00ea eis to eidos hodos ouk aux\u00easis\n  alla genesis onomazetai; auxanetai men gar to on,\n  gignetai de to ouk on.\n\n\n                              IV\n\nThis also was unknown to Erasistratus, whom nothing escaped, if his\nfollowers speak in any way truly in maintaining that he was familiar\nwith the Peripatetic philosophers. Now, in so far as he acclaims\nNature as being an artist in construction, even I recognize the\nPeripatetic teachings, but in other respects he does not come near\nthem. For if anyone will make himself acquainted with the writings\nof Aristotle and Theophrastus, these will appear to him to consist\nof commentaries on the Nature-lore [physiology][196] of\nHippocrates--according to which the principles of heat, cold, dryness\nand moisture act upon and are acted upon by one another, the hot\nprinciple being the most active, and the cold coming next to it in\npower; all this was stated in the first place by Hippocrates and\nsecondly by Aristotle.[197] Further, it is at once the Hippocratic and\nthe Aristotelian teaching that the parts which are being nourished\nreceive that nourishment throughout their whole substance, and that,\nsimilarly, processes of _mingling_ and _alteration_ involve the entire\nsubstance.[198] Moreover, that digestion is a species of alteration--a\ntransmutation of the nutriment into the proper quality of the thing\nreceiving it; that blood-production also is an alteration, and\nnutrition as well; that growth results from extension in all\ndirections, combined with nutrition; that alteration is effected\nmainly by the warm principle, and that therefore digestion, nutrition,\nand the generation of the various humours, as well as the qualities of\nthe surplus substances, result from the _innate heat_;[199] all these\nand many other points besides in regard to the aforesaid faculties,\nthe origin of diseases, and the discovery of remedies, were correctly\nstated first by Hippocrates of all writers whom we know, and were in\nthe second place correctly expounded by Aristotle. Now, if all these\nviews meet with the approval of the Peripatetics, as they undoubtedly\ndo, and if none of them satisfy Erasistratus, what can the\nErasistrateans possibly mean by claiming that their leader was\nassociated with these philosophers? The fact is, they revere him as a\ngod, and think that everything he says is true. If this be so, then we\nmust suppose the Peripatetics to have strayed very far from truth,\nsince they approve of none of the ideas of Erasistratus. And, indeed,\nthe disciples of the latter produce his connection with the\nPeripatetics in order to furnish his Nature-lore with a respectable\npedigree.\n\nNow, let us reverse our argument and put it in a different way from\nthat which we have just employed. For if the Peripatetics were correct\nin their teaching about Nature, there could be nothing more absurd\nthan the contentions of Erasistratus. And, I will leave it to the\nErasistrateans themselves to decide; they must either advance the one\nproposition or the other. According to the former one the Peripatetics\nhad no accurate acquaintance with Nature, and according to the second,\nErasistratus. It is my task, then, to point out the opposition between\nthe two doctrines, and theirs to make the choice....\n\nBut they certainly will not abandon their reverence for Erasistratus.\nVery well, then; let them stop talking about the Peripatetic\nphilosophers. For among the numerous physiological teachings regarding\nthe genesis and destruction of animals, their health, their diseases,\nand the methods of treating these, there will be found one only which\nis common to Erasistratus and the Peripatetics--namely, the view that\nNature does everything for some purpose, and nothing in vain.\n\nBut even as regards this doctrine their agreement is only verbal; in\npractice Erasistratus makes havoc of it a thousand times over. For,\naccording to him, the spleen was made for no purpose, as also the\nomentum; similarly, too, the arteries which are inserted into\nkidneys[200]--although these are practically the largest of all those\nthat spring from the great artery [aorta]! And to judge by the\nErasistratean argument, there must be countless other useless\nstructures; for, if he knows nothing at all about these structures, he\nhas little more anatomical knowledge than a butcher, while, if he is\nacquainted with them and yet does not state their use, he clearly\nimagines that they were made for no purpose, like the spleen. Why,\nhowever, should I discuss these structures fully, belonging as they do\nto the treatise \"On the Use of Parts,\" which I am personally about to\ncomplete?\n\nLet us, then, sum up again this same argument, and, having said a few\nwords more in answer to the Erasistrateans, proceed to our next topic.\nThe fact is, these people seem to me to have read none of Aristotle's\nwritings, but to have heard from others how great an authority he was\non \"Nature,\" and that those of the Porch[201] follow in the steps of\nhis Nature-lore; apparently they then discovered a single one of the\ncurrent ideas which is common to Aristotle and Erasistratus, and made\nup some story of a connection between Erasistratus and these\npeople.[202] That Erasistratus, however, has no share in the\nNature-lore of Aristotle is shown by an enumeration of the aforesaid\ndoctrines, which emanated first from Hippocrates, secondly from\nAristotle, thirdly from the Stoics (with a single modification,\nnamely, that for them the _qualities_ are _bodies_).[203]\n\nPerhaps, however, they will maintain that it was in the matter of\n_logic_ that Erasistratus associated himself with the Peripatetic\nphilosophers? Here they show ignorance of the fact that these\nphilosophers never brought forward false or inconclusive arguments,\nwhile the Erasistratean books are full of them.\n\nSo perhaps somebody may already be asking, in some surprise, what\npossessed Erasistratus that he turned so completely from the doctrines\nof Hippocrates, and why it is that he takes away the attractive\nfaculty from the biliary[204] passages in the liver--for we have\nsufficiently discussed the kidneys--alleging [as the cause of\nbile-secretion] a favourable situation, the narrowness of vessels, and\n_a common space_ into which the veins from the gateway [of the\nliver][205] conduct the unpurified blood, and from which, in the first\nplace, the [biliary] passages take over the bile, and secondly, the\n[branches] of the vena cava take over the purified blood. For it would\nnot only have done him no harm to have mentioned the idea of\n_attraction_, but he would thereby have been able to get rid of\ncountless other disputed questions.\n\n\n                       IV\n\n  Kai taut' Erasistratos ouk oiden, hon ouden lanthanei,\n  eiper hol\u00f4s al\u00eatheuousin hoi ap' autou phaskontes\n  h\u00f4mil\u00eakenai tois ek tou peripatou philosophois auton.\n  achri men oun tou t\u00ean physin hymnein h\u00f4s technik\u00ean kag\u00f4\n  gn\u00f4riz\u00f4 ta tou peripatou dogmata, t\u00f4n d' all\u00f4n ouden\n  oud' engys. ei gar tis homil\u00easeie tois Aristotelous kai\n  Theophrastou grammasi, t\u00eas Hippokratous an auta doxeie\n  physiologias hypomn\u00eamata synkeisthai, to thermon kai to\n  psychron || kai to x\u00earon kai to hygron eis all\u00eala dr\u00f4nta       89\n  kai paschonta kai tout\u00f4n aut\u00f4n drastik\u00f4taton men to\n  thermon, deuteron de t\u00ea dynamei to psychron Hippokratous\n  tauta sympanta pr\u00f4tou, deuterou d' Aristotelous\n  eipontos. trephesthai de di' hol\u00f4n haut\u00f4n ta trephomena\n  kai kerannysthai di' hol\u00f4n ta kerannymena kai\n  alloiousthai di' hol\u00f4n ta alloioumena, kai tauth'\n  Hippokrateia th' hama kai Aristoteleia. kai t\u00ean pepsin\n  alloi\u00f4sin tin' hyparchein kai metabol\u00ean tou trephontos\n  eis t\u00ean oikeian tou trephomenou poiot\u00eata, t\u00ean d'\n  exaimat\u00f4sin alloi\u00f4sin einai kai t\u00ean threpsin h\u00f4saut\u00f4s\n  kai t\u00ean aux\u00easin ek t\u00eas pant\u00ea diatase\u00f4s kai threpse\u00f4s\n  gignesthai, t\u00ean d' alloi\u00f4sin hypo tou thermou malista\n  synteleisthai kai dia touto kai t\u00ean pepsin kai t\u00ean\n  threpsin kai t\u00ean t\u00f4n chym\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n genesin, \u00ead\u00ea de kai\n  tois peritt\u00f4masi tas poiot\u00eatas hypo t\u00eas emphytou\n  thermasias engignesthai, tauta sympanta kai pros toutois\n  hetera polla ta te t\u00f4n proeir\u00eamen\u00f4n dyname\u00f4n kai ta ||         90\n  t\u00f4n nos\u00eamat\u00f4n t\u00eas genese\u00f4s kai ta t\u00f4n iamat\u00f4n t\u00eas\n  heurese\u00f4s Hippokrat\u00eas men pr\u00f4tos hapant\u00f4n h\u00f4n ismen\n  orth\u00f4s eipen, Aristotel\u00eas de deuteros orth\u00f4s ex\u00eag\u00easato.\n  kai m\u00ean ei tauta sympanta tois ek tou peripatou dokei,\n  kathaper oun dokei, m\u00eaden d' aut\u00f4n areskei t\u00f4\n  Erasistrat\u00f4, ti pote bouletai tois Erasistrateiois h\u00ea\n  pros tous philosophous ekeinous tou t\u00eas hairese\u00f4s aut\u00f4n\n  h\u00eagemonos homilia? thaumazousi men gar auton h\u00f4s theon\n  kai pant' al\u00eatheuein nomizousin. ei d' hout\u00f4s echei\n  tauta, pampoly d\u00eapou t\u00eas al\u00eatheias esphalthai chr\u00ea\n  nomizein tous ek tou peripatou philosophous, hois m\u00eaden\n  h\u00f4n Erasistratos hypelambanen areskei. kai m\u00ean h\u00f4sper\n  tin' eugeneian aut\u00f4 t\u00eas physiologias t\u00ean pros tous\n  andras ekeinous synousian ekporizousi.\n\n  Palin oun anastreps\u00f4men ton logon heter\u00f4s \u00ea h\u00f4s olig\u00f4\n  prosthen etychomen eipontes. eiper gar hoi ek tou\n  peripatou kal\u00f4s ephysiolog\u00easan, ouden an ei\u00ea\n  l\u00ear\u00f4desteron Erasistratou kai did\u00f4mi tois\n  Erasistrateiois autois t\u00ean hairesin; \u00ea gar ton proteron\n  logon \u00ea touton || pros\u00easontai. legei d' ho men proteros        91\n  ouden orth\u00f4s egn\u00f4kenai peri physe\u00f4s tous peripat\u00eatikous,\n  ho de deuteros Erasistraton. emon men oun hypomn\u00easai t\u00f4n\n  dogmat\u00f4n t\u00ean mach\u00ean, ekein\u00f4n d' h\u00ea hairesis.\n\n  All' ouk an apostaien tou thaumazein Erasistraton;\n  oukoun si\u00f4pat\u00f4san peri t\u00f4n ek tou peripatou philosoph\u00f4n.\n  pampoll\u00f4n gar ont\u00f4n dogmat\u00f4n physik\u00f4n peri te genesin\n  kai phthoran t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n kai hygieian kai nosous kai tas\n  therapeias aut\u00f4n hen monon heureth\u00easetai tauton\n  Erasistrat\u00f4 kakeinois tois andrasi, to tinos heneka\n  panta poiein t\u00ean physin kai mat\u00ean m\u00eaden.\n\n  Alla kai auto touto mechri logou koinon, erg\u00f4 de\n  myriakis Erasistratos auto diaphtheirei; mat\u00ean men gar\n  ho spl\u00ean egeneto, mat\u00ean de to epiploon, mat\u00ean d' hai eis\n  tous nephrous art\u00eariai kataphyomenai, schedon hapas\u00f4n\n  t\u00f4n apo t\u00eas megal\u00eas art\u00earias apoblastanous\u00f4n ousai\n  megistai, mat\u00ean d' alla myria kata ge ton Erasistrateion\n  logon; haper ei men oud' hol\u00f4s gign\u00f4skei, brachei\n  mageirou soph\u00f4teros estin en tais anatomais, ei d' eid\u00f4s\n  ou legei t\u00ean chreian aut\u00f4n, oietai || d\u00ealonoti                 92\n  parapl\u00easi\u00f4s t\u00f4 spl\u00eani mat\u00ean auta gegonenai. kaitoi ti\n  taut' epexerchomai t\u00eas peri chreias mori\u00f4n pragmateias\n  onta mellous\u00eas h\u00eamin idia perainesthai?\n\n  Palin oun analab\u00f4men ton auton logon eipontes te ti\n  brachy pros tous Erasistrateious eti t\u00f4n ephex\u00eas\n  ech\u00f4metha. dokousi gar moi m\u00eaden anegn\u00f4kenai t\u00f4n\n  Aristotelous houtoi syngrammat\u00f4n, all' all\u00f4n akouontes,\n  h\u00f4s deinos \u00ean peri physin ho anthr\u00f4pos kai h\u00f4s hoi apo\n  t\u00eas stoas kat' ichn\u00ea t\u00eas ekeinou physiologias\n  badizousin, eith' heurontes hen ti t\u00f4n peripheromen\u00f4n\n  dogmat\u00f4n koinon aut\u00f4 pros Erasistraton anaplasai tina\n  synousian autou pros ekeinous tous andras. all' hoti men\n  t\u00eas Aristotelous physiologias ouden Erasistrat\u00f4\n  metestin, ho katalogos t\u00f4n proeir\u00eamen\u00f4n endeiknytai\n  dogmat\u00f4n, ha pr\u00f4tou men Hippokratous \u00ean, deuterou d'\n  Aristotelous, trit\u00f4n de t\u00f4n St\u00f4\u00efk\u00f4n, henos monou\n  metatithemenou tou tas poiot\u00eatas einai s\u00f4mata.\n\n  Tacha d' an t\u00eas logik\u00eas heneka the\u00f4rias h\u00f4mil\u00eakenai\n  phaien ton Erasistraton tois ek tou peripatou\n  philosophois, ouk eidotes, h\u00f4s ekeinoi men pseu||deis          93\n  kai aperantous ouk egrapsan logous, ta d' Erasistrateia\n  biblia pampollous echei tous toioutous.\n\n  Tach' an oun \u00ead\u00ea tis thaumazoi kai diaporoi\u00ea, ti path\u00f4n\n  ho Erasistratos eis tosouton t\u00f4n Hippokratous dogmat\u00f4n\n  apetrapeto kai dia ti t\u00f4n en h\u00eapati por\u00f4n t\u00f4n\n  chol\u00eadoch\u00f4n, halis gar \u00ead\u00ea nephr\u00f4n, aphelomenos t\u00ean\n  helktik\u00ean dynamin epikairon aitiatai thesin kai stomat\u00f4n\n  stenot\u00eata kai ch\u00f4ran tina koin\u00ean, eis h\u00ean paragousi men\n  hai apo t\u00f4n pyl\u00f4n to akatharton haima, metalambanousi de\n  proteroi men hoi poroi t\u00ean chol\u00ean, deuterai d' hai apo\n  t\u00eas koil\u00eas phlebos to katharon haima. pros gar t\u00f4 m\u00eaden\n  an blab\u00eanai t\u00ean holk\u00ean eip\u00f4n all\u00f4n myri\u00f4n emellen\n  amphisb\u00eatoumen\u00f4n apallaxesthai log\u00f4n.\n\n\n                               V\n\nAt the actual moment, however, the Erasistrateans are engaged in a\nconsiderable battle, not only with others but also amongst themselves,\nand so they cannot explain the passage from the first book of the\n\"General Principles,\" in which Erasistratus says, \"Since there are two\nkinds of vessels opening[206] at the same place, the one kind\nextending to the gall-bladder and the other to the vena cava, the\nresult is that, of the nutriment carried up from the alimentary canal,\nthat part which fits both kinds of stomata is received into both kinds\nof vessels, some being carried into the gall-bladder, and the rest\npassing over into the vena cava.\" For it is difficult to say what we\nare to understand by the words \"opening at the same place\" which are\nwritten at the beginning of this passage. Either they mean there is a\n_junction_[207] between the termination of the vein which is on the\nconcave surface of the liver[208] and two other vascular terminations\n(that of the vessel on the convex surface of the liver[209] and that\nof the bile-duct), or, if not, then we must suppose that there is, as\nit were, a common space for all three vessels, which becomes filled\nfrom the lower vein,[210] and empties itself both into the bile-duct\nand into the branches of the vena cava. Now, there are many\ndifficulties in both of these explanations, but if I were to state\nthem all, I should find myself inadvertently writing an exposition of\nthe teaching of Erasistratus, instead of carrying out my original\nundertaking. There is, however, one difficulty common to both these\nexplanations, namely, that the whole of the blood does not become\npurified. For it ought to fall into the bile-duct as into a kind of\nsieve, instead of going (running, in fact, rapidly) past it, into the\nlarger stoma, by virtue of the impulse of _anadosis_.\n\nAre these, then, the only inevitable difficulties in which the\nargument of Erasistratus becomes involved through his disinclination\nto make any use of the attractive faculty, or is it that the\ndifficulty is greatest here, and also so obvious that even a child\ncould not avoid seeing it?\n\n\n                        V\n\n  H\u00f4s nyn ge polemos ou smikros esti tois Erasistrateiois\n  ou pros tous allous monon alla kai pros all\u00ealous, ouk\n  echousin, hop\u00f4s ex\u00eag\u00eas\u00f4ntai t\u00ean ek tou pr\u00f4tou t\u00f4n\n  katholou log\u00f4n lexin, en h\u00ea ph\u00easin; \"Eis to || auto d'         94\n  anestom\u00f4men\u00f4n heter\u00f4n anestom\u00f4men\u00f4n heter\u00f4n dyo angei\u00f4n\n  t\u00f4n t' epi t\u00ean chol\u00eadochon teinont\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n epi t\u00ean\n  koil\u00ean phleba symbainei t\u00eas anapheromen\u00eas ek t\u00eas koilias\n  troph\u00eas ta enarmozonta hekaterois t\u00f4n stomat\u00f4n eis\n  hekatera t\u00f4n angei\u00f4n metalambanesthai kai ta men epi t\u00ean\n  chol\u00eadochon pheresthai, ta d' epi t\u00ean koil\u00ean phleba\n  peraiousthai.\" to gar \"eis to auto anestom\u00f4men\u00f4n,\" ho\n  kat' archas t\u00eas lexe\u00f4s gegraptai, ti pote chr\u00ea no\u00easai,\n  chalepon eipein. \u00eatoi gar hout\u00f4s eis tauton, h\u00f4ste t\u00f4\n  t\u00eas en tois simois phlebos perati synaptein dyo hetera\n  perata, to t' en tois kyrtois kai to tou chol\u00eadochou\n  porou, \u00ea, ei m\u00ea hout\u00f4, ch\u00f4ran tina koin\u00ean epino\u00easai chr\u00ea\n  t\u00f4n tri\u00f4n angei\u00f4n hoion dexamen\u00ean tina, pl\u00earoumen\u00ean men\n  hypo t\u00eas kat\u00f4 phlebos, ekkenoumen\u00ean d' eis te tous\n  chol\u00eadochous porous kai tas t\u00eas koil\u00eas aposchidas; kath'\n  hekateran de t\u00f4n ex\u00eag\u00ease\u00f4n atopa polla, peri h\u00f4n ei\n  pant\u00f4n legoimi, lathoim' an emauton ex\u00eag\u00easeis\n  Erasistratou graph\u00f4n, ouch, hoper ex arch\u00eas prouthem\u00ean,\n  perain\u00f4n. koinon d' amphoterais tais ex\u00eag\u00easesin atopon\n  to m\u00ea || kathairesthai pan to haima. chr\u00ea gar h\u00f4s eis          95\n  \u00eathmon tina to chol\u00eadochon angeion empiptein auto, ou\n  parerchesthai kai pararrhein \u00f4ke\u00f4s eis to meizon stoma\n  t\u00ea rhym\u00ea t\u00eas anadose\u00f4s pheromenon.\n\n  Ar' oun en toutois monon aporiais aphyktois ho\n  Erasistratou logos enechetai m\u00ea boul\u00eathentos chr\u00easasthai\n  tais helktikais dynamesin eis m\u00eaden, \u00ea sphodrotata men\n  en toutois kai saph\u00f4s hout\u00f4s, h\u00f4s an m\u00eade paida lathein?\n\n\n                            VI\n\nAnd if one looks carefully into the matter one will find that even\nErasistratus's reasoning on the subject of _nutrition_, which he takes\nup in the second book of his \"General Principles,\" fails to escape\nthis same difficulty. For, having conceded one premise to the\nprinciple that matter tends to fill a vacuum, as we previously showed,\nhe was only able to draw a conclusion in the case of the veins and\ntheir contained blood.[211] That is to say, when blood is running\naway through the stomata of the veins, and is being dispersed, then,\nsince an absolutely empty space cannot result, and the veins cannot\ncollapse (for this was what he overlooked), it was therefore shown to\nbe necessary that the adjoining quantum of fluid should flow in and\nfill the place of the fluid evacuated. It is in this way that we may\nsuppose the veins to be nourished; they get the benefit of the blood\nwhich they contain. But how about the nerves?[212] For they do not\nalso contain blood. One might obviously say that they draw their\nsupply from the veins.[213] But Erasistratus will not have it so. What\nfurther contrivance, then, does he suppose? He says that a nerve has\nwithin itself veins and arteries, like a rope woven by Nature out of\nthree different strands. By means of this hypothesis he imagined that\nhis theory would escape from the idea of _attraction_. For if the\nnerve contain within itself a blood-vessel it will no longer need the\nadventitious flow of other blood from the real vein lying adjacent;\nthis fictitious vessel, perceptible only in theory,[214] will suffice\nit for nourishment.\n\nBut this, again, is succeeded by another similar difficulty. For this\nsmall vessel will nourish itself, but it will not be able to nourish\nthis adjacent simple nerve or artery, unless these possess some innate\nproclivity for attracting nutriment. For how could the _nerve_, being\nsimple, attract its nourishment, as do the composite veins, by virtue\nof the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled? For, although\naccording to Erasistratus, it contains within itself a cavity of\nsorts, this is not occupied with blood, but with _psychic\npneuma_,[215] and we are required to imagine the nutriment introduced,\nnot into this cavity, but into the vessel containing it, whether it\nneeds merely to be nourished, or to grow as well. How, then, are we to\nimagine it introduced? For this simple vessel [_i.e._ nerve] is so\nsmall--as are also the other two--that if you prick it at any part\nwith the finest needle you will tear the whole three of them at once.\nThus there could never be in it a perceptible space entirely empty.\nAnd an emptied space which merely existed in theory could not compel\nthe adjacent fluid to come and fill it.\n\nAt this point, again, I should like Erasistratus himself to answer\nregarding this small elementary nerve, whether it is actually one and\ndefinitely continuous, or whether it consists of many small bodies,\nsuch as those assumed by Epicurus, Leucippus, and Democritus.[216] For\nI see that the Erasistrateans are at variance on this subject. Some of\nthem consider it one and continuous, for otherwise, as they say, he\nwould not have called it _simple_; and some venture to resolve it into\nyet other elementary bodies. But if it be one and continuous, then\nwhat is evacuated from it in the so-called _insensible transpiration_\nof the physicians will leave no empty space in it; otherwise it would\nnot be one body but many, separated by empty spaces. But if it\nconsists of many bodies, then we have \"escaped by the back door,\" as\nthe saying is, to Asclepiades, seeing that we have postulated certain\n_inharmonious elements_. Once again, then, we must call Nature\n\"inartistic\"; for this necessarily follows the assumption of such\nelements.\n\nFor this reason some of the Erasistrateans seem to me to have done\nvery foolishly in reducing the simple vessels to elements such as\nthese. Yet it makes no difference to me, since the theory of both\nparties regarding nutrition will be shown to be absurd. For in these\nminute simple vessels constituting the large perceptible nerves, it is\nimpossible, according to the theory of those who would keep the former\ncontinuous, that any \"refilling of a vacuum\" should take place, since\nno vacuum can occur in a continuum even if anything does run away; for\nthe parts left come together (as is seen in the case of water) and\nagain become one, taking up the whole space of that which previously\nseparated them. Nor will any \"refilling\" occur if we accept the\nargument of the other Erasistrateans, since none of their _elements_\nneed it. For this principle only holds of things which are\nperceptible, and not of those which exist merely in theory; this\nErasistratus expressly acknowledges, for he states that it is not a\nvacuum such as this, interspersed in small portions among the\ncorpuscles, that his various treatises deal with, but a vacuum which\nis clear, perceptible, complete in itself, large in size, evident, or\nhowever else one cares to term it (for, what Erasistratus himself says\nis, that \"there cannot be a perceptible space which is entirely\nempty\"; while I, for my part, being abundantly equipped with terms\nwhich are equally elucidatory, at least in relation to the present\ntopic of discussion, have added them as well).\n\nThus it seems to me better that we also should help the Erasistrateans\nwith some contribution, since we are on the subject, and should advise\nthose who reduce the vessel called _primary_ and _simple_ by\nErasistratus into other elementary bodies to give up their opinion;\nfor not only do they gain nothing by it, but they are also at variance\nwith Erasistratus in this matter. That they gain nothing by it has\nbeen clearly demonstrated; for this hypothesis could not escape the\ndifficulty regarding _nutrition_. And it also seems perfectly evident\nto me that this hypothesis is not in consonance with the view of\nErasistratus, when it declares that what he calls simple and primary\nis composite, and when it destroys the principle of Nature's artistic\nskill.[217] For, if we do not grant a certain _unity of\nsubstance_[218] to these simple structures as well, and if we arrive\neventually at inharmonious and indivisible elements,[219] we shall\nmost assuredly deprive Nature of her artistic skill, as do all the\nphysicians and philosophers who start from this hypothesis. For,\naccording to such a hypothesis, Nature does not precede, but is\nsecondary to the _parts_ of the animal.[220] Now, it is not the\nprovince of what comes secondarily, but of what pre-exists, to shape\nand to construct. Thus we must necessarily suppose that the faculties\nof Nature, by which she shapes the animal, and makes it grow and\nreceive nourishment, are present from the seed onwards; whereas none\nof these inharmonious and non-partite corpuscles contains within\nitself any formative, incremental,[221] nutritive, or, in a word, any\nartistic power; it is, by hypothesis, unimpressionable and\nuntransformable,[222] whereas, as we have previously shown,[223] none\nof the processes mentioned takes place without transformation,\nalteration, and complete intermixture. And, owing to this necessity,\nthose who belong to these sects are unable to follow out the\nconsequences of their supposed elements, and they are all therefore\nforced to declare Nature devoid of art. It is not from us, however,\nthat the Erasistrateans should have learnt this, but from those very\nphilosophers who lay most stress on a preliminary investigation into\nthe elements of all existing things.\n\nNow, one can hardly be right in supposing that Erasistratus could\nreach such a pitch of foolishness as to be incapable of recognizing\nthe logical consequences of this theory, and that, while assuming\nNature to be artistically creative, he would at the same time break up\nsubstance into insensible, inharmonious, and untransformable elements.\nIf, however, he will grant that there occurs in the elements a process\nof alteration and transformation, and that there exists in them unity\nand continuity, then that _simple vessel_ of his (as he himself names\nit) will turn out to be single and uncompounded. And the simple vein\nwill receive nourishment from itself, and the nerve and artery from\nthe vein. How, and in what way? For, when we were at this point\nbefore, we drew attention to the disagreement among the\nErasistrateans,[224] and we showed that the nutrition of these simple\nvessels was impracticable according to the teachings of both parties,\nalthough we did not hesitate to adjudicate in their quarrel and to do\nErasistratus the honour of placing him in the better sect.[225]\n\nLet our argument, then, be transferred again to the doctrine which\nassumes this _elementary nerve_[226] to be a single, simple, and\nentirely unified structure, and let us consider how it is to be\nnourished; for what is discovered here will at once be found to be\ncommon also to the school of Hippocrates.\n\nIt seems to me that our enquiry can be most rigorously pursued in\nsubjects who are suffering from illness and have become very\nemaciated, since in these people all parts of the body are obviously\natrophied and thin, and in need of additional substance and\nfeeding-up; for the same reason the ordinary _perceptible_ nerve,\nregarding which we originally began this discussion, has become thin,\nand requires nourishment. Now, this contains within itself various\nparts, namely, a great many of these primary, invisible, minute\nnerves, a few simple arteries, and similarly also veins. Thus, all its\nelementary nerves have themselves also obviously become emaciated;\nfor, if they had not, neither would the nerve as a whole; and of\ncourse, in such a case, the whole nerve cannot require nourishment\nwithout each of these requiring it too. Now, if on the one hand they\nstand in need of feeding-up, and if on the other the principle of the\nrefilling of a vacuum[227] can give them no help--both by reason of\nthe difficulties previously mentioned and the actual thinness, as I\nshall show--we must then seek another cause for nutrition.\n\nHow is it, then, that the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled is\nunable to afford nourishment to one in such a condition? Because its\nrule is that only so much of the contiguous matter should succeed as\nhas flowed away. Now this is sufficient for nourishment in the case\nof those who are in good condition, for, in them, what is\n_presented_[228] must be equal to what has flowed away. But in the\ncase of those who are very emaciated and who need a great restoration\nof nutrition, unless what was presented were many times greater than\nwhat has been emptied out, they would never be able to regain their\noriginal habit. It is clear, therefore, that these parts will have to\nexert a greater amount of _attraction_, in so far as their\nrequirements are greater. And I fail to understand how Erasistratus\ndoes not perceive that here again he is putting the cart before the\nhorse. Because, in the case of the sick, there must be a large amount\nof _presentation_[228] in order to feed them up, he argues that the\nfactor of \"refilling\"[227] must play an equally large part. And how\ncould much _presentation_ take place if it were not preceded by an\nabundant _delivery_[229] of nutriment? And if he calls the conveyance\nof food through the veins delivery, and its assumption by each of\nthese simple and visible nerves and arteries not delivery but\n_distribution_,[230] as some people have thought fit to name it, and\nthen ascribes conveyance through the veins to the principle of\nvacuum-refilling alone, let him explain to us the assumption of food\nby the hypothetical elements.[231] For it has been shown that at least\nin relation to these there is no question of the refilling of a vacuum\nbeing in operation, and especially where the parts are very\nattenuated. It is worth while listening to what Erasistratus says\nabout these cases in the second book of his \"General Principles\": \"In\nthe ultimate simple [vessels], which are thin and narrow, presentation\ntakes place from the adjacent vessels, the nutriment being attracted\nthrough the sides of the vessels and deposited in the empty spaces\nleft by the matter which has been carried away.\" Now, in this\nstatement firstly I admit and accept the words \"through the sides.\"\nFor, if the simple nerve were actually to take in the food through its\nmouth, it could not distribute it through its whole substance; for the\nmouth is dedicated to the psychic pneuma.[232] It can, however, take\nit in through its sides from the adjacent simple vein. Secondly, I\nalso accept in Erasistratus's statement the expression which precedes\n\"through the sides.\" What does this say? \"The nutriment being\nattracted through the sides of the vessels.\" Now I, too, agree that it\nis attracted, but it has been previously shown that this is not\nthrough the tendency of evacuated matter to be replaced.\n\n\n                       VI\n\n  Ei d' episkopoito tis epimel\u00f4s, oud' ho peri threpse\u00f4s\n  autou logos, hon en t\u00f4 deuter\u00f4 t\u00f4n katholou log\u00f4n\n  diexerchetai, tas autas aporias ekpheugei. t\u00ea gar pros\n  to kenoumenon akolouthia synch\u00f4r\u00eathentos henos l\u00eammatos,\n  h\u00f4s prosthen edeiknymen, eperaine ti peri phleb\u00f4n mon\u00f4n\n  kai tou kat' autas haimatos. ekreontos gar tinos kata ta\n  stomat' aut\u00f4n kai diaphoroumenou kai m\u00eat' athro\u00f4s topou\n  kenou dynamenou genesthai m\u00eate t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n sympesein,\n  touto gar \u00ean to paraleipomenon, anankaion \u00ean hepesthai\n  to syneches anapl\u00earoun tou kenou||menou t\u00ean basin. hai         96\n  men d\u00ea phlebes h\u00eamin hout\u00f4 threpsontai tou periechomenou\n  kat' autas haimatos apolauousai; ta de neura p\u00f4s? ou gar\n  d\u00ea kan toutois estin haima. procheiron men gar \u00ean\n  eipein, helkonta para t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n; all' ou bouletai. ti\n  pot' oun kantautha epitechnatai? phlebas echein en\n  heaut\u00f4 kai art\u00earias to neuron h\u00f4sper tina seiran ek\n  tri\u00f4n himant\u00f4n diapheront\u00f4n t\u00ea physei peplegmen\u00ean. \u00f4\u00eath\u00ea\n  gar ek taut\u00eas t\u00eas hypothese\u00f4s ekpheuxesthai t\u00f4 log\u00f4 t\u00ean\n  holk\u00ean; ou gar an eti de\u00easesthai to neuron en heaut\u00f4\n  periechon haimatos angeion epirrhytou tinos ex\u00f4then ek\n  t\u00eas parakeimen\u00eas phlebos t\u00eas al\u00eathin\u00eas haimatos heterou,\n  all' hikanon aut\u00f4 pros t\u00ean threpsin esesthai to\n  katepseusmenon angeion ekeino to log\u00f4 the\u00f4r\u00eaton.\n\n  Alla kantautha palin auton homoia tis aporia diedexato.\n  touti gar to smikron angeion heauto men threpsei, to\n  parakeimenon mentoi neuron ekeino to haploun \u00ea t\u00ean\n  art\u00earian ouch hoion t' estai trephein aneu tou symphyton\n  tin' hyparchein autois holk\u00ean t\u00eas troph\u00eas. || t\u00ea men gar       97\n  pros to kenoumenon akolouthia p\u00f4s an eti dynaito t\u00ean\n  troph\u00ean epispasthai to haploun neuron, h\u00f4sper hai\n  phlebes hai synthetoi? koilot\u00eas men gar tis estin en\n  aut\u00f4 kat' auton, all' ouch haimatos haut\u00ea g' alla\n  pneumatos psychikou mest\u00ea. deometha d' h\u00eameis ouk eis\n  t\u00ean koilot\u00eata taut\u00ean eisagein t\u00f4 log\u00f4 t\u00ean troph\u00ean all'\n  eis to periechon aut\u00ean angeion, eit' oun trephesthai\n  monon eite kai auxesthai deoito. p\u00f4s oun eisaxomen?\n  hout\u00f4 gar esti smikron ekeino to haploun angeion kai\n  mentoi kai t\u00f4n all\u00f4n hekateron, h\u00f4st', ei t\u00ea leptotat\u00ea\n  belon\u00ea nyxeias ti meros, hama diair\u00easeis ta tria. topos\n  oun aisth\u00eatos athro\u00f4s kenos ouk an pot' en aut\u00f4 genoito;\n  log\u00f4 de the\u00f4r\u00eatos topos kenoumenos ouk \u00ean anankastikos\n  t\u00eas tou synechous akolouthias.\n\n  \u00caboulom\u00ean d' au palin moi kantautha ton Erasistraton\n  auton apokrinasthai peri tou stoichei\u00f4dous ekeinou\n  neurou tou smikrou, poteron hen ti kai syneches akrib\u00f4s\n  estin \u00ea ek poll\u00f4n kai smikr\u00f4n s\u00f4mat\u00f4n, h\u00f4n Epikouros kai\n  Leukippos kai D\u00eamokritos hypethento, syn||keitai. kai          98\n  gar kai peri toutou tous Erasistrateious hor\u00f4\n  diapheromenous. hoi men gar hen ti kai syneches auto\n  nomizousin \u00ea ouk an haploun eir\u00easthai pros autou phasi;\n  tines de kai touto dialyein eis hetera stoichei\u00f4d\u00ea\n  tolm\u00f4sin. all' ei men hen ti kai syneches esti, to\n  kenoumenon ex autou kata t\u00ean ad\u00ealon hypo t\u00f4n iatr\u00f4n\n  onomazomen\u00ean diapno\u00ean oudemian en heaut\u00f4 kataleipsei\n  ch\u00f4ran ken\u00ean. hout\u00f4 gar ouch hen alla polla gen\u00easetai,\n  dieirgomena d\u00eapou tais kenais ch\u00f4rais. ei d' ek poll\u00f4n\n  synkeitai, t\u00ea k\u00eapaia kata t\u00ean paroimian pros Askl\u00eapiad\u00ean\n  apech\u00f4r\u00easamen anarma tina stoicheia tithemenoi. palin\n  oun atechnos h\u00eamin h\u00ea physis legesth\u00f4; tois gar\n  toioutois stoicheiois ex anank\u00eas touth' hepetai.\n\n  Dio d\u00ea moi kai dokousin amath\u00f4s pany t\u00ean eis ta toiauta\n  stoicheia t\u00f4n hapl\u00f4n angei\u00f4n eisagein dialysin enioi t\u00f4n\n  Erasistratei\u00f4n. emoi goun ouden diapherei. kath'\n  hekaterous gar atopos ho t\u00eas threpse\u00f4s estai logos,\n  ekeinois tois haplois angeiois tois smikrois tois\n  syntitheisi ta megala || te kai aisth\u00eata neura kata men        99\n  tous synech\u00ea phylattontas auta m\u00ea dynamen\u00eas genesthai\n  t\u00eas pros to kenoumenon akolouthias, hoti m\u00eaden en t\u00f4\n  synechei gignetai kenon, kan aporrhe\u00ea ti; synerchetai\n  gar pros all\u00eala ta kataleipomena moria, kathaper epi tou\n  hydatos horatai, kai palin hen gignetai panta t\u00ean ch\u00f4ran\n  tou diaphor\u00eathentos auta katalambanonta; kata de tous\n  heterous, hoti t\u00f4n stoichei\u00f4n ekein\u00f4n ouden deitai t\u00eas\n  pros to kenoumenon akolouthias. epi gar t\u00f4n aisth\u00eat\u00f4n\n  mon\u00f4n, ouk epi t\u00f4n log\u00f4 the\u00f4r\u00eat\u00f4n echei dynamin, h\u00f4s\n  autos ho Erasistratos homologei diarrh\u00ead\u00ean, ou peri tou\n  toioutou kenou phask\u00f4n hekastote poieisthai ton logon,\n  ho kata brachy parespartai tois s\u00f4masin, alla peri tou\n  saphous kai aisth\u00eatou kai athroou kai megalou kai\n  enargous kai hop\u00f4s an all\u00f4s onomazein ethel\u00eas.\n  Erasistratos men gar autos aisth\u00eaton athro\u00f4s ou ph\u00easi\n  dynasthai genesthai kenon; eg\u00f4 d' ek periousias\n  eupor\u00easas onomat\u00f4n tauton d\u00ealoun en ge t\u00f4 nyn prokeimen\u00f4\n  log\u00f4 dynamen\u00f4n kai talla proseth\u00eaka.\n\n  Kallion oun moi dokei kai || h\u00eamas ti syneisenenkasthai       100\n  tois Erasistrateiois, epeid\u00ea kata touto gegonamen, kai\n  symbouleusai tois to pr\u00f4ton ekeino kai haploun hyp'\n  Erasistratou kaloumenon angeion eis heter' atta s\u00f4mata\n  stoichei\u00f4d\u00ea dialyousin apost\u00eanai t\u00eas hypol\u00eapse\u00f4s, h\u00f4s\n  pros t\u00f4 m\u00eaden echein pleon eti kai diapheromenois\n  Erasistrat\u00f4. hoti men oun ouden echei pleon,\n  epidedeiktai saph\u00f4s; oude gar \u00eadyn\u00eath\u00ea diaphygein t\u00ean\n  peri t\u00eas threpse\u00f4s aporian h\u00ea hypothesis; hoti d' oud'\n  Erasistrat\u00f4 symph\u00f4nos estin, ho ekeinos haploun kai\n  pr\u00f4ton onomazei, syntheton apophainousa, kai t\u00ean t\u00eas\n  physe\u00f4s techn\u00ean anairousa, prod\u00ealon kai tout' einai moi\n  dokei. ei m\u00ea gar kan tois haplois toutois hen\u00f4sin tina\n  t\u00eas ousias apoleipsomen, all' eis anarma kai amerista\n  katab\u00easometha stoicheia, pantapasin anair\u00easomen t\u00eas\n  physe\u00f4s t\u00ean techn\u00ean, h\u00f4sper kai pantes hoi ek taut\u00eas\n  horm\u00f4menoi t\u00eas hypothese\u00f4s iatroi kai philosophoi.\n  deutera gar t\u00f4n tou z\u00f4ou mori\u00f4n kata t\u00ean toiaut\u00ean\n  hypothesin h\u00ea physis, ou pr\u00f4t\u00ea gignetai. diaplattein de\n  || kai d\u00eamiourgein ou tou deuterou gegonotos, alla tou        101\n  pro\u00ffparchontos estin; h\u00f4st' anankaion estin euthys ek\n  spermat\u00f4n hypothesthai tas dynameis t\u00eas physe\u00f4s, hais\n  diaplattei te kai auxanei kai trephei to z\u00f4on; all'\n  ekein\u00f4n t\u00f4n s\u00f4mat\u00f4n t\u00f4n anarm\u00f4n kai amer\u00f4n ouden en\n  heaut\u00f4 diaplastik\u00ean echei dynamin \u00ea aux\u00eatik\u00ean \u00ea\n  threptik\u00ean \u00ea hol\u00f4s technik\u00ean; apathes gar kai\n  ametabl\u00eaton hypokeitai. t\u00f4n d' eir\u00eamen\u00f4n ouden aneu\n  metabol\u00eas kai alloi\u00f4se\u00f4s kai t\u00eas di' hol\u00f4n krase\u00f4s\n  gignetai, kathaper kai dia t\u00f4n emprosthen enedeixametha.\n  kai dia taut\u00ean t\u00ean anank\u00ean ouk echontes, hop\u00f4s ta\n  akoloutha tois stoicheiois, hois hypethento,\n  phylattoien, hoi apo t\u00f4n toiout\u00f4n hairese\u00f4n hapantes\n  atechnon \u00eanankasth\u00easan apoph\u00eanasthai t\u00ean physin. kaitoi\n  tauta g' ou par' h\u00eam\u00f4n echr\u00ean manthanein tous\n  Erasistrateious, alla par' aut\u00f4n t\u00f4n philosoph\u00f4n, hois\n  malista dokei pr\u00f4ton episkopeisthai ta stoicheia t\u00f4n\n  ont\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n.\n\n  Oukoun oud' Erasistraton an tis orth\u00f4s achri tosaut\u00eas\n  amathias nomizoi pro\u00eakein, h\u00f4s m\u00eade taut\u00ean gn\u00f4risai\n  dyn\u00eath\u00eanai t\u00ean akolou||thian, all' hama men hypothesthai      102\n  technik\u00ean t\u00ean physin, hama d' eis apath\u00ea kai anarma kai\n  ametabl\u00eata stoicheia katathrausai t\u00ean ousian. kai m\u00ean ei\n  d\u00f4sei tin' en tois stoicheiois alloi\u00f4sin te kai\n  metabol\u00ean kai hen\u00f4sin kai synecheian, hen asyntheton\n  aut\u00f4 to haploun angeion ekeino, kathaper kai autos\n  onomazei, gen\u00easetai. all' h\u00ea men hapl\u00ea phleps ex haut\u00eas\n  traph\u00easetai, to neuron de kai h\u00ea art\u00earia para t\u00eas\n  plebos. p\u00f4s kai tina tropon? en tout\u00f4 gar d\u00ea kai\n  prosthen genomenoi t\u00f4 log\u00f4 t\u00eas t\u00f4n Erasistratei\u00f4n\n  diaph\u00f4nias emn\u00eamoneusamen, epedeixamen de kai kath'\n  hekaterous men aporon einai t\u00ean t\u00f4n hapl\u00f4n ekein\u00f4n\n  angei\u00f4n threpsin, alla kai krinai t\u00ean mach\u00ean aut\u00f4n ouk\n  \u00f4kn\u00easamen kai tim\u00easai ton Erasistraton eis t\u00ean beltiona\n  metast\u00easantes hairesin.\n\n  Authis oun epi t\u00ean hen haploun h\u00ean\u00f4menon heaut\u00f4 pant\u00ea to\n  stoichei\u00f4des ekeino neuron hypotithemen\u00ean hairesin ho\n  logos metabas episkopeisth\u00f4, p\u00f4s traph\u00easetai; to gar\n  heurethen entautha koinon an \u00ead\u00ea kai t\u00eas Hippokratous\n  hairese\u00f4s genoito.\n\n  Kallion d' an moi dok\u00f4 to z\u00eatou||menon epi t\u00f4n                103\n  nenos\u00eakot\u00f4n kai sphodra kataleleptysmen\u00f4n basanisth\u00eanai.\n  panta gar toutois enarg\u00f4s phainetai ta moria tou s\u00f4matos\n  atropha kai lepta kai poll\u00eas prosth\u00eak\u00eas te kai\n  anathrepse\u00f4s deomena. kai toinyn kai to neuron touto to\n  aisth\u00eaton, eph' houper ex arch\u00eas epoi\u00easam\u00ean ton logon,\n  ischnon men hikan\u00f4s gegone, deitai de threpse\u00f4s. echei\n  d' en heaut\u00f4 mer\u00ea pampolla men ekeina ta pr\u00f4ta kai\n  aorata neura ta smikra kai tinas art\u00earias haplas oligas\n  kai phlebas homoi\u00f4s. hapant' oun autou ta neura ta\n  stoichei\u00f4d\u00ea kataleleptyntai d\u00ealonoti kai auta, \u00ea, ei\n  m\u00ead' ekeina, oude to holon. kai toinyn kai threpse\u00f4s ou\n  to men holon deitai neuron, hekaston d' ekein\u00f4n ou\n  deitai. kai m\u00ean ei deitai men anathrepse\u00f4s, ouden d' h\u00ea\n  pros to kenoumenon akolouthia bo\u00eathein autois dynatai\n  dia te tas emprosthen eir\u00eamenas aporias kai dia t\u00ean\n  hypoguion ischnot\u00eata, kathaper deix\u00f4, z\u00eat\u00eateon h\u00eamin\n  estin heteran aitian threpse\u00f4s.\n\n  P\u00f4s oun h\u00ea pros to kenoumenon akolouthia trephein\n  adynatos esti ton hout\u00f4 diakeimenon? hoti tosouton\n  akolouthein || anankazei t\u00f4n synech\u00f4n, hoson aporrhei.        104\n  touto d' epi men t\u00f4n euektount\u00f4n hikanon estin eis t\u00ean\n  threpsin, isa gar ep' aut\u00f4n einai chr\u00ea tois aporrheousi\n  ta prostithemena; epi de t\u00f4n eschat\u00f4s ischn\u00f4n kai poll\u00eas\n  anathrepse\u00f4s deomen\u00f4n ei m\u00ea pollaplasion ei\u00ea to\n  prostithemenon tou kenoumenou, t\u00ean ex arch\u00eas hexin\n  analabein ouk an pote dynainto. d\u00ealon oun, h\u00f4s helkein\n  auta de\u00easei tosout\u00f4 pleion, hos\u00f4 kai deitai pleionos.\n  Erasistratos de kantautha proteron poi\u00easas to deuteron\n  ouk oid' hop\u00f4s ouk aisthanetai. dioti gar, ph\u00easi, poll\u00ea\n  prosthesis eis anathrepsin gignetai tois nenos\u00eakosi, dia\n  touto kai h\u00ea pros taut\u00ean akolouthia poll\u00ea. p\u00f4s d' an\n  poll\u00ea prosthesis genoito m\u00ea pro\u00eagoumen\u00eas anadose\u00f4s\n  dapsilous? ei de t\u00ean dia t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n phoran t\u00eas troph\u00eas\n  anadosin kalei, t\u00ean d' eis hekaston t\u00f4n hapl\u00f4n kai\n  aorat\u00f4n ekein\u00f4n neur\u00f4n kai art\u00eari\u00f4n metal\u00eapsin ouk\n  anadosin alla diadosin, h\u00f4s tines onomazein \u00eaxi\u00f4san,\n  eita || t\u00ean dia t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n mon\u00ea t\u00ea pros to kenoumenon        105\n  akolouthia ph\u00easi gignesthai, t\u00ean eis ta log\u00f4 the\u00f4r\u00eata\n  metal\u00eapsin h\u00eamin ex\u00eag\u00easasth\u00f4. hoti men gar ouket' epi\n  tout\u00f4n h\u00ea pros to kenoumenon akolouthia legesthai\n  dynatai kai malist' epi t\u00f4n eschat\u00f4s ischn\u00f4n,\n  apodedeiktai. ti de ph\u00easin ep' aut\u00f4n en t\u00f4 deuter\u00f4 t\u00f4n\n  katholou log\u00f4n ho Erasistratos, axion epakousai t\u00eas\n  lexe\u00f4s; \"Tois d' eschatois te kai haplois, leptois te\n  kai stenois ousin, ek t\u00f4n parakeimen\u00f4n angei\u00f4n h\u00ea\n  prosthesis symbainei eis ta ken\u00f4mata t\u00f4n apenechthent\u00f4n\n  kata ta plagia t\u00f4n angei\u00f4n helkomen\u00eas t\u00eas troph\u00eas kai\n  katach\u00f4rizomen\u00eas.\" ek taut\u00eas t\u00eas lexe\u00f4s pr\u00f4ton men to\n  kata ta plagia prosiemai te kai apodechomai; kata men\n  gar auto to stoma to haploun neuron ouk an dynaito\n  dechomenon t\u00ean troph\u00ean hout\u00f4s eis holon heauto\n  dianemein; anakeitai gar ekeino t\u00f4 psychik\u00f4 pneumati;\n  kata de to plagion ek t\u00eas parakeimen\u00eas phlebos t\u00eas\n  hapl\u00eas ench\u00f4rei labein auto. deuteron d' apodechomai t\u00f4n\n  ek t\u00eas Erasistratou lexe\u00f4s onomat\u00f4n to gegrammenon\n  ephex\u00eas t\u00f4 kata ta plagia. || ti gar ph\u00easi? \"Kata ta          106\n  plagia t\u00f4n angei\u00f4n helkomen\u00eas t\u00eas troph\u00eas.\" hoti men oun\n  helketai, kai h\u00eameis homologoumen, hoti d' ou t\u00ea pros to\n  kenoumenon akolouthia, dedeiktai prosthen.\n\n\n                           VII\n\nLet us, then, consider together how it is attracted. How else than in\nthe way that iron is attracted by the lodestone, the latter having a\nfaculty attractive of this particular quality [existing in iron]?[233]\nBut if the beginning of anadosis depends on the squeezing action of\nthe stomach,[234] and the whole movement thereafter on the peristalsis\nand propulsive action of the veins, as well as on the traction exerted\nby each of the parts which are undergoing nourishment, then we can\nabandon the principle of replacement of evacuated matter, as not being\nsuitable for a man who assumes Nature to be a skilled artist; thus we\nshall also have avoided the contradiction of Asclepiades[235] though\nwe cannot refute it: for the disjunctive argument used for the\npurposes of demonstration is, in reality, disjunctive not of two but\nof three alternatives; now, if we treat the disjunction as a\ndisjunction of two alternatives, one of the two propositions assumed\nin constructing our proof must be false; and if as a disjunctive of\nthree alternatives, no conclusion will be arrived at.\n\n\n                      VII\n\n  Exeur\u00f4men oun koin\u00ea, p\u00f4s helketai. p\u00f4s d' all\u00f4s \u00ea h\u00f4s ho\n  sid\u00earos hypo t\u00eas h\u00earakleias lithou dynamin echous\u00eas\n  helktik\u00ean toiaut\u00eas poiot\u00eatos? all' ei t\u00ean men arch\u00ean t\u00eas\n  anadose\u00f4s h\u00ea t\u00eas koilias enthlipsis parechetai, t\u00ean de\n  meta tauta phoran hapasan hai te phlebes peristellomenai\n  kai pro\u00f4thousai kai t\u00f4n trephomen\u00f4n hekaston episp\u00f4menon\n  eis heauto, t\u00eas pros to kenoumenon akolouthias\n  apostantes, h\u00f4s ou prepous\u00eas andri technik\u00ean hypothemen\u00f4\n  t\u00ean physin, hout\u00f4s an \u00ead\u00ea kai t\u00ean antilogian ei\u00eamen\n  pepheugotes t\u00ean Askl\u00eapiadou m\u00ea dynamenoi ge lyein aut\u00ean.\n  to gar eis t\u00ean apodeixin paralambanomenon l\u00eamma to\n  diezeugmenon ouk ek dyoin all' ek tri\u00f4n esti kata ge t\u00ean\n  al\u00eatheian diezeugmenon. ei men oun h\u00f4s ek dyoin aut\u00f4\n  chr\u00ea||saimetha, pseudos estai ti t\u00f4n eis t\u00ean apodeixin        107\n  pareil\u00eammen\u00f4n; ei d' h\u00f4s ek tri\u00f4n, aperantos ho logos\n  gen\u00easetai.\n\n\n                            VIII\n\nNow Erasistratus ought not to have been ignorant of this if he had\never had anything to do with the Peripatetics--even in a dream. Nor,\nsimilarly, should he have been unacquainted with the genesis of the\n_humours_, about which, not having even anything moderately plausible\nto say, he thinks to deceive us by the excuse that the consideration\nof such matters is not the least useful. Then, in Heaven's name, is it\nuseful to know how food is digested in the stomach, but unnecessary to\nknow how _bile_ comes into existence in the veins? Are we to pay\nattention merely to the evacuation of this humour, and not to its\ngenesis? As though it were not far better to prevent its excessive\ndevelopment from the beginning than to give ourselves all the trouble\nof expelling it![236] And it is a strange thing to be entirely unaware\nas to whether its genesis is to be looked on as taking place in the\nbody, or whether it comes from without and is contained in the food.\nFor, if it was right to raise this problem, why should we not make\ninvestigations concerning the _blood_ as well--whether it takes its\norigin in the body, or is distributed through the food as is\nmaintained by those who postulate _homoemeries_?[237] Assuredly it\nwould be much more useful to investigate what kinds of food are\nsuited, and what kinds unsuited, to the process of\nblood-production[238] rather than to enquire into what articles of\ndiet are easily mastered by the activity of the stomach, and what\nresist and contend with it. For the choice of the latter bears\nreference merely to digestion, while that of the former is of\nimportance in regard to the generation of useful blood. For it is not\nequally important whether the aliment be imperfectly chylified[239] in\nthe stomach or whether it fail to be turned into useful blood. Why is\nErasistratus not ashamed to distinguish all the various kinds of\ndigestive failure and all the occasions which give rise to them,\nwhilst in reference to the errors of blood-production he does not\nutter a single word--nay, not a syllable? Now, there is certainly to\nbe found in the veins both thick and thin blood; in some people it is\nredder, in others yellower, in some blacker, in others more of the\nnature of phlegm. And one who realizes that it may smell offensively\nnot in one way only, but in a great many different respects (which\ncannot be put into words, although perfectly appreciable to the\nsenses), would, I imagine, condemn in no measured terms the\ncarelessness of Erasistratus in omitting a consideration so essential\nto the practice of our art.\n\nThus it is clear what errors in regard to the subject of _dropsies_\nlogically follow this carelessness. For, does it not show the most\nextreme carelessness to suppose that the blood is prevented from going\nforward into the liver owing to the _narrowness of the passages_, and\nthat dropsy can never occur in any other way? For, to imagine that\ndropsy is never caused by the spleen[240] or any other part, but\nalways by induration of the liver,[241] is the standpoint of a man\nwhose intelligence is perfectly torpid and who is quite out of touch\nwith things that happen every day. For, not merely once or twice, but\nfrequently, we have observed dropsy produced by chronic haemorrhoids\nwhich have been suppressed,[242] or which, through immoderate\nbleeding, have given the patient a severe chill; similarly, in women,\nthe complete disappearance of the monthly discharge,[243] or an undue\nevacuation such as is caused by violent bleeding from the womb, often\nprovoke dropsy; and in some of them the so-called female flux ends in\nthis disorder. I leave out of account the dropsy which begins in the\nflanks or in any other susceptible part; this clearly confutes\nErasistratus's assumption, although not so obviously as does that kind\nof dropsy which is brought about by an excessive chilling of the whole\nconstitution; this, which is the primary reason for the occurrence of\ndropsy, results from a failure of blood-production,[244] very much\nlike the diarrhoea which follows imperfect digestion of food;\ncertainly in this kind of dropsy neither the liver nor any other\nviscus becomes indurated.\n\nThe learned Erasistratus, however, overlooks--nay, despises--what\nneither Hippocrates, Diocles, Praxagoras, nor Philistion[245]\ndespised, nor indeed any of the best philosophers, whether Plato,\nAristotle, or Theophrastus; he passes by whole functions as though it\nwere but a trifling and casual department of medicine which he was\nneglecting, without deigning to argue whether or not these authorities\nare right in saying that the bodily parts of all animals are governed\nby the Warm, the Cold, the Dry and the Moist, the one pair being\nactive and the other passive, and that among these the Warm has most\npower in connection with all functions, but especially with the\ngenesis of the humours.[246] Now, one cannot be blamed for not\nagreeing with all these great men, nor for imagining that one knows\nmore than they; but not to consider such distinguished teaching worthy\neither of contradiction or even mention shows an extraordinary\narrogance.\n\nNow, Erasistratus is thoroughly small-minded and petty to the last\ndegree in all his disputations--when, for instance, in his treatise\n\"On Digestion,\"[247] he argues jealously with those who consider that\nthis is a process of putrefaction of the food; and, in his work \"On\nAnadosis,\"[248] with those who think that the anadosis of blood\nthrough the veins results from the contiguity of the arteries; also,\nin his work \"On Respiration,\" with those who maintain that the air is\nforced along by contraction. Nay, he did not even hesitate to\ncontradict those who maintain that the urine passes into the bladder\nin a vaporous state,[249] as also those who say that imbibed fluids\nare carried into the lung. Thus he delights to choose always the most\nvalueless doctrines, and to spend his time more and more in\ncontradicting these; whereas on the subject of the _origin of blood_\n(which is in no way less important than the chylification[250] of food\nin the stomach) he did not deign to dispute with any of the ancients,\nnor did he himself venture to bring forward any other opinion, despite\nthe fact that at the beginning of his treatise on \"General Principles\"\nhe undertook to say how all the various natural functions take place,\nand through what parts of the animal! Now, is it possible that, when\nthe faculty which naturally digests food is weak, the animal's\ndigestion fails, whereas the faculty which turns the digested food\ninto blood cannot suffer any kind of impairment?[251] Are we to\nsuppose this latter faculty alone to be as tough as steel and\nunaffected by circumstances? Or is it that weakness of this faculty\nwill result in something else than dropsy? The fact, therefore, that\nErasistratus, in regard to other matters, did not hesitate to attack\neven the most trivial views, whilst in this case he neither dared to\ncontradict his predecessors nor to advance any new view of his own,\nproves plainly that he recognized the fallacy of his own way of\nthinking.[252]\n\nFor what could a man possibly say about blood who had no use for\n_innate heat_? What could he say about yellow or black bile, or\nphlegm? Well, of course, he might say that the bile could come\ndirectly from without, mingled with the food! Thus Erasistratus\npractically says so in the following words: \"It is of no value in\npractical medicine to find out whether a fluid of this kind[253]\narises from the elaboration of food in the stomach-region, or whether\nit reaches the body because it is mixed with the food taken in from\noutside.\" But, my very good Sir, you most certainly maintain also that\nthis humour has to be evacuated from the animal, and that it causes\ngreat pain if it be not evacuated. How, then, if you suppose that no\ngood comes from the bile, do you venture to say that an investigation\ninto its origin is of no value in medicine?\n\nWell, let us suppose that it is contained in the food, and not\nspecifically secreted in the liver (for you hold these two things\npossible). In this case, it will certainly make a considerable\ndifference whether the ingested food contains a minimum or a maximum\nof bile; for the one kind is harmless, whereas that containing a large\nquantity of bile, owing to the fact that it cannot be properly\npurified[254] in the liver, will result in the various\naffections--particularly jaundice--which Erasistratus himself states\nto occur where there is much bile. Surely, then, it is most essential\nfor the physician to know in the first place, that the bile is\ncontained in the food itself from outside, and, secondly, that for\nexample, beet contains a great deal of bile, and bread very little,\nwhile olive oil contains most, and wine least of all, and all the\nother articles of diet different quantities. Would it not be absurd\nfor any one to choose voluntarily those articles which contain more\nbile, rather than those containing less?\n\nWhat, however, if the bile is not contained in the food, but comes\ninto existence in the animal's body? Will it not also be useful to\nknow what _state of the body_ is followed by a greater, and what by a\nsmaller occurrence of bile?[255] For obviously it is in our power to\nalter and transmute morbid states of the body--in fact, to give them a\nturn for the better. But if we did not know in what respect they were\nmorbid or in what way they diverged from the normal, how should we be\nable to ameliorate them?\n\nTherefore it is not useless in treatment, as Erasistratus says, to\nknow the actual truth about the genesis of bile. Certainly it is not\nimpossible, or even difficult to discover that the reason why _honey_\nproduces yellow bile is not that it contains a large quantity of this\nwithin itself, but because it [the honey] undergoes change, becoming\n_altered_ and transmuted into bile. For it would be bitter to the\ntaste if it contained bile from the outset, and it would produce an\nequal quantity of bile in every person who took it. The facts,\nhowever, are not so.[256] For in those who are in the prime of life,\nespecially if they are warm by nature and are leading a life of toil,\nthe honey changes entirely into yellow bile. Old people, however, it\nsuits well enough, inasmuch as the alteration which it undergoes is\nnot into bile, but into blood. Erasistratus, however, in addition to\nknowing nothing about this, shows no intelligence even in the division\nof his argument; he says that it is of no practical importance to\ninvestigate whether the bile is contained in the food from the\nbeginning or comes into existence as a result of gastric digestion. He\nought surely to have added something about its genesis in liver and\nveins, seeing that the old physicians and philosophers declare that it\nalong with the blood is generated in these organs. But it is\ninevitable that people who, from the very outset, go astray, and\nwander from the right road, should talk such nonsense, and should,\nover and above this, neglect to search for the factors of most\npractical importance in medicine.\n\nHaving come to this point in the argument, I should like to ask those\nwho declare that Erasistratus was very familiar with the Peripatetics,\nwhether they know what Aristotle stated and demonstrated with regard\nto our bodies being compounded out of the Warm, the Cold, the Dry and\nthe Moist, and how he says that among these the Warm is the most\nactive, and that those animals which are by nature warmest have\nabundance of blood, whilst those that are colder are entirely lacking\nin blood, and consequently in winter lie idle and motionless, lurking\nin holes like corpses. Further, the question of the colour of the\nblood has been dealt with not only by Aristotle but also by\nPlato.[257] Now I, for my part, as I have already said, did not set\nbefore myself the task of stating what has been so well demonstrated\nby the Ancients, since I cannot surpass these men either in my views\nor in my method of giving them expression. Doctrines, however, which\nthey either stated without demonstration, as being self-evident (since\nthey never suspected that there could be sophists so degraded as to\ncontemn the truth in these matters), or else which they actually\nomitted to mention at all--these I propose to discover and prove.\n\nNow in reference to the _genesis of the humours_, I do not know that\nany one could add anything wiser than what has been said by\nHippocrates, Aristotle, Praxagoras, Philotimus[258] and many other\namong the Ancients. These men demonstrated that when the nutriment\nbecomes altered in the veins by the innate heat, blood is produced\nwhen it is in moderation, and the other humours when it is not in\nproper proportion. And all the observed facts[259] agree with this\nargument. Thus, those articles of food, which are by nature warmer are\nmore productive of bile, while those which are colder produce more\nphlegm. Similarly of the periods of life, those which are naturally\nwarmer tend more to bile, and the colder more to phlegm. Of\noccupations also, localities and seasons, and, above all, of\nnatures[260] themselves, the colder are more phlegmatic, and the\nwarmer more bilious. Also cold diseases result from phlegm, and warmer\nones from yellow bile. There is not a single thing to be found which\ndoes not bear witness to the truth of this account. How could it be\notherwise? For, seeing that every part functions in its own special\nway because of the manner in which the four qualities are compounded,\nit is absolutely necessary that the function [activity] should be\neither completely destroyed, or, at least hampered, by any damage to\nthe qualities, and that thus the animal should fall ill, either as a\nwhole, or in certain of its parts.\n\nAlso the diseases which are primary and most generic are four in\nnumber, and differ from each other in warmth, cold, dryness and\nmoisture. Now, Erasistratus himself confesses this, albeit\nunintentionally;[261] for when he says that the digestion of food\nbecomes worse in fever, not because the innate heat has ceased to be\nin due proportion, as people previously supposed, but because the\nstomach, with its activity impaired, cannot contract and triturate as\nbefore--then, I say, one may justly ask him what it is that has\nimpaired the activity of the stomach.\n\nThus, for example, when a bubo develops following an accidental\nwound[262] gastric digestion does not become impaired _until after the\npatient has become fevered_; neither the bubo nor the sore of itself\nimpedes in any way or damages the activity of the stomach. But if\nfever occurs, the digestion at once deteriorates, and we are also\nright in saying that the activity of the stomach at once becomes\nimpaired. We must add, however, by what it has been impaired. For the\nwound was not capable of impairing it, nor yet the bubo, for, if they\nhad been, then they would have caused this damage before the fever as\nwell. If it was not these that caused it, then it was the excess of\nheat[263] (for these two symptoms occurred besides the bubo--an\nalteration in the arterial and cardiac movements[264] and an excessive\ndevelopment of natural heat). Now the alteration of these movements\nwill not merely not impair the function of the stomach in any way: it\nwill actually prove an additional help among those animals in which,\naccording to Erasistratus, the _pneuma_, which is propelled through\nthe arteries and into the alimentary canal, is of great service in\ndigestion;[265] there is only left, then, the disproportionate heat to\naccount for the damage to the gastric activity. For the pneuma is\ndriven in more vigorously and continuously, and in greater quantity\nnow than before; thus in this case, the animal whose digestion is\npromoted by pneuma will digest more, whereas the remaining\nfactor--abnormal heat--will give them indigestion. For to say, on the\none hand, that the pneuma has a certain property by virtue of which it\npromotes digestion, and then to say that this property disappears in\ncases of fever, is simply to admit the absurdity. For when they are\nagain asked what it is that has altered the pneuma, they will only be\nable to reply, \"the abnormal heat,\" and particularly if it be the\npneuma in the food canal which is in question (since this does not\ncome in any way near the bubo).\n\nYet why do I mention those animals in which the property of the pneuma\nplays an important part, when it is possible to base one's argument\nupon human beings, in whom it is either of no importance at all, or\nacts quite faintly and feebly?[266] But Erasistratus himself agrees\nthat human beings digest badly in fevers, adding as the cause that the\nactivity of the stomach has been impaired. He cannot, however, advance\nany other cause of this impairment than abnormal heat. But if it is\nnot by accident that the abnormal heat impairs this activity, but by\nvirtue of its own essence and power, then this abnormal heat must\nbelong to the _primary diseases_. But, indeed, if _disproportion_ of\nheat belongs to the primary diseases, it cannot but be that a\n_proportionate_ blending [eucrasia] of the qualities produces the\nnormal activity.[267] For a disproportionate blend [dyscrasia] can\nonly become a cause of the primary diseases through derangement of the\neucrasia. That is to say, it is because the [normal] activities arise\nfrom the eucrasia that the primary impairments of these activities\nnecessarily arise from its derangement.\n\nI think, then, it has been proved to the satisfaction of those people\nwho are capable of seeing logical consequences, that, even according\nto Erasistratus's own argument, the cause of the normal functions is\neucrasia of the Warm.[268] Now, this being so, there is nothing\nfurther to prevent us from saying that, in the case of each function,\neucrasia is followed by the more, and dyscrasia by the less favourable\nalternative. And, therefore, if this be the case, we must suppose\nblood to be the outcome of proportionate, and yellow bile of\ndisproportionate heat. So we naturally find yellow bile appearing in\ngreatest quantity in ourselves at the warm periods of life, in warm\ncountries, at warm seasons of the year, and when we are in a warm\ncondition; similarly in people of warm temperaments, and in connection\nwith warm occupations, modes of life, or diseases.\n\nAnd to be in doubt as to whether this humour has its genesis in the\nhuman body or is contained in the food is what you would expect from\none who has--I will not say failed to see that, when those who are\nperfectly healthy have, under the compulsion of circumstances, to fast\ncontrary to custom, their mouths become bitter and their urine\nbile-coloured, while they suffer from gnawing pains in the\nstomach--but has, as it were, just made a sudden entrance into the\nworld, and is not yet familiar with the phenomena which occur there.\nWho, in fact, does not know that anything which is overcooked grows at\nfirst salt and afterwards bitter? And if you will boil honey itself,\nfar the sweetest of all things, you can demonstrate that even this\nbecomes quite bitter. For what may occur as a result of boiling in the\ncase of other articles which are not warm by nature, exists naturally\nin honey; for this reason it does not become sweeter on being boiled,\nsince exactly the same quantity of heat as is needed for the\nproduction of sweetness exists from beforehand in the honey. Therefore\nthe external heat, which would be useful for insufficiently warm\nsubstances, becomes in the honey a source of damage, in fact an\nexcess; and it is for this reason that honey, when boiled, can be\ndemonstrated to become bitter sooner than the others. For the same\nreason it is easily transmuted into bile in those people who are\nnaturally warm, or in their prime, since warm when associated with\nwarm becomes readily changed into a disproportionate combination and\nturns into bile sooner than into blood. Thus we need a cold\ntemperament and a cold period of life if we would have honey brought\nto the nature of blood.[269] Therefore Hippocrates not improperly\nadvised those who were naturally bilious not to take honey, since they\nwere obviously of too warm a temperament. So also, not only\nHippocrates, but all physicians say that honey is bad in bilious\ndiseases but good in old age; some of them having discovered this\nthrough the indications afforded by its nature, and others simply\nthrough experiment,[270] for the Empiricist physicians too have made\nprecisely the same observation, namely, that honey is good for an old\nman and not for a young one, that it is harmful for those who are\nnaturally bilious, and serviceable for those who are phlegmatic. In a\nword, in bodies which are warm either through nature, disease, time of\nlife, season of the year, locality, or occupation, honey is productive\nof bile, whereas in opposite circumstances it produces blood.\n\nBut surely it is impossible that the same article of diet can produce\nin certain persons bile and in others blood, if it be not that the\ngenesis of these humours is accomplished _in the body_. For if all\narticles of food contained bile from the beginning and of themselves,\nand did not produce it by undergoing change in the animal body, then\nthey would produce it similarly in all bodies; the food which was\nbitter to the taste would, I take it, be productive of bile, while\nthat which tasted good and sweet would not generate even the smallest\nquantity of bile. Moreover, not only honey but all other sweet\nsubstances are readily converted into bile in the aforesaid bodies\nwhich are warm for any of the reasons mentioned.\n\nWell, I have somehow or other been led into this discussion,--not in\naccordance with my plan, but compelled by the course of the argument.\nThis subject has been treated at great length by Aristotle and\nPraxagoras, who have correctly expounded the view of Hippocrates and\nPlato.\n\n\n                     VIII\n\n  Kai taut' ouk echr\u00ean agnoein ton Erasistraton, eiper kan\n  onar pote tois ek tou peripatou synetychen, h\u00f4sper oun\n  oude ta peri t\u00eas genese\u00f4s t\u00f4n chym\u00f4n, hyper h\u00f4n ouden\n  ech\u00f4n eipein oude mechri tou metriou pithanon oietai\n  parakrouesthai sk\u00eaptomenos, h\u00f4s oude chr\u00easimos hol\u00f4s\n  estin h\u00ea t\u00f4n toiout\u00f4n episkepsis. eit', \u00f4 pros the\u00f4n,\n  hop\u00f4s men ta sitia kata t\u00ean gastera pettetai chr\u00easimon\n  epistasthai, p\u00f4s d' en tais phlepsin h\u00ea chol\u00ea gignetai,\n  peritton? kai t\u00eas ken\u00f4se\u00f4s ara phrontisteon aut\u00eas mon\u00eas,\n  amel\u00eateon de t\u00eas genese\u00f4s? h\u00f4sper ouk ameinon hyparchon\n  makr\u00f4 to k\u00f4lyein euthys ex arch\u00eas gennasthai pleiona tou\n  pragmat' echein ekkenountas. thaumaston de kai to\n  diaporein, eit' en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati t\u00ean genesin aut\u00eas\n  hypotheteon eit' euthys ex\u00f4then en tois sitiois\n  periechesthai phateon. ei gar d\u00ea touto kal\u00f4s \u00eapor\u00eatai,\n  ti ouchi kai peri tou haimatos episkepsometha, poteron\n  en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati || lambanei t\u00ean genesin \u00ea tois sitiois           108\n  parespartai, kathaper hoi tas homoiomereias\n  hypotithemenoi phasi? kai m\u00ean poll\u00f4 g' \u00ean chr\u00easim\u00f4teron\n  z\u00eateisthai, poia t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n homologei t\u00ea t\u00eas haimat\u00f4se\u00f4s\n  energeia kai poia diapheretai, tou z\u00eatein, tina men t\u00ea\n  t\u00eas gastros energeia nikatai rhadi\u00f4s, tina d' antibainei\n  kai machetai. tout\u00f4n men gar h\u00ea eklexis eis pepsin\n  mon\u00ean, ekein\u00f4n d' eis haimatos chr\u00eastou diapherei\n  genesin. oude gar ison estin \u00ea m\u00ea kal\u00f4s en t\u00ea gastri\n  chyl\u00f4th\u00eanai t\u00ean troph\u00ean \u00ea m\u00ea chr\u00easton haima genn\u00eath\u00eanai.\n  p\u00f4s d' ouk aideitai tas men t\u00eas pepse\u00f4s apotychias\n  diairoumenos, h\u00f4s pollai t' eisi kai kata pollas\n  gignontai prophaseis, hyper de t\u00f4n t\u00eas haimat\u00f4se\u00f4s\n  sphalmat\u00f4n oud' achri rh\u00eamatos henos oud' achri syllab\u00eas\n  mias phthenxamenos? kai m\u00ean heurisketai ge kai pachy kai\n  lepton en tais phlepsin haima kai tois men erythroteron,\n  tois de xanthoteron, tois de melanteron, tois de\n  phlegmat\u00f4desteron. ei d' hoti kai dys\u00f4des ouch hena\n  tropon all' en pollais pany diaphorais arrh\u00eatois men\n  log\u00f4, sa||phestatais d' aisth\u00easesi phainetai gignomenon,      109\n  eidei\u00ea tis, ouk an oimai metri\u00f4s eti katagn\u00f4sesthai t\u00eas\n  Erasistratou rhathymias auton hout\u00f4 g' anankaian eis ta\n  erga t\u00eas techn\u00eas the\u00f4rian paralipontos.\n\n  Enarg\u00ea gar d\u00ea kai ta peri t\u00f4n hyder\u00f4n hamart\u00eamata t\u00ea\n  rhathymia taut\u00ea kata logon \u00eakolouth\u00eakota. to te gar t\u00ea\n  stenoch\u00f4ria t\u00f4n hod\u00f4n k\u00f4lyesthai nomizein pros\u00f4 tou\n  h\u00eapatos ienai to haima kai m\u00eadepot' an all\u00f4s hyderon\n  dynasthai syst\u00eanai p\u00f4s ouk eschat\u00ean endeiknytai\n  rhathymian? to te m\u00ea dia ton spl\u00eana m\u00eade di' allo ti\n  morion, all' aei dia ton en t\u00f4 h\u00eapati skirrhon hyderon\n  oiesthai gignesthai tele\u00f4s argou t\u00ean dianoian anthr\u00f4pou\n  kai m\u00eadeni t\u00f4n hos\u00eamerai gignomen\u00f4n parakolouthountos.\n  epi men ge chroniais haimorrho\u00efsin epischetheisais \u00ea dia\n  ken\u00f4sin ametron eis psyxin eschat\u00ean agagousais ton\n  anthr\u00f4pon ouch hapax oude dis alla pollakis \u00ead\u00ea\n  tetheametha systantas hyderous, h\u00f4sper ge kai gynaixin\n  h\u00ea te t\u00eas eph' hekast\u00f4 m\u00eani katharse\u00f4s ap\u00f4leia pantel\u00eas\n  kai ametros ken\u00f4sis, hotan haimorrhag\u00eas\u00f4si poth' hai\n  m\u00eatrai sphodr\u00f4s, epekalesanto pol||lakis hyderon kai          110\n  tisin aut\u00f4n kai ho gynaikeios onomazomenos rhous eis\n  tout' eteleut\u00ease to pathos, hina tous apo t\u00f4n kene\u00f4n\u00f4n\n  archomenous \u00ea allou tinos t\u00f4n epikair\u00f4n mori\u00f4n hyderous\n  paralip\u00f4, saph\u00f4s men kai autous exelenchontas t\u00ean\n  Erasistrateion hypol\u00eapsin, all' ouch hout\u00f4s enarg\u00f4s h\u00f4s\n  hoi dia katapsyxin sphodran t\u00eas hol\u00eas hexe\u00f4s\n  apoteloumenoi. pr\u00f4t\u00ea gar haut\u00ea genese\u00f4s hyder\u00f4n aitia\n  dia t\u00ean apotychian t\u00eas haimat\u00f4se\u00f4s gignomen\u00ea tropon\n  homoiotaton tais epi t\u00ea t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n apepsia diarrhoiais.\n  ou m\u00ean eskirrh\u00f4tai ge kata tous toioutous hyderous oud'\n  allo ti splanchnon oude to h\u00eapar.\n\n  All' Erasistratos ho sophos hyperid\u00f4n kai kataphron\u00easas,\n  h\u00f4n outh' Hippokrat\u00eas oute Diokl\u00eas oute Praxagoras oute\n  Philisti\u00f4n all' oude t\u00f4n arist\u00f4n philosoph\u00f4n oudeis\n  katephron\u00easen oute Plat\u00f4n out' Aristotel\u00eas oute\n  Theophrastos, holas energeias hyperbainei kathaper ti\n  smikron kai to tychon t\u00eas techn\u00eas paralip\u00f4n meros oud'\n  anteipein axi\u00f4sas, eit' orth\u00f4s eite kai m\u00ea || sympantes       111\n  houtoi therm\u00f4 kai psychr\u00f4 kai x\u00ear\u00f4 kai hygr\u00f4, tois men\n  h\u00f4s dr\u00f4si, tois d' h\u00f4s paschousi, ta kata to s\u00f4ma t\u00f4n\n  z\u00f4\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n dioikeisthai phasi kai h\u00f4s to thermon en\n  autois eis te tas allas energeias kai malist' eis t\u00ean\n  t\u00f4n chym\u00f4n genesin to pleiston dynatai. alla to men m\u00ea\n  peithesthai tosoutois te kai t\u00ealikoutois andrasi kai\n  pleon aut\u00f4n oiesthai ti gign\u00f4skein anemes\u00eaton, to de\n  m\u00eat' antilogias axi\u00f4sai m\u00eate mn\u00eam\u00eas hout\u00f4s endoxon dogma\n  thaumast\u00ean tina t\u00ean hyperopsian endeiknytai.\n\n  Kai m\u00ean smikrotatos esti t\u00ean gn\u00f4m\u00ean kai tapeinos\n  eschat\u00f4s en hapasais tais antilogiais en men tois peri\n  t\u00eas pepse\u00f4s logois tois s\u00eapesthai ta sitia nomizousi\n  philotim\u00f4s antileg\u00f4n, en de tois peri t\u00eas anadose\u00f4s tois\n  dia t\u00ean parathesin t\u00f4n art\u00eari\u00f4n anadidosthai to dia t\u00f4n\n  phleb\u00f4n haima nomizousin, en de tois peri t\u00eas anapno\u00eas\n  tois peri\u00f4theisthai ton aera phaskousin. ouk \u00f4kn\u00ease d'\n  oude tois atmoeid\u00f4s eis t\u00ean kystin ienai ta oura\n  nomizousin anteipein oude tois eis || ton pneumona            112\n  pheresthai to poton. hout\u00f4s en hapasi tas cheiristas\n  epilegomenos doxas agalletai diatrib\u00f4n epi pleon en tais\n  antilogiais; epi de t\u00eas tou haimatos genese\u00f4s ouden\n  atimoteras ous\u00eas t\u00eas en t\u00ea gastri chyl\u00f4se\u00f4s t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n\n  out' anteipein tini t\u00f4n presbyter\u00f4n \u00eaxi\u00f4sen out' autos\n  eis\u00eag\u00easasthai tin' heteran gn\u00f4m\u00ean etolm\u00easen, ho peri\n  pas\u00f4n t\u00f4n physik\u00f4n energei\u00f4n en arch\u00ea t\u00f4n katholou log\u00f4n\n  hyposchomenos erein, hop\u00f4s te gignontai kai di' h\u00f4ntin\u00f4n\n  tou z\u00f4ou mori\u00f4n. \u00ea t\u00eas men pettein ta sitia pephykuias\n  dyname\u00f4s arrh\u00f4stous\u00eas apept\u00easei to z\u00f4on, t\u00eas d'\n  haimatous\u00eas ta pephthenta ouden estai path\u00eama to\n  parapan, all' adamantin\u00ea tis h\u00eamin haut\u00ea mon\u00ea kai\n  apath\u00eas estin? \u00ea allo ti t\u00eas arrh\u00f4stias aut\u00eas ekgonon\n  hyparxei kai ouch hyderos? d\u00ealos oun enarg\u00f4s estin ho\n  Erasistratos ex h\u00f4n en men tois allois oude tais\n  phaulotatais doxais antilegein \u00f4kn\u00easen, entauthoi d'\n  out' anteipein tois prosthen out' autos eipein ti kainon\n  etolm\u00ease, to sphalma t\u00eas heautou gn\u00f4riz\u00f4n hairese\u00f4s.\n\n  Ti gar an kai legein eschen hyper haimatos || anthr\u00f4pos       113\n  eis m\u00eaden t\u00f4 symphyt\u00f4 therm\u00f4 chr\u00f4menos? ti de peri\n  xanth\u00eas chol\u00eas \u00ea melain\u00eas \u00ea phlegmatos? hoti n\u00ea Dia\n  dynaton estin anamemigmen\u00ean tois sitiois euthys ex\u00f4then\n  paragignesthai t\u00ean chol\u00ean. legei goun h\u00f4de p\u00f4s autois\n  onomasi; \"Poteron d' en t\u00ea peri t\u00ean koilian katergasia\n  t\u00eas troph\u00eas gennatai toiaut\u00ea hygrasia \u00ea memigmen\u00ea tois\n  ex\u00f4then prospheromenois paragignetai, ouden chr\u00easimon\n  pros iatrik\u00ean epeskephthai.\" kai m\u00ean, \u00f4 gennaiotate, kai\n  kenousthai chr\u00eanai phaskeis ek tou z\u00f4ou ton chymon\n  touton kai megal\u00f4s lypein, ei m\u00ea ken\u00f4thei\u00ea. p\u00f4s oun\n  ouden ex autou chr\u00easton hypolamban\u00f4n gignesthai tolmas\n  achr\u00easton legein eis iatrik\u00ean einai t\u00ean peri t\u00eas\n  genese\u00f4s autou skepsin?\n\n  Hypokeisth\u00f4 gar en men tois sitiois periechesthai, m\u00ea\n  diakrinesthai d' akrib\u00f4s en h\u00eapati; tauta gar amphotera\n  nomizeis einai dynata. kai m\u00ean ou smikron entautha to\n  diapheron \u00ea elachist\u00ean \u00ea pampoll\u00ean chol\u00ean en heautois\n  periechonta prosarasthai sitia. ta men gar akindyna, ta\n  de pampoll\u00ean periechonta t\u00f4 m\u00ea dynasthai pasan aut\u00ean en\n  || h\u00eapati katharth\u00eanai kal\u00f4s aitia katast\u00easetai t\u00f4n t'        114\n  all\u00f4n path\u00f4n, h\u00f4n autos ho Erasistratos epi pl\u00eathei\n  chol\u00eas gignesthai ph\u00easi, kai t\u00f4n ikter\u00f4n ouch h\u00eakista.\n  p\u00f4s oun ouk anankaiotaton iatr\u00f4 gign\u00f4skein, pr\u00f4ton men,\n  h\u00f4s en tois sitiois autois ex\u00f4then h\u00ea chol\u00ea periechetai,\n  deuteron d', h\u00f4s to men teutlon, ei tychoi, pampoll\u00ean,\n  ho d' artos elachist\u00ean kai to men elaion pleist\u00ean, ho d'\n  oinos oligist\u00ean hekaston te t\u00f4n all\u00f4n anison t\u00f4 pl\u00eathei\n  periechei t\u00ean chol\u00ean? p\u00f4s gar ouk an ei\u00ea geloiotatos,\n  hos an hek\u00f4n hair\u00eatai ta pleiona chol\u00ean en heautois\n  periechonta pro t\u00f4n enanti\u00f4n?\n\n  Ti d' ei m\u00ea periechetai men en tois sitiois h\u00ea chol\u00ea,\n  gignetai d' en tois t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n s\u00f4masin? \u00ea ouchi kai kata\n  touto chr\u00easimon epistasthai, tini men katastasei s\u00f4matos\n  hepetai plei\u00f4n aut\u00eas h\u00ea genesis, tini d' elatt\u00f4n?\n  alloioun gar d\u00eapou kai metaballein hoioi t' esmen kai\n  trepein epi to beltion aei tas mochth\u00earas katastaseis\n  tou s\u00f4matos. all' ei m\u00ea gign\u00f4skoimen, kathoti mochth\u00earai\n  kai hop\u00ea t\u00eas deous\u00eas existantai, p\u00f4s an autas epanagein\n  hoioi t' ei\u00eamen epi to || kreitton?                           115\n\n  Oukoun achr\u00easton estin eis tas iaseis, h\u00f4s Erasistratos\n  ph\u00easin, epistasthai tal\u00eathes auto peri genese\u00f4s chol\u00eas.\n  ou m\u00ean oud' adynaton oud' asaphes exeurein, hoti m\u00ea t\u00f4\n  pleist\u00ean en heaut\u00f4 periechein to meli t\u00ean xanth\u00ean chol\u00ean\n  all' en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati metaballomenon eis aut\u00ean alloioutai te\n  kai trepetai. pikron te gar an \u00ean geuomenois, ei chol\u00ean\n  ex\u00f4then euthys en heaut\u00f4 perieichen hapasi t' an\n  h\u00f4saut\u00f4s tois anthr\u00f4pois ison aut\u00eas egenna to pl\u00eathos.\n  all' ouch h\u00f4d' echei tal\u00eathes. en men gar tois akmazousi\n  kai malist' ei physei thermoteroi kai bion eien biountes\n  talaip\u00f4ron, hapan eis xanth\u00ean chol\u00ean metaballei to meli;\n  tois gerousi d' hikan\u00f4s estin epit\u00eadeion, h\u00f4s an ouk eis\n  chol\u00ean all' eis haima t\u00ean alloi\u00f4sin en ekeinois\n  lambanon. Erasistratos de pros t\u00f4 m\u00eaden tout\u00f4n\n  gign\u00f4skein oude peri t\u00ean diairesin tou logou s\u00f4phronei,\n  poteron en tois sitiois h\u00ea chol\u00ea periechetai euthys ex\n  arch\u00eas \u00ea kata t\u00ean en t\u00ea koilia katergasian egeneto,\n  m\u00eaden einai chr\u00easimon eis iatrik\u00ean epeskephthai leg\u00f4n.\n  echr\u00ean || gar d\u00eapou prostheinai ti kai peri t\u00eas en            116\n  h\u00eapati kai phlepsi genese\u00f4s aut\u00eas, en toisde tois\n  organois gennasthai t\u00ean chol\u00ean hama t\u00f4 haimati t\u00f4n\n  palai\u00f4n iatr\u00f4n te kai philosoph\u00f4n apoph\u00eanamen\u00f4n. alla\n  tois euthys ex arch\u00eas sphaleisi kai diamartanousi t\u00eas\n  orth\u00eas hodou toiauta te l\u00earein anankaion esti kai\n  proseti t\u00f4n chr\u00easim\u00f4tat\u00f4n eis t\u00ean techn\u00ean paralipein t\u00ean\n  z\u00eat\u00easin.\n\n  H\u00eade\u00f4s d' an entautha tou logou gegon\u00f4s \u00earom\u00ean tous\n  homil\u00easai phaskontas auton epi pleiston tois ek tou\n  peripatou philosophois, ei gign\u00f4skousin, hosa peri tou\n  kekrasthai ta s\u00f4math' h\u00eam\u00f4n ek thermou kai psychrou kai\n  x\u00earou kai hygrou pros Aristotelous eir\u00eatai te kai\n  apodedeiktai, kai h\u00f4s to thermon en autois esti to\n  drastik\u00f4taton kai h\u00f4s t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n hosa men thermotera\n  physei, tauta pant\u00f4s enaima, ta d' epi pleon psychrotera\n  pant\u00f4s anaima kai dia touto tou cheim\u00f4nos arga kai\n  akin\u00eata keitai ph\u00f4leuonta dik\u00ean nekr\u00f4n. eir\u00eatai de kai\n  peri t\u00eas chroias tou haimatos ouk Aristotelei monon,\n  alla kai Plat\u00f4ni. kai h\u00eameis nyn, hoper \u00ead\u00ea kai prosthen\n  eipon, || ou ta kal\u00f4s apodedeigmena tois palaiois legein      117\n  prouthemetha, m\u00eate t\u00ea gn\u00f4m\u00ea m\u00eate t\u00ea lexei tous andras\n  ekeinous hyperbalesthai dynamenoi; ta d' \u00eatoi ch\u00f4ris\n  apodeixe\u00f4s h\u00f4s enarg\u00ea pros aut\u00f4n eir\u00eamena dia to m\u00ead'\n  hypono\u00easai mochth\u00earous hout\u00f4s esesthai tinas sophistas,\n  hoi kataphron\u00easousi t\u00eas en autois al\u00eatheias, \u00ea kai\n  paraleleimmena tele\u00f4s hyp' ekein\u00f4n axioumen heuriskein\n  te kai apodeiknynai.\n\n  Peri de t\u00eas t\u00f4n chym\u00f4n genese\u00f4s ouk oid', ei echei tis\n  heteron prostheinai soph\u00f4teron h\u00f4n Hippokrat\u00eas eipe kai\n  Aristotel\u00eas kai Praxagoras kai Philotimos kai alloi\n  polloi t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n. apodedeiktai gar ekeinois tois\n  andrasin alloioumen\u00eas t\u00eas troph\u00eas en tais phlepsin hypo\n  t\u00eas emphytou thermasias haima men hypo t\u00eas symmetrias\n  t\u00eas kat' aut\u00ean, hoi d' alloi chymoi dia tas ametrias\n  gignomenoi; kai tout\u00f4 t\u00f4 log\u00f4 panth' homologei ta\n  phainomena. kai gar t\u00f4n edesmat\u00f4n hosa men esti\n  thermotera physei, chol\u00f4destera, ta de psychrotera\n  phlegmatik\u00f4tera; kai t\u00f4n h\u00ealiki\u00f4n h\u00f4saut\u00f4s\n  chol\u00f4deste||rai men hai thermoterai physei,                   118\n  phlegmat\u00f4desterai d' hai psychroterai; kai t\u00f4n\n  epit\u00eadeumat\u00f4n de kai t\u00f4n ch\u00f4r\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n h\u00f4r\u00f4n kai poly\n  d\u00ea proteron eti t\u00f4n physe\u00f4n aut\u00f4n hai men psychroterai\n  phlegmat\u00f4desterai, chol\u00f4desterai d' hai thermoterai; kai\n  nos\u00eamat\u00f4n ta men psychra tou phlegmatos ekgona, ta de\n  therma t\u00eas xanth\u00eas chol\u00eas; kai hol\u00f4s ouden estin heurein\n  t\u00f4n pant\u00f4n, ho m\u00ea tout\u00f4 t\u00f4 log\u00f4 martyrei. p\u00f4s d' ou\n  mellei? dia gar t\u00ean ek t\u00f4n tettar\u00f4n poian krasin\n  hekastou t\u00f4n mori\u00f4n h\u00f4di p\u00f4s energountos anank\u00ea pasa kai\n  dia t\u00ean blab\u00ean aut\u00f4n \u00ea diaphtheiresthai tele\u00f4s \u00ea\n  empodizesthai ge t\u00ean energeian kai hout\u00f4 nosein to z\u00f4on\n  \u00ea holon \u00ea kata ta moria.\n\n  Kai ta pr\u00f4ta ge kai genik\u00f4tata nos\u00eamata tettara ton\n  arithmon hyparchei thermot\u00eati kai psychrot\u00eati kai\n  x\u00earot\u00eati kai hygrot\u00eati diapheronta. touto de kai autos\n  ho Erasistratos homologei kaitoi m\u00ea boulomenos. hotan\n  gar en tois pyretois cheirous t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n tas pepseis\n  gignesthai leg\u00ea, m\u00ea dioti t\u00eas emphytou || thermasias h\u00ea       119\n  symmetria diephthartai, kathaper hoi prosthen\n  hypelambanon, all' hoti peristellesthai kai tribein h\u00ea\n  gast\u00ear ouch homoi\u00f4s dynatai beblammen\u00ea t\u00ean energeian,\n  eresthai dikaion auton, hypo tinos h\u00ea t\u00eas gastros\n  energeia beblaptai.\n\n  Genomenou gar, ei tychoi, boub\u00f4nos epi prosptaismati,\n  prin men pyrexai ton anthr\u00f4pon, ouk an cheiron h\u00ea gast\u00ear\n  pepseien; ou gar hikanon \u00ean oudeteron aut\u00f4n outh' ho\n  boub\u00f4n oute to helkos empodisai ti kai blapsai t\u00ean\n  energeian t\u00eas koilias; ei de pyrexeien, euthys men hai\n  pepseis gignontai cheirous, euthys de kai t\u00ean energeian\n  t\u00eas gastros beblaphthai phamen orth\u00f4s legontes. all'\n  hypo tinos eblab\u00ea, prostheinai chr\u00ea t\u00f4 log\u00f4. to men gar\n  helkos ouch hoion t' \u00ean aut\u00ean blaptein, h\u00f4sper oud' ho\n  boub\u00f4n; \u00ea gar an eblapse kai pro tou pyretou. ei de m\u00ea\n  tauta, d\u00ealon, h\u00f4s h\u00ea t\u00eas thermasias pleonexia. dyo gar\n  tauta prosegeneto t\u00f4 boub\u00f4ni, h\u00ea t\u00eas kata tas art\u00earias\n  te kai t\u00ean kardian kin\u00ease\u00f4s alloi\u00f4sis kai h\u00ea t\u00eas kata\n  physin thermasias pleonexia. all' h\u00ea men t\u00eas kin\u00ease\u00f4s\n  alloi\u00f4sis ou monon ouden blapsei t\u00ean energeian t\u00eas\n  ga||stros, alla kai pros\u00f4phel\u00easei kat' ekeina t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n,       120\n  en hois eis t\u00ean pepsin hypetheto pleiston dynasthai to\n  dia t\u00f4n art\u00eari\u00f4n eis t\u00ean koilian empipton pneuma. dia\n  loip\u00ean oun eti kai mon\u00ean t\u00ean ametron thermasian h\u00ea blab\u00ea\n  t\u00eas energeias t\u00ea gastri. to men gar pneuma sphodroteron\n  te kai synechesteron kai pleon empiptei nyn \u00ea proteron.\n  h\u00f4ste taut\u00ea men mallon pepsei ta dia to pneuma kal\u00f4s\n  pettonta z\u00f4a, dia loip\u00ean d' eti t\u00ean para physin\n  thermasian apept\u00easei. to gar kai t\u00f4 pneumati phanai tin'\n  hyparchein idiot\u00eata, kath' h\u00ean pettei, kapeita taut\u00ean\n  pyrettont\u00f4n diaphtheiresthai kath' heteron tropon estin\n  homolog\u00easai to atopon. er\u00f4t\u00eathentes gar authis, hypo\n  tinos \u00ealloi\u00f4th\u00ea to pneuma, mon\u00ean hexousin apokrinesthai\n  t\u00ean para physin thermasian kai malist' epi tou kata t\u00ean\n  koilian; oude gar pl\u00easiazei kat' ouden touto t\u00f4 boub\u00f4ni.\n\n  Kaitoi ti t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n ekein\u00f4n, en hois h\u00ea tou pneumatos\n  idiot\u00eas mega dynatai, mn\u00eamoneu\u00f4, paron ep' anthr\u00f4pois,\n  en hois \u00ea ouden \u00ea pantapasin amy||dron ti kai mikron          121\n  \u00f4phelei, poieisthai ton logon? all' hoti men en tois\n  pyretois houtoi kak\u00f4s pettousin, homologei kai autos kai\n  t\u00ean g' aitian prostitheis beblaphthai ph\u00easi t\u00eas gastros\n  t\u00ean energeian. ou m\u00ean all\u00ean ge tina prophasin t\u00eas blab\u00eas\n  eipein echei pl\u00ean t\u00eas para physin thermasias. all' ei\n  blaptei t\u00ean energeian h\u00ea para physin thermasia m\u00ea kata\n  ti symbeb\u00eakos, alla dia t\u00ean haut\u00eas ousian te kai\n  dynamin, ek t\u00f4n pr\u00f4t\u00f4n an ei\u00ea nos\u00eamat\u00f4n; kai m\u00ean ouk\n  endechetai t\u00f4n pr\u00f4t\u00f4n men einai nos\u00eamat\u00f4n t\u00ean ametrian\n  t\u00eas thermasias, t\u00ean d' energeian hypo t\u00eas eukrasias m\u00ea\n  gignesthai. oude gar di' allo ti dynaton gignesthai t\u00ean\n  dyskrasian aitian t\u00f4n pr\u00f4t\u00f4n nos\u00eamat\u00f4n all' \u00ea dia t\u00ean\n  eukrasian diaphtheiromen\u00ean. t\u00f4 gar hypo taut\u00eas\n  gignesthai tas energeias anank\u00ea kai tas pr\u00f4tas aut\u00f4n\n  blabas diaphtheiromen\u00eas gignesthai.\n\n  Hoti men oun kai kat' auton ton Erasistraton h\u00ea eukrasia\n  tou thermou t\u00f4n energei\u00f4n aitia, tois the\u00f4rein to\n  akolouthon dynamenois hikan\u00f4s apodedeichthai nomiz\u00f4.\n  toutou d' hyparchontos h\u00eamin ouden eti chalepon || eph'       122\n  hekast\u00eas energeias t\u00ea men eukrasia to beltion hepesthai\n  legein, t\u00ea de dyskrasia ta cheir\u00f4. kai toinyn eiper\n  tauth' hout\u00f4s echei, to men haima t\u00eas symmetrou\n  thermasias, t\u00ean de xanth\u00ean chol\u00ean t\u00eas ametrou nomisteon\n  hyparchein engonon. hout\u00f4 gar kai h\u00eamin en te tais\n  thermais h\u00ealikiais kai tois thermois ch\u00f4riois kai tais\n  h\u00f4rais tou etous tais thermais kai tais thermais\n  katastasesin, h\u00f4saut\u00f4s de kai tais thermais krasesi t\u00f4n\n  anthr\u00f4p\u00f4n kai tois epit\u00eadeumasi te kai tois diait\u00eamasi\n  kai tois nos\u00eamasi tois thermois eulog\u00f4s h\u00ea xanth\u00ea chol\u00ea\n  pleist\u00ea phainetai gignomen\u00ea.\n\n  To d' aporein, eit' en tois s\u00f4masi t\u00f4n anthr\u00f4p\u00f4n ho\n  chymos houtos echei t\u00ean genesin eit' en tois sitiois\n  periechetai, m\u00ead' hoti tois hygiainousin amempt\u00f4s, hotan\n  asit\u00eas\u00f4si para to ethos hypo tinos peristase\u00f4s pragmat\u00f4n\n  anankasthentes, pikron men to stoma gignetai, chol\u00f4d\u00ea de\n  ta oura, daknetai d' h\u00ea gast\u00ear, he\u00f4rakotos estin all'\n  h\u00f4sper exaiphn\u00eas nyn eis ton kosmon el\u00ealythotos kai m\u00eap\u00f4\n  ta kat' auton phainomena gign\u00f4skontos. epei tis ouk\n  oiden, h\u00f4s hekaston t\u00f4n hepsomen\u00f4n epi pleon halyk\u00f4teron\n  men to pr\u00f4ton, hysteron || de pikroteron gignetai? kan        123\n  ei to meli boul\u00eathei\u00eas auto to pant\u00f4n glykytaton epi\n  pleiston hepsein, apodeixeis kai touto pikrotaton; ho\n  gar tois allois, hosa m\u00ea physei therma, para t\u00eas\n  heps\u00ease\u00f4s engignetai, tout' ek physe\u00f4s hyparchei t\u00f4\n  meliti. dia tout' oun hepsomenon ou gignetai glykyteron;\n  hoson gar echr\u00ean einai thermot\u00eatos eis genesin\n  glykyt\u00eatos, akrib\u00f4s aut\u00f4 touto pan oikothen hyparchei.\n  ho toinyn ex\u00f4then tois ellip\u00f4s thermois \u00ean \u00f4phelimon,\n  tout' ekein\u00f4 blab\u00ea te kai ametria gignetai kai dia touto\n  thatton t\u00f4n all\u00f4n hepsomenon apodeiknytai pikron. di'\n  auto de touto kai tois thermois physei kai tois\n  akmazousin eis chol\u00ean hetoim\u00f4s metaballetai. therm\u00f4 gar\n  thermon pl\u00easiazon eis ametrian krase\u00f4s hetoim\u00f4s\n  existatai kai phthanei chol\u00ea gignomenon, ouch haima.\n  deitai toinyn psychras men krase\u00f4s anthr\u00f4pou, psychras\n  d' h\u00ealikias, hin' eis haimatos ag\u00eatai physin. oukoun apo\n  tropou synebouleusen Hippokrat\u00eas tois physei\n  pikrocholois m\u00ea prospherein to meli, h\u00f4s an thermoteras\n  || d\u00ealonoti krase\u00f4s hyparchousin. hout\u00f4 de kai tois           124\n  nos\u00eamasi tois pikrocholois polemion einai to meli kai t\u00ea\n  t\u00f4n geront\u00f4n h\u00ealikia philion ouch Hippokrat\u00eas monon alla\n  kai pantes iatroi legousin, hoi men ek t\u00eas physe\u00f4s autou\n  t\u00ean dynamin endeixamen\u00eas heurontes, hoi d' ek t\u00eas peiras\n  mon\u00eas. oude gar oude tois apo t\u00eas empeirias iatrois\n  heteron ti para tauta tet\u00ear\u00eatai gignomenon, alla\n  chr\u00easton men geronti, ne\u00f4 d' ou chr\u00easton, kai t\u00f4 men\n  physei pikrochol\u00f4 blaberon, \u00f4phelimon de t\u00f4\n  phlegmat\u00f4dei; kai t\u00f4n nos\u00eamat\u00f4n h\u00f4saut\u00f4s tois men\n  pikrocholois echthron, tois de phlegmat\u00f4desi philion;\n  heni de log\u00f4 tois men thermois s\u00f4masin \u00ea dia physin \u00ea\n  dia noson \u00ea di' h\u00ealikian \u00ea di' h\u00f4ran \u00ea dia ch\u00f4ran \u00ea di'\n  epit\u00eadeuma chol\u00eas genn\u00eatikon, haimatos de tois\n  enantiois.\n\n  Kai m\u00ean ouk endechetai tauton edesma tois men chol\u00ean\n  gennan, tois d' haima m\u00ea ouk en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati t\u00eas genese\u00f4s\n  aut\u00f4n epiteloumen\u00eas. ei gar d\u00ea oikothen ge kai par'\n  heautou t\u00f4n edesmat\u00f4n hekaston echon kai ouk en tois t\u00f4n\n  z\u00f4\u00f4n s\u00f4masi || metaballomenon egenna t\u00ean chol\u00ean, en           125\n  hapasin an homoi\u00f4s aut\u00ean tois s\u00f4masin egenna kai to men\n  pikron ex\u00f4 geuomenois \u00ean an oimai chol\u00eas poi\u00eatikon, ei\n  de ti glyky kai chr\u00easton, ouk an oude to brachytaton ex\n  autou chol\u00eas egennato. kai m\u00ean ou to meli monon, alla\n  kai t\u00f4n all\u00f4n hekaston t\u00f4n glyke\u00f4n tois proeir\u00eamenois\n  s\u00f4masi tois di' hotioun t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n thermois ousin eis\n  chol\u00ean hetoim\u00f4s existatai.\n\n  Kaitoi taut' ouk oid' hop\u00f4s ex\u00eanechth\u00ean eipein ou\n  proelomenos all' hyp' aut\u00eas tou logou t\u00eas akolouthias\n  anankastheis. eir\u00eatai d' epi pleiston hyper aut\u00f4n\n  Aristotelei te kai Praxagora t\u00ean Hippokratous kai\n  Plat\u00f4nos gn\u00f4m\u00ean orth\u00f4s ex\u00eag\u00easamenois.\n\n\n                              IX\n\nFor this reason the things that we have said are not to be looked upon\nas proofs but rather as indications of the dulness[271] of those who\nthink differently, and who do not even recognise what is agreed on by\neveryone and is a matter of daily observation. As for the scientific\nproofs of all this, they are to be drawn from these principles of\nwhich I have already spoken[272]--namely, that bodies act upon and are\nacted upon by each other in virtue of the Warm, Cold, Moist and Dry.\nAnd if one is speaking of any activity, whether it be exercised by\nvein, liver, arteries, heart, alimentary canal, or any part, one will\nbe inevitably compelled to acknowledge that this activity depends upon\nthe way in which the four qualities are blended. Thus I should like to\nask the Erasistrateans why it is that the stomach contracts upon the\nfood, and why the veins generate blood. There is no use in recognizing\nthe mere fact of contraction, without also knowing the _cause_; if we\nknow this, we shall also be able to rectify the failures of function.\n\"This is no concern of ours,\" they say; \"we do not occupy ourselves\nwith such causes as these; they are outside the sphere of the\n_practitioner_,[273] and belong to that of the _scientific\ninvestigator_.\"[274] Are you, then, going to oppose those who maintain\nthat the cause of the function of every organ is a natural\neucrasia,[275] that the dyscrasia is itself known as a _disease_, and\nthat it is certainly by this that the activity becomes impaired? Or,\non the other hand, will you be convinced by the proofs which the\nancient writers furnished? Or will you take a midway course between\nthese two, neither perforce accepting these arguments as true nor\ncontradicting them as false, but suddenly becoming\nsceptics--Pyrrhonists, in fact? But if you do this you will have to\nshelter yourselves behind the Empiricist teaching. For how are you\ngoing to be successful in treatment, if you do not understand the real\nessence of each disease? Why, then, did you not call yourselves\nEmpiricists from the beginning? Why do you confuse us by announcing\nthat you are investigating natural activities with a view to\ntreatment? If the stomach is, in a particular case, unable to exercise\nits peristaltic and grinding functions, how are we going to bring it\nback to the normal if we do not know the _cause_ of its disability?\nWhat I say is[276] that we must cool the over-heated stomach and warm\nthe chilled one; so also we must moisten the one which has become\ndried up, and conversely; so, too, in combinations of these\nconditions; if the stomach becomes at the same time warmer and drier\nthan normally, the first principle of treatment is at once to chill\nand moisten it; and if it become colder and moister, it must be warmed\nand dried; so also in other cases. But how on earth are the followers\nof Erasistratus going to act, confessing as they do that they make no\nsort of investigation into the cause of disease? For the fruit of the\nenquiry into activities is that by knowing the causes of the\ndyscrasiae one may bring them back to the normal, since it is of no\nuse for the purposes of treatment merely to know what the activity of\neach organ is.\n\nNow, it seems to me that Erasistratus is unaware of this fact also,\nthat the actual disease is that condition of the body which, not\naccidentally, but primarily and of itself, impairs the normal\nfunction. How, then, is he going to diagnose or cure diseases if he is\nentirely ignorant of what they are, and of what kind and number? As\nregards the stomach, certainly, Erasistratus held that one should at\nleast investigate _how_ it digests the food. But why was not\ninvestigation also made as to the primary originative cause of this?\nAnd, as regards the veins and the blood, he omitted even to ask the\nquestion \"_how?_\"\n\nYet neither Hippocrates nor any of the other physicians or\nphilosophers whom I mentioned a short while ago thought it right to\nomit this; they say that when the heat which exists naturally in every\nanimal is well blended and moderately moist it generates blood; for\nthis reason they also say that the blood is a _virtually_ warm and\nmoist humour, and similarly also that yellow bile is warm and dry,\neven though for the most part it appears moist. (For in them the\n_apparently_ dry would seem to differ from the _virtually_ dry.) Who\ndoes not know that brine and sea-water preserve meat and keep it\nuncorrupted,[277] whilst all other water--the drinkable kind--readily\nspoils and rots it? And who does not know that when yellow bile is\ncontained in large quantity in the stomach, we are troubled with an\nunquenchable thirst, and that when we vomit this up, we at once become\nmuch freer from thirst than if we had drunk very large quantities of\nfluid? Therefore this humour has been very properly termed warm, and\nalso virtually dry. And, similarly, _phlegm_ has been called cold and\nmoist; for about this also clear proofs have been given by Hippocrates\nand the other Ancients.\n\nProdicus[278] also, when in his book \"On the Nature of Man\" he gives\nthe name \"phlegm\" (from the verb [Greek: pephlechthai]) to that\nelement in the humours which has been burned or, as it were,\nover-roasted, while using a different terminology, still keeps to the\nfact just as the others do; this man's innovations in nomenclature\nhave also been amply done justice to by Plato.[279] Thus, the\nwhite-coloured substance which everyone else calls _phlegm_, and which\nProdicus calls _blenna_ [mucus],[280] is the well-known cold, moist\nhumour which collects mostly in old people and in those who have been\nchilled[281] in some way, and not even a lunatic could say that this\nwas anything else than cold and moist.\n\nIf, then, there is a warm and moist humour, and another which is warm\nand dry, and yet another which is moist and cold, is there none which\nis virtually _cold and dry_? Is the fourth combination of\ntemperaments, which exists in all other things, non-existent in the\nhumours alone? No; the _black bile_ is such a humour. This, according\nto intelligent physicians and philosophers, tends to be in excess, as\nregards seasons, mainly in the fall of the year, and, as regards ages,\nmainly after the prime of life. And, similarly, also they say that\nthere are cold and dry modes of life, regions, constitutions, and\ndiseases. Nature, they suppose, is not defective in this single\ncombination like the three other combinations, it extends everywhere.\n\nAt this point, also, I would gladly have been able to ask Erasistratus\nwhether his \"artistic\" Nature has not constructed any organ for\n_clearing away_ a humour such as this. For whilst there are two organs\nfor the excretion of urine, and another of considerable size for that\nof yellow bile, does the humour which is more pernicious than these\nwander about persistently in the veins mingled with the blood? Yet\nHippocrates says, \"Dysentery is a fatal condition if it proceeds from\nblack bile\"; while that proceeding from yellow bile is by no means\ndeadly, and most people recover from it; this proves how much more\npernicious and acrid in its potentialities is black than yellow bile.\nHas Erasistratus, then, not read the book, \"On the Nature of Man,\" any\nmore than any of the rest of Hippocrates's writings, that he so\ncarelessly passes over the consideration of the humours? Or, does he\nknow it, and yet voluntarily neglect one of the finest studies[282] in\nmedicine? Thus he ought not to have said anything about the\n_spleen_,[283] nor have stultified himself by holding that an artistic\nNature would have prepared so large an organ for no purpose. As a\nmatter of fact, not only Hippocrates and Plato--who are no less\nauthorities on Nature than is Erasistratus--say that this viscus also\nis one of those which cleanse the blood, but there are thousands of\nthe ancient physicians and philosophers as well who are in agreement\nwith them. Now, all of these the high and mighty Erasistratus affected\nto despise, and he neither contradicted them nor even so much as\nmentioned their opinion. Hippocrates, indeed, says that the spleen\nwastes in those people in whom the body is in good condition, and all\nthose physicians also who base themselves on experience[284] agree\nwith this. Again, in those cases in which the spleen is large and is\nincreasing from internal suppuration, it destroys the body and fills\nit with evil humours;[285] this again is agreed on, not only by\nHippocrates, but also by Plato and many others, including the Empiric\nphysicians. And the jaundice which occurs when the spleen is out of\norder is darker in colour, and the cicatrices of ulcers are dark. For,\ngenerally speaking, when the spleen is drawing the atrabiliary[286]\nhumour into itself to a less degree than is proper, the blood is\nunpurified, and the whole body takes on a bad colour. And when does it\ndraw this in to a less degree than proper? Obviously, when it [the\nspleen] is in a bad condition. Thus, just as the kidneys, whose\nfunction it is to attract the urine, do this badly when they are out\nof order, so also the spleen, which has in itself a native power of\nattracting an atrabiliary quality,[287] if it ever happens to be weak,\nmust necessarily exercise this attraction badly, with the result that\nthe blood becomes thicker and darker.\n\nNow all these points, affording as they do the greatest help in the\ndiagnosis and in the cure of disease were entirely passed over by\nErasistratus, and he pretended to despise these great men--he who does\nnot despise ordinary people, but always jealously attacks the most\nabsurd doctrines. Hence, it was clearly because he had nothing to say\nagainst the statements made by the ancients regarding the function and\nutility of the spleen, and also because he could discover nothing new\nhimself, that he ended by saying nothing at all. I, however, for my\npart, have demonstrated, firstly from the _causes_ by which everything\nthroughout nature is governed (by the causes I mean the Warm, Cold,\nDry and Moist) and secondly, from obvious bodily phenomena, that there\nmust needs be a cold and dry humour.[288] And having in the next place\ndrawn attention to the fact that this humour is black bile\n[atrabiliary] and that the viscus which clears it away is the\nspleen--having pointed this out by help of as few as possible of the\nproofs given by ancient writers, I shall now proceed to what remains\nof the subject in hand.\n\nWhat else, then, remains but to explain clearly what it is that\nhappens in the generation of the humours, according to the belief and\ndemonstration of the Ancients? This will be more clearly understood\nfrom a comparison. Imagine, then, some new wine which has been not\nlong ago pressed from the grape, and which is fermenting and\nundergoing _alteration_ through the agency of its contained heat.[289]\nImagine next two residual substances produced during this process of\nalteration, the one tending to be light and air-like and the other to\nbe heavy and more of the nature of earth; of these the one, as I\nunderstand, they call the _flower_ and the other the _lees_. Now you\nmay correctly compare yellow bile to the first of these, and black\nbile to the latter, although these humours have not the same\nappearance when the animal is in normal health as that which they\noften show when it is not so; for then the yellow bile becomes\n_vitelline_,[290] being so termed because it becomes like the yolk of\nan egg, both in colour and density; and again, even the black bile\nitself becomes much more malignant than when in its normal\ncondition,[291] but no particular name has been given to [such a\ncondition of] the humour, except that some people have called it\n_corrosive_ or _acetose_, because it also becomes sharp like vinegar\nand corrodes the animal's body--as also the earth, if it be poured out\nupon it--and it produces a kind of fermentation and seething,\naccompanied by bubbles--an abnormal putrefaction having become added\nto the natural condition of the black humour. It seems to me also that\nmost of the ancient physicians give the name _black humour_ and not\n_black bile_ to the normal portion of this humour, which is discharged\nfrom the bowel and which also frequently rises to the top [of the\nstomach-contents]; and they call _black bile_ that part which, through\na kind of combustion and putrefaction, has had its quality changed to\nacid. There is no need, however, to dispute about names, but we must\nrealise the facts, which are as follow:--\n\nIn the genesis of blood, everything in the nutriment[292] which\nbelongs naturally to the thick and earth-like part of the food,[292]\nand which does not take on well the alteration produced by the innate\nheat--all this the spleen draws into itself. On the other hand, that\npart of the nutriment which is roasted, so to speak, or burnt (this\nwill be the warmest and sweetest part of it, like honey and fat),\nbecomes _yellow bile_, and is cleared away through the so-called\nbiliary[293] vessels; now, this is thin, moist, and fluid, not like\nwhat it is when, having been roasted to an _excessive_ degree, it\nbecomes yellow, fiery, and thick, like the yolk of eggs; for this\nlatter is already abnormal, while the previously mentioned state is\nnatural. Similarly with the black humour: that which does not yet\nproduce, as I say, this seething and fermentation on the ground, is\nnatural, while that which has taken over this character and faculty is\nunnatural; it has assumed an acridity owing to the combustion caused\nby abnormal heat, and has practically become transformed into\nashes.[294] In somewhat the same way burned lees differ from unburned.\nThe former is a warm substance, able to burn, dissolve, and destroy\nthe flesh. The other kind, which has not yet undergone combustion, one\nmay find the physicians employing for the same purposes that one uses\nthe so-called _potter's earth_ and other substances which have\nnaturally a combined drying and chilling action.\n\nNow the vitelline bile also may take on the appearance of this\ncombusted black bile, if ever it chance to be roasted, so to say, by\nfiery heat. And all the other forms of bile are produced, some from a\nblending of those mentioned, others being, as it were,\ntransition-stages in the genesis of these or in their conversion into\none another. And they differ in that those first mentioned are unmixed\nand unique, while the latter forms are diluted with various kinds of\n_serum_. And all the serums in the humours are waste substances, and\nthe animal body needs to be purified from them. There is, however, a\nnatural use for the humours first mentioned, both thick and thin; the\nblood is purified both by the spleen and by the bladder beside the\nliver, and a part of each of the two humours is put away, of such\nquantity and quality that, if it were carried all over the body, it\nwould do a certain amount of harm. For that which is decidedly thick\nand earthy in nature, and has entirely escaped alteration in the\nliver, is drawn by the spleen into itself[295]; the other part which\nis only moderately thick, after being elaborated [in the liver], is\ncarried all over the body. For the blood in many parts of the body has\nneed of a certain amount of thickening, as also, I take it, of the\n_fibres_ which it contains. And the use of these has been discussed by\nPlato,[296] and it will also be discussed by me in such of my\ntreatises as may deal with the use of parts. And the blood also needs,\nnot least, the yellow humour, which has as yet not reached the extreme\nstage of combustion; in the treatises mentioned it will be pointed out\nwhat purpose is subserved by this.\n\nNow Nature has made no organ for clearing away _phlegm_, this being\ncold and moist, and, as it were, half-digested nutriment; such a\nsubstance, therefore, does not need to be evacuated, but remains in\nthe body and undergoes _alteration_ there. And perhaps one cannot\nproperly give the name of _phlegm_ to the surplus-substance which runs\ndown from the brain,[297] but one should call it _mucus_ [blenna] or\n_coryza_--as, in fact, it is actually termed; in any case it will be\npointed out, in the treatise \"On the Use of Parts,\" how Nature has\nprovided for the evacuation of this substance. Further, the device\nprovided by Nature which ensures that the phlegm which forms in the\nstomach and intestines may be evacuated in the most rapid and\neffective way possible--this also will be described in that\ncommentary. As to that portion of the phlegm which is carried in the\nveins, seeing that this is of service to the animal it requires no\nevacuation. Here too, then, we must pay attention and recognise that,\njust as in the case of each of the two kinds of bile, there is one\npart which is useful to the animal and in accordance with its nature,\nwhile the other part is useless and contrary to nature, so also is it\nwith the phlegm; such of it as is sweet is useful to the animal and\naccording to nature, while, as to such of it as has become bitter or\nsalt, that part which is bitter is completely undigested, while that\npart which is salt has undergone putrefaction. And the term \"_complete\nindigestion_\" refers of course to the second digestion--that which\ntakes place in the veins; it is not a failure of the first\ndigestion--that in the alimentary canal--for it would not have become\na humour at the outset if it had escaped this digestion also.\n\nIt seems to me that I have made enough reference to what has been said\nregarding the genesis and destruction of humours by Hippocrates,\nPlato, Aristotle, Praxagoras, and Diocles, and many others among the\nAncients; I did not deem it right to transport the whole of their\nfinal pronouncements into this treatise. I have said only so much\nregarding each of the humours as will stir up the reader, unless he be\nabsolutely inept, to make himself familiar with the writings of the\nAncients, and will help him to gain more easy access to them. In\nanother treatise[298] I have written on the humours according to\nPraxagoras, son of Nicarchus; although this authority makes as many as\nten humours, not including the blood (the blood itself being an\neleventh), this is not a departure from the teaching of Hippocrates;\nfor Praxagoras divides into species and varieties the humours which\nHippocrates first mentioned, with the demonstration proper to each.\n\nThose, then, are to be praised who explain the points which have been\nduly mentioned, as also those who add what has been left out; for it\nis not possible for the same man to make both a beginning and an end.\nThose, on the other hand, deserve censure who are so impatient that\nthey will not wait to learn any of the things which have been duly\nmentioned, as do also those who are so ambitious that, in their lust\nafter novel doctrines, they are always attempting some fraudulent\nsophistry, either purposely neglecting certain subjects, as\nErasistratus does in the case of the humours, or unscrupulously\nattacking other people, as does this same writer, as well as many of\nthe more recent authorities.\n\nBut let this discussion come to an end here, and I shall add in the\nthird book all that remains.\n\n\n                       IX\n\n  M\u00ea toinyn h\u00f4s apodeixeis hyph' h\u00eam\u00f4n eir\u00easthai nomizein\n  ta toiauta mallon \u00ea peri t\u00eas t\u00f4n all\u00f4s gign\u00f4skont\u00f4n\n  anaisth\u00easias endeixeis, hoi m\u00eade ta pros hapant\u00f4n\n  homologoumena kai kath' hekast\u00ean h\u00eameran phainomena\n  gign\u00f4skousin; tas d' apodeixeis aut\u00f4n tas kat' epist\u00eam\u00ean\n  ex ekein\u00f4n chr\u00ea lambanein t\u00f4n arch\u00f4n, h\u00f4n \u00ead\u00ea kai\n  prosthen || eipomen, h\u00f4s to dran kai paschein eis all\u00eala      126\n  tois s\u00f4masin hyparchei kata to thermon kai psychron kai\n  x\u00earon kai hygron. kai eite phlebas eith' h\u00eapar eit'\n  art\u00earias eite kardian eite koilian eit' allo ti morion\n  energein tis ph\u00easeien h\u00eantinoun energeian, aphyktois\n  anankais anankasth\u00easetai dia t\u00ean ek t\u00f4n tettar\u00f4n poian\n  krasin homolog\u00easai t\u00ean energeian hyparchein aut\u00f4. dia ti\n  gar h\u00ea gast\u00ear peristelletai tois sitiois, dia ti d' hai\n  phlebes haima genn\u00f4si, para t\u00f4n Erasistratei\u00f4n edeom\u00ean\n  akousai. to gar hoti peristelletai monon auto kath'\n  heauto gign\u00f4skein oudep\u00f4 chr\u00easton, ei m\u00ea kai t\u00ean aitian\n  eidei\u00eamen; hout\u00f4 gar an oimai kai ta sphalmata\n  therapeusaimen. ou melei, phasin, h\u00eamin oude\n  polypragmonoumen eti tas toiautas aitias; hyper iatron\n  gar eisi kai t\u00f4 physik\u00f4 pros\u00eakousi. poteron oun oud'\n  antereite t\u00f4 phaskonti t\u00ean men eukrasian t\u00ean kata physin\n  aitian einai t\u00eas energeias hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n, t\u00ean d'\n  au dyskrasian noson t \u00ead\u00ea kaleisthai kai pant\u00f4s hyp'\n  au||t\u00eas blaptesthai t\u00ean energeian? \u00ea peisth\u00easesthe tais       127\n  t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n apodeixesin? \u00ea triton ti kai meson hekaterou\n  tout\u00f4n praxete m\u00eath' h\u00f4s al\u00eathesi tois logois ex anank\u00eas\n  peithomenoi m\u00eat' antilegontes h\u00f4s pseudesin, all'\n  apor\u00eatikoi tines exaiphn\u00eas kai Pyrrh\u00f4neioi gen\u00easesthe?\n  kai m\u00ean ei touto drasete, t\u00ean empeirian anankaion hymin\n  prost\u00easasthai. t\u00f4 gar an eti trop\u00f4 kai t\u00f4n iamat\u00f4n\n  euporoi\u00eate t\u00ean ousian hekastou t\u00f4n nos\u00eamat\u00f4n agnoountes?\n  ti oun ouk ex arch\u00eas empeirikous hymas autous ekalesate?\n  ti de pragmath' h\u00eamin parechete physikas energeias\n  epangellomenoi z\u00eatein iase\u00f4s heneken? ei gar adynatos h\u00ea\n  gast\u00ear esti tini peristellesthai kai tribein, p\u00f4s aut\u00ean\n  eis to kata physin epanaxomen agnoountes t\u00ean aitian t\u00eas\n  adynamias? eg\u00f4 men ph\u00eami t\u00ean men hypertethermasmen\u00ean\n  empsykteon h\u00eamin einai, t\u00ean d' epsygmen\u00ean thermanteon;\n  hout\u00f4 de kai t\u00ean ex\u00earasmen\u00ean hygranteon, t\u00ean d'\n  hygrasmen\u00ean x\u00earanteon. alla kai || kata syzygian, ei          128\n  thermotera tou kata physin hama kai x\u00earotera tychoi\n  gegen\u00eamen\u00ea, kephalaion einai t\u00eas iase\u00f4s empsychein th'\n  hama kai hygrainein; ei d' au psychrotera te kai\n  hygrotera, thermainein te kai x\u00earainein kapi t\u00f4n all\u00f4n\n  h\u00f4saut\u00f4s; hoi d' ap' Erasistratou ti pote kai praxousin\n  oud' hol\u00f4s z\u00eatein t\u00f4n energei\u00f4n tas aitias\n  homologountes? ho gar toi karpos t\u00eas peri t\u00f4n energei\u00f4n\n  z\u00eat\u00ease\u00f4s houtos esti, to tas aitias t\u00f4n dyskrasi\u00f4n\n  eidota eis to kata physin epanagein autas, h\u00f4s auto ge\n  monon to gn\u00f4nai t\u00ean hekastou t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n energeian h\u00eatis\n  estin oup\u00f4 chr\u00easton eis tas iaseis.\n\n  Erasistratos de moi dokei kai auto tout' agnoein, h\u00f4s,\n  h\u00eatis an en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati diathesis blapt\u00ea t\u00ean energeian m\u00ea\n  kata ti symbeb\u00eakos alla pr\u00f4t\u00f4s te kai kath' heaut\u00ean,\n  haut\u00ea to nos\u00eama estin auto. p\u00f4s oun eti diagn\u00f4stikos te\n  kai iatikos estai t\u00f4n nos\u00eamat\u00f4n agno\u00f4n hol\u00f4s auta tina\n  t' esti kai posa kai poia? kata men d\u00ea t\u00ean gastera to ge\n  tosouton Erasistratos \u00eaxi\u00f4se z\u00eateisthai to p\u00f4s pettetai\n  ta sitia; || to d' h\u00eatis pr\u00f4t\u00ea te kai arch\u00eagos aitia          129\n  toutou, p\u00f4s ouk epeskepsato? kata de tas phlebas kai to\n  haima kai auto to p\u00f4s parelipen.\n\n  All' outh' Hippokrat\u00eas out' allos tis h\u00f4n olig\u00f4 prosthen\n  emn\u00eamoneusa philosoph\u00f4n \u00ea iatr\u00f4n axion \u00f4et' einai\n  paralipein; alla t\u00ean kata physin en hekast\u00f4 z\u00f4\u00f4\n  thermasian eukraton te kai metri\u00f4s hygran ousan haimatos\n  einai phasi genn\u00eatik\u00ean kai di' auto ge touto kai to\n  haima thermon kai hygron einai phasi t\u00ea dynamei chymon,\n  h\u00f4sper t\u00ean xanth\u00ean chol\u00ean therm\u00ean kai x\u00earan einai, ei\n  kai hoti malisth' hygra phainetai. diapherein gar autois\n  dokei to kata phantasian hygron tou kata dynamin. \u00ea tis\n  ouk oiden, h\u00f4s halm\u00ea men kai thalatta taricheuei ta krea\n  kai as\u00eapta diaphylattei, to d' allo pan hyd\u00f4r to potimon\n  hetoim\u00f4s diaphtheirei te kai s\u00eapei? tis d' ouk oiden,\n  h\u00f4s xanth\u00eas chol\u00eas en t\u00ea gastri periechomen\u00eas poll\u00eas\n  apaust\u00f4 dipsei synechometha kai h\u00f4s emesantes aut\u00ean\n  euthys adipsoi gignometha mallon \u00ea ei pampoly poton\n  pros\u00earametha? || thermos oun eulog\u00f4s ho chymos houtos         130\n  eir\u00eatai kai x\u00earos kata dynamin, h\u00f4sper ge kai to phlegma\n  psychron kai hygron. enargeis gar kai peri toutou\n  pisteis Hippokratei te kai tois allois eir\u00eantai\n  palaiois.\n\n  Prodikos d' en t\u00f4 peri physe\u00f4s anthr\u00f4pou grammati to\n  synkekaumenon kai hoion hyper\u00f4pt\u00eamenon en tois chymois\n  onomaz\u00f4n phlegma para to pephlechthai t\u00ea lexei men\n  heter\u00f4s chr\u00eatai, phylattei mentoi to pragma kata tauto\n  tois allois. t\u00ean d' en tois onomasi tandros toutou\n  kainotomian hikan\u00f4s endeiknytai kai Plat\u00f4n. alla touto\n  ge to pros hapant\u00f4n anthr\u00f4p\u00f4n onomazomenon phlegma to\n  leukon t\u00ean chroan, ho blennan onomazei Prodikos, ho\n  psychros kai hygros chymos estin houtos kai pleistos\n  tois te gerousi kai tois hop\u00f4sd\u00eapote psygeisin\n  athroizetai kai oudeis oude mainomenos an allo ti \u00ea\n  psychron kai hygron eipoi an auton.\n\n  Ar' oun thermos men tis esti kai hygros chymos kai\n  thermos kai x\u00earos heteros kai hygros kai psychros allos,\n  oudeis d' esti psychros kai x\u00earos t\u00ean dynamin, all' h\u00ea\n  tetart\u00ea syzygia t\u00f4n krase\u00f4n || en hapasi tois allois          131\n  hyparchousa monois tois chymois ouch hyparchei? kai m\u00ean\n  h\u00ea ge melaina chol\u00ea toioutos esti chymos, hon hoi\n  s\u00f4phronountes iatroi kai philosophoi pleonektein ephasan\n  t\u00f4n men h\u00f4r\u00f4n tou etous en phthinop\u00f4r\u00f4 malista, t\u00f4n d'\n  h\u00ealiki\u00f4n en tais meta t\u00ean akm\u00ean. hout\u00f4 de kai diait\u00eamata\n  kai ch\u00f4ria kai katastaseis kai nosous tinas psychras kai\n  x\u00earas einai phasin; ou gar d\u00ea ch\u00f4l\u00ean en taut\u00ea mon\u00ea t\u00ea\n  syzygia t\u00ean physin einai nomizousin all' h\u00f4sper tas\n  allas treis hout\u00f4 kai t\u00eande dia pant\u00f4n ektetasthai.\n\n  \u00cauxam\u00ean oun kantauth' er\u00f4t\u00easai dynasthai ton\n  Erasistraton, ei m\u00eaden organon h\u00ea technik\u00ea physis\n  ed\u00eamiourg\u00ease kathartikon tou toioutou chymou, alla t\u00f4n\n  men our\u00f4n ara t\u00eas diakrise\u00f4s estin organa dyo kai t\u00eas\n  xanth\u00eas chol\u00eas heteron ou smikron, ho de tout\u00f4n\n  kako\u00eathesteros chymos alatai dia pantos en tais phlepsin\n  anamemigmenos t\u00f4 haimati. kaitoi \"Dysenteri\u00ea,\" ph\u00easi pou\n  Hippokrat\u00eas, \"\u00ean apo chol\u00eas melain\u00eas arx\u00eatai,\n  thanasimon,\" ou m\u00ean h\u00ea g' apo t\u00eas xan||th\u00eas chol\u00eas            132\n  archomen\u00ea pant\u00f4s olethrios, all' hoi pleious ex aut\u00eas\n  dias\u00f4zontai. tosout\u00f4 kako\u00eathestera te kai drimytera t\u00ean\n  dynamin h\u00ea melaina chol\u00ea t\u00eas xanth\u00eas estin. ar' oun oute\n  t\u00f4n all\u00f4n anegn\u00f4 ti t\u00f4n tou Hippokratous grammat\u00f4n ho\n  Erasistratos ouden oute to peri physe\u00f4s anthr\u00f4pou\n  biblion, hin' hout\u00f4s arg\u00f4s parelthoi t\u00ean peri t\u00f4n chym\u00f4n\n  episkepsin, \u00ea gign\u00f4skei men, hek\u00f4n de paraleipei\n  kallist\u00ean t\u00eas techn\u00eas the\u00f4rian? echr\u00ean oun auton m\u00eade\n  peri tou spl\u00eanos eir\u00eakenai ti m\u00ead' asch\u00eamonein hypo t\u00eas\n  technik\u00eas physe\u00f4s organon t\u00ealikouton mat\u00ean h\u00eagoumenon\n  kateskeuasthai. kai m\u00ean ouch Hippokrat\u00eas monon \u00ea Plat\u00f4n,\n  ouden ti cheirous Erasistratou peri physin andres, hen\n  ti t\u00f4n kathairont\u00f4n to haima kai tout' einai phasi to\n  splanchnon, alla kai myrioi syn autois alloi t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n\n  iatr\u00f4n te kai philosoph\u00f4n, h\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n prospoi\u00easamenos\n  hyperphronein ho gennaios Erasistratos out' anteipen\n  outh' hol\u00f4s t\u00eas dox\u00eas aut\u00f4n emn\u00eamoneuse. kai m\u00ean hosois\n  ge to s\u00f4ma thallei, toutois ho spl\u00ean phthinei, ph\u00easin\n  Hippokrat\u00eas, kai hoi apo t\u00eas || empeirias horm\u00f4menoi          133\n  pantes homologousin iatroi. kai hosois g' au megas kai\n  hypoulos auxanetai, toutois kataphtheirei te kai\n  kakochyma ta s\u00f4mata tith\u00easin, h\u00f4s kai touto palin ouch\n  Hippokrat\u00eas monon alla kai Plat\u00f4n alloi te polloi kai\n  hoi apo t\u00eas empeirias homologousin iatroi. kai hoi apo\n  spl\u00eanos de kakopragountos ikteroi melanteroi kai t\u00f4n\n  helk\u00f4n hai oulai melainai. katholou gar, hotan\n  endeesteron \u00ea pros\u00eaken eis heauton helk\u00ea ton\n  melancholikon chymon, akatharton men to haima,\n  kakochroun de to pan gignetai s\u00f4ma. pote d' endeesteron\n  helkei? \u00ea d\u00ealon hoti kak\u00f4s diakeimenos? h\u00f4sper oun tois\n  nephrois energeias ous\u00eas helkein ta oura kak\u00f4s helkein\n  hyparchei kakopragousin, hout\u00f4 kai t\u00f4 spl\u00eani poiot\u00eatos\n  melancholik\u00eas helktik\u00ean en heaut\u00f4 dynamin echonti\n  symphyton arrh\u00f4st\u00easanti pote taut\u00ean anankaion helkein\n  kak\u00f4s kan t\u00f4de pachyteron \u00ead\u00ea kai melanteron gignesthai\n  to haima.\n\n  Taut' oun hapanta pros te tas diagn\u00f4seis t\u00f4n nos\u00eamat\u00f4n\n  kai tas iaseis megist\u00ean parechomena chreian ||                134\n  hyperep\u00ead\u00ease tele\u00f4s ho Erasistratos kai kataphronein\n  prosepoi\u00easato t\u00ealikout\u00f4n andr\u00f4n ho m\u00eade t\u00f4n tychont\u00f4n\n  kataphron\u00f4n all' aei philotim\u00f4s antileg\u00f4n tais\n  \u00ealithi\u00f4tatais doxais. h\u00f4 kai d\u00ealon, h\u00f4s ouden ech\u00f4n out'\n  anteipein tois presbyterois hyper h\u00f4n apeph\u00eananto peri\n  spl\u00eanos energeias te kai chreias out' autos exeurisk\u00f4n\n  ti kainon eis to m\u00eaden hol\u00f4s eipein aphiketo. all'\n  h\u00eameis ge pr\u00f4ton men ek t\u00f4n aiti\u00f4n, hois hapanta\n  dioikeitai ta kata tas physeis, tou thermou leg\u00f4 kai\n  psychrou kai x\u00earou kai hygrou, deuteron d' ex aut\u00f4n t\u00f4n\n  enarg\u00f4s phainomen\u00f4n kata to s\u00f4ma psychron kai x\u00earon\n  einai tina chr\u00eanai chymon apedeixamen. hex\u00eas d', hoti\n  kai melancholikos houtos hyparchei kai to kathairon\n  auton splanchnon ho spl\u00ean estin, dia brache\u00f4n h\u00f4s eni\n  malista t\u00f4n tois palaiois apodedeigmen\u00f4n anamn\u00easantes\n  epi to leipon eti tois parousi logois aphixometha.\n\n  Ti d' an ei\u00ea leipon allo g' \u00ea ex\u00eag\u00easasthai saph\u00f4s, hoion\n  ti boulontai te || kai apodeiknyousi peri t\u00ean t\u00f4n chym\u00f4n      135\n  genesin hoi palaioi symbainein. enargesteron d' an\n  gn\u00f4sthei\u00ea dia paradeigmatos. oinon d\u00ea moi noei gleukinon\n  ou pro pollou t\u00f4n staphyl\u00f4n ektethlimmenon zeonta te kai\n  alloioumenon hypo t\u00eas en aut\u00f4 thermasias; epeita kata\n  t\u00ean autou metabol\u00ean dyo genn\u00f4mena peritt\u00f4mata to men\n  kouphoteron te kai aer\u00f4desteron, to de baryteron te kai\n  ge\u00f4desteron, h\u00f4n to men anthos, oimai, to de tryga\n  kalousi. tout\u00f4n t\u00f4 men heter\u00f4 t\u00ean xanth\u00ean chol\u00ean, t\u00f4 d'\n  heter\u00f4 t\u00ean melainan eikaz\u00f4n ouk an hamartois, ou t\u00ean\n  aut\u00ean echont\u00f4n idean t\u00f4n chym\u00f4n tout\u00f4n en t\u00f4 kata physin\n  dioikeisthai to z\u00f4on, hoian kai para physin echontos\n  epiphainontai pollakis. h\u00ea men gar xanth\u00ea lekith\u00f4d\u00eas\n  gignetai; kai gar onomazousin hout\u00f4s aut\u00ean, hoti tais\n  t\u00f4n \u00f4\u00f4n lekithois homoioutai kata te chroan kai pachos.\n  h\u00ea d' au melaina kako\u00eathestera men poly kai haut\u00ea t\u00eas\n  kata physin; onoma d' ouden idion keitai t\u00f4 toiout\u00f4\n  chym\u00f4, pl\u00ean ei pou tines \u00ea xystikon \u00ea ox\u00f4d\u00ea kekl\u00eakasin\n  auton, hoti kai drimys homoi\u00f4s oxei gignetai kai || xyei      136\n  ge to s\u00f4ma tou z\u00f4ou kai t\u00ean g\u00ean, ei kat' aut\u00eas\n  ekchythei\u00ea, kai tina meta pompholyg\u00f4n hoion zym\u00f4sin te\n  kai zesin ergazetai, s\u00eapedonos epikt\u00eatou proselthous\u00eas\n  ekein\u00f4 t\u00f4 kata physin echonti chym\u00f4 t\u00f4 melani. kai moi\n  dokousin hoi pleistoi t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n iatr\u00f4n auto men to\n  kata physin echon tou toioutou chymou kai diach\u00f4roun\n  kat\u00f4 kai pollakis epipolazon an\u00f4 melana kalein chymon,\n  ou melainan chol\u00ean, to d' ek synkause\u00f4s tinos kai\n  s\u00eapedonos eis t\u00ean oxeian methistamenon poiot\u00eata melainan\n  onomazein chol\u00ean. alla peri men t\u00f4n onomat\u00f4n ou chr\u00ea\n  diapheresthai, to d' al\u00eathes h\u00f4d' echon eidenai.\n\n  Kata t\u00ean tou haimatos genesin hoson an hikan\u00f4s pachy kai\n  ge\u00f4des ek t\u00eas t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n physe\u00f4s empheromenon t\u00ea troph\u00ea\n  m\u00ea dex\u00eatai kal\u00f4s t\u00ean ek t\u00eas emphytou thermasias\n  alloi\u00f4sin, ho spl\u00ean eis heauton helkei touto. to d'\n  opt\u00eathen, h\u00f4s an tis eipoi, kai synkauthen t\u00eas troph\u00eas,\n  ei\u00ea d' an touto to thermotaton en aut\u00ea kai glykytaton,\n  hoion to te meli kai h\u00ea pimel\u00ea, xanth\u00ea genomenon chol\u00ea\n  dia t\u00f4n chol\u00eadoch\u00f4n onomazomen\u00f4n angei\u00f4n ekkathairetai.\n  || lepton d' esti touto kai hygron kai rhyton ouch            137\n  h\u00f4sper hotan opt\u00eathen eschat\u00f4s xanthon kai pyr\u00f4des kai\n  pachy gen\u00eatai tais t\u00f4n \u00f4\u00f4n homoion lekithois. touto men\n  gar \u00ead\u00ea para physin; thateron de to proteron eir\u00eamenon\n  kata physin estin; h\u00f4sper ge kai tou melanos chymou to\n  men m\u00eap\u00f4 t\u00ean hoion zesin te kai zym\u00f4sin t\u00eas g\u00eas\n  ergazomenon kata physin esti, to d' eis toiaut\u00ean\n  methistamenon idean te kai dynamin \u00ead\u00ea para physin, h\u00f4s\n  an t\u00ean ek t\u00eas synkause\u00f4s tou para physin thermou\n  proseil\u00eaphos drimyt\u00eata kai hoion tephra tis \u00ead\u00ea gegonos.\n  h\u00f4de p\u00f4s kai h\u00ea kekaumen\u00ea tryx t\u00eas akaustou di\u00eanenke.\n  thermon gar ti chr\u00eama haut\u00ea g' hikan\u00f4s estin, h\u00f4ste\n  kaiein te kai t\u00eakein kai diaphtheirein t\u00ean sarka. t\u00ea d'\n  hetera t\u00ea m\u00eap\u00f4 kekaumen\u00ea tous iatrous estin heurein\n  chr\u00f4menous eis hosaper kai t\u00ea g\u00ea t\u00ea kaloumen\u00ea keramitidi\n  kai tois allois, hosa x\u00earainein th' hama kai psychein\n  pephyken.\n\n  Eis t\u00ean t\u00eas hout\u00f4 synkautheis\u00eas melain\u00eas chol\u00eas idean\n  kai h\u00ea lekith\u00f4d\u00eas ekein\u00ea methistatai pollakis, hotan kai\n  aut\u00ea poth' hoion opt\u00eatheisa tych\u00ea pyr\u00f4dei thermasia. ta\n  d' alla || t\u00f4n chol\u00f4n eid\u00ea sympanta ta men ek t\u00eas t\u00f4n         138\n  eir\u00eamen\u00f4n krase\u00f4s gignetai, ta d' hoion hodoi tines eisi\n  t\u00eas tout\u00f4n genese\u00f4s te kai eis all\u00eala metabol\u00eas.\n  diapherousi de t\u00f4 tas men akratous einai kai monas, ta\n  d' hoion orrhois tisin exygrasmenas. all' hoi men orrhoi\n  t\u00f4n chym\u00f4n hapantes peritt\u00f4mata kai katharon aut\u00f4n einai\n  deitai tou z\u00f4ou to s\u00f4ma. t\u00f4n d' eir\u00eamen\u00f4n chym\u00f4n esti\n  tis chreia t\u00ea physei kai tou pacheos kai tou leptou kai\n  kathairetai pros te tou spl\u00eanos kai t\u00eas epi t\u00f4 h\u00eapati\n  kyste\u00f4s to haima kai apotithetai tosouton te kai\n  toiouton hekaterou meros, hoson kai hoion, eiper eis\n  holon \u00eanechth\u00ea tou z\u00f4ou to s\u00f4ma, blab\u00ean an tin'\n  eirgasato. to gar hikan\u00f4s pachy kai ge\u00f4des kai tele\u00f4s\n  diapepheugos t\u00ean en t\u00f4 h\u00eapati metabol\u00ean ho spl\u00ean eis\n  heauton helkei; to d' allo to metri\u00f4s pachy syn t\u00f4\n  kateirgasthai pant\u00ea pheretai. deitai gar en pollois tou\n  z\u00f4ou moriois pachyt\u00eatos tinos to haima kathaper oimai\n  kai t\u00f4n || empheromen\u00f4n in\u00f4n. kai eir\u00eatai men kai             139\n  Plat\u00f4ni peri t\u00eas chreias aut\u00f4n, eir\u00easetai de kai h\u00eamin\n  en ekeinois tois grammasin, en hois an tas chreias t\u00f4n\n  mori\u00f4n dierch\u00f4metha; deitai d' ouch h\u00eakista kai tou\n  xanthou chymou tou m\u00eap\u00f4 pyr\u00f4dous eschat\u00f4s gegen\u00eamenou to\n  haima kai tis aut\u00f4 kai h\u00ea para toude chreia, di' ekein\u00f4n\n  eir\u00easetai.\n\n  Phlegmatos d' ouden epoi\u00easen h\u00ea physis organon\n  kathartikon, hoti psychron kai hygron esti kai hoion\n  h\u00eamipeptos tis troph\u00ea. deitai toinyn ou kenousthai to\n  toiouton all' en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati menon alloiousthai. to d' ex\n  enkephalou katarrheon peritt\u00f4ma tacha men an oude\n  phlegma tis orth\u00f4s alla blennan te kai koryzan, h\u00f4sper\n  oun kai onomazetai, kaloi\u00ea. ei de m\u00ea, all' hoti ge t\u00eas\n  toutou ken\u00f4se\u00f4s orth\u00f4s h\u00ea physis prouno\u00easato, kai tout'\n  en tois peri chreias mori\u00f4n eir\u00easetai. kai gar oun kai\n  to kata te t\u00ean gastera kai ta entera synistamenon\n  phlegma hop\u00f4s an ekken\u00f4th\u00ea kai auto tachista te kai\n  kallista, to pareskeuasmenon t\u00ea physei m\u00eachan\u00eama di'\n  ekein\u00f4n eir\u00easetai kai auto t\u00f4n hypomn\u00ea||mat\u00f4n. hoson oun      140\n  empheretai tais phlepsi phlegma chr\u00easimon hyparchon tois\n  z\u00f4ois, oudemias deitai ken\u00f4se\u00f4s. prosechein de chr\u00ea\n  kantautha ton noun kai gign\u00f4skein, h\u00f4sper t\u00f4n chol\u00f4n\n  hekateras to men ti chr\u00easimon esti kai kata physin tois\n  z\u00f4ois, to d' achr\u00easton te kai para physin, hout\u00f4 kai tou\n  phlegmatos, hoson men an \u00ea glyky, chr\u00easton einai touto\n  t\u00f4 z\u00f4\u00f4 kai kata physin, hoson d' oxy kai halmyron\n  egeneto, to men oxy tele\u00f4s \u00eapept\u00easthai, to d' halmyron\n  diases\u00eaphthai. teleian d' apepsian phlegmatos akouein\n  chr\u00ea t\u00ean t\u00eas deuteras pepse\u00f4s d\u00ealonoti t\u00eas en phlepsin;\n  ou gar d\u00ea t\u00eas ge pr\u00f4t\u00eas t\u00eas kata t\u00ean koilian; \u00ea oud' an\n  egegen\u00eato t\u00ean arch\u00ean chymos, ei kai taut\u00ean diepepheugei.\n\n  Taut' arkein moi dokei peri genese\u00f4s te kai diaphthoras\n  chym\u00f4n hypomn\u00eamat' einai t\u00f4n Hippokratei te kai Plat\u00f4ni\n  kai Aristotelei kai Praxagora kai Dioklei kai pollois\n  allois t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n; ou gar edikai\u00f4sa panta\n  metapherein eis tonde ton logon ta tele\u00f4s ekeinois\n  gegrammena. tosouton de monon hyper hekastou eipon,\n  hoson exorm\u00easei te tous || entynchanontas, ei m\u00ea              141\n  pantapasin eien skaioi, tois t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n homil\u00easai\n  grammasi kai t\u00ean eis to rhaon autois syneinai bo\u00eatheian\n  parexei. gegraptai de pou kai di' heterou logou peri t\u00f4n\n  kata Praxagoran ton Nikarchou chym\u00f4n. ei gar kai hoti\n  malista deka poiei ch\u00f4ris tou haimatos, hendekatos gar\n  an ei\u00ea chymos auto to haima, t\u00eas Hippokratous ouk\n  apoch\u00f4rei didaskalias. all' eis eid\u00ea tina kai diaphoras\n  temnei tous hyp' ekeinou pr\u00f4tou pant\u00f4n hama tais\n  oikeiais apodeixesin eir\u00eamenous chymous.\n\n  Epainein men oun chr\u00ea tous t' ex\u00eag\u00easamenous ta kal\u00f4s\n  eir\u00eamena kai tous ei ti paraleleiptai prostithentas; ou\n  gar hoion te ton auton arxasthai te kai telei\u00f4sai;\n  memphesthai de tous hout\u00f4s atalaip\u00f4rous, h\u00f4s m\u00eaden\n  hypomenein mathein t\u00f4n orth\u00f4s eir\u00eamen\u00f4n, kai tous eis\n  tosouton philotimous, h\u00f4st' epithymia ne\u00f4ter\u00f4n dogmat\u00f4n\n  aei panourgein ti kai sophizesthai, ta men hekontas\n  paralipontas, h\u00f4sper Erasistratos epi t\u00f4n chym\u00f4n\n  epoi\u00ease, ta de pa||nourg\u00f4s antilegontas, h\u00f4sper autos         142\n  th' houtos kai alloi polloi t\u00f4n ne\u00f4ter\u00f4n.\n\n  All' houtos men ho logos entauthoi teleutat\u00f4, to d'\n  hypoloipon hapan en t\u00f4 trit\u00f4 prosth\u00eas\u00f4.\n\n\n    [167] _cf._ p. 89.\n\n    [168] This term is nowadays limited to the drawing\n    action of a blister, _cf._ p. 223.\n\n    [169] The radicles of the hepatic ducts in the liver\n    were supposed to be the active agents in extracting bile\n    from the blood. _cf._ pp. 145-149.\n\n    [170] _Anadosis_; _cf._ p. 13, note 5 (26).\n\n    [171] The term [Greek: koilia] is used both specifically\n    for the stomach proper and also (as probably here) in a\n    somewhat wider sense for the stomach _region_, including\n    the adjacent part of the small intestine; this was the\n    part of the alimentary canal from which nutriment was\n    believed to be absorbed by the mesenteric veins; _cf._\n    p. 309, note 2 (382).\n\n    [172] _cf._ p. 100, note 2 (152); p. 167, note 2 (234).\n\n    [173] A characteristic \"lesion\" in Erasistratus's\n    pathology.\n\n    [174] A certain subordinate place allowed to the horror\n    vacui.\n\n    [175] _i.e._ the parts to which the veins convey blood\n    after it leaves the liver--second stage of _anadosis_;\n    _cf._ p. 91, note 2 (138); p. 13, note 5 (26).\n\n    [176] What we now call the pulmonary artery. Galen\n    believed that the right ventricle existed for the\n    purpose of sending nutrient blood to the lungs.\n\n    [177] Lit. owing to the ongrowth (_epiphysis_) of\n    membranes; he means the tricuspid valve; _cf._ p. 314,\n    note 2 (387); p. 321, note 4 (398).\n\n    [178] Horror vacui.\n\n    [179] But Erasistratus had never upheld this in the case\n    of urinary secretion, _cf._ p. 99.\n\n    [180] This was the characteristically \"anatomical\"\n    explanation of bile-secretion made by Erasistratus.\n    _cf._ p. 170, note 2 (241). Why, then, says Galen, does not\n    urine, rather than bile, enter the bile-ducts?\n\n    [181] Urine, or, more exactly, blood-serum.\n\n    [182] Or ducts, canals, conduits, _i.e._ _morphological_\n    factors.\n\n    [183] Or artistic skill, \"artistry.\" _cf._ Book I.,\n    chap. xii.\n\n    [184] \"Only\"; _cf._ Introd., p. xxviii.\n\n    [185] Note how Galen, although he has not yet clearly\n    differentiated physiological from physical processes\n    (both are \"natural\") yet separates them definitely from\n    the psychical. _cf._ p. 2, footnote (5). A _psychical_\n    function or activity is, in Latin, _actio animalis_\n    (from _anima_ = _psyche_).\n\n    [186] The stage of organogenesis or _diaplasis_; cf. p.\n    25, note 4 (49).\n\n    [187] The spermatozoon now becomes an \"organism\" proper.\n\n    [188] Galen attributed to the sperma or semen what we\n    should to the fertilized ovum: to him the maternal\n    contribution is purely passive--mere food for the sperm.\n    The epoch-making Ovum Theory was not developed till the\n    seventeenth century. _cf._ p. 19, note 3 (34).\n\n    [189] _i.e._ we should be talking psychology, not\n    biology; _cf._ stomach, p. 307, note 3 (380).\n\n    [190] Attraction now described not merely as\n    _qualitative_ but also as _quantitative_. _cf._ p. 85,\n    note 3 (130).\n\n    [191] He still tends either to biologize physics, or to\n    physicize biology--whichever way we prefer to look at\n    it. _cf._ Book I., chap. xiv.\n\n    [192] Aristotelian and Stoic duality of an active and a\n    passive principle.\n\n    [193] Note that early embryonic development is described\n    as a process of _nutrition_. _cf._ p. 130, note 2 (188).\n\n    [194] On the _alterative_ and _shaping_ faculties _cf._\n    p. 18, note 1 (32).\n\n    [195] pp. 27-29.\n\n    [196] _cf._ Introduction, p. xxvi.\n\n    [197] _cf._ p. 15.\n\n    [198] For definitions of _alteration_ and _mingling_\n    (_crasis_, \"temperament\") _cf._ Book I., chaps. ii. and\n    iii.\n\n    [199] _i.e._ are associated with oxidation? _cf._ p. 41,\n    note 3 (70).\n\n    [200] \"Useless\" organs; _cf._ p. 56, note 2 (91). For fallacy\n    of Erasistratus's view on the spleen _v._ p. 205.\n\n    [201] The Stoics.\n\n    [202] The Peripatetics (Aristotelians).\n\n    [203] Aristotle regarded the _qualitative_ differences\n    apprehended by our senses (the cold, the warm, the\n    moist, and the dry) as fundamental, while the Stoics\n    held the four corporeal elements (earth, air, fire, and\n    water) to be still more fundamental. _cf._ p. 8, note 3\n    (17).\n\n    [204] Lit. bile-receiving (choledochous).\n\n    [205] _Jecoris portae_, the transverse fissure, by which\n    the portal vein enters the liver.\n\n    [206] Lit. \"anastomosing.\"\n\n    [207] More literally, \"synapse.\"\n\n    [208] The portal vein.\n\n    [209] The hepatic vein or veins.\n\n    [210] The portal vein.\n\n    [211] _cf._ p. 120, note 1 (174).\n\n    [212] _cf._ p. 272, note 1 (350).\n\n    [213] _i.e._ one might assume an _attraction_.\n\n    [214] _i.e._ visible to the mind's eye as distinguished\n    from the bodily eye. _cf._ p. 21, note 4 (39).\n    _Theoreton_ without qualification means merely\n    _visible_, not _theoretic_. _cf._ p. 205, note 1 (282).\n\n    [215] According to the Pneumatist school, certain of\n    whose ideas were accepted by Erasistratus, the air,\n    breath, pneuma, or spirit was brought by inspiration\n    into the left side of the heart, where it was converted\n    into natural, vital, and psychic pneuma; the latter then\n    went to the brain, whence it was distributed through the\n    nervous system; practically this teaching involved the\n    idea of a _psyche_, or conscious vital principle.\n    \"Psychic pneuma\" is in Latin _spiritus animalis_\n    (_anima_ = _psyche_); _cf._ p. 126, note 4 (185).\n    Introduction, p. xxxiv.\n\n    [216] Observe that Erasistratus's \"simple nerve\" may be\n    almost looked on as an anticipation of the _cell_. The\n    question Galen now asks is whether this vessel is a\n    \"unit mass of living matter,\" or merely an agglomeration\n    of _atoms_ subject to mechanical law. _cf._ Galen's\n    \"fibres,\" p. 329.\n\n    [217] _cf._ Book I., chap. xii.\n\n    [218] _i.e._ in biology we must begin with living\n    substance--with something which is specifically\n    alive--here with the \"unit mass of living matter.\" _cf._\n    p. 73, note 3 (119).\n\n    [219] \"Ad elementa quae nec coalescere possunt nec in\n    partes dividi\" (Linacre). On the two contrasted schools\n    _cf._ p. 45.\n\n    [220] _cf._ _loc. cit._\n\n    [221] \"_Auxetic._\" _cf._ p. 26, note 1 (50).\n\n    [222] \"At corporum quae nec una committi nec dividi\n    possunt nullum in se formatricem, auctricem, nutricem,\n    aut in summa artificem facultatem habet; quippe quod\n    impatibile esse immutibileque praesumitur\" (Linacre).\n\n    [223] Book I., chaps. v.-xi.\n\n    [224] _cf._ p. 153.\n\n    [225] On account of his idea of a simple tissue not\n    susceptible of further analysis.\n\n    [226] Or \"cell\"; _cf._ p. 153, note 2 (216).\n\n    [227] The _horror vacui_.\n\n    [228] _Prosthesis_ of nutriment; _cf._ p. 39, note 6\n    (67).\n\n    [229] _Anadosis_, \"absorption\"; _cf._ p. 13, note 5\n    (26).\n\n    [230] Lit. _diadosis_.\n\n    [231] _i.e._ let him explain the _diadosis_.\n\n    [232] \"Spiritus animalis\"; _cf._ p. 152, note 1 (215).\n    The nutriment was for the _walls_ of the vessels, not\n    for their cavities. _cf._ p. 319, note 3 (394).\n\n    [233] Specific attraction; _cf._ Book I., chap. xiv.\n\n    [234] _cf._ p. 100, note 2 (152).\n\n    [235] In Book II., chap. i.\n\n    [236] Prevention better than cure.\n\n    [237] _e.g._ Anaxagoras; _cf._ p. 7, note 5 (14); p. 20,\n    note 3 (38).\n\n    [238] Lit. _haematosis_.\n\n    [239] _cf._ p. 174, note 4 (250).\n\n    [240] Erasistratus held the spleen to be useless, _cf._\n    p. 143.\n\n    [241] Induration: Gk. _skirros_, Lat. _scirrhus_. The\n    condition is now commonly known by La\u00ebnnec's term\n    _cirrhosis_, from Gk. _kirros_, meaning yellow or tawny.\n    Here again we have an example of Erasistratus's bias\n    towards anatomical or structural rather than functional\n    explanations of disease, _cf._ p. 124, note 1 (180).\n\n    [242] On the risks which were supposed to attend the\n    checking of habitual bleeding from piles _cf._ Celsus\n    (_De Re Med._ VI. xviii. 9), \"Atque in quibusdam parum\n    tuto supprimitur, qui sanguinis profluvio imbecilliores\n    non fiunt; habent enim purgationem hanc, non morbum.\"\n    (_i.e._ the habit was to be looked on as a periodical\n    cleansing, not as a disease.)\n\n    [243] Lit. _catharsis_.\n\n    [244] Apparently some form of anaemia.\n\n    [245] Philistion of Locri, a contemporary of Plato, was\n    one of the chief representatives of the Sicilian school\n    of medicine. For Diocles and Praxagoras see p. 51, note\n    1 (83).\n\n    [246] _cf._ Book I., chap. iii.\n\n    [247] Gk. _pepsis_; otherwise rendered _coction_.\n\n    [248] _cf._ p. 13, note 5 (26).\n\n    [249] _e.g._ Asclepiades.\n\n    [250] Lit. _chylosis_; _cf._ p. 238, note 2 (312).\n\n    [251] That is to say, the haematopoietic function\n    deserves consideration as much as the digestive\n    processes which precede it.\n\n    [252] _i.e._ Erasistratus could obviously say nothing\n    about any of the humours or their origins, since he had\n    not postulated the four qualities (particularly the\n    Warm--that is, innate heat).\n\n    [253] _i.e._ bile.\n\n    [254] _i.e._ deprived of its bile.\n\n    [255] Here it is rather the living organism we consider\n    than the particular food that is put into it.\n\n    [256] Supreme importance of the \"soil.\" _cf._\n    Introduction, pp. xii. and xxxi.\n\n    [257] Aristotle, _Hist. Animal._, iii. xix.; Plato,\n    _Timaeus_, 80 E.\n\n    [258] Philotimus succeeded Diocles and Praxagoras, who\n    were successive leaders of the Hippocratic school. _cf._\n    p. 51, note 1 (83).\n\n    [259] Lit. _phenomena_.\n\n    [260] _i.e._ living organisms; _cf._ p. 47, note 1 (75).\n\n    [261] Erasistratus rejected the idea of innate heat; he\n    held that the heat of the body was introduced from\n    outside.\n\n    [262] As a _bubo_ is a swelling in the groin, we must\n    suppose that the wound referred to would be in the leg\n    or lower abdomen.\n\n    [263] _i.e._ fever as a _cause_ of disease.\n\n    [264] As we should say, \"circulatory\" changes.\n\n    [265] This is the \"vital spirit\" or pneuma which,\n    according to Erasistratus and the Pneumatist school, was\n    elaborated in the left ventricle, and thereafter carried\n    by the arteries all over the body, there to subserve\n    circulatory processes. It has some analogy with oxygen,\n    but this is also the case with the \"_natural_ spirit\" or\n    pneuma, whose seat was the liver and which was\n    distributed by the _veins_ through the body; it presided\n    over the more _vegetative_ processes. _cf._ p. 152, note\n    1 (215); Introduction, p. xxxiv.\n\n    [266] Even leaving the pneuma out of account, Galen\n    claims that he can still prove his thesis.\n\n    [267] In other words: if _dyscrasia_ is a first\n    principle in _pathology_, then _eucrasia_ must be a\n    first principle in _physiology_.\n\n    [268] The above is a good instance of Galen's \"logical\"\n    method as applied to medical questions; an appeal to\n    those who are capable of following \"logical sequence.\"\n    _cf._ p. 209, note 1 (288).\n\n    [269] The aim of dietetics always being the production\n    of moderate heat--_i.e._ blood.\n\n    [270] Note contrasted methods of Rationalists and\n    Empiricists.\n\n    [271] Lit. _anaesthesia_. Linacre renders it\n    _indocilitas_.\n\n    [272] p. 15.\n\n    [273] _Iatros_: lit. \"healer.\"\n\n    [274] Lit. \"physicist\" or \"physiologist,\" the student of\n    the _physis_. _cf._ p. 70, note 2 (114).\n\n    [275] That is, a _blending_ of the four principles in\n    their natural proportion; Lat. _temperies_.\n    Dyscrasia = _intemperies_, \"distemper.\"\n\n    [276] This is the orthodox Hippocratic treatment, that\n    of _opposites by opposites_. Contrast the _homoeopathic_\n    principle which is the basis of our modern methods of\n    _immunisation_ (_similia similibus curentur_,\n    Hahnemann).\n\n    [277] Lit. _aseptic_.\n\n    [278] Prodicus of Ceos, a Sophist, contemporary of\n    Socrates.\n\n    [279] Plato, _Timaeus_, 83-86, _passim_.\n\n    [280] _cf._ the term _blennorrhoea_, which is still\n    used.\n\n    [281] _cf._ the Scotch term \"colded\" for \"affected with\n    a cold\"; Germ. _erk\u00e4ltet_.\n\n    [282] The word _the\u00f4ria_ used here is not the same as\n    our _theory_. It is rather a \"contemplation,\" the\n    process by which a theory is arrived at. _cf._ p. 226,\n    note 2 (305).\n\n    [283] Erasistratus on the uselessness of the spleen.\n    _cf._ p. 143.\n\n    [284] The Empirical school, _cf._ p. 193.\n\n    [285] Enlargement and suppuration (?) of spleen\n    associated with toxaemia or \"cacochymy.\"\n\n    [286] Lit. \"melancholic.\"\n\n    [287] _i.e._ the combination of sensible qualities which\n    we call black bile. _cf._ p. 8, note 3 (17).\n\n    [288] Thus Galen has demonstrated the functions of the\n    spleen both deductively and inductively. For another\n    example of the combined method _cf._ Book III., chaps,\n    i. and ii.; _cf._ also Introd. p. xxxii.\n\n    [289] _i.e._ its innate heat.\n\n    [290] Lit. _lecithoid_.\n\n    [291] Note that there can be \"normal\" black bile.\n\n    [292] The term _food_ here means the food as introduced\n    into the stomach; the term _nutriment_ (_troph\u00e9_) means\n    the same food in the digested condition, as it is\n    conveyed to the tissues. _cf._ pp. 41-43. Note idea of\n    imperfectly oxidized material being absorbed by the\n    spleen. _cf._ p. 214, note 1 (295).\n\n    [293] Lit. _choledochous_, bile-receiving.\n\n    [294] Thus _over-roasting_--shall we say excessive\n    _oxidation_?--produces the abnormal forms of both black\n    and yellow bile.\n\n    [295] _cf._ p. 277, note 2 (353).\n\n    [296] _Timaeus_, 82 C-D.\n\n    [297] _cf._ p. 90, note 1 (137). The term \"catarrh\"\n    refers to this \"running down,\" which was supposed to\n    take place through the pores of the cribriform plate of\n    the ethmoid into the nose.\n\n    [298] Now lost.\n\n\n\n\n                           BOOK III\n\n\n                               I\n\nIt has been made clear in the preceding discussion that nutrition\noccurs by an _alteration_ or _assimilation_ of that which nourishes to\nthat which receives nourishment,[299] and that there exists in every\npart of the animal a faculty which in view of its activity we call, in\ngeneral terms, _alterative_, or, more specifically, _assimilative_ and\n_nutritive_. It was also shown that a sufficient supply of the matter\nwhich the part being nourished makes into nutriment for itself is\nensured by virtue of another faculty which naturally attracts its\n_proper juice_ [humour] that that juice is proper to each part which\nis adapted for assimilation, and that the faculty which attracts the\njuice is called, by reason of its activity, _attractive_ or\n_epispastic_.[300] It has also been shown that assimilation is\npreceded by _adhesion_, and this, again, by _presentation_,[301] the\nlatter stage being, as one might say, the end or goal of the activity\ncorresponding to the attractive faculty. For the actual bringing up of\nnutriment from the veins into each of the parts takes place through\nthe activation of the attractive faculty,[302] whilst to have been\nfinally brought up and presented to the part is the actual end for\nwhich we desired such an activity; it is attracted in order that it\nmay be presented. After this, considerable time is needed for the\nnutrition of the animal; whilst a thing may be even rapidly attracted,\non the other hand to become adherent, altered, and entirely\nassimilated to the part which is being nourished and to become a part\nof it, cannot take place suddenly, but requires a considerable amount\nof time. But if the nutritive juice, so presented, does not remain in\nthe part, but withdraws to another one, and keeps flowing away, and\nconstantly changing and shifting its position, neither adhesion nor\ncomplete assimilation will take place in any of them. Here too, then,\nthe [animal's] nature has need of some other faculty for ensuring a\nprolonged stay of the presented juice at the part, and this not a\nfaculty which comes in from somewhere outside but one which is\nresident in the part which is to be nourished. This faculty, again, in\nview of its activity our predecessors were obliged to call\n_retentive_.\n\nThus our argument has clearly shown[303] the necessity for the genesis\nof such a faculty, and whoever has an appreciation of logical sequence\nmust be firmly persuaded from what we have said that, if it be laid\ndown and proved by previous demonstration that Nature is artistic and\nsolicitous for the animal's welfare, it necessarily follows that she\nmust also possess a faculty of this kind.\n\n\n                     BOOK III\n\n                        G\n\n\n                        I\n\n  Hoti men oun h\u00ea threpsis alloioumenou te kai                  143\n  homoioumenou gignetai tou trephontos t\u00f4 trephomen\u00f4 kai\n  h\u00f4s en hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n tou z\u00f4ou mori\u00f4n esti tis dynamis, h\u00ean\n  apo t\u00eas energeias alloi\u00f4tik\u00ean men kata genos,\n  homoi\u00f4tik\u00ean de kai threptik\u00ean kat' eidos onomazomen, en\n  t\u00f4 prosthen ded\u00eal\u00f4tai log\u00f4. t\u00ean d' euporian t\u00eas hyl\u00eas,\n  h\u00ean troph\u00ean heaut\u00f4 poieitai to trephomenon, ex heteras\n  tinos echein edeiknyto dyname\u00f4s epispasthai pephykuias\n  ton oikeion chymon, einai d' oikeion hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n mori\u00f4n\n  chymon, hos an || epit\u00eadeios eis t\u00ean exomoi\u00f4sin \u00ea, kai        144\n  t\u00ean helkousan auton dynamin apo t\u00eas energeias helktik\u00ean\n  te tina kai epispastik\u00ean onomazesthai. dedeiktai de kai,\n  h\u00f4s pro men t\u00eas homoi\u00f4se\u00f4s h\u00ea prosphysis estin, ekein\u00eas\n  d' emprosthen h\u00ea prosthesis gignetai, telos, h\u00f4s an\n  eipoi tis, ousa t\u00eas kata t\u00ean epispastik\u00ean dynamin\n  energeias. auto men gar to paragesthai t\u00ean troph\u00ean ek\n  t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n eis hekaston t\u00f4n mori\u00f4n t\u00eas helktik\u00eas\n  energous\u00eas gignetai dyname\u00f4s, to d' \u00ead\u00ea par\u00eachthai te\n  kai prostithesthai t\u00f4 mori\u00f4 to telos estin auto, di' ho\n  kai t\u00eas toiaut\u00eas energeias ede\u00eath\u00eamen; hina gar\n  prosteth\u00ea, dia touth' helketai. chronou d' enteuthen \u00ead\u00ea\n  pleionos eis t\u00ean threpsin tou z\u00f4ou dei; helchth\u00eanai men\n  gar kai dia tache\u00f4n ti dynatai, prosphynai de kai\n  alloi\u00f4th\u00eanai kai tele\u00f4s homoi\u00f4th\u00eanai t\u00f4 trephomen\u00f4 kai\n  meros autou genesthai parachr\u00eama men ouch hoion te,\n  chron\u00f4 d' an pleioni symbainoi kal\u00f4s. all' ei m\u00ea menoi\n  kata to meros ho prostetheis houtos chymos, eis heteron\n  de ti methistaito kai pararrheoi dia pantos ameib\u00f4n te\n  kai hypallatt\u00f4n ta ch\u00f4ria, kat' ouden aut\u00f4n || oute           145\n  prosphysis out' exomoi\u00f4sis estai. dei de kantautha tinos\n  t\u00ea physei dyname\u00f4s heteras eis polychronion mon\u00ean tou\n  prostethentos t\u00f4 mori\u00f4 chymou kai taut\u00eas ouk ex\u00f4then\n  pothen epirrheous\u00eas all' en aut\u00f4 t\u00f4 threpsomen\u00f4\n  kat\u00f4kismen\u00eas, h\u00ean apo t\u00eas energeias palin hoi pro h\u00eam\u00f4n\n  \u00eanankasth\u00easan onomasai kathektik\u00ean.\n\n  Ho men d\u00ea logos \u00ead\u00ea saph\u00f4s enedeixato t\u00ean anank\u00ean t\u00eas\n  genese\u00f4s t\u00eas toiaut\u00eas dyname\u00f4s kai hostis akolouthias\n  synesin echei, pepeistai bebai\u00f4s ex h\u00f4n eipomen, h\u00f4s\n  hypokeimenou te kai proapodedeigmenou tou technik\u00ean\n  einai t\u00ean physin kai tou z\u00f4ou k\u00eademonik\u00ean anankaion\n  hyparchein aut\u00ea kai t\u00ean toiaut\u00ean dynamin.\n\n\n                              II\n\nSince, however, it is not our habit to employ this kind of\ndemonstration[304] alone, but to add thereto cogent and compelling\nproofs drawn from obvious facts, we will also proceed to the latter\nkind in the present instance: we will demonstrate that in certain\nparts of the body _the retentive faculty_ is so obvious that its\noperation can be actually recognised by the _senses_, whilst in other\nparts it is less obvious to the senses, but is capable even here of\nbeing detected by the _argument_.[305]\n\nLet us begin our exposition, then, by first dealing systematically for\na while with certain definite parts of the body, in reference to which\nwe may accurately test and enquire what sort of thing the retentive\nfaculty is.\n\nNow, could one begin the enquiry in any better way than with the\nlargest and hollowest organs? Personally I do not think one could. It\nis to be expected that in these, owing to their size, the activities\nwill show quite clearly, whereas with respect to the small organs,\neven if they possess a strong faculty of this kind, its activation\nwill not at once be recognisable to sense.\n\nNow those parts of the animal which are especially hollow and large\nare the stomach and the organ which is called the womb or uterus.[306]\nWhat prevents us, then, from taking up these first and considering\ntheir activities, conducting the enquiry on our own persons in\nregard to those activities which are obvious without dissection, and,\nin the case of those which are more obscure, dissecting animals which\nare near to man;[307] not that even animals unlike him will not show,\nin a general way, the faculty in question, but because in this manner\nwe may find out at once what is common to all and what is peculiar to\nourselves, and so may become more resourceful in the diagnosis and\ntreatment of disease.\n\nNow it is impossible to speak of both organs at once, so we shall deal\nwith each in turn, beginning with the one which is capable of\ndemonstrating the retentive faculty most plainly. For the stomach\nretains the food until it has quite digested it, and the uterus\nretains the embryo until it brings it to completion, but the time\ntaken for the completion of the embryo is many times more than that\nfor the digestion of food.\n\n\n                       II\n\n  All' h\u00eameis ou tout\u00f4 mon\u00f4 t\u00f4 genei t\u00eas apodeixe\u00f4s\n  eithismenoi chr\u00easthai, prostithentes d' aut\u00f4 kai tas ek\n  t\u00f4n enarg\u00f4s phainomen\u00f4n anankazousas te kai biazomenas\n  pisteis epi tas toiautas kai nyn aphixometha kai\n  deixomen epi men tin\u00f4n mori\u00f4n tou s\u00f4matos hout\u00f4s enarg\u00ea\n  t\u00ean kathektik\u00ean dynamin, h\u00f4s autais tais aisth\u00easesi ||        146\n  diagign\u00f4skesthai t\u00ean energeian aut\u00eas, epi de tin\u00f4n\n  h\u00eatton men enarg\u00f4s tais aisth\u00easesi, log\u00f4 de kantautha\n  ph\u00f4rath\u00eanai dynamen\u00ean.\n\n  Arx\u00f4meth' oun t\u00eas didaskalias ap' autou tou te\u00f4s pr\u00f4ton\n  method\u00f4 tini procheirisasthai mori' atta tou s\u00f4matos,\n  eph' h\u00f4n akrib\u00f4s esti basanisai te kai z\u00eat\u00easai t\u00ean\n  kathektik\u00ean dynamin hopoia pot' estin.\n\n  Ar' oun ameinon an tis heter\u00f4then \u00ea apo t\u00f4n megist\u00f4n te\n  kai koilotat\u00f4n organ\u00f4n hyparxaito t\u00eas z\u00eat\u00ease\u00f4s? emoi men\n  oun ouk an dokei beltion. enargeis goun eikos epi tout\u00f4n\n  phan\u00eanai tas energeias dia to megethos; h\u00f4s ta ge smikra\n  tach' an, ei kai sphodran echei t\u00ean toiaut\u00ean dynamin,\n  all' ouk aisth\u00easei g' hetoim\u00ean diagign\u00f4skesthai t\u00ean\n  energeian aut\u00eas.\n\n  All' estin en tois malista koilotata kai megista t\u00f4n tou\n  z\u00f4ou mori\u00f4n h\u00ea te gast\u00ear kai <hai> m\u00eatrai te kai hysterai\n  kaloumenai. ti oun k\u00f4lyei tauta pr\u00f4ta procheirisamenous\n  episkepsasthai tas energeias aut\u00f4n, hosai men kai pro\n  t\u00eas anatom\u00eas d\u00ealai, t\u00ean exetasin eph' h\u00eam\u00f4n aut\u00f4n\n  poioumenous, hosai d' amydroterai, ta parapl\u00easia\n  diairountas anthr\u00f4p\u00f4 z\u00f4a, || ouch h\u00f4s ouk an hikan\u00f4s to       147\n  ge katholou peri t\u00eas z\u00eatoumen\u00eas dyname\u00f4s kai t\u00f4n\n  anomoi\u00f4n endeixomen\u00f4n, all' h\u00f4s hin' hama t\u00f4 koin\u00f4 kai\n  to idion eph' h\u00eam\u00f4n aut\u00f4n egn\u00f4kotes eis te tas\n  diagn\u00f4seis t\u00f4n nos\u00eamat\u00f4n kai tas iaseis eupor\u00f4teroi\n  gign\u00f4metha.\n\n  Peri men oun amphoter\u00f4n t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n hama legein\n  adynaton, en merei d' hyper hekaterou poi\u00easometha ton\n  logon apo tou saphesteron endeixasthai dynamenou t\u00ean\n  kathektik\u00ean dynamin arxamenoi. katechei men gar kai h\u00ea\n  gast\u00ear ta sitia, mechri per an ekpeps\u00ea, katechousi de\n  kai hai m\u00eatrai to embryon, est' an telei\u00f4s\u00f4sin; alla\n  pollaplasios estin ho t\u00eas t\u00f4n embry\u00f4n telei\u00f4se\u00f4s chronos\n  t\u00eas t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n pepse\u00f4s.\n\n\n                           III\n\nWe may expect, then, to detect the retentive faculty in the uterus\nmore clearly in proportion to the longer duration of its activity as\ncompared with that of the stomach. For, as we know, it takes nine\nmonths in most women for the foetus to attain maturity in the womb,\nthis organ having its neck quite closed, and entirely surrounding the\nembryo together with the _chorion_. Further, it is the utility of the\nfunction which determines the closure of the os and the stay of the\nfoetus in the uterus. For it is not casually nor without reason that\nNature has made the uterus capable of contracting upon, and of\nretaining the embryo, but in order that the latter may arrive at a\nproper size. When, therefore, the object for which the uterus brought\nits retentive faculty into play has been fulfilled, it then stops this\nfaculty and brings it back to a state of rest, and employs instead of\nit another faculty hitherto quiescent--the _propulsive_ faculty. In\nthis case again the quiescent and active states are both determined by\nutility; when this calls, there is activity; when it does not, there\nis rest.\n\nHere, then, once more, we must observe well the Art [artistic\ntendency] of Nature--how she has not merely placed in each organ the\ncapabilities of useful activities, but has also fore-ordained the\ntimes both of rest and movement. For when everything connected with\nthe pregnancy proceeds properly, the _eliminative_ faculty remains\nquiescent as though it did not exist, but if anything goes wrong in\nconnection either with the chorion or any of the other membranes or\nwith the foetus itself, and its completion is entirely despaired of,\nthen the uterus no longer awaits the nine-months period, but the\nretentive faculty forthwith ceases and allows the heretofore\ninoperative faculty to come into action. Now it is that something is\ndone--in fact, useful work effected--by the _eliminative or propulsive\nfaculty_ (for so it, too, has been called, receiving, like the rest,\nits names from the corresponding activities).\n\nFurther, our theory can, I think, demonstrate both together; for\nseeing that they succeed each other, and that the one keeps giving\nplace to the other according as utility demands, it seems not\nunreasonable to accept a common demonstration also for both. Thus it\nis the work of the retentive faculty to make the uterus contract upon\nthe foetus at every point, so that, naturally enough, when the\nmidwives palpate it, the os is found to be closed, whilst the pregnant\nwomen themselves, during the first days--and particularly on that on\nwhich conception takes place--experience a sensation as if the uterus\nwere moving and contracting upon itself. Now, if both of these things\noccur--if the os closes apart from inflammation or any other disease,\nand if this is accompanied by a feeling of movement in the\nuterus--then the women believe that they have received the semen which\ncomes from the male, and that they are retaining it.\n\nNow we are not inventing this for ourselves: one may say the statement\nis based on prolonged experience of those who occupy themselves with\nsuch matters. Thus Herophilus[308] does not hesitate to state in his\nwritings that up to the time of labour the os uteri will not admit so\nmuch as the tip of a probe, that it no longer opens to the slightest\ndegree if pregnancy has begun--that, in fact, it dilates more widely\nat the times of the menstrual flow. With him are in agreement all the\nothers who have applied themselves to this subject; and particularly\nHippocrates, who was the first of all physicians and philosophers to\ndeclare that the os uteri closes during pregnancy and inflammation,\nalbeit in pregnancy it does not depart from its own nature, whilst in\ninflammation it becomes hard.\n\nIn the case of the opposite (the eliminative) faculty, the os opens,\nwhilst the whole fundus approaches as near as possible to the os,\nexpelling the embryo as it does so; and along with the fundus the\ncontiguous parts--which form as it were a girdle round the whole\norgan--co-operate in the work; they squeeze upon the embryo and propel\nit bodily outwards. And, in many women who exercise such a faculty\nimmoderately, violent pains cause forcible prolapse of the whole womb;\nhere almost the same thing happens as frequently occurs in\nwrestling-bouts and struggles, when in our eagerness to overturn and\nthrow others we are ourselves upset along with them; for similarly\nwhen the uterus is forcing the embryo forward it sometimes becomes\nentirely prolapsed, and particularly when the ligaments connecting it\nwith the spine happen to be naturally lax.[309]\n\nA wonderful device of Nature's also is this--that, when the foetus is\nalive, the os uteri is closed with perfect accuracy, but if it dies,\nthe os at once opens up to the extent which is necessary for the\nfoetus to make its exit. The midwife, however, does not make the\nparturient woman get up at once and sit down on the [obstetric] chair,\nbut she begins by palpating the os as it gradually dilates, and the\nfirst thing she says is that it has dilated \"enough to admit the\nlittle finger,\" then that \"it is bigger now,\" and as we make enquiries\nfrom time to time, she answers that the size of the dilatation is\nincreasing. And when it is sufficient to allow of the transit of the\nfoetus,[310] she then makes the patient get up from her bed and sit on\nthe chair, and bids her make every effort to expel the child. Now,\nthis additional work which the patient does of herself is no longer\nthe work of the uterus but of the epigastric muscles, which also help\nus in defaecation and micturition.\n\n\n                      III\n\n  Eikos oun kai t\u00ean dynamin enargesteron en tais m\u00eatrais\n  ph\u00f4rasein h\u00eamas t\u00ean kathektik\u00ean, hos\u00f4 kai\n  polychroni\u00f4teran t\u00eas gastros t\u00ean energeian kekt\u00eatai.\n  m\u00easi gar ennea pou tais pleistais t\u00f4n gynaik\u00f4n en autais\n  teleioutai ta ky\u00eamata, memykuiais men hapanti t\u00f4\n  aucheni, periechousais de pantachothen auta syn t\u00f4\n  chori\u00f4. || kai peras ge t\u00eas tou stomatos myse\u00f4s kai t\u00eas       148\n  tou kyoumenou kata tas m\u00eatras mon\u00eas h\u00ea chreia t\u00eas\n  energeias estin; ou gar h\u00f4s etychen oud' alog\u00f4s hikanas\n  peristellesthai kai katechein to embryon h\u00ea physis\n  apeirgasato tas hysteras, all' hin' eis to prepon\n  aphik\u00eatai megethos to kyoumenon. hotan oun, hou charin\n  en\u00eargoun t\u00ea kathektik\u00ea dynamei, sympepl\u00ear\u00f4menon \u00ea,\n  taut\u00ean men anepausan te kai eis \u00earemian epan\u00eagagon, ant'\n  aut\u00eas d' hetera chr\u00f4ntai t\u00ea te\u00f4s h\u00easychazous\u00ea, t\u00ea\n  pro\u00f4stik\u00ea. \u00ean d' ara kai t\u00eas ekein\u00eas h\u00easychias horos h\u00ea\n  chreia kai t\u00eas g' energeias h\u00f4saut\u00f4s h\u00ea chreia; kalous\u00eas\n  men gar aut\u00eas energei, m\u00ea kalous\u00eas d' h\u00easychazei.\n\n  Kai chr\u00ea palin kantautha katamathein t\u00eas physe\u00f4s t\u00ean\n  techn\u00ean, h\u00f4s ou monon energei\u00f4n chr\u00easim\u00f4n dynameis\n  eneth\u00eaken hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n, alla kai tou t\u00f4n\n  h\u00easychi\u00f4n te kai kin\u00ease\u00f4n kairou prouno\u00easato. kal\u00f4s men\n  gar hapant\u00f4n gignomen\u00f4n t\u00f4n kata t\u00ean ky\u00easin h\u00ea\n  apokritik\u00ea dynamis h\u00easychazei tele\u00f4s h\u00f4sper ouk ousa,\n  kakopragias de tinos genomen\u00eas \u00ea peri to chorion \u00ea peri\n  tina t\u00f4n all\u00f4n || hymen\u00f4n \u00ea peri to kyoumenon auto kai        149\n  t\u00eas telei\u00f4se\u00f4s autou pantapasin apogn\u00f4stheis\u00eas ouket'\n  anamenousi ton enneam\u00eanon hai m\u00eatrai chronon, all' h\u00ea\n  men kathektik\u00ea dynamis autika d\u00ea pepautai kai parach\u00f4rei\n  kineisthai t\u00ea proteron argous\u00ea, prattei d' \u00ead\u00ea ti kai\n  pragmateuetai chr\u00easton h\u00ea apokritik\u00ea te kai pro\u00f4stik\u00ea;\n  kai gar oun kai taut\u00ean hout\u00f4s ekalesan apo t\u00f4n energei\u00f4n\n  aut\u00ea ta onomata themenoi kathaper kai tais allais.\n\n  Kai p\u00f4s ho logos eoiken hyper amphoter\u00f4n apodeixein\n  hama; kai gar toi kai diadechomenas autas all\u00ealas kai\n  parach\u00f4rousan aei t\u00ean heteran t\u00ea loip\u00ea, kathoti an h\u00ea\n  chreia keleu\u00ea, kai t\u00ean didaskalian koin\u00ean ouk apeikos\n  esti dechesthai. t\u00eas men oun kathektik\u00eas dyname\u00f4s ergon\n  peristeilai tas m\u00eatras t\u00f4 kyoumen\u00f4 pantachothen, h\u00f4st'\n  eulog\u00f4s haptomenais men tais maieutriais to stoma\n  memykos aut\u00f4n phainetai, tais kyousais d' autais kata\n  tas pr\u00f4tas h\u00eameras kai malista kat' aut\u00ean ekein\u00ean, en\n  h\u00eaper an h\u00ea t\u00eas gon\u00eas syll\u00eapsis gen\u00eatai, kinoumen\u00f4n te\n  kai syntrechous\u00f4n eis heautas t\u00f4n hyster\u00f4n aisth\u00ea||sis        150\n  gignetai kai \u00ean amph\u00f4 tauta symb\u00ea, mysai men to stoma\n  ch\u00f4ris phlegmon\u00eas \u00ea tinos allou path\u00eamatos, aisth\u00easin de\n  t\u00eas kata tas m\u00eatras kin\u00ease\u00f4s akolouth\u00easai, pros hautas\n  \u00ead\u00ea to sperma to para tandros eil\u00eaphenai te kai\n  katechein hai gynaikes nomizousi.\n\n  Tauta d' ouch h\u00eameis nyn anaplattomen h\u00eamin autois, all'\n  ek makras peiras dokimasthenta pasi gegraptai schedon ti\n  tois peri tout\u00f4n pragmateusamenois. H\u00earophilos men ge\n  kai h\u00f4s oude pyr\u00eana m\u00eal\u00eas an dechoito t\u00f4n m\u00eatr\u00f4n to\n  stoma, prin apokyein t\u00ean gynaika, kai h\u00f4s oude\n  toulachiston eti diest\u00eaken, \u00ean hyparx\u00eatai kyein, kai h\u00f4s\n  epi pleon anastomountai kata tas t\u00f4n epim\u00eani\u00f4n phoras,\n  ouk \u00f4kn\u00ease graphein; synomologousi d' aut\u00f4 kai hoi alloi\n  pantes hoi peri tout\u00f4n pragmateusamenoi kai pr\u00f4tos g'\n  hapant\u00f4n iatr\u00f4n te kai philosoph\u00f4n Hippokrat\u00eas\n  apeph\u00eanato myein to stoma t\u00f4n hyster\u00f4n en te tais\n  ky\u00easesi kai tais phlegmonais, all' en men tais ky\u00easesin\n  ouk existamenon t\u00eas physe\u00f4s, en de tais phlegmonais\n  skl\u00earon gignomenon.\n\n  Epi de ge t\u00eas enantias t\u00eas ekkritik\u00eas anoignytai men to\n  stoma, proerchetai d' ho pythm\u00ean || hapas hoson hoion t'      151\n  engytat\u00f4 tou stomatos ap\u00f4thoumenos ex\u00f4 to embryon, hama\n  d' aut\u00f4 kai ta synech\u00ea mer\u00ea ta hoion pleura tou pantos\n  organou synepilambanomena tou ergou thlibei te kai\n  pro\u00f4thei pan ex\u00f4 to embryon. kai pollais t\u00f4n gynaik\u00f4n\n  \u00f4dines biaioi tas m\u00eatras holas ekpesein \u00eanankasan\n  ametr\u00f4s chr\u00easamenais t\u00ea toiaut\u00ea dynamei, parapl\u00easiou\n  tinos gignomenou t\u00f4 pollakis en palais tisi kai\n  philoneikiais symbainonti, hotan anatrepsai te kai\n  katabalein heterous speudontes autoi synkatapes\u00f4men.\n  hout\u00f4 gar kai hai m\u00eatrai to embryon \u00f4thousai synexepeson\n  eniote kai malisth', hotan hoi pros t\u00ean rhachin aut\u00f4n\n  syndesmoi chalaroi physei tynchan\u00f4sin ontes.\n\n  Esti de kai touto thaumaston ti t\u00eas physe\u00f4s sophisma, to\n  z\u00f4ntos men tou ky\u00eamatos akrib\u00f4s pany memykenai to stoma\n  t\u00f4n m\u00eatr\u00f4n, apothanontos de parachr\u00eama dianoigesthai\n  tosouton, hoson eis t\u00ean exodon autou diapherei. kai\n  mentoi kai hai maiai tas tiktousas ouk euthys anistasin\n  oud' epi ton diphron kathizousin, all' haptontai\n  proteron anoigomenou tou stomatos || kata brachy kai          152\n  pr\u00f4ton men, h\u00f4ste ton mikron daktylon kathienai,\n  diest\u00eakenai phasin, epeit' \u00ead\u00ea kai meizon kai kata\n  brachy d\u00ea pynthanomenois h\u00eamin apokrinontai to megethos\n  t\u00eas diastase\u00f4s epauxanomenon. hotan d' hikanon \u00ea pros\n  t\u00ean tou kyoumenou diodon, anistasin autas kai kathizousi\n  kai prothymeisthai keleuousin ap\u00f4sasthai to paidion.\n  esti d' \u00ead\u00ea touto to ergon, ho par' heaut\u00f4n hai kyousai\n  prostitheasin, ouketi t\u00f4n hyster\u00f4n, alla t\u00f4n kat'\n  epigastrion my\u00f4n, hoi pros t\u00ean apopat\u00easin te kai t\u00ean\n  our\u00easin h\u00eamin synergousin.\n\n\n                            IV\n\nThus the two faculties are clearly to be seen in the case of the\nuterus; in the case of the _stomach_ they appear as follows:--Firstly\nin the condition of _gurgling_, which physicians are persuaded, and\nwith reason, to be a symptom of weakness of the stomach; for sometimes\nwhen the very smallest quantity of food has been ingested this does\nnot occur, owing to the fact that the stomach is contracting\naccurately upon the food and constricting it at every point; sometimes\nwhen the stomach is full the gurglings yet make themselves heard as\nthough it were empty. For if it be in a natural condition, employing\nits contractile faculty in the ordinary way, then, even if its\ncontents be very small, it grasps the whole of them and does not leave\nany empty space. When it is weak, however, being unable to lay hold of\nits contents accurately, it produces a certain amount of vacant space,\nand allows the liquid contents to flow about in different directions\nin accordance with its changes of shape, and so to produce gurglings.\n\nThus those who are troubled with this symptom expect, with good\nreason, that they will also be unable to digest adequately; proper\ndigestion cannot take place in a weak stomach. In such people also,\nthe mass of food may be plainly seen to remain an abnormally long time\nin the stomach, as would be natural if their digestion were slow.\nIndeed, the chief way in which these people will surprise one is in\nthe length of time that not food alone but even fluids will remain in\ntheir stomachs. Now, the actual cause of this is not, as one would\nimagine, that the lower outlet of the stomach,[311] being fairly\nnarrow, will allow nothing to pass before being reduced to a fine\nstate of division. There are a great many people who frequently\nswallow large quantities of big fruit-stones; one person, who was\nholding a gold ring in his mouth, inadvertently swallowed it; another\nswallowed a coin, and various people have swallowed various hard and\nindigestible objects; yet all these people easily passed by the bowel\nwhat they had swallowed, without there being any subsequent symptoms.\nNow surely if narrowness of the gastric outlet were the cause of\nuntriturated food remaining for an abnormally long time, none of these\narticles I have mentioned would ever have escaped. Furthermore, the\nfact that it is liquids which remain longest in these people's\nstomachs is sufficient to put the idea of narrowness of the outlet out\nof court. For, supposing a rapid descent were dependent upon\nemulsification,[312] then soups, milk, and barley-emulsion[313] would\nat once pass along in every case. But as a matter of fact this is not\nso. For in people who are extremely asthenic it is just these fluids\nwhich remain undigested, which accumulate and produce gurglings, and\nwhich oppress and overload the stomach, whereas in strong persons not\nmerely do none of these things happen, but even a large quantity of\nbread or meat passes rapidly down.\n\nAnd it is not only because the stomach is distended and loaded and\nbecause the fluid runs from one part of it to another accompanied by\ngurglings--it is not only for these reasons that one would judge that\nthere was an unduly long continuance of the food in it, in those\npeople who are so disposed, but also from the _vomiting_. Thus, there\nare some who vomit up every particle of what they have eaten, not\nafter three or four hours, but actually in the middle of the night, a\nlengthy period having elapsed since their meal.\n\nSuppose you fill any animal whatsoever with liquid food--an experiment\nI have often carried out in pigs, to whom I give a sort of mess of\nwheaten flour and water, thereafter cutting them open after three or\nfour hours; if you will do this yourself, you will find the food still\nin the stomach. For it is not _chylification_[314] which determines\nthe length of its stay here--since this can also be effected outside\nthe stomach; the determining factor is _digestion_[315] which is a\ndifferent thing from chylification, as are blood-production and\nnutrition. For, just as it has been shown[316] that these two\nprocesses depend upon a _change of qualities_, similarly also the\ndigestion of food in the stomach involves a transmutation of it into\nthe quality proper to that which is receiving nourishment.[317] Then,\nwhen it is completely digested, the lower outlet opens and the food is\nquickly ejected through it, even if there should be amongst it\nabundance of stones, bones, grape-pips, or other things which cannot\nbe reduced to chyle. And you may observe this yourself in an animal,\nif you will try to hit upon the time at which the descent of food from\nthe stomach takes place. But even if you should fail to discover the\ntime, and nothing was yet passing down, and the food was still\nundergoing digestion in the stomach, still even then you would find\ndissection not without its uses. You will observe, as we have just\nsaid, that the pylorus is accurately closed, and that the whole\nstomach is in a state of contraction upon the food very much as the\nwomb contacts upon the foetus. For it is never possible to find a\nvacant space in the uterus, the stomach, or in either of the two\nbladders--that is, either in that called bile-receiving[318] or in the\nother; whether their contents be abundant or scanty, their cavities\nare seen to be replete and full, owing to the fact that their coats\ncontract constantly upon the contents--so long, at least, as the\nanimal is in a natural condition.\n\nNow Erasistratus for some reason declares that it is the\ncontractions[319] of the stomach which are the cause of\neverything--that is to say, of the softening of the food,[320] the\nremoval of waste matter, and the absorption of the food when chylified\n[emulsified].\n\nNow I have personally, on countless occasions, divided the peritoneum\nof a still living animal and have always found all _the intestines_\ncontracting peristaltically[321] upon their contents. The condition of\n_the stomach_, however, is found less simple; as regards the\nsubstances freshly swallowed, it had grasped these accurately both\nabove and below, in fact at every point, and was as devoid of movement\nas though it had grown round and become united with the food.[322] At\nthe same time I found the pylorus persistently closed and accurately\nshut, like the os uteri on the foetus.\n\nIn the cases, however, where digestion had been completed the pylorus\nhad opened, and the stomach was undergoing peristaltic movements,\nsimilar to those of the intestines.\n\n\n                       IV\n\n  Hout\u00f4 men epi t\u00f4n m\u00eatr\u00f4n enarg\u00f4s hai dyo phainontai\n  dynameis, epi de t\u00eas gastros h\u00f4de. pr\u00f4ton men tois\n  klyd\u00f4sin, hoi d\u00ea kai pepisteuntai tois iatrois arrh\u00f4stou\n  koilias einai sympt\u00f4mata kai kata logon pepisteuntai;\n  eniote men gar elachista prosen\u00eanegmen\u00f4n ou gignontai\n  peristellomen\u00eas akrib\u00f4s autois t\u00eas gastros kai\n  sphingous\u00eas pantachothen, eniote de mest\u00ea men h\u00ea gast\u00ear\n  estin, hoi kly||d\u00f4nes d' h\u00f4s epi ken\u00eas exakouontai. kata      153\n  physin men gar echousa kai chr\u00f4men\u00ea kal\u00f4s t\u00ea\n  peristaltik\u00ea dynamei, kan oligon \u00ea to periechomenon,\n  hapan auto perilambanousa ch\u00f4ran oudemian apoleipei\n  ken\u00ean, arrh\u00f4stousa de, kathoti an adynat\u00eas\u00ea perilabein\n  akrib\u00f4s, entauth' eurych\u00f4rian tin' ergazomen\u00ea synch\u00f4rei\n  tois periechomenois hygrois kata tas t\u00f4n sch\u00eamat\u00f4n\n  metallagas allot' allachose metarrheousi klyd\u00f4nas\n  apotelein.\n\n  Eulog\u00f4s oun, hoti m\u00eade pepsousin hikan\u00f4s, hoi en t\u00f4de t\u00f4\n  sympt\u00f4mati genomenoi prosdok\u00f4sin; ou gar endechetai\n  pepsai kal\u00f4s arrh\u00f4ston gastera. tois toioutois de kai\n  mechri pleionos en aut\u00ea phainetai paramenon to baros,\n  h\u00f4s an kai bradyteron pettousi. kai m\u00ean thaumaseien an\n  tis ep' aut\u00f4n tout\u00f4n malista to polychronion t\u00eas en t\u00ea\n  gastri diatrib\u00eas ou t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n monon alla kai tou\n  pomatos; ou gar, hoper an oi\u00eathei\u00ea tis, h\u00f4s to t\u00eas\n  gastros stoma to kat\u00f4 stenon hikan\u00f4s hyparchon ouden\n  pari\u00easi prin akrib\u00f4s lei\u00f4th\u00eanai, tout' aition ont\u00f4s\n  esti. polla goun pollakis op\u00f4r\u00f4n osta megista\n  katapinousi || pampolloi kai tis daktylion chrysoun en        154\n  t\u00f4 stomati phylatt\u00f4n ak\u00f4n katepie kai allos tis nomisma\n  kai allos allo ti skl\u00earon kai dyskatergaston, all' hom\u00f4s\n  hapantes houtoi rhadi\u00f4s apepat\u00easan, ha katepion, oudenos\n  autois akolouth\u00easantos sympt\u00f4matos. ei de g' h\u00ea stenot\u00eas\n  tou porou t\u00eas gastros aitia tou menein epi pleon \u00ean tois\n  atriptois sitiois, ouden an tout\u00f4n pote diech\u00f4r\u00easen.\n  alla kai to ta pomat' autois en t\u00ea gastri paramenein epi\n  pleiston hikanon apagein t\u00ean hyponoian tou porou t\u00eas\n  stenot\u00eatos; hol\u00f4s gar, eiper \u00ean en t\u00f4 kechyl\u00f4sthai to\n  thatton hypienai, ta te rhoph\u00eamat' an hout\u00f4 kai to gala\n  kai ho t\u00eas ptisan\u00eas chylos autika diex\u00eaei pasin. all'\n  ouch h\u00f4d' echei; tois men gar asthenesin epi pleiston\n  emplei tauta kai klyd\u00f4nas ergazetai paramenonta kai\n  thlibei kai barynei t\u00ean gastera, tois d' ischyrois ou\n  monon tout\u00f4n ouden symbainei, alla kai poly pl\u00eathos\n  art\u00f4n kai kre\u00f4n hypoch\u00f4rei tache\u00f4s.\n\n  Ou monon d' ek tou peritetasthai t\u00ean gastera kai\n  barynesthai || kai metarrhein allot' eis alla mer\u00ea meta       155\n  klyd\u00f4nos to paramenein epi pleon en aut\u00ea pant\u00f4s tois\n  hout\u00f4s echousi tekm\u00earait' an tis alla kak t\u00f4n emet\u00f4n;\n  enioi gar ou meta treis h\u00f4ras \u00ea tettaras alla nykt\u00f4n \u00ead\u00ea\n  mes\u00f4n pampollou metaxy chronou dielthontos epi tais\n  prosphorais an\u00eamesan akrib\u00f4s hapanta ta ed\u00eadesmena.\n\n  Kai men d\u00ea kai z\u00f4on hotioun empl\u00easas hygras troph\u00eas,\n  h\u00f4sper h\u00eameis pollakis epi sy\u00f4n epeirath\u00eamen ex aleur\u00f4n\n  meth' hydatos hoion kyke\u00f4na tina dontes autois, epeita\n  meta treis pou kai tettaras h\u00f4ras anatemontes, ei hout\u00f4\n  kai sy praxeias, heur\u00easeis eti kata t\u00ean gastera ta\n  ed\u00eadesmena; peras gar autois esti t\u00eas entautha mon\u00eas\n  ouch h\u00ea chyl\u00f4sis, h\u00ean kai ektos eti ont\u00f4n m\u00eachan\u00easasthai\n  dynaton estin, all' h\u00ea pepsis, heteron ti t\u00eas chyl\u00f4se\u00f4s\n  ousa, kathaper haimat\u00f4sis te kai threpsis. h\u00f4s gar\n  kakeina dedeiktai poiot\u00eat\u00f4n metabol\u00ea gignomena, ton\n  auton tropon kai h\u00ea en t\u00ea gastri pepsis t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n eis\n  t\u00ean oikeian esti t\u00f4 trephomen\u00f4 poiot\u00eata || metabol\u00ea kai       156\n  hotan ge pephth\u00ea tele\u00f4s, anoignytai men t\u00eanikauta to\n  kat\u00f4 stoma, diekpiptei d' autou ta sitia rhadi\u00f4s, ei kai\n  pl\u00eathos ti meth' heaut\u00f4n echonta tychoi lith\u00f4n \u00ea ost\u00f4n \u00ea\n  gigart\u00f4n \u00ea tinos allou chyl\u00f4th\u00eanai m\u00ea dynamenou. kai soi\n  tout' enestin epi z\u00f4ou theasasthai stochasamen\u00f4 ton\n  kairon t\u00eas kat\u00f4 diexodou. kai men ge kai ei sphalei\u00eas\n  pote tou kairou kai m\u00eaden m\u00eap\u00f4 kat\u00f4 parerchoito\n  pettomen\u00f4n eti kata t\u00ean gastera t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n, oud' hout\u00f4s\n  akarpos h\u00ea anatom\u00ea soi gen\u00easetai; theas\u00ea gar ep' aut\u00f4n,\n  hoper olig\u00f4 prosthen elegomen, akrib\u00f4s men memykota ton\n  pyl\u00f4ron, hapasan de t\u00ean gastera periestalmen\u00ean tois\n  sitiois tropon homoiotaton, hoionper kai hai m\u00eatrai tois\n  kyoumenois. ou gar estin oudepote ken\u00ean heurein ch\u00f4ran\n  oute kata tas hysteras oute kata t\u00ean koilian oute kata\n  tas kysteis amphoteras oute kata t\u00ean chol\u00eadochon\n  onomazomen\u00ean oute t\u00ean heteran; all' eit' oligon ei\u00ea to\n  periechomenon en autais eite poly, mestai kai pl\u00eareis\n  aut\u00f4n hai koiliai phainontai peristellomen\u00f4n aei t\u00f4n\n  chit\u00f4n\u00f4n tois periechomenois, hotan ge kata physin ech\u00ea\n  to z\u00f4on. ||                                                   157\n\n  Erasistratos d' ouk oid' hop\u00f4s t\u00ean peristol\u00ean t\u00eas\n  gastros hapant\u00f4n aitian apophainei kai t\u00eas lei\u00f4se\u00f4s t\u00f4n\n  siti\u00f4n kai t\u00eas t\u00f4n peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n hypoch\u00f4r\u00ease\u00f4s kai t\u00eas\n  t\u00f4n kechyl\u00f4men\u00f4n anadose\u00f4s.\n\n  Eg\u00f4 men gar myriakis epi z\u00f4ntos eti tou z\u00f4ou diel\u00f4n to\n  peritonaion heuron aei ta men entera panta\n  peristellomena tois enyparchousi, t\u00ean koilian d' ouch\n  hapl\u00f4s, all' epi men tais ed\u00f4dais an\u00f4then te kai\n  kat\u00f4then auta kai pantachothen akrib\u00f4s perieil\u00eaphuian\n  akin\u00eaton, h\u00f4s dokein h\u00ean\u00f4sthai kai peripephykenai tois\n  sitiois; en de tout\u00f4 kai ton pyl\u00f4ron heuriskon aei\n  memykota kai kekleismenon akrib\u00f4s h\u00f4sper to t\u00f4n hyster\u00f4n\n  stoma tais enkymosin.\n\n  Epi mentoi tais pepsesi sympepl\u00ear\u00f4menais ane\u00f4kto men ho\n  pyl\u00f4ros, h\u00ea gast\u00ear de peristaltik\u00f4s ekineito parapl\u00easi\u00f4s\n  tois enterois.\n\n\n                             V\n\nThus all these facts agree that the stomach, uterus, and bladders\npossess certain inborn faculties which are retentive of their own\nproper qualities and eliminative of those that are foreign. For it has\nbeen already shown[323] that the bladder by the liver draws bile into\nitself, while it is also quite obvious that it eliminates this daily\ninto the stomach. Now, of course, if the eliminative were to succeed\nthe attractive faculty and there were not a _retentive_ faculty\nbetween the two, there would be found, on every occasion that animals\nwere dissected, an equal quantity of bile in the gall-bladder. This\nhowever, we do not find. For the bladder is sometimes observed to be\nvery full, sometimes quite empty, while at other times you find in it\nvarious intermediate degrees of fulness, just as is the case with the\nother bladder--that which receives the urine; for even without\nresorting to anatomy we may observe that the urinary bladder continues\nto collect urine up to the time that it becomes uncomfortable through\nthe increasing quantity of urine or the irritation caused by its\nacidity--the presumption thus being that here, too, there is a\nretentive faculty.\n\nSimilarly, too, the stomach, when, as often happens, it is irritated\nby acidity, gets rid of the food, although still undigested, earlier\nthan proper; or again, when oppressed by the quantity of its contents,\nor disordered from the co-existence of both conditions, it is seized\nwith _diarrhoea_. _Vomiting_ also is an affection of the upper [part\nof the] stomach analogous to diarrhoea, and it occurs when the stomach\nis overloaded or is unable to stand the quality of the food or surplus\nsubstances which it contains. Thus, when such a condition develops in\nthe lower parts of the stomach, while the parts about the inlet are\nnormal, it ends in diarrhoea, whereas if this condition is in the\nupper stomach, the lower parts being normal, it ends in vomiting.\n\n\n                        V\n\n  Hapant' oun all\u00ealois homologei tauta kai t\u00ea gastri kai\n  tais hysterais kai tais kystesin einai tinas emphytous\n  dynameis kathektikas men t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n poiot\u00eat\u00f4n, ||            158\n  apokritikas de t\u00f4n allotri\u00f4n. hoti men gar helkei t\u00ean\n  chol\u00ean eis heaut\u00ean h\u00ea epi t\u00f4 h\u00eapati kystis, emprosthen\n  dedeiktai, hoti de kai apokrinei kath' hekast\u00ean h\u00eameran\n  eis t\u00ean gastera, kai tout' enarg\u00f4s phainetai. kai m\u00ean ei\n  diedecheto t\u00ean helktik\u00ean dynamin h\u00ea ekkritik\u00ea kai m\u00ea\n  mes\u00ea tis amphoin \u00ean h\u00ea kathektik\u00ea, dia pantos echr\u00ean\n  anatemnomen\u00f4n t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n ison pl\u00eathos chol\u00eas heuriskesthai\n  kata t\u00ean kystin; ou m\u00ean heurisketai ge. pote men gar\n  pl\u00earestat\u00ea, pote de kenotat\u00ea, pote de tas en t\u00f4 metaxy\n  diaphoras echousa the\u00f4reitai, kathaper kai h\u00ea hetera\n  kystis h\u00ea to ouron hypodechomen\u00ea. taut\u00eas men ge kai pro\n  t\u00eas anatom\u00eas aisthanometha, prin aniath\u00eanai t\u00f4 pl\u00eathei\n  baryntheisan \u00ea t\u00ea drimyt\u00eati d\u00eachtheisan, athroizous\u00eas\n  eti to ouron, h\u00f4s ous\u00eas tinos kantautha dyname\u00f4s\n  kathektik\u00eas.\n\n  Hout\u00f4 de kai h\u00ea gast\u00ear hypo drimyt\u00eatos pollakis\n  d\u00eachtheisa pr\u00f4iaiteron tou deontos apepton eti t\u00ean\n  troph\u00ean apotribetai. authis d' an pote t\u00f4 pl\u00eathei\n  baryntheisa \u00ea kai kat' amph\u00f4 synelthonta kak\u00f4s\n  diatetheisa diarrhoiais heal\u00f4. kai men ge kai hoi\n  emetoi, t\u00f4 pl\u00eathei baryntheis\u00eas || aut\u00eas \u00ea t\u00ean poiot\u00eata       159\n  t\u00f4n en aut\u00ea siti\u00f4n te kai peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n m\u00ea pherous\u00eas,\n  analogon ti tais diarrhoiais path\u00eama t\u00eas an\u00f4 gastros\n  estin. hotan men gar en tois kat\u00f4 meresin aut\u00eas h\u00ea\n  toiaut\u00ea gen\u00eatai diathesis, errh\u00f4men\u00f4n t\u00f4n kata ton\n  stomachon, eis diarrhoias eteleut\u00easen, hotan d' en tois\n  kata to stoma, t\u00f4n all\u00f4n eur\u00f4stount\u00f4n, eis emetous.\n\n\n                              VI\n\nThis may often be clearly observed in those who are disinclined for\nfood; when obliged to eat, they have not the strength to swallow, and,\neven if they force themselves to do so, they cannot retain the food,\nbut at once vomit it up. And those especially who have a dislike to\nsome particular kind of food, sometimes take it under compulsion, and\nthen promptly bring it up; or, if they force themselves to keep it\ndown, they are nauseated and feel their stomach turned up, and\nendeavouring to relieve itself of its discomfort.\n\nThus, as was said at the beginning, all the observed facts testify\nthat there must exist in almost all parts of the animal a certain\ninclination towards, or, so to speak; an appetite for their own\nspecial quality, and an aversion to, or, as it were, a hatred[324] of\nthe foreign quality. And it is natural that when they feel an\ninclination they should attract, and that when they feel aversion they\nshould expel.\n\nFrom these facts, then, again, both the attractive and the propulsive\nfaculties have been demonstrated to exist in everything.[325]\n\nBut if there be an inclination or attraction, there will also be some\nbenefit derived; for no existing thing attracts anything else for the\nmere sake of attracting, but in order to benefit by what is acquired\nby the attraction. And of course it cannot benefit by it if it cannot\nretain it. Herein, then, again, the retentive faculty is shown to have\nits necessary origin: for the stomach obviously inclines towards its\nown proper qualities and turns away from those that are foreign to\nit.[326]\n\nBut if it aims at and attracts its food and benefits by it while\nretaining and contracting upon it, we may also expect that there will\nbe some _termination_ to the benefit received, and that thereafter\nwill come the time for the exercise of the eliminative faculty.\n\n\n                       VI\n\n  Enesti de kai touto pollakis enarg\u00f4s idein epi t\u00f4n\n  aposit\u00f4n; anankazomenoi gar esthiein oute katapinein\n  eusthenousin out', ei kai biasainto, katechousin, all'\n  euthys anemousi. kai hoi all\u00f4s de t\u00f4n edesmat\u00f4n pros\n  hotioun dyscherainontes biasthentes eniote prosarasthai\n  tache\u00f4s exemousin, \u00ea ei kataschoien biasamenoi,\n  nauti\u00f4deis t' eisi kai t\u00eas gastros hyptias aisthanontai\n  kai speudous\u00eas apothesthai to lypoun.\n\n  Hout\u00f4s ex hapant\u00f4n t\u00f4n phainomen\u00f4n, hoper ex arch\u00eas\n  errheth\u00ea, martyreitai to dein hyparchein tois tou z\u00f4ou\n  moriois schedon hapasin ephesin men tina kai hoion\n  orexin t\u00eas oikeias poiot\u00eatos, apostroph\u00ean de tina || kai      160\n  hoion misos ti t\u00eas allotrias, all' ephiemena men helkein\n  eulogon, apostrephomena d' ekkrinein.\n\n  Kak tout\u00f4n palin h\u00ea th' helktik\u00ea dynamis apodeiknytai\n  kath' hapan hyparchousa kai h\u00ea pro\u00f4stik\u00ea.\n\n  All' eiper ephesis te tis esti kai helxis, ei\u00ea an tis\n  kai apolausis; ouden gar t\u00f4n ont\u00f4n helkei ti di' auto to\n  helkein, all' hin' apolaus\u00ea tou dia t\u00eas holk\u00eas\n  eupor\u00eathentos. kai m\u00ean apolauein ou dynatai m\u00ea\n  kataschon. kan tout\u00f4 palin h\u00ea kathektik\u00ea dynamis\n  apodeiknytai t\u00ean genesin anankaian echousa; saph\u00f4s gar\n  ephietai men t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n poiot\u00eat\u00f4n h\u00ea gast\u00ear,\n  apostrephetai de tas allotrias.\n\n  All' eiper ephietai te kai helkei kai apolauei\n  katechousa kai peristellomen\u00ea, ei\u00ea an ti kai peras aut\u00ea\n  t\u00eas apolause\u00f4s kapi t\u00f4d' ho kairos \u00ead\u00ea t\u00eas ekkritik\u00eas\n  dyname\u00f4s energous\u00eas.\n\n\n                             VII\n\nBut if the stomach both retains and benefits by its food, then it\nemploys it for the end for which it [the stomach] naturally exists.\nAnd it exists to partake of that which is of a quality befitting and\nproper to it. Thus it attracts all the most useful parts of the food\nin a vaporous[327] and finely divided condition, storing this up in\nits own coats, and applying[328] it to them. And when it is\nsufficiently full it puts away from it, as one might something\ntroublesome, the rest of the food, this having itself meanwhile\nobtained some profit from its association with the stomach. For it is\nimpossible for two bodies which are adapted for acting and being acted\nupon to come together without either both acting or being acted upon,\nor else one acting and the other being acted upon. For if their forces\nare equal they will act and be acted upon equally, and if the one be\nmuch superior in strength, it will exert its activity upon its passive\nneighbour; thus, while producing a great and appreciable effect, it\nwill itself be acted upon either little or not at all. But it is\nherein also that the main difference lies between nourishing food and\na deleterious drug; the latter masters the forces of the body, whereas\nthe former is mastered by them.[329]\n\nThere cannot, then, be food which is suited for the animal which is\nnot also correspondingly subdued by the qualities existing in the\nanimal. And to be subdued means to undergo _alteration_.[330] Now,\nsome parts are stronger in power and others weaker; therefore, while\nall will subdue the nutriment which is proper to the animal, they will\nnot all do so equally. Thus the stomach will subdue and alter its\nfood, but not to the same extent as will the liver, veins, arteries,\nand heart.\n\nWe must therefore observe to what extent it does alter it. The\nalteration is more than that which occurs in the mouth, but less than\nthat in the liver and veins. For the latter alteration changes the\nnutriment into the _substance_ of blood, whereas that in the mouth\nobviously changes it into a new _form_, but certainly does not\ncompletely transmute it. This you may discover in the food which is\nleft in the intervals between the teeth, and which remains there all\nnight; the bread is not exactly bread, nor the meat, for they\nhave a smell similar to that of the animal's mouth, and have been\ndisintegrated and dissolved, and have had the qualities of the\nanimal's flesh impressed upon them. And you may observe the extent of\nthe alteration which occurs to food in the mouth if you will chew some\ncorn and then apply it to an unripe [undigested] boil: you will see it\nrapidly transmuting--in fact entirely digesting--the boil, though it\ncannot do anything of the kind if you mix it with water. And do not\nlet this surprise you; this phlegm [saliva] in the mouth is also a\ncure for _lichens_[331]; it even rapidly destroys scorpions; while, as\nregards the animals which emit venom, some it kills at once, and\nothers after an interval; to all of them in any case it does great\ndamage. Now, the masticated food is all, firstly, soaked in and mixed\nup with this phlegm; and secondly, it is brought into contact with the\nactual skin of the mouth; thus it undergoes more change than the food\nwhich is wedged into the vacant spaces between the teeth.\n\nBut just as masticated food is more altered than the latter kind, so\nis food which has been swallowed more altered than that which has been\nmerely masticated. Indeed, there is no comparison between these two\nprocesses; we have only to consider what the stomach contains--phlegm,\nbile, pneuma, [innate] heat,[332] and, indeed the whole substance of\nthe stomach. And if one considers along with this the adjacent\nviscera, like a lot of burning hearths around a great cauldron--to the\nright the liver, to the left the spleen, the heart above, and along\nwith it the diaphragm (suspended and in a state of constant movement),\nand the omentum sheltering them all--you may believe what an\nextraordinary alteration it is which occurs in the food taken into the\nstomach.\n\nHow could it easily become blood if it were not previously prepared by\nmeans of a change of this kind? It has already been shown[333] that\nnothing is altered all at once from one quality to its opposite. How\nthen could bread, beef, beans, or any other food turn into blood if\nthey had not previously undergone some other alteration? And how could\nthe faeces be generated right away in the small intestine?[334] For\nwhat is there in this organ more potent in producing alteration than\nthe factors in the stomach? Is it the number of the coats, or the way\nit is surrounded by neighbouring viscera, or the time that the food\nremains in it, or some kind of innate heat which it contains? Most\nassuredly the intestines have the advantage of the stomach in none of\nthese respects. For what possible reason, then, will objectors have it\nthat bread may often remain a whole night in the stomach and still\npreserve its original qualities, whereas when once it is projected\ninto the intestines, it straightway becomes ordure? For, if such a\nlong period of time is incapable of altering it, neither will the\nshort period be sufficient, or, if the latter is enough, surely the\nlonger time will be much more so! Well, then, can it be that, while\nthe nutriment does undergo an alteration in the stomach, this is a\ndifferent kind of alteration and one which is not dependent on the\nnature of the organ which alters it? Or if it be an alteration of this\nlatter kind, yet one perhaps which is not proper to the body of the\nanimal? This is still more impossible. Digestion was shown to be\nnothing else than an alteration to the quality proper to that which is\nreceiving nourishment.[335] Since, then, this is what digestion means\nand since the nutriment has been shown to take on in the stomach a\nquality appropriate to the animal which is about to be nourished by\nit, it has been demonstrated adequately that nutriment does undergo\ndigestion in the stomach.\n\nAnd Asclepiades is absurd when he states that the quality of the\ndigested food never shows itself either in eructations or in the\nvomited matter, or on dissection.[336] For of course the mere fact\nthat the food smells of the body shows that it has undergone gastric\ndigestion. But this man is so foolish that, when he hears the Ancients\nsaying that the food is converted in the stomach into something\n\"good,\" he thinks it proper to look out not for what is good in its\npossible effects, but for what is _good to the taste_: this is like\nsaying that apples (for so one has to argue with him) become more\napple-like [in flavour] in the stomach, or honey more honey-like!\n\nErasistratus, however, is still more foolish and absurd, either\nthrough not perceiving in what sense the Ancients said that digestion\nis similar to the process of _boiling_, or because he purposely\nconfused himself with sophistries. It is, he says, inconceivable that\ndigestion, involving as it does such trifling warmth, should be\nrelated to the boiling process. This is as if we were to suppose that\nit was necessary to put the fires of Etna under the stomach before it\ncould manage to alter the food; or else that, while it was capable of\naltering the food, it did not do this by virtue of its innate heat,\nwhich of course was moist, so that the word _boil_ was used instead of\n_bake_.\n\nWhat he ought to have done, if it was facts that he wished to dispute\nabout, was to have tried to show, first and foremost, that the food is\nnot transmuted or altered in quality by the stomach at all, and\nsecondly, if he could not be confident of this, he ought to have tried\nto show that this alteration was not of any advantage to the\nanimal.[337] If, again, he were unable even to make this\nmisrepresentation, he ought to have attempted to confute the postulate\nconcerning _the active principles_--to show, in fact, that the\nfunctions taking place in the various parts do not depend on the way\nin which the Warm, Cold, Dry, and Moist are mixed, but on some other\nfactor. And if he had not the audacity to misrepresent facts even so\nfar as this, still he should have tried at least to show that the Warm\nis not the most active of all the principles which play a part in\nthings governed by Nature. But if he was unable to demonstrate this\nany more than any of the previous propositions, then he ought not to\nhave made himself ridiculous by quarrelling uselessly with a mere\nname--as though Aristotle had not clearly stated in the fourth book of\nhis \"Meteorology,\" as well as in many other passages, in what way\ndigestion can be said to be allied to boiling, and also that the\nlatter expression is not used in its primitive or strict sense.\n\nBut, as has been frequently said already,[338] the one starting-point\nof all this is a thoroughgoing enquiry into the question of the Warm,\nCold, Dry and Moist; this Aristotle carried out in the second of his\nbooks \"On Genesis and Destruction,\" where he shows that all the\ntransmutations and alterations throughout the body take place as a\nresult of these principles. Erasistratus, however, advanced nothing\nagainst these or anything else that has been said above, but occupied\nhimself merely with the word \"boiling.\"\n\n\n                      VII\n\n  All' ei kai katechei kai apolauei, katachr\u00eatai pros ho\n  pephyke. pephyke de tou pros\u00eakontos heaut\u00ea || kata            161\n  poiot\u00eata kai oikeiou metalambanein; h\u00f4sth' helkei t\u00f4n\n  siti\u00f4n hoson chr\u00eastotaton atm\u00f4d\u00f4s te kai kata brachy kai\n  touto tois heaut\u00eas chit\u00f4sin enapotithetai te kai\n  prostith\u00easin. hotan d' hikan\u00f4s empl\u00easth\u00ea, kathaper\n  achthos ti t\u00ean loip\u00ean apotithetai troph\u00ean esch\u00eakuian ti\n  chr\u00easton \u00ead\u00ea kai aut\u00ean ek t\u00eas pros t\u00ean gastera\n  koin\u00f4nias; oude gar endechetai dyo s\u00f4mata dran kai\n  paschein epit\u00eadeia synelthonta m\u00ea ouk \u00eatoi paschein th'\n  hama kai dran \u00ea thateron men dran, thateron de paschein.\n  ean men gar isaz\u00ea tais dynamesin, ex isou drasei te kai\n  peisetai, an d' hyperech\u00ea poly kai krat\u00ea thateron,\n  energ\u00easei peri to paschon; h\u00f4ste drasei mega men ti kai\n  aisth\u00eaton, auto d' \u00eatoi smikron ti kai ouk aisth\u00eaton \u00ea\n  pantapasin ouden peisetai. all' en tout\u00f4 d\u00ea kai malista\n  di\u00eanenke pharmakou d\u00eal\u00eat\u00eariou troph\u00ea; to men gar kratei\n  t\u00eas en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati dyname\u00f4s, h\u00ea de krateitai.\n\n  Oukoun endechetai troph\u00ean men einai ti t\u00f4 z\u00f4\u00f4\n  pros\u00eakousan, ou m\u00ean kai krateisthai g' homoi\u00f4s pros t\u00f4n\n  || en t\u00f4 z\u00f4\u00f4 poiot\u00eat\u00f4n; to krateisthai d' \u00ean                  162\n  alloiousthai. all' epei ta men ischyrotera tais\n  dynamesin esti moria, ta d' asthenestera, krat\u00easei men\n  panta t\u00eas oikeias t\u00f4 z\u00f4\u00f4 troph\u00eas, ouch homoi\u00f4s de panta;\n  krat\u00easei d' ara kai h\u00ea gast\u00ear kai alloi\u00f4sei men t\u00ean\n  troph\u00ean, ou m\u00ean homoi\u00f4s h\u00eapati kai phlepsi kai art\u00eariais\n  kai kardia.\n\n  Poson oun estin, ho alloioi, kai d\u00ea theas\u00f4metha; pleon\n  men \u00ea kata to stoma, meion d' \u00ea kata to h\u00eapar te kai tas\n  phlebas. haut\u00ea men gar h\u00ea alloi\u00f4sis eis haimatos ousian\n  agei t\u00ean troph\u00ean, h\u00ea d' en t\u00f4 stomati methist\u00easi men\n  aut\u00ean enarg\u00f4s eis heteron eidos, ou m\u00ean eis telos ge\n  metakosmei. mathois d' an epi t\u00f4n enkataleiphthent\u00f4n\n  tais diastasesi t\u00f4n odont\u00f4n siti\u00f4n kai katameinant\u00f4n di'\n  hol\u00eas nyktos; oute gar artos akrib\u00f4s ho artos oute kreas\n  esti to kreas, all' ozei men toiouton, hoionper kai tou\n  z\u00f4ou to stoma, dialelytai de kai diatet\u00eake kai tas en t\u00f4\n  z\u00f4\u00f4 t\u00eas sarkos apomemaktai poiot\u00eatas. enesti de soi\n  theasasthai to megethos t\u00eas en t\u00f4 stomati || t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n       163\n  alloi\u00f4se\u00f4s, ei pyrous mas\u00easamenos epithei\u00eas apeptois\n  dothi\u00easin; opsei gar autous tachista metaballontas te\n  kai sympettontas, ouden toiouton, hotan hydati\n  phyrath\u00f4sin, ergasasthai dynamenous. kai m\u00ea thaumas\u00eas;\n  to gar toi phlegma touti to kata to stoma kai leich\u00ean\u00f4n\n  estin akos kai skorpious anairei parachr\u00eama kai polla\n  t\u00f4n iobol\u00f4n th\u00eari\u00f4n ta men euthe\u00f4s apokteinei, ta d' es\n  hysteron; hapanta goun blaptei megal\u00f4s. alla ta\n  memas\u00eamena sitia pr\u00f4ton men tout\u00f4 t\u00f4 phlegmati bebrektai\n  te kai pephyratai, deuteron de kai t\u00f4 chr\u00f4ti tou\n  stomatos hapanta pepl\u00easiaken, h\u00f4ste pleiona metabol\u00ean\n  eil\u00eaphe t\u00f4n en tais kenais ch\u00f4rais t\u00f4n odont\u00f4n\n  esph\u00ean\u00f4men\u00f4n.\n\n  All' hoson ta memas\u00eamena tout\u00f4n epi pleon \u00ealloi\u00f4tai,\n  tosouton ekein\u00f4n ta katapothenta. m\u00ea gar oude parabl\u00eaton\n  \u00ea to t\u00eas hyperbol\u00eas, ei to kata t\u00ean koilian enno\u00easaimen\n  phlegma kai chol\u00ean kai pneuma kai thermasian kai hol\u00ean\n  t\u00ean ousian t\u00eas gastros. ei de kai synepino\u00easais aut\u00ea ta\n  parakeimena || splanchna kathaper tini leb\u00eati megal\u00f4          164\n  pyros hestias pollas, ek dexi\u00f4n men to h\u00eapar, ex\n  arister\u00f4n de ton spl\u00eana, t\u00ean kardian d' ek t\u00f4n an\u00f4, syn\n  aut\u00ea de kai tas phrenas ai\u00f4roumenas te kai dia pantos\n  kinoumenas, eph' hapasi de toutois skepon to epiploon,\n  exaision tina peisth\u00eas\u00ea t\u00ean alloi\u00f4sin gignesthai t\u00f4n eis\n  t\u00ean gastera katapothent\u00f4n siti\u00f4n.\n\n  P\u00f4s d' an \u00eadynato rhadi\u00f4s haimatousthai m\u00ea\n  proparaskeuasthenta t\u00ea toiaut\u00ea metabol\u00ea? dedeiktai gar\n  oun kai prosthen, h\u00f4s ouden eis t\u00ean enantian athro\u00f4s\n  methistatai poiot\u00eata. p\u00f4s oun ho artos haima gignetai,\n  p\u00f4s de to teutlon \u00ea ho kyamos \u00ea ti t\u00f4n all\u00f4n, ei m\u00ea\n  proteron tin' heteran alloi\u00f4sin edexato? p\u00f4s d' h\u00ea\n  kopros en tois leptois enterois athro\u00f4s genn\u00eath\u00easetai?\n  ti gar en toutois sphodroteron eis alloi\u00f4sin esti t\u00f4n\n  kata t\u00ean gastera? potera t\u00f4n chit\u00f4n\u00f4n to pl\u00eathos \u00ea t\u00f4n\n  geitni\u00f4nt\u00f4n splanchn\u00f4n h\u00ea perithesis \u00ea t\u00eas mon\u00eas ho\n  chronos \u00ea symphytos tis en tois organois thermasia? kai\n  m\u00ean kat' ouden tout\u00f4n pleonektei ta entera t\u00eas gastros.\n  ti pot' oun en men t\u00ea gastri nyktos || hol\u00eas pollakis         165\n  meinanta ton arton eti phylattesthai boulontai tas\n  archaias dias\u00f4zonta poiot\u00eatas, epeidan d' hapax empes\u00ea\n  tois enterois, euthys gignesthai kopron? ei men gar ho\n  tosoutos chronos adynatos alloioun, oud' ho brachys\n  hikanos; ei d' houtos autark\u00eas, p\u00f4s ou poly mallon ho\n  makros? ar' oun alloioutai men h\u00ea troph\u00ea kata t\u00ean\n  koilian, all\u00ean de tin' alloi\u00f4sin kai ouch hoian ek t\u00eas\n  physe\u00f4s ischei tou metaballontos organou? \u00ea taut\u00ean men,\n  ou m\u00ean t\u00ean g' oikeian t\u00f4 tou z\u00f4ou s\u00f4mati? makr\u00f4 tout'\n  adynat\u00f4teron esti. kai m\u00ean ouk allo g' \u00ean h\u00ea pepsis \u00ea\n  alloi\u00f4sis eis t\u00ean oikeian tou trephomenou poiot\u00eata.\n  eiper oun h\u00ea pepsis tout' esti kai h\u00ea troph\u00ea kata t\u00ean\n  gastera dedeiktai dechomen\u00ea poiot\u00eata t\u00f4 mellonti pros\n  aut\u00eas threpsesthai z\u00f4\u00f4 pros\u00eakousan, hikan\u00f4s apodedeiktai\n  to pettesthai kata t\u00ean gastera t\u00ean troph\u00ean.\n\n  Kai geloios men Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas out' en tais erygais leg\u00f4n\n  emphainesthai pote t\u00ean poiot\u00eata t\u00f4n pephthent\u00f4n siti\u00f4n\n  out' en tois emetois out' en tais ana||tomais; auto gar       166\n  d\u00ea to tou s\u00f4matos exozein auta t\u00eas koilias esti to\n  pepephthai. ho d' hout\u00f4s estin eu\u00eath\u00eas, h\u00f4st', epeid\u00ea\n  t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n akouei legont\u00f4n epi to chr\u00easton en t\u00ea gastri\n  metaballein ta sitia, dokimazei z\u00eatein ou to kata\n  dynamin alla to kata geusin chr\u00easton, h\u00f4sper \u00ea tou m\u00ealou\n  m\u00eal\u00f4desterou--chr\u00ea gar hout\u00f4s aut\u00f4\n  dialegesthai--gignomenou kata t\u00ean koilian \u00ea tou melitos\n  melit\u00f4desterou.\n\n  Poly d' eu\u00eathesteros esti kai geloioteros ho\n  Erasistratos \u00ea m\u00ea no\u00f4n, hop\u00f4s eir\u00eatai pros t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n\n  h\u00ea pepsis heps\u00easei parapl\u00easios hyparchein, \u00ea hek\u00f4n\n  sophizomenos heauton. heps\u00easei men oun, ph\u00easin, hout\u00f4s\n  elaphran echousan thermasian ouk eikos einai parapl\u00easian\n  t\u00ean pepsin, h\u00f4sper \u00ea t\u00ean Aitn\u00ean deon hypotheinai t\u00ea\n  gastri \u00ea all\u00f4s aut\u00eas alloi\u00f4sai ta sitia m\u00ea dynamen\u00eas \u00ea\n  dynamen\u00eas men alloioun, ou kata t\u00ean emphyton de\n  thermasian, hygran ousan d\u00ealonoti kai dia touth' hepsein\n  ouk optan eir\u00eamen\u00ean.\n\n  Echr\u00ean d' auton, eiper peri pragmat\u00f4n antilegein\n  ebouleto, peirath\u00eanai deixai malista men kai || pr\u00f4ton,       167\n  h\u00f4s oude metaballei t\u00ean arch\u00ean oud' alloioutai kata\n  poiot\u00eata pros t\u00eas gastros ta sitia, deuteron d', eiper\n  m\u00ea hoios t' \u00ean touto pist\u00f4sasthai, to t\u00ean alloi\u00f4sin\n  aut\u00f4n achr\u00easton einai t\u00f4 z\u00f4\u00f4; ei de m\u00eade tout' eiche\n  diaballein, exelenxai t\u00ean peri tas drastikas archas\n  hypol\u00eapsin kai deixai tas energeias en tois moriois ou\n  dia t\u00ean ek thermou kai psychrou kai x\u00earou kai hygrou\n  poian krasin hyparchein alla di' allo ti; ei de m\u00eade\n  tout' etolma diaballein, all' hoti ge m\u00ea to thermon\n  estin en tois hypo physe\u00f4s dioikoumenois to t\u00f4n all\u00f4n\n  drastik\u00f4taton. \u00ea ei m\u00eate touto m\u00eate t\u00f4n all\u00f4n ti t\u00f4n\n  emprosthen eichen apodeiknynai, m\u00ea l\u00earein onomati\n  prospalaionta mat\u00ean, h\u00f4sper ou saph\u00f4s Aristotelous en t'\n  allois pollois kan t\u00f4 tetart\u00f4 t\u00f4n mete\u00f4rologik\u00f4n hop\u00f4s\n  h\u00ea pepsis heps\u00easei parapl\u00easios einai legetai, kai hoti\n  m\u00ea pr\u00f4t\u00f4s m\u00eade kyri\u00f4s onomazont\u00f4n, eir\u00eakotos.\n\n  All', h\u00f4s \u00ead\u00ea lelektai pollakis, arch\u00ea tout\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n\n  esti mia to peri thermou kai psychrou kai x\u00earou kai\n  hygrou diaskepsasthai, kathaper Aristotel\u00eas epoi\u00easen en\n  t\u00f4 deuter\u00f4 peri genese\u00f4s kai phthoras, apo||deixas            168\n  hapasas tas kata ta s\u00f4mata metabolas kai alloi\u00f4seis hypo\n  tout\u00f4n gignesthai. all' Erasistratos oute toutois out'\n  all\u00f4 tini t\u00f4n proeir\u00eamen\u00f4n anteip\u00f4n epi tounoma monon\n  etrapeto t\u00eas heps\u00ease\u00f4s.\n\n\n                            VIII\n\nThus, as regards _digestion_, even though he neglected everything\nelse, he did at least attempt to prove his point--namely, that\ndigestion in animals differs from boiling carried on outside; in\nregard to the question of _deglutition_, however, he did not go even\nso far as this. What are his words?\n\n\"The stomach does not appear to exercise any traction.\"[339]\n\nNow the fact is that the stomach possesses two coats, which certainly\nexist for some purpose; they extend as far as the mouth, the internal\none remaining throughout similar to what it is in the stomach, and the\nother one tending to become of a more fleshy nature in the gullet. Now\nsimple observation will testify that these coats have their fibres\ninserted in contrary directions.[340] And, although Erasistratus did\nnot attempt to say for what reason they are like this, I am going to\ndo so.\n\nThe inner coat has its fibres straight, since it exists for the\npurpose of traction. The outer coat has its fibres transverse, for the\npurpose of peristalsis.[341] In fact, the movements of each of the\n_mobile_ organs of the body depend on the setting of the fibres. Now\nplease test this assertion first in the muscles themselves; in these\nthe fibres are most distinct, and their movements visible owing to\ntheir vigour. And after the muscles, pass to the _physical_\norgans,[342] and you will see that they all move in correspondence\nwith their fibres. This is why the fibres throughout the intestines\nare circular in both coats--they only contract peristaltically, they\ndo not exercise traction. The stomach, again, has some of its fibres\nlongitudinal for the purpose of traction and the others transverse for\nthe purpose of peristalsis.[342] For just as the movements in the\nmuscles[343] take place when each of the fibres becomes tightened and\ndrawn towards its origin, such also is what happens in the stomach;\nwhen the transverse fibres tighten, the breadth of the cavity\ncontained by them becomes less; and when the longitudinal fibres\ncontract and draw in upon themselves, the length must necessarily be\ncurtailed. This curtailment of length, indeed, is well seen in the act\nof swallowing: the larynx is seen to rise upwards to exactly the same\ndegree that the gullet is drawn downwards; while, after the process of\nswallowing has been completed and the gullet is released from tension,\nthe larynx can be clearly seen to sink down again. This is because the\ninner coat of the stomach, which has the longitudinal fibres and which\nalso lines the gullet and the mouth, extends to the interior of the\nlarynx, and it is thus impossible for it to be drawn down by the\nstomach without the larynx being involved in the traction.\n\nFurther, it will be found acknowledged in Erasistratus's own writings\nthat the circular fibres (by which the stomach as well as other parts\nperforms its contractions) do not curtail its length, but contract and\nlessen its breadth. For he says that the stomach contracts\nperistaltically round the food during the whole period of digestion.\nBut if it contracts, without in any way being diminished in length,\nthis is because downward traction of the gullet is not a property of\nthe movement of circular peristalsis. For what alone happens, as\nErasistratus himself said, is that when the upper parts contract the\nlower ones dilate.[344] And everyone knows that this can be plainly\nseen happening even in a dead man, if water be poured down his throat;\nthis symptom[345] results from the passage of matter through a narrow\nchannel; it would be extraordinary it the channel did not dilate when\na mass was passing through it.[346] Obviously then the dilatation of\nthe lower parts along with the contraction of the upper is common both\nto dead bodies, when anything whatsoever is passing through them, and\nto living ones, whether they contract peristaltically round their\ncontents or attract them.[347]\n\nCurtailment of length, on the other hand, is peculiar to organs which\npossess longitudinal fibres for the purpose of attraction. But the\ngullet was shown to be pulled down; for otherwise it would not have\ndrawn upon the larynx. It is therefore clear that the stomach attracts\nfood by the gullet.\n\nFurther, in _vomiting_, the mere passive conveyance of rejected matter\nup to the mouth will certainly itself suffice to keep open those parts\nof the oesophagus which are distended by the returned food; as it\noccupies each part in front [above], it first dilates this, and of\ncourse leaves the part behind [below] contracted. Thus, in this\nrespect at least, the condition of the gullet is precisely similar to\nwhat it is in the act of swallowing.[348] But there being no\n_traction_, the whole length remains equal in such cases.\n\nAnd for this reason it is easier to swallow than to vomit, for\ndeglutition results from _both_ coats of the stomach being brought\ninto action, the inner one exerting a pull and the outer one helping\nby peristalsis and propulsion, whereas emesis occurs from the outer\ncoat alone functioning, without there being any kind of pull towards\nthe mouth. For, although the swallowing of food is ordinarily preceded\nby a feeling of desire on the part of the stomach, there is in the\ncase of vomiting no corresponding desire from the mouth-parts for the\nexperience; the two are opposite dispositions of the stomach itself;\nit yearns after and tends towards what is advantageous and proper to\nit, it loathes and rids itself of what is foreign. Thus the actual\nprocess of swallowing occurs very quickly in those who have a good\nappetite for such foods as are proper to the stomach; this organ\nobviously draws them in and down before they are masticated; whereas\nin the case of those who are forced to take a medicinal draught or who\ntake food as medicine, the swallowing of these articles is\naccomplished with distress and difficulty.\n\nFrom what has been said, then, it is clear that the inner coat of the\nstomach (that containing longitudinal fibres) exists for the purpose\nof exerting a pull from mouth to stomach, and that it is only in\ndeglutition that it is active, whereas the external coat, which\ncontains transverse fibres, has been so constituted in order that it\nmay contract upon its contents and propel them forward; this coat\nfurthermore, functions in vomiting no less than in swallowing. The\ntruth of my statement is also borne out by what happens in the case of\nthe _channae_ and _synodonts_[349]; the stomachs of these animals are\nsometimes found in their mouths, as also Aristotle writes in his\n_History of Animals_; he also adds the cause of this: he says that it\nis owing to their voracity.\n\nThe facts are as follows. In all animals, when the appetite is very\nintense, the stomach rises up, so that some people who have a clear\nperception of this condition say that their stomach \"creeps out\" of\nthem; in others, who are still masticating their food and have not yet\nworked it up properly in the mouth, the stomach obviously snatches\naway the food from them against their will. In those animals,\ntherefore, which are naturally voracious, in whom the mouth cavity is\nof generous proportions, and the stomach situated close to it (as in\nthe case of the synodont and channa), it is in no way surprising that,\nwhen they are sufficiently hungry and are pursuing one of the smaller\nanimals, and are just on the point of catching it, the stomach should,\nunder the impulse of desire, spring into the mouth. And this cannot\npossibly take place in any other way than by the stomach drawing the\nfood to itself by means of the gullet, as though by a hand. In fact,\njust as we ourselves, in our eagerness to grasp more quickly something\nlying before us, sometimes stretch out our whole bodies along with our\nhands, so also the stomach stretches itself forward along with the\ngullet, which is, as it were, its hand. And thus, in these animals in\nwhom those three factors co-exist--an excessive propensity for food, a\nsmall gullet, and ample mouth proportions--in these, any slight\ntendency to movement forwards brings the whole stomach into the mouth.\n\nNow the constitution of the organs might itself suffice to give a\nnaturalist an indication of their functions. For Nature would never\nhave purposelessly constructed the oesophagus of two coats with\ncontrary dispositions; they must also have each been meant to have a\ndifferent action. The Erasistratean school, however, are capable of\nanything rather than of recognizing the effects of Nature. Come,\ntherefore, let us demonstrate to them by animal dissection as well\nthat each of the two coats does exercise the activity which I have\nstated. Take an animal, then; lay bare the structures surrounding the\ngullet, without severing any of the nerves,[350] arteries, or veins\nwhich are there situated; next divide with vertical incisions, from\nthe lower jaw to the thorax, the outer coat of the oesophagus (that\ncontaining transverse fibres); then give the animal food and you will\nsee that it still swallows although the peristaltic function has been\nabolished. If, again, in another animal, you cut through both\ncoats[351] with transverse incisions, you will observe that this\nanimal also swallows although the inner coat is no longer functioning.\nFrom this it is clear that the animal can also swallow by either of\nthe two coats, although not so well as by both. For the following\nalso, in addition to other points, may be distinctly observed in the\ndissection which I have described--that during deglutition the gullet\nbecomes slightly filled with air which is swallowed along with the\nfood, and that, when the outer coat is contracting, this air is easily\nforced with the food into the stomach, but that, when there only\nexists an inner coat, the air impedes the conveyance of food, by\ndistending this coat and hindering its action.\n\nBut Erasistratus said nothing about this, nor did he point out that\nthe oblique situation of the gullet clearly confutes the teaching of\nthose who hold that it is simply by virtue of the impulse from above\nthat food which is swallowed reaches the stomach. The only correct\nthing he said was that many of the long-necked animals bend down to\nswallow. Hence, clearly, the observed fact does not show how we\nswallow but how we do not swallow. For from this observation it is\nclear that swallowing is not due merely to the impulse from above; it\nis yet, however, not clear whether it results from the food being\nattracted by the stomach, or conducted by the gullet. For our part,\nhowever, having enumerated all the different considerations--those\nbased on the constitution of the organs, as well as those based on the\nother symptoms which, as just mentioned, occur both before and after\nthe gullet has been exposed--we have thus sufficiently proved that the\ninner coat exists for the purpose of attraction and the outer for the\npurpose of propulsion.\n\nNow the original task we set before ourselves was to demonstrate that\nthe _retentive_ faculty exists in every one of the organs, just as in\nthe previous book we proved the existence of the _attractive_, and,\nover and above this, the _alterative_ faculty. Thus, in the natural\ncourse of our argument, we have demonstrated these four faculties\nexisting in the stomach--the attractive faculty in connection with\nswallowing, the retentive with digestion, the expulsive with vomiting\nand with the descent of digested food into the small intestine--and\ndigestion itself we have shown to be a process of _alteration_.\n\n\n                     VIII\n\n  Epi men oun t\u00eas pepse\u00f4s, ei kai talla panta parelipe, to\n  goun hoti diapherei t\u00eas ektos heps\u00ease\u00f4s h\u00ea en tois z\u00f4ois\n  pepsis, epeirath\u00ea deiknynai, peri de t\u00eas katapose\u00f4s oud'\n  achri tosoutou. ti gar ph\u00easin?\n\n  \"Holk\u00ea men oun t\u00eas koilias oudemia phainetai einai.\"\n\n  Kai m\u00ean dyo chit\u00f4nas h\u00ea gast\u00ear echei pant\u00f4s heneka tou\n  gegonotas kai di\u00eakousin houtoi mechri tou stomatos, ho\n  men endon, hoios esti kata t\u00ean gastera, toioutos\n  diamen\u00f4n, ho d' heteros epi to sark\u00f4desteron en t\u00f4\n  stomach\u00f4 trepomenos. hoti men oun enantias all\u00ealais tas\n  epibolas t\u00f4n in\u00f4n echousin hoi chit\u00f4nes houtoi, to\n  phainomenon auto martyrei. tinos d' heneka toioutoi\n  gegonasin, Erasistratos men oud' epecheir\u00easen eipein,\n  h\u00eameis d' eroumen.\n\n  Ho men endon eutheias echei tas inas, holk\u00eas gar heneka\n  ge||gonen; ho d' ex\u00f4then enkarsias hyper tou kata kyklon      169\n  peristellesthai; hekast\u00f4 gar t\u00f4n kinoumen\u00f4n organ\u00f4n en\n  tois s\u00f4masi kata tas t\u00f4n in\u00f4n theseis hai kin\u00easeis\n  eisin. ep' aut\u00f4n de pr\u00f4ton t\u00f4n my\u00f4n, ei boulei,\n  basanison ton logon, eph' h\u00f4n kai hai ines enargestatai\n  kai hai kin\u00easeis aut\u00f4n hor\u00f4ntai dia sphodrot\u00eata. meta de\n  tous mys epi ta physika t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n ithi kai pant' opsei\n  kata tas inas kinoumena kai dia touth' hekast\u00f4 men t\u00f4n\n  enter\u00f4n strongylai kath' hekateron t\u00f4n chit\u00f4n\u00f4n hai ines\n  eisi; peristellontai gar monon, helkousi d' ouden. h\u00ea\n  gast\u00ear de t\u00f4n in\u00f4n tas men eutheias echei charin holk\u00eas,\n  tas d' enkarsias heneka peristol\u00eas; h\u00f4sper gar en tois\n  mysin hekast\u00eas t\u00f4n in\u00f4n teinomen\u00eas te kai pros t\u00ean\n  arch\u00ean helkomen\u00eas hai kin\u00easeis gignontai, kata ton auton\n  logon kan t\u00ea gastri; t\u00f4n men oun enkarsi\u00f4n in\u00f4n\n  teinomen\u00f4n elatton anank\u00ea gignesthai to euros t\u00eas\n  periechomen\u00eas hyp' aut\u00f4n koilot\u00eatos, t\u00f4n d' euthei\u00f4n\n  helkomen\u00f4n te kai eis heautas synagomen\u00f4n ouk endechetai\n  m\u00ea ou synaireisthai to m\u00eakos. alla m\u00ean || enarg\u00f4s ge          170\n  phainetai katapinont\u00f4n synairoumenon kai tosouton ho\n  larynx anatrech\u00f4n, hoson ho stomachos kataspatai, kai\n  hotan ge sympl\u00ear\u00f4theis\u00eas t\u00eas en t\u00f4 katapinein energeias\n  apheth\u00ea t\u00eas tase\u00f4s ho stomachos, enarg\u00f4s palin phainetai\n  katapheromenos ho larynx; ho gar endon chit\u00f4n t\u00eas\n  gastros ho tas eutheias inas ech\u00f4n ho kai ton stomachon\n  hypaleiph\u00f4n kai to stoma tois entos meresin epekteinetai\n  tou laryngos, h\u00f4st' ouk endechetai katasp\u00f4menon auton\n  hypo t\u00eas koilias m\u00ea ou synepispasthai kai ton larynga.\n\n  Hoti d' hai periphereis ines, hais peristelletai ta t'\n  alla moria kai h\u00ea gast\u00ear, ou synairousi to m\u00eakos, alla\n  systellousi kai stenousi t\u00ean euryt\u00eata, kai par' autou\n  labein estin homologoumenon Erasistratou;\n  peristellesthai gar ph\u00easi tois sitiois t\u00ean gastera kata\n  ton t\u00eas pepse\u00f4s hapanta chronon. all' ei peristelletai\n  men, ouden de tou m\u00eakous aphaireitai t\u00eas koilias, ouk\n  esti t\u00eas peristaltik\u00eas kin\u00ease\u00f4s idion to kataspan kat\u00f4\n  ton stomachon. hoper gar autos ho Erasistratos eipe,\n  touto monon auto symb\u00easetai to t\u00f4n an\u00f4 systel||lomen\u00f4n        171\n  diastellesthai ta kat\u00f4. touto d' hoti, kan eis nekrou\n  ton stomachon hydatos enche\u00eas, phainetai gignomenon,\n  oudeis agnoei. tais gar t\u00f4n hyl\u00f4n dia stenou s\u00f4matos\n  hodoiporiais akolouthon esti to sympt\u00f4ma; thaumaston\n  gar, ei dierchomenou tinos auton onkou m\u00ea diastal\u00easetai.\n  oukoun to men t\u00f4n an\u00f4 systellomen\u00f4n diastellesthai ta\n  kat\u00f4 koinon esti kai tois nekrois s\u00f4masi, di' h\u00f4n\n  hop\u00f4soun ti diexerchetai, kai tois z\u00f4sin, eite\n  peristelloito tois dierchomenois eith' helkoito.\n\n  To de t\u00eas tou m\u00eakous synairese\u00f4s idion t\u00f4n tas eutheias\n  inas echont\u00f4n organ\u00f4n, hin' epispas\u00f4ntai ti. alla m\u00ean\n  edeichth\u00ea katasp\u00f4menos ho stomachos, ou gar an heilke\n  ton larynga; d\u00ealon oun, h\u00f4s h\u00ea gast\u00ear helkei ta sitia\n  dia tou stomachou.\n\n  Kai h\u00ea kata ton emeton de t\u00f4n emoumen\u00f4n achri tou\n  stomatos phora pant\u00f4s men pou kai aut\u00ea ta men hypo t\u00f4n\n  anapheromen\u00f4n diateinomena mer\u00ea tou stomachou diest\u00f4ta\n  kekt\u00eatai, t\u00f4n pros\u00f4 d' ho ti an hekastot' epilamban\u00eatai,\n  tout' archomenon diastelletai, to d' || opisthen              172\n  kataleipei d\u00ealonoti systellomenon, h\u00f4sth' homoian einai\n  pant\u00ea t\u00ean diathesin tou stomachou kata ge touto t\u00ea t\u00f4n\n  katapinont\u00f4n; alla t\u00eas holk\u00eas m\u00ea parous\u00eas to m\u00eakos holon\n  ison en tois toioutois sympt\u00f4masi diaphylattetai.\n\n  Dia touto de kai katapinein rhaon estin \u00ea emein, hoti\n  katapinetai men amphoin t\u00eas gastros t\u00f4n chit\u00f4n\u00f4n\n  energount\u00f4n, tou men entos helkontos, tou d' ektos\n  peristellomenou te kai synep\u00f4thountos, emeitai de\n  thaterou monou tou ex\u00f4then energountos, oudenos\n  helkontos eis to stoma. ou gar d\u00ea h\u00f4sper h\u00ea t\u00eas gastros\n  orexis pro\u00eageito tou katapinein ta sitia, ton auton\n  tropon kan tois emetois epithymei ti t\u00f4n kata to stoma\n  mori\u00f4n tou gignomenou path\u00eamatos, all' amph\u00f4 t\u00eas gastros\n  aut\u00eas eisin enantiai diatheseis, oregomen\u00eas men kai\n  prosiemen\u00eas ta chr\u00easima te kai oikeia, dyscherainous\u00eas\n  de kai apotribomen\u00eas ta allotria. dio kai to katapinein\n  auto tois men hikan\u00f4s oregomenois t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n edesmat\u00f4n\n  t\u00ea gastri tachista gignetai, saph\u00f4s helkous\u00eas auta kai\n  katasp\u00f4s\u00eas prin \u00ea mas\u00eath\u00eanai, tois d' \u00eatoi pharmakon ti\n  kat' anan||k\u00ean pinousin \u00ea sition en ch\u00f4ra pharmakou           173\n  prospheromenois aniara kai mogis h\u00ea kataposis aut\u00f4n\n  epiteleitai.\n\n  D\u00ealos oun estin ek t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n ho men endon chit\u00f4n t\u00eas\n  gastros ho tas eutheias ech\u00f4n inas t\u00eas ek tou stomatos\n  eis aut\u00ean holk\u00eas heneka gegon\u00f4s kai dia tout' en tais\n  kataposesi monais energ\u00f4n, ho d' ex\u00f4then ho tas\n  enkarsias ech\u00f4n heneka men tou peristellesthai tois\n  enyparchousi kai pro\u00f4thein auta toioutos apotelestheis,\n  energ\u00f4n d' ouden h\u00eatton en tois emetois \u00ea tais\n  kataposesin. enargestata de martyrei t\u00f4 legomen\u00f4 kai to\n  kata tas channas te kai tous synodontas gignomenon;\n  heurisketai gar eniote tout\u00f4n h\u00ea gast\u00ear en t\u00f4 stomati\n  kathaper kai ho Aristotel\u00eas en tais peri z\u00f4\u00f4n egrapsen\n  historiais kai prostith\u00easi ge t\u00ean aitian hypo laimargias\n  autois touto symbainein phask\u00f4n.\n\n  Echei gar h\u00f4de; kata tas sphodroteras orexeis an\u00f4\n  prostrechei pasi tois z\u00f4ois h\u00ea gast\u00ear, h\u00f4ste tines tou\n  pathous aisth\u00easin enarg\u00ea schontes exerpein hautois phasi\n  t\u00ean koilian, eni\u00f4n de mas\u00f4men\u00f4n eti kai m\u00eap\u00f4 || kal\u00f4s en      174\n  t\u00f4 stomati ta sitia katergasamen\u00f4n exarpazei phaner\u00f4s\n  akont\u00f4n. eph' h\u00f4n oun z\u00f4\u00f4n physei laimarg\u00f4n hyparchont\u00f4n\n  h\u00ea t' eurych\u00f4ria tou stomatos esti dapsil\u00eas h\u00ea te t\u00eas\n  gastros thesis engys, h\u00f4s epi synodontos te kai chann\u00eas,\n  ouden thaumaston, hotan hikan\u00f4s peinasanta di\u00f4k\u00ea ti t\u00f4n\n  mikroter\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n, eit' \u00ead\u00ea pl\u00easion \u00ea tou syllabein,\n  anatrechein epeigous\u00eas t\u00eas epithymias eis to stoma t\u00ean\n  gastera. genesthai d' all\u00f4s am\u00eachanon touto m\u00ea ouch\n  h\u00f4sper dia cheiros tou stomachou t\u00eas gastros episp\u00f4men\u00eas\n  eis heaut\u00ean ta sitia. kathaper gar kai h\u00eameis hypo\n  prothymias eniote t\u00ea cheiri synepekteinomen holous h\u00eamas\n  autous heneka tou thatton epidraxasthai tou prokeimenou\n  s\u00f4matos, hout\u00f4 kai h\u00ea gast\u00ear hoion cheiri t\u00f4 stomach\u00f4\n  synepekteinetai. kai dia tout' eph' h\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n hama ta\n  tria tauti synepesen, ephesis te sphodra t\u00eas troph\u00eas ho\n  te stomachos mikros h\u00ea t' eurych\u00f4ria tou stomatos\n  dapsil\u00eas, epi tout\u00f4n olig\u00ea rhop\u00ea t\u00eas epektase\u00f4s eis to\n  stoma t\u00ean koilian hol\u00ean anapherei.\n\n  \u00carkei men oun is\u00f4s andri physik\u00f4 par' aut\u00eas mon\u00eas t\u00eas\n  kataskeu\u00eas t\u00f4n orga||n\u00f4n t\u00ean endeixin t\u00eas energeias           175\n  lambanein. ou gar d\u00ea mat\u00ean g' an h\u00ea physis ek dyoin\n  chit\u00f4n\u00f4n enanti\u00f4s all\u00ealois echont\u00f4n apeirgasato ton\n  oisophagon, ei m\u00ea kai diaphor\u00f4s hekateros aut\u00f4n energein\n  emellen. all' epei panta mallon \u00ea ta t\u00eas physe\u00f4s erga\n  diagign\u00f4skein hoi peri ton Erasistraton eisin hikanoi,\n  phere kak t\u00eas t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n anatom\u00eas epideix\u00f4men autois, h\u00f4s\n  hekateros t\u00f4n chit\u00f4n\u00f4n energei t\u00ean eir\u00eamen\u00ean energeian.\n  ei d\u00ea ti lab\u00f4n z\u00f4on, eita gymn\u00f4sas autou ta perikeimena\n  t\u00f4 stomach\u00f4 s\u00f4mata ch\u00f4ris tou diatemein tina t\u00f4n neur\u00f4n\n  \u00ea t\u00f4n art\u00eari\u00f4n \u00ea t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n t\u00f4n autothi tetagmen\u00f4n\n  ethelois apo t\u00eas genyos he\u00f4s tou th\u00f4rakos eutheiais\n  tomais dielein ton ex\u00f4 chit\u00f4na ton tas enkarsias inas\n  echonta kapeita t\u00f4 z\u00f4\u00f4 troph\u00ean prosenenkois, opsei\n  katapinon auto kaitoi t\u00eas peristaltik\u00eas energeias\n  apol\u00f4luias. ei d' au palin eph' heterou z\u00f4ou diatemois\n  amphoterous tous chit\u00f4nas tomais enkarsiais, theas\u00ea kai\n  touto katapinon ouket' energountos tou entos. h\u00f4 d\u00ealon,\n  hoti kai dia thaterou men aut\u00f4n katapinein hoion t'\n  estin, || alla cheiron \u00ea di' amphoter\u00f4n. pros gar au          176\n  tois allois kai tout' esti theasasthai saph\u00f4s epi t\u00eas\n  eir\u00eamen\u00eas anatom\u00eas, h\u00f4s en t\u00f4 katapinein hypopimplatai\n  pneumatos ho stomachos tou synkatapinomenou tois\n  sitiois, ho peristellomenou men tou ex\u00f4then chit\u00f4nos\n  \u00f4theitai rhadi\u00f4s eis t\u00ean gastera syn tois edesmasi,\n  monou de tou endon hyparchontos empod\u00f4n histatai t\u00ea\n  phora t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n diateinon t' auton kai t\u00ean energeian\n  empodizon.\n\n  All' oute tout\u00f4n ouden Erasistratos eipen outh' h\u00f4s h\u00ea\n  skolia thesis tou stomachou diaballei saph\u00f4s to dogma\n  t\u00f4n nomizont\u00f4n hypo t\u00eas an\u00f4then bol\u00eas mon\u00eas pod\u00eagoumena\n  mechri t\u00eas gastros ienai ta katapinomena. monon d' hoti\n  polla t\u00f4n makrotrach\u00eal\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n epikekyphota katapinei,\n  kal\u00f4s eipen. h\u00f4 d\u00ealon, hoti to phainomenon ou to p\u00f4s\n  katapinomen apodeiknysin, alla to p\u00f4s ou katapinomen;\n  hoti gar m\u00ea dia mon\u00eas t\u00eas an\u00f4then bol\u00eas, ek toutou\n  d\u00ealon; ou m\u00ean eith' helkous\u00eas t\u00eas koilias eite\n  paragontos auta tou stomachou, d\u00ealon \u00ead\u00ea p\u00f4. all' h\u00eameis\n  ge || pantas tous logismous eipontes tous t' ek t\u00eas           177\n  kataskeu\u00eas t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n horm\u00f4menous kai tous apo t\u00f4n\n  all\u00f4n sympt\u00f4mat\u00f4n t\u00f4n te pro tou gymn\u00f4th\u00eanai ton\n  stomachon kai gymn\u00f4thentos, h\u00f4s olig\u00f4 prosthen elegomen,\n  hikan\u00f4s enedeixametha tou men helkein heneka ton entos\n  chit\u00f4na, tou d' ap\u00f4thein ton ektos gegonenai.\n\n  Prouthemetha men oun apodeixai t\u00ean kathektik\u00ean dynamin\n  en hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n ousan, h\u00f4sper en t\u00f4 prosthen log\u00f4\n  t\u00ean helktik\u00ean te kai proseti t\u00ean alloi\u00f4tik\u00ean. hypo de\n  t\u00eas akolouthias tou logou tas tettaras apedeixamen\n  hyparchousas t\u00ea gastri, t\u00ean helktik\u00ean men en t\u00f4\n  katapinein, t\u00ean kathektik\u00ean d' en t\u00f4 pettein, t\u00ean\n  ap\u00f4stik\u00ean d' en tois emetois kai tais t\u00f4n pepemmen\u00f4n\n  siti\u00f4n eis to lepton enteron hypoch\u00f4r\u00easesin, aut\u00ean de\n  t\u00ean pepsin alloi\u00f4sin hyparchein.\n\n\n                            IX\n\nConcerning the spleen, also, we shall therefore have no further\ndoubts[352] as to whether it attracts what is proper to it, rejects\nwhat is foreign, and has a natural power of altering and retaining all\nthat it attracts; nor shall we be in any doubt as to the liver, veins,\narteries, heart, or any other organ. For these four faculties have\nbeen shown to be necessary for every part which is to be nourished;\nthis is why we have called these faculties the _handmaids of\nnutrition_. For just as human faeces are most pleasing to dogs, so the\nresidual matters from the liver are, some of them, proper to the\nspleen,[353] others to the gall-bladder, and others to the kidneys.\n\n\n                       IX\n\n  Oukoun et' apor\u00easomen oude peri tou spl\u00eanos, ei helkei\n  men to oikeion, apokrinei de to allotrion, alloioun de\n  kai katechein, hoson an epispas\u00eatai, pephyken, oude peri\n  h\u00eapatos \u00ea phlebos \u00ea art\u00earias \u00ea kardias \u00ea t\u00f4n || all\u00f4n         178\n  tinos; anankaiai gar edeichth\u00easan hai tettares hautai\n  dynameis hapanti mori\u00f4 t\u00f4 mellonti threpsesthai kai dia\n  tout' autas hyp\u00earetidas einai threpse\u00f4s ephamen; h\u00f4s gar\n  to t\u00f4n anthr\u00f4p\u00f4n apopat\u00eama tois kysin h\u00eadiston, hout\u00f4\n  kai ta tou h\u00eapatos peritt\u00f4mata to men t\u00f4 spl\u00eani, to de\n  t\u00ea chol\u00eadoch\u00f4 kystei, to de tois nephrois oikeion.\n\n\n                               X\n\nI should not have cared to say anything further as to the origin of\nthese [surplus substances] after Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle,\nDiocles, Praxagoras, and Philotimus, nor indeed should I even have\nsaid anything about the _faculties_, if any of our predecessors had\nworked out this subject thoroughly.\n\nWhile, however, the statements which the Ancients made on these points\nwere correct, they yet omitted to defend their arguments with logical\nproofs; of course they never suspected that there could be sophists so\nshameless as to try to contradict obvious facts. More recent\nphysicians, again, have been partly conquered by the sophistries of\nthese fellows and have given credence to them; whilst others who\nattempted to argue with them appear to me to lack to a great extent\nthe power of the Ancients. For this reason I have attempted to put\ntogether my arguments in the way in which it seems to me the Ancients,\nhad any of them been still alive, would have done, in opposition to\nthose who would overturn the finest doctrines of our art.\n\nI am not, however, unaware that I shall achieve either nothing at all\nor else very little. For I find that a great many things which have\nbeen conclusively demonstrated by the Ancients are unintelligible to\nthe bulk of the Moderns owing to their ignorance--nay, that, by reason\nof their laziness, they will not even make an attempt to comprehend\nthem; and even if any of them have understood them, they have not\ngiven them impartial examination.\n\nThe fact is that he whose purpose is to know anything better than the\nmultitude do must far surpass all others both as regards his nature\nand his early training. And when he reaches early adolescence he must\nbecome possessed with an ardent love for truth, like one inspired;\nneither day nor night may he cease to urge and strain himself in order\nto learn thoroughly all that has been said by the most illustrious of\nthe Ancients. And when he has learnt this, then for a prolonged period\nhe must test and prove it, observing what part of it is in agreement,\nand what in disagreement with obvious fact; thus he will choose this\nand turn away from that. To such an one my hope has been that my\ntreatise would prove of the very greatest assistance.... Still, such\npeople may be expected to be quite few in number, while, as for the\nothers, this book will be as superfluous to them as a tale told to an\nass.\n\n\n                        X\n\n  Kai legein eti peri t\u00eas tout\u00f4n genese\u00f4s ouk an etheloimi\n  meth' Hippokrat\u00ean kai Plat\u00f4na kai Aristotel\u00ean kai\n  Dioklea kai Praxagoran kai Philotimon; oude gar oude\n  peri t\u00f4n dyname\u00f4n eipon an, ei tis t\u00f4n emprosthen\n  akrib\u00f4s exeirgasato ton hyper aut\u00f4n logon.\n\n  Epei d' hoi men palaioi kal\u00f4s hyper aut\u00f4n apoph\u00eanamenoi\n  parelipon ag\u00f4nisasthai t\u00f4 log\u00f4, m\u00ead' hypono\u00easantes\n  esesthai tinas eis tosouton anaischyntous sophistas, h\u00f4s\n  antilegein epicheir\u00easai tois enargesin, hoi ne\u00f4teroi de\n  to men ti nik\u00eathentes hypo t\u00f4n sophismat\u00f4n epeisth\u00easan\n  autois, to de ti kai antilegein epicheir\u00easantes apodein\n  moi poly t\u00eas t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n edoxan dyname\u00f4s, || dia touth',      179\n  h\u00f4s an ekein\u00f4n aut\u00f4n, eiper et' \u00ean tis, ag\u00f4nisasthai moi\n  dokei pros tous anatrepontas t\u00eas techn\u00eas ta kallista,\n  kai autos hout\u00f4s epeirath\u00ean syntheinai tous logous.\n\n  Hoti d' \u00ea ouden \u00ea pantapasin anys\u00f4 ti smikron, ouk\n  agno\u00f4; pampolla gar heurisk\u00f4 tele\u00f4s men apodedeigmena\n  tois palaiois, oute de syneta tois pollois t\u00f4n nyn di'\n  amathian all' oud' epicheiroumena gign\u00f4skesthai dia\n  rhathymian, out', ei kai gn\u00f4sthei\u00ea tini, dikai\u00f4s\n  exetazomena.\n\n  Chr\u00ea gar ton mellonta gn\u00f4sesthai ti t\u00f4n poll\u00f4n ameinon\n  euthys men kai t\u00ea physei kai t\u00ea pr\u00f4t\u00ea didaskalia poly\n  t\u00f4n all\u00f4n dienenkein; epeidan de gen\u00eatai meirakion,\n  al\u00eatheias tina schein er\u00f4tik\u00ean manian, h\u00f4sper\n  enthousi\u00f4nta kai m\u00eath' h\u00eameras m\u00eate nyktos dialeipein\n  speudonta te kai syntetamenon ekmathein, hosa tois\n  endoxotatois eir\u00eatai t\u00f4n palai\u00f4n; epeidan d' ekmath\u00ea,\n  krinein auta kai basanizein chron\u00f4 pampoll\u00f4 kai skopein,\n  posa men homologei tois enarg\u00f4s phainomenois, posa de\n  diapheretai, || kai hout\u00f4 ta men haireisthai, ta d'           180\n  apostrephesthai. t\u00f4 men d\u00ea toiout\u00f4 pany sphodra\n  chr\u00easimous \u00ealpika tous h\u00eameterous esesthai logous; eien\n  d' an oligoi pantapasin houtoi; tois d' allois hout\u00f4\n  gen\u00easetai to gramma peritton, h\u00f4s ei kai mython on\u00f4 tis\n  legoi.\n\n\n                              XI\n\nFor the sake, then, of those who are aiming at truth, we must complete\nthis treatise by adding what is still wanting in it. Now, in people\nwho are very hungry, the stomach obviously attracts or draws down the\nfood before it has been thoroughly softened in the mouth, whilst in\nthose who have no appetite or who are being forced to eat, the stomach\nis displeased and rejects the food.[354] And in a similar way each of\nthe other organs possesses both faculties--that of attracting what is\nproper to it, and that of rejecting what is foreign. Thus, even if\nthere be any organ which consists of only one coat (such as the two\nbladders,[355] the uterus, and the veins), it yet possesses both kinds\nof fibres, the longitudinal and the transverse.\n\nBut further, there are fibres of a third kind--the _oblique_--which\nare much fewer in number than the two kinds already spoken of. In the\norgans consisting of two coats this kind of fibre is found in the one\ncoat only, mixed with the longitudinal fibres; but in the organs\ncomposed of one coat it is found along with the other two kinds. Now,\nthese are of the greatest help to the action of the faculty which we\nhave named _retentive_. For during this period the part needs to be\ntightly contracted and stretched over its contents at every point--the\nstomach during the whole period of digestion,[356] and the uterus\nduring that of gestation.\n\nThus too, the coat of a vein, being single, consists of various kinds\nof fibres; whilst the outer coat of an artery consists of circular\nfibres, and its inner coat mostly of longitudinal fibres, but with a\nfew oblique ones also amongst them. Veins thus resemble the uterus or\nthe bladder as regards the arrangement of their fibres, even though\nthey are deficient in thickness; similarly arteries resemble the\nstomach. Alone of all organs the intestines consist of two coats of\nwhich both have their fibres transverse.[357] Now the proof that it\nwas _for the best_ that all the organs should be naturally such as\nthey are (that, for instance, the intestines should be composed of two\ncoats) belongs to the subject of the _use of parts_[358]; thus we must\nnot now desire to hear about matters of this kind nor why the\nanatomists are at variance regarding the number of coats in each\norgan. For these questions have been sufficiently discussed in the\ntreatise \"On Disagreement in Anatomy.\" And the problem as to why each\norgan has such and such a character will be discussed in the treatise\n\"On the Use of Parts.\"\n\n\n                       XI\n\n  Symperanteon oun h\u00eamin ton logon heneka t\u00f4n t\u00eas\n  al\u00eatheias ephiemen\u00f4n hosa leipei kat' auton eti\n  prostheisin. h\u00f4s gar h\u00ea gast\u00ear helkei men enarg\u00f4s kai\n  kataspa ta sitia tois sphodra pein\u00f4desi, prin akrib\u00f4s en\n  t\u00f4 stomati lei\u00f4th\u00eanai, dyscherainei de kai ap\u00f4theitai\n  tois apositois te kai pros anank\u00ean esthiousin, hout\u00f4 kai\n  t\u00f4n all\u00f4n organ\u00f4n hekaston amphoteras echei tas\n  dynameis, t\u00ean te t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n helktik\u00ean kai t\u00ean t\u00f4n\n  allotri\u00f4n apokritik\u00ean. kai dia touto, kan ex henos \u00ea\n  chit\u00f4nos organon ti synest\u00f4s, h\u00f4sper kai hai kysteis\n  amphoterai kai hai m\u00eatrai kai hai phlebes, amphotera t\u00f4n\n  in\u00f4n echei ta gen\u00ea, t\u00f4n euthei\u00f4n te kai t\u00f4n enkarsi\u00f4n.\n\n  Kai men ge kai triton ti || genos in\u00f4n esti <t\u00f4n> lox\u00f4n,      181\n  elatton poly t\u00f4 pl\u00eathei t\u00f4n proeir\u00eamen\u00f4n dyo gen\u00f4n.\n  heurisketai d' en men tois ek dyoin chit\u00f4n\u00f4n\n  synest\u00eakosin organois en thater\u00f4 mon\u00f4 tais eutheiais\n  isin anamemigmenon, en de tois ex henos hama tois allois\n  dyo genesi. synepilambanousi d' hautai megiston t\u00ea t\u00eas\n  kathektik\u00eas onomastheis\u00eas dyname\u00f4s energeia; deitai gar\n  en tout\u00f4 t\u00f4 chron\u00f4 pantachothen esphinchthai kai\n  peritetasthai tois enyparchousi to morion, h\u00ea men gast\u00ear\n  en t\u00f4 t\u00eas pepse\u00f4s, hai m\u00eatrai d' en t\u00f4 t\u00eas ky\u00ease\u00f4s\n  chron\u00f4 panti.\n\n  Taut' ara kai ho t\u00eas phlebos chit\u00f4n heis \u00f4n ek polyeid\u00f4n\n  in\u00f4n egeneto kai t\u00f4n t\u00eas art\u00earias ho men ex\u00f4then ek t\u00f4n\n  strongyl\u00f4n, ho d' es\u00f4then ek men t\u00f4n euthei\u00f4n pleist\u00f4n,\n  olig\u00f4n de tin\u00f4n syn autais kai t\u00f4n lox\u00f4n, h\u00f4ste tas men\n  phlebas tais m\u00eatrais kai tais kystesin eoikenai kata ge\n  t\u00ean t\u00f4n in\u00f4n synthesin, ei kai t\u00f4 pachei leipontai, tas\n  d' art\u00earias t\u00ea gastri. mona de pant\u00f4n organ\u00f4n ek dyoin\n  th' hama kai amphoter\u00f4n enkarsias echont\u00f4n tas inas\n  egeneto ta entera. to d' hoti beltion \u00ean || t\u00f4n t' all\u00f4n      182\n  hekast\u00f4 toiout\u00f4 t\u00ean physin hyparchein, hoionper kai nyn\n  esti, tois t' enterois ek dyoin homoi\u00f4n chit\u00f4n\u00f4n\n  synkeisthai, t\u00eas peri chreias mori\u00f4n pragmateias estin.\n  oukoun nyn chr\u00ea pothein akouein peri t\u00f4n toiout\u00f4n,\n  h\u00f4sper oude dia ti peri tou pl\u00eathous t\u00f4n chit\u00f4n\u00f4n\n  hekastou t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n diapeph\u00f4n\u00eatai tois anatomikois\n  andrasin. hyper men gar tout\u00f4n autark\u00f4s en tois peri t\u00eas\n  anatomik\u00eas diaph\u00f4nias eir\u00eatai; peri de tou dioti\n  toiouton hekaston egeneto t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n, en tois peri\n  chreias mori\u00f4n eir\u00easetai.\n\n\n                             XII\n\nIt is not, however, our business to discuss either of these questions\nhere, but to consider duly the _natural faculties_, which, to the\nnumber of four, exist in each organ. Returning then, to this point,\nlet us recall what has already been said, and set a crown to the whole\nsubject by adding what is still wanting. For when every part of the\nanimal has been shewn to draw into itself the juice which is proper to\nit (this being practically _the first of the natural faculties_), the\nnext point to realise is that the part does not get rid either of this\nattracted nutriment as a whole, or even of any superfluous portion of\nit, until either the organ itself, or the major part of its contents\nalso have their condition reversed. Thus, when the stomach is\nsufficiently filled with the food and has absorbed and stored away the\nmost useful part of it in its own coats, it then rejects the rest like\nan alien burden. The same happens to the bladders, when the matter\nattracted into them begins to give trouble either because it distends\nthem through its quantity or irritates them by its quality.\n\nAnd this also happens in the case of the uterus; for it is either\nbecause it can no longer bear to be stretched that it strives to\nrelieve itself of its annoyance, or else because it is irritated by\nthe quality of the fluids poured out into it. Now both of these\nconditions sometimes occur with actual violence, and then\n_miscarriage_ takes place. But for the most part they happen in a\nnormal way, this being then called not miscarriage but _delivery_ or\n_parturition_. Now abortifacient drugs or certain other conditions\nwhich destroy the embryo or rupture certain of its membranes are\nfollowed by abortion, and similarly also when the uterus is in pain\nfrom being in a bad state of tension; and, as has been well said by\nHippocrates, excessive movement on the part of the embryo itself\nbrings on labour. Now _pain_ is common to all these conditions, and of\nthis there are three possible causes--either excessive bulk, or\nweight, or irritation; bulk when the uterus can no longer support the\nstretching, weight when the contents surpass its strength, and\nirritation when the fluids which had previously been pent up in the\nmembranes, flow out, on the rapture of these, into the uterus itself,\nor else when the whole foetus perishes, putrefies, and is resolved\ninto pernicious ichors, and so irritates and bites the coat of the\nuterus.\n\nIn all organs, then, both their natural effects and their disorders\nand maladies plainly take place on analogous lines,[359] some so\nclearly and manifestly as to need no demonstration, and others less\nplainly, although not entirely unrecognizable to those who are willing\nto pay attention.\n\nThus, to take the case of the stomach: the irritation is evident here\nbecause this organ possesses most sensibility, and among its other\naffections those producing nausea and the so-called heartburn clearly\ndemonstrate the eliminative faculty which expels foreign matter. So\nalso in the case of the uterus and the urinary bladder; this latter\nalso may be plainly observed to receive and accumulate fluid until it\nis so stretched by the amount of this as to be incapable of enduring\nthe pain; or it may be the quality of the urine which irritates it;\nfor every superfluous substance which lingers in the body must\nobviously putrefy, some in a shorter, and some in a longer time, and\nthus it becomes pungent, acrid, and burdensome to the organ which\ncontains it. This does not apply, however, in the case of the bladder\nalongside the liver, whence it is clear that it possesses fewer nerves\nthan do the other organs. Here too, however, at least the\nphysiologist[360] must discover an analogy. For since it was shown\nthat the gall-bladder attracts its own special juice, so as to be\noften found full, and that it discharges it soon after, this desire to\ndischarge must be either due to the fact that it is burdened by the\nquantity or that the bile has changed in quality to pungent and acrid.\nFor while food does not change its original quality so fast that it is\nalready ordure as soon as it falls into the small intestine, on the\nother hand the bile even more readily than the urine becomes altered\nin quality as soon as ever it leaves the veins, and rapidly undergoes\nchange and putrefaction. Now, if there be clear evidence in relation\nto the uterus, stomach, and intestines, as well as to the urinary\nbladder, that there is either some distention, irritation, or burden\ninciting each of these organs to elimination, there is no difficulty\nin imagining this in the case of the gall-bladder also, as well as in\nthe other organs,--to which obviously the arteries and veins also\nbelong.\n\n\n                      XII\n\n  Nyni d' oudeteron tout\u00f4n prokeitai legein, alla tas\n  physikas dynameis monas apodeiknyein en hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n\n  organ\u00f4n tettaras hyparchousas. epi tout' oun palin\n  epanelthontes anamn\u00eas\u00f4men te t\u00f4n emprosthen eir\u00eamen\u00f4n\n  epith\u00f4men te kephal\u00ean \u00ead\u00ea t\u00f4 log\u00f4 panti to leipon eti\n  prosthentes. epeid\u00ea gar hekaston t\u00f4n en t\u00f4 z\u00f4\u00f4 mori\u00f4n\n  helkein eis heauto ton oikeion chymon apodedeiktai kai\n  pr\u00f4t\u00ea schedon haut\u00ea t\u00f4n physik\u00f4n esti dyname\u00f4n, ephex\u00eas\n  || ekein\u00f4 gn\u00f4steon, h\u00f4s ou proteron apotribetai t\u00ean           183\n  helchtheisan <troph\u00ean> \u00eatoi sympasan \u00ea kai ti peritt\u00f4ma aut\u00eas,\n  prin an eis enantian metapes\u00ea diathesin \u00ea auto to\n  organon \u00ea kai t\u00f4n periechomen\u00f4n en aut\u00f4 ta pleista. h\u00ea\n  men oun gast\u00ear, epeidan men hikan\u00f4s empl\u00easth\u00ea t\u00f4n siti\u00f4n\n  kai to chr\u00eastotaton aut\u00f4n eis tous heaut\u00eas chit\u00f4nas\n  enapoth\u00eatai bdallousa, t\u00eanikaut' \u00ead\u00ea to loipon\n  apotribetai kathaper achthos allotrion; hai kysteis d',\n  epeidan hekaston t\u00f4n helchthent\u00f4n \u00ea t\u00f4 pl\u00eathei diateinon\n  \u00ea t\u00ea poiot\u00eati daknon aniaron gen\u00eatai.\n\n  T\u00f4 d' aut\u00f4 trop\u00f4 kai hai m\u00eatrai; \u00eatoi gar, epeidan\n  m\u00eaketi pher\u00f4si diateinomenai, to lypoun apothesthai\n  speudousin \u00ea t\u00ea poiot\u00eati daknomenai t\u00f4n ekchythent\u00f4n eis\n  autas hygr\u00f4n. hekateron de t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n gignetai men\n  kai biai\u00f4s estin hote kai ambl\u00f4skousi t\u00eanikauta,\n  gignetai d' h\u00f4s ta polla kai pros\u00eakont\u00f4s, hoper ouk\n  ambl\u00f4skein all' apoky\u00efskein te kai tiktein onomazetai.\n  tois men oun ambl\u00f4thridiois pharmakois \u00ea tisin allois\n  path\u00eamasi diaphthei||rousi to embryon \u00ea tinas t\u00f4n             184\n  hymen\u00f4n autou rh\u00eagnyousin hai ambl\u00f4seis hepontai, hout\u00f4\n  de kapeidan aniath\u00f4si poth' hai m\u00eatrai kak\u00f4s echousai t\u00ea\n  diatasei, tais de t\u00f4n embry\u00f4n aut\u00f4n kin\u00easesi tais\n  sphodrotatais hoi tokoi, kathaper kai touth' Hippokratei\n  kal\u00f4s eir\u00eatai. koinon d' hapas\u00f4n t\u00f4n diathese\u00f4n h\u00ea ania\n  kai taut\u00eas aition tritton \u00ea onkos perittos \u00ea ti baros \u00ea\n  d\u00eaxis; onkos men, epeidan m\u00eaketi pher\u00f4si diateinomenai,\n  baros d', epeidan hyper t\u00ean rh\u00f4m\u00ean aut\u00f4n \u00ea to\n  periechomenon, d\u00eaxis d', epeidan \u00eatoi ta proteron en\n  tois hymesin hygra stegomena rhagent\u00f4n aut\u00f4n eis autas\n  ekchyth\u00ea tas m\u00eatras \u00ea kai sympan apophtharen to ky\u00eama\n  s\u00eapomenon te kai dialyomenon eis mochth\u00earous ich\u00f4ras\n  hout\u00f4s erethiz\u00ea te kai dakn\u00ea ton chit\u00f4na t\u00f4n hyster\u00f4n.\n\n  Analogon oun en hapasi tois organois hekasta t\u00f4n t'\n  erg\u00f4n aut\u00f4n t\u00f4n physik\u00f4n kai mentoi t\u00f4n path\u00eamat\u00f4n te\n  kai nos\u00eamat\u00f4n phainetai gignomena, ta men enarg\u00f4s kai\n  saph\u00f4s hout\u00f4s, h\u00f4s apodeixe\u00f4s deisthai m\u00eaden, ta d'\n  h\u00eatton men enarg\u00f4s, ou m\u00ean agn\u00f4sta ge pantapasi tois ||       185\n  ethelousi prosechein ton noun.\n\n  Epi men oun t\u00eas gastros hai te d\u00eaxeis enargeis, dioti\n  pleist\u00eas aisth\u00ease\u00f4s metechei, ta t' alla path\u00eamata ta te\n  nautian empoiounta kai hoi kaloumenoi kardi\u00f4gmoi saph\u00f4s\n  endeiknyntai t\u00ean apokritik\u00ean te kai ap\u00f4stik\u00ean t\u00f4n\n  allotri\u00f4n dynamin, hout\u00f4 de kapi t\u00f4n hyster\u00f4n te kai t\u00eas\n  kyste\u00f4s t\u00eas to ouron hypodechomen\u00eas; enarg\u00f4s gar oun kai\n  haut\u00ea phainetai mechri tosoutou to hygron hypodechomen\u00ea\n  te kai athroizousa, achris an \u00eatoi pros tou pl\u00eathous\n  autou diateinomen\u00ea m\u00eaketi pher\u00ea t\u00ean anian \u00ea pros t\u00eas\n  poiot\u00eatos daknomen\u00ea; chronizon gar hekaston t\u00f4n\n  peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n en t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati s\u00eapetai d\u00ealonoti, to men\n  elattoni, to de pleioni chron\u00f4, kai hout\u00f4 dakn\u00f4des te\n  kai drimy kai aniaron tois periechousi gignetai. ou m\u00ean\n  epi ge t\u00eas epi t\u00f4 h\u00eapati kyste\u00f4s homoi\u00f4s echei; h\u00f4\n  d\u00ealon, hoti neur\u00f4n h\u00eakista metechei. chr\u00ea de kantautha\n  ton ge physikon andra to analogon exeuriskein. ei gar\n  helkein te ton oikeion apedeichth\u00ea chymon, h\u00f4s\n  phainesthai pollakis mest\u00ean, apokri||nein te ton auton        186\n  touton ouk eis makran, anankaion estin aut\u00ean \u00ea dia to\n  pl\u00eathos barynomen\u00ean \u00ea t\u00eas poiot\u00eatos metaballous\u00eas epi to\n  dakn\u00f4des te kai drimy t\u00eas apokrise\u00f4s ephiesthai. ou gar\n  d\u00ea ta men sitia t\u00ean archaian hypallattei poiot\u00eata\n  tache\u00f4s hout\u00f4s, h\u00f4st', epeidan empes\u00ea tois leptois\n  enterois, euthys einai kopron, h\u00ea chol\u00ea d' ou poly\n  mallon \u00ea to ouron, epeidan hapax ekpes\u00ea t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n,\n  exallattei t\u00ean poiot\u00eata, tachista metaballonta kai\n  s\u00eapomena. kai m\u00ean eiper epi te t\u00f4n kata tas hysteras kai\n  t\u00ean koilian kai ta entera kai proseti t\u00ean to ouron\n  hypodechomen\u00ean kystin enarg\u00f4s phainetai diatasis tis \u00ea\n  d\u00eaxis \u00ea achthos epegeiron hekaston t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n eis\n  apokrisin, ouden chalepon kapi t\u00eas chol\u00eadochou kyste\u00f4s\n  tauto tout' ennoein epi te t\u00f4n all\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n organ\u00f4n,\n  ex h\u00f4n d\u00ealonoti kai hai art\u00eariai kai hai phlebes eisin.\n\n\n                            XIII\n\nNor is there any further difficulty in ascertaining that it is through\nthe same channel that both attraction and discharge take place at\ndifferent times. For obviously the inlet to the stomach does not\nmerely conduct food and drink into this organ, but in the condition of\nnausea it performs the opposite service. Further, the neck of the\nbladder which is beside the liver, albeit single, both fills and\nempties the bladder. Similarly the canal of the uterus affords an\nentrance to the semen and an exit to the foetus.\n\nBut in this latter case, again, whilst the eliminative faculty is\nevident, the attractive faculty is not so obvious to most people. It\nis, however, the cervix which Hippocrates blames for inertia of the\nuterus when he says:--\"Its orifice has no power of attracting\nsemen.\"[361]\n\nErasistratus, however, and Asclepiades reached such heights of wisdom\nthat they deprived not merely the stomach and the womb of this faculty\nbut also the bladder by the liver, and the kidneys as well. I have,\nhowever, pointed out in the first book that it is impossible to assign\nany other cause for the secretion of urine or bile.[362]\n\nNow, when we find that the uterus, the stomach and the bladder by the\nliver carry out attraction and expulsion through one and the same\nduct, we need no longer feel surprised that Nature should also\nfrequently discharge waste-substances into the stomach through the\nveins. Still less need we be astonished if a certain amount of the\nfood should, during long fasts, be drawn back from the liver into the\nstomach through the same veins[363] by which it was yielded up to the\nliver during absorption of nutriment.[364] To disbelieve such things\nwould of course be like refusing to believe that purgative drugs draw\ntheir appropriate humours from all over the body by the same stomata\nthrough which absorption previously takes place, and to look for\nseparate stomata for absorption and purgation respectively. As a\nmatter of fact one and the same stoma subserves two distinct\nfaculties, and these exercise their pull at different times in\nopposite directions--first it subserves the pull of the liver and,\nduring catharsis, that of the drug. What is there surprising, then, in\nthe fact that the veins situated between the liver and the region of\nthe stomach[365] fulfil a double service or purpose? Thus, when there\nis abundance of nutriment contained in the food-canal, it is carried\nup to the liver by the veins mentioned; and when the canal is empty\nand in need of nutriment, this is again attracted from the liver by\nthe same veins.\n\nFor everything appears to attract from and to go shares with\neverything else, and, as the most divine Hippocrates has said, there\nwould seem to be a consensus in the movements of fluids and\nvapours.[366] Thus the stronger draws and the weaker is evacuated.\n\nNow, one part is weaker or stronger than another either absolutely, by\nnature, and in all cases, or else it becomes so in such and such a\nparticular instance. Thus, by nature and in all men alike, the heart\nis stronger than the liver at attracting what is serviceable to it and\nrejecting what is not so; similarly the liver is stronger than the\nintestines and stomach, and the arteries than the veins. In each of us\npersonally, however, the liver has stronger drawing power at one time,\nand the stomach at another. For when there is much nutriment contained\nin the alimentary canal and the appetite and craving of the liver is\nviolent, then the viscus[367] exerts far the strongest traction.\nAgain, when the liver is full and distended and the stomach empty and\nin need, then the force of the traction shifts to the latter.\n\nSuppose we had some food in our hands and were snatching it from one\nanother; if we were equally in want, the stronger would be likely to\nprevail, but if he had satisfied his appetite, and was holding what\nwas over carelessly, or was anxious to share it with somebody, and if\nthe weaker was excessively desirous of it, there would be nothing to\nprevent the latter from getting it all. In a similar manner the\nstomach easily attracts nutriment from the liver when it [the stomach]\nhas a sufficiently strong craving for it, and the appetite of the\nviscus is satisfied. And sometimes the surplusage of nutriment in the\nliver is a reason why the animal is not hungry; for when the stomach\nhas better and more available food it requires nothing from extraneous\nsources, but if ever it is in need and is at a loss how to supply the\nneed, it becomes filled with waste-matters; these are certain biliary,\nphlegmatic [mucous] and serous fluids, and are the only substances\nthat the liver yields in response to the traction of the stomach, on\nthe occasions when the latter too is in want of nutriment.\n\nNow, just as the parts draw food from each other, so also they\nsometimes deposit their excess substances in each other, and just as\nthe stronger prevailed when the two were exercising traction, so it is\nalso when they are depositing; this is the cause of the so-called\nfluxions,[368] for every part has a definite inborn tension, by virtue\nof which it expels its superfluities, and, therefore, when one of\nthese parts,--owing, of course, to some special condition--becomes\nweaker, there will necessarily be a confluence into it of the\nsuperfluities from all the other parts. The strongest part deposits\nits surplus matter in all the parts near it; these again in other\nparts which are weaker; these next into yet others; and this goes on\nfor a long time, until the superfluity, being driven from one part\ninto another, comes to rest in one of the weakest of all; it cannot\nflow from this into another part, because none of the stronger ones\nwill receive it, while the affected part is unable to drive it away.\nWhen, however, we come to deal again with the origin and cure of\ndisease, it will be possible to find there also abundant proofs of all\nthat we have correctly indicated in this book. For the present,\nhowever, let us resume again the task that lay before us, _i.e._ to\nshow that there is nothing surprising in nutriment coming from the\nliver to the intestines and stomach by way of the very veins through\nwhich it had previously been yielded up from these organs into the\nliver. And in many people who have suddenly and completely given up\nactive exercise, or who have had a limb cut off, there occurs at\ncertain periods an evacuation of blood by way of the intestines--as\nHippocrates has also pointed out somewhere. This causes no further\ntrouble but sharply purges the whole body and evacuates the plethoras;\nthe passage of the superfluities is effected, of course, through the\nsame veins by which absorption took place.\n\nFrequently also in disease Nature purges the animal through these same\nveins--although in this case the discharge is not sanguineous, but\ncorresponds to the humour which is at fault. Thus in _cholera_ the\nentire body is evacuated by way of the veins leading to the intestines\nand stomach.\n\nTo imagine that matter of different kinds is carried in one direction\nonly would characterise a man who was entirely ignorant of all the\nnatural faculties, and particularly of the eliminative faculty, which\nis the opposite of the attractive. For opposite movements of matter,\nactive and passive, must necessarily follow opposite faculties; that\nis to say, every part, after it has attracted its special nutrient\njuice and has retained and taken the benefit of it hastens to get rid\nof all the surplusage as quickly and effectively as possible, and this\nit does in accordance with the mechanical tendency of this surplus\nmatter.[369]\n\nHence the stomach clears away by vomiting those superfluities which\ncome to the surface of its contents,[370] whilst the sediment it\nclears away by diarrhoea. And when the animal becomes sick, this means\nthat the stomach is striving to be evacuated by vomiting. And the\nexpulsive faculty has in it so violent and forcible an element that in\ncases of _ileus_ [volvulus], when the lower exit is completely closed,\nvomiting of faeces occurs; yet such surplus matter could not be\nemitted from the mouth without having first traversed the whole of the\nsmall intestine, the jejunum, the pylorus, the stomach, and the\noesophagus. What is there to wonder at, then, if something should also\nbe transferred from the extreme skin-surface and so reach the\nintestines and stomach? This also was pointed out to us by\nHippocrates, who maintained that not merely pneuma or excess-matter,\nbut actual nutriment is brought down from the outer surface to the\noriginal place from which it was taken up. For the slightest\nmechanical movements[371] determine this expulsive faculty, which\napparently acts through the transverse fibres, and which is very\nrapidly transmitted from the source of motion to the opposite\nextremities. It is, therefore, neither unlikely nor impossible that,\nwhen the part adjoining the skin becomes suddenly oppressed by an\nunwonted cold, it should at once be weakened and should find that the\nliquid previously deposited beside it without discomfort had now\nbecome more of a burden than a source of nutrition, and should\ntherefore strive to put it away. Finally, seeing that the passage\noutwards was shut off by the condensation [of tissue], it would turn\nto the remaining exit and would thus forcibly expel all the\nwaste-matter at once into the adjacent part; this would do the same to\nthe part following it; and the process would not cease until the\ntransference finally terminated at the inner ends of the veins.[372]\n\nNow, movements like these come to an end fairly soon, but those\nresulting from internal irritants (_e.g._, in the administration of\npurgative drugs or in cholera) become much stronger and more lasting;\nthey persist as long as the condition of things[373] about the mouths\nof the veins continues, that is, so long as these continue to attract\nwhat is adjacent. For this condition[374] causes evacuation of the\ncontiguous part, and that again of the part next to it, and this never\nstops until the extreme surface is reached; thus, as each part keeps\npassing on matter to its neighbour, the original affection[375] very\nquickly arrives at the extreme termination. Now this is also the case\nin _ileus_; the inflamed intestine is unable to support either the\nweight or the acridity of the waste substances and so does its best to\nexcrete them, in fact to drive them as far away as possible. And,\nbeing prevented from effecting an expulsion downwards when the\nseverest part of the inflammation is there, it expels the matter into\nthe adjoining part of the intestines situated above. Thus the tendency\nof the eliminative faculty is step by step upwards, until the\nsuperfluities reach the mouth.\n\nNow this will be also spoken of at greater length in my treatise on\ndisease. For the present, however, I think I have shewn clearly that\nthere is a universal conveyance or transference from one thing into\nanother, and that, as Hippocrates used to say, there exists in\neverything a consensus in the movement of air and fluids. And I do not\nthink that anyone, however slow his intellect, will now be at a loss\nto understand any of these points,--how, for instance, the stomach or\nintestines get nourished, or in what manner anything makes its way\ninwards from the outer surface of the body. Seeing that all parts have\nthe faculty of attracting what is suitable or well-disposed and of\neliminating what is troublesome or irritating, it is not surprising\nthat opposite movements should occur in them consecutively--as may be\nclearly seen in the case of the heart, in the various arteries, in the\nthorax, and lungs. In all these[376] the active movements of the\norgans and therewith the passive movements of [their contained]\nmatters may be seen taking place almost every second in opposite\ndirections. Now, you are not astonished when the trachea-artery[377]\nalternately draws air into the lungs and gives it out, and when the\nnostrils and the whole mouth act similarly; nor do you think it\nstrange or paradoxical that the air is dismissed through the very\nchannel by which it was admitted just before. Do you, then, feel a\ndifficulty in the case of the veins which pass down from the liver\ninto the stomach and intestines, and do you think it strange that\nnutriment should at once be yielded up to the liver and drawn back\nfrom it into the stomach by the same veins? You must define what you\nmean by this expression \"at once.\" If you mean \"at the same time\" this\nis not what we ourselves say; for just as we take in a breath at one\nmoment and give it out again at another, so at one time the liver\ndraws nutriment from the stomach, and at another the stomach from the\nliver. But if your expression \"at once\" means that in one and the same\nanimal a single organ subserves the transport of matter in opposite\ndirections, and if it is this which disturbs you, consider inspiration\nand expiration. For of course these also take place through the same\norgans, albeit they differ in their manner of movement, and in the way\nin which the matter is conveyed through them.\n\nNow the lungs, the thorax, the arteries rough and smooth, the heart,\nthe mouth, and the nostrils reverse their movements at very short\nintervals and change the direction of the matters they contain. On the\nother hand, the veins which pass down from the liver to the intestines\nand stomach reverse the direction of their movements not at such short\nintervals, but sometimes once in many days.\n\nThe whole matter, in fact, is as follows:--Each of the organs draws\ninto itself the nutriment alongside it, and devours all the useful\nfluid in it, until it is thoroughly satisfied; this nutriment, as I\nhave already shown, it stores up in itself, afterwards making it\nadhere and then assimilating it--that is, it becomes nourished by it.\nFor it has been demonstrated with sufficient clearness already[378]\nthat there is something which necessarily precedes actual nutrition,\nnamely _adhesion_, and that before this again comes _presentation_.\nThus as in the case of the _animals_ themselves the end of eating is\nthat the stomach should be filled, similarly in the case of each of\nthe _parts_, the end of presentation is the filling of this part with\nits appropriate liquid. Since, therefore, every part has, like the\nstomach, a _craving_[379] to be nourished, it too envelops its\nnutriment and clasps it all round as the stomach does. And this\n[action of the stomach], as has been already said, is necessarily\nfollowed by the digestion of the food, although it is not to make it\nsuitable for the other parts that the stomach contracts upon it; if it\ndid so, it would no longer be a physiological organ,[380] but an\nanimal possessing reason and intelligence, with the power of choosing\nthe better [of two alternatives].\n\nBut while the stomach contracts for the reason that the whole body\npossesses a power of attracting and of utilising appropriate\nqualities, as has already been explained, it also happens that, in\nthis process, the food undergoes alteration; further, when filled and\nsaturated with the fluid pabulum from the food, it thereafter looks on\nthe food as a burden; thus it at once gets rid of the excess--that is\nto say, drives it downwards--itself turning to another task, namely\nthat of causing adhesion. And during this time, while the nutriment is\npassing along the whole length of the _intestine_, it is caught up by\nthe vessels which pass into the intestine; as we shall shortly\ndemonstrate,[381] most of it is seized by the veins, but a little also\nby the arteries; at this stage also it becomes _presented_ to the\ncoats of the intestines.\n\nNow imagine the whole economy of nutrition divided into three periods.\nSuppose that in the first period the nutriment remains in the stomach\nand is digested and presented to the stomach until satiety is reached,\nalso that some of it is taken up from the stomach to the liver.[382]\n\nDuring the second period it passes along the intestines and becomes\npresented both to them and to the liver--again until the stage of\nsatiety--while a small part of it is carried all over the body.[382]\nDuring this period, also imagine that what was presented to the\nstomach in the first period becomes now adherent to it.\n\nDuring the third period the stomach has reached the stage of receiving\nnourishment; it now entirely assimilates everything that had become\nadherent to it: at the same time in the intestines and liver there\ntakes place adhesion of what had been before presented, while\ndispersal [anadosis] is taking place to all parts of the body,[383] as\nalso presentation. Now, if the animal takes food immediately after\nthese [three stages] then, during the time that the stomach is again\ndigesting and getting the benefit of this by presenting all the useful\npart of it to its own coats, the intestines will be engaged in final\nassimilation of the juices which have adhered to them, and so also\nwill the liver: while in the various parts of the body there will be\ntaking place adhesion of the portions of nutriment presented. And if\nthe stomach is forced to remain without food during this time, it will\ndraw its nutriment from the veins in the mesentery and liver; for it\nwill not do so from the actual body of the liver (by _body of the\nliver_ I mean first and foremost its flesh proper, and after this all\nthe vessels contained in it), for it is irrational to suppose that one\npart would draw away from another part the juice already contained in\nit, especially when adhesion and final assimilation of that juice were\nalready taking place; the juice, however, that is in the cavity of the\nveins will be abstracted by the part which is stronger and more in\nneed.\n\nIt is in this way, therefore, that the stomach, when it is in need of\nnourishment and the animal has nothing to eat, seizes it from the\nveins in the liver. Also in the case of the spleen we have shown in a\nformer passage[384] how it draws all material from the liver that\ntends to be thick, and by working it up converts it into more useful\nmatter. There is nothing surprising, therefore, if, in the present\ninstance also, some of this should be drawn from the spleen into such\norgans as communicate with it by veins, _e.g._ the omentum, mesentery,\nsmall intestine, colon, and the stomach itself. Nor is it surprising\nthat the spleen should disgorge its surplus matters into the stomach\nat one time, while at another time it should draw some of its\nappropriate nutriment from the stomach.\n\nFor, as has already been said, speaking generally, everything has the\npower at different times of attracting from and of adding to\neverything else. What happens is just as if you might imagine a number\nof animals helping themselves at will to a plentiful common stock of\nfood; some will naturally be eating when others have stopped, some\nwill be on the point of stopping when others are beginning, some\neating together, and others in succession. Yes, by Zeus! and one will\noften be plundering another, if he be in need while the other has an\nabundant supply ready to hand. Thus it is in no way surprising that\nmatter should make its way back from the outer surface of the body to\nthe interior, or should be carried from the liver and spleen into the\nstomach by the same vessels by which it was carried in the reverse\ndirection.\n\nIn the case of the arteries[385] this is clear enough, as also in the\ncase of heart, thorax, and lungs; for, since all of these dilate and\ncontract alternately, it must needs be that matter is subsequently\ndischarged back into the parts from which it was previously drawn. Now\nNature foresaw this necessity,[386] and provided the cardiac openings\nof the vessels with membranous attachments,[387] to prevent their\ncontents from being carried backwards. How and in what manner this\ntakes place will be stated in my work \"On the Use of Parts,\" where\namong other things I show that it is impossible for the openings of\nthe vessels to be closed so accurately that nothing at all can run\nback. Thus it is inevitable that the reflux into the _venous\nartery_[388] (as will also be made clear in the work mentioned) should\nbe much greater than through the other openings. But what it is\nimportant for our present purpose to recognise is that every thing\npossessing a large and appreciable cavity must, when it dilates,\nabstract matter from all its neighbours, and, when it contracts, must\nsqueeze matter back into them. This should all be clear from what has\nalready been said in this treatise and from what Erasistratus and I\nmyself have demonstrated elsewhere respecting the tendency of a vacuum\nto become refilled.[389]\n\n\n                     XIII\n\n  Ou m\u00ean oude to dia tou autou porou t\u00ean th' holk\u00ean\n  gignesthai kai t\u00ean apokrisin en diapherousi || chronois       187\n  ouden eti chalepon exeurein, ei ge kai t\u00eas gastros ho\n  stomachos ou monon edesmata kai pomata parag\u00f4n eis\n  aut\u00ean, alla kan tais nautiais t\u00ean enantian hyp\u00earesian\n  hyp\u00earet\u00f4n enarg\u00f4s phainetai, kai t\u00eas epi t\u00f4 h\u00eapati\n  kyste\u00f4s ho auch\u00ean heis \u00f4n hama men pl\u00earoi di' hautou t\u00ean\n  kystin, hama d' ekkenoi, kai t\u00f4n m\u00eatr\u00f4n ho stomachos\n  h\u00f4saut\u00f4s hodos estin eis\u00f4 men tou spermatos, ex\u00f4 de tou\n  ky\u00eamatos.\n\n  Alla kantautha palin h\u00ea men ekkritik\u00ea dynamis enarg\u00eas,\n  ou m\u00ean homoi\u00f4s g' aut\u00ea saph\u00eas tois pollois h\u00ea helktik\u00ea;\n  all' Hippokrat\u00eas men arrh\u00f4stou m\u00eatras aiti\u00f4menos auchena\n  ph\u00easi; \"Ou gar dynatai aute\u00eas ho stomachos eirysai t\u00ean\n  gon\u00ean.\"\n\n  Erasistratos de kai Askl\u00eapiad\u00eas eis tosouton h\u00eakousi\n  sophias, h\u00f4st' ou monon t\u00ean koilian kai tas m\u00eatras\n  aposterousi t\u00eas toiaut\u00eas dyname\u00f4s alla kai t\u00ean epi t\u00f4\n  h\u00eapati kystin hama tois nephrois. kaitoi g' hoti m\u00ead'\n  eipein dynaton heteron aition \u00ea our\u00f4n \u00ea chol\u00eas\n  diakrise\u00f4s, en t\u00f4 pr\u00f4t\u00f4 dedeiktai log\u00f4.\n\n  Kai m\u00eatran oun kai gastera kai t\u00ean epi t\u00f4 h\u00eapati kystin\n  di' henos kai tautou sto||machou t\u00ean th' holk\u00ean kai t\u00ean       188\n  apokrisin heuriskontes poioumenas m\u00eaketi thaumaz\u00f4men, ei\n  kai dia t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n h\u00ea physis ekkrinei pollakis eis t\u00ean\n  gastera peritt\u00f4mata. toutou d' eti mallon ou chr\u00ea\n  thaumazein, ei, di' h\u00f4n eis h\u00eapar anedoth\u00ea phleb\u00f4n ek\n  gastros, authis eis aut\u00ean ex h\u00eapatos en tais makroterais\n  asitiais helkesthai tis dynatai troph\u00ea. to gar tois\n  toioutois apistein homoion esti d\u00eapou t\u00f4 m\u00eaketi\n  pisteuein m\u00ead' hoti ta kathaironta pharmaka dia t\u00f4n\n  aut\u00f4n stomat\u00f4n ex holou tou s\u00f4matos eis t\u00ean gastera tous\n  oikeious epispatai chymous, di' h\u00f4n emprosthen h\u00ea\n  anadosis egeneto, all' hetera men z\u00eatein anadose\u00f4s,\n  hetera de katharse\u00f4s stomata. kai m\u00ean eiper hen kai\n  tauto stoma dittais hyp\u00earetei dynamesin, en diaphorois\n  chronois eis tanantia t\u00ean holk\u00ean poioumenais, emprosthen\n  men t\u00ea kata to h\u00eapar, en de t\u00f4 t\u00eas katharse\u00f4s kair\u00f4 t\u00ea\n  tou pharmakou, ti thaumaston esti ditt\u00ean hyp\u00earesian te\n  kai chreian einai tais phlepsi tais en t\u00f4 mes\u00f4\n  tetagmenais h\u00eapatos te kai t\u00f4n kata t\u00ean koilian, h\u00f4sth',\n  hopote men en toutois aphthonos ei\u00ea periechomen\u00ea troph\u00ea,\n  dia t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n eis || h\u00eapar anapheresthai phleb\u00f4n,         189\n  hopote d' ei\u00ea kena kai deomena trephesthai, dia t\u00f4n\n  aut\u00f4n authis ex h\u00eapatos helkesthai?\n\n  Pan gar ek pantos helkein phainetai kai panti\n  metadidonai kai mia tis einai syrrhoia kai sympnoia\n  pant\u00f4n, kathaper kai touth' ho theiotatos Hippokrat\u00eas\n  eipen. helkei men oun to ischyroteron, ekkenoutai de to\n  asthenesteron.\n\n  Ischyroteron de kai asthenesteron heteron heterou morion\n  \u00ea hapl\u00f4s kai physei kai koin\u00ea pasin estin \u00ea idi\u00f4s t\u00f4de\n  tini gignetai. physei men kai koin\u00ea pasin anthr\u00f4pois th'\n  hama kai z\u00f4ois h\u00ea men kardia tou h\u00eapatos, to d' h\u00eapar\n  t\u00f4n enter\u00f4n te kai t\u00eas gastros, hai d' art\u00eariai t\u00f4n\n  phleb\u00f4n helkysai te to chr\u00easimon heautais apokrinai te\n  to m\u00ea toiouton ischyroterai. kath' hekaston d' h\u00eam\u00f4n\n  idi\u00f4s en men t\u00f4de t\u00f4 kair\u00f4 to h\u00eapar ischyroteron\n  helkein, h\u00ea gast\u00ear d' en t\u00f4de. poll\u00eas men gar en t\u00ea\n  koilia periechomen\u00eas troph\u00eas kai sphodr\u00f4s oregomenou te\n  kai chr\u00eazontos tou h\u00eapatos, pant\u00f4s ischyroteron helkei\n  to splanchnon; empalin de tou men h\u00eapatos empepl\u00easmenou\n  te kai dia||tetamenou, t\u00eas gastros d' oregomen\u00eas kai          190\n  ken\u00eas hyparchous\u00eas h\u00ea t\u00eas holk\u00eas ischys eis ekein\u00ean\n  methistatai.\n\n  H\u00f4s gar, ei kan tais chersi tina sitia katechontes\n  all\u00eal\u00f4n harpazoimen, ei men homoi\u00f4s ei\u00eamen deomenoi,\n  perigignesthai ton ischyroteron eikos, ei d' houtos men\n  empepl\u00easmenos ei\u00ea kai dia tout' amel\u00f4s katech\u00f4n ta\n  peritta \u00ea kai tini metadounai poth\u00f4n, ho d'\n  asthenesteros oregoito dein\u00f4s, ouden an ei\u00ea k\u00f4lyma tou\n  m\u00ea panta labein auton, hout\u00f4 kai h\u00ea gast\u00ear ek tou\n  h\u00eapatos epispatai rhadi\u00f4s, hotan aut\u00ea men hikan\u00f4s\n  oreg\u00eatai troph\u00eas, empepl\u00easmenon d' \u00ea to splanchnon. kai\n  tou ge m\u00ea pein\u00ean eniote to z\u00f4on h\u00ea periousia t\u00eas en\n  h\u00eapati troph\u00eas aitia; kreittona gar echousa kai\n  hetoimoteran h\u00ea gast\u00ear troph\u00ean ouden deitai t\u00eas ex\u00f4then;\n  ei de ge pote deoito men, aporoi\u00ea de, pl\u00earoutai\n  peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n. ich\u00f4res de tines eisi tauta chol\u00f4deis te\n  kai phlegmat\u00f4deis kai orrh\u00f4deis, hous monous helkous\u00ea\n  methi\u00easin aut\u00ea to h\u00eapar, hotan pote kai aut\u00ea de\u00eatai\n  troph\u00eas.\n\n  H\u00f4sper oun ex all\u00eal\u00f4n helkei ta moria || troph\u00ean, hout\u00f4       191\n  kai apotithetai pot' eis all\u00eala to peritton kai h\u00f4sper\n  helkont\u00f4n epleonektei to ischyroteron, hout\u00f4 kai\n  apotithemen\u00f4n kai t\u00f4n ge kaloumen\u00f4n rheumat\u00f4n h\u00eade h\u00ea\n  prophasis. hekaston gar t\u00f4n mori\u00f4n echei tina tonon\n  symphyton, h\u00f4 di\u00f4theitai to peritton. hotan oun hen ex\n  aut\u00f4n arrh\u00f4stoteron gen\u00eatai kata d\u00ea tina diathesin, ex\n  hapant\u00f4n eis ekeino syrrhein anank\u00ea ta peritt\u00f4mata. to\n  men gar ischyrotaton enapotithetai tois pl\u00easion hapasin,\n  ekein\u00f4n d' au palin hekaston eis heter' atta t\u00f4n\n  asthenester\u00f4n, eit' authis ekein\u00f4n hekaston eis alla kai\n  tout' epi pleiston gignetai, mechri per an ex hapant\u00f4n\n  elaunomenon to peritt\u00f4ma kath' hen ti mein\u00ea t\u00f4n\n  asthenestat\u00f4n; enteuthen gar ouket' eis allo dynatai\n  metarrhein, h\u00f4s an m\u00eate dechomenou tinos auto t\u00f4n\n  ischyroter\u00f4n m\u00eat' ap\u00f4sasthai dynamenou tou peponthotos.\n\n  Alla peri men t\u00f4n path\u00f4n t\u00eas genese\u00f4s kai t\u00eas iase\u00f4s\n  authis h\u00eam\u00f4n epideiknynt\u00f4n hikana kax ekein\u00f4n estai\n  labein martyria t\u00f4n en t\u00f4de t\u00f4 log\u00f4 panti || dedeigmen\u00f4n      192\n  orth\u00f4s. ho d' en t\u00f4 paronti deixai proukeito, palin\n  analab\u00f4men, h\u00f4s ouden thaumaston ex h\u00eapatos h\u00eakein tina\n  troph\u00ean enterois te kai gastri dia t\u00f4n aut\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n,\n  di' h\u00f4n emprosthen ex ekein\u00f4n eis h\u00eapar anedidoto. kai\n  pollois athro\u00f4s te kai tele\u00f4s apostasin ischyr\u00f4n\n  gymnasi\u00f4n \u00ea ti k\u00f4lon apokopeisin haimatos dia t\u00f4n\n  enter\u00f4n gignetai ken\u00f4sis ek tin\u00f4n period\u00f4n, h\u00f4s pou kai\n  Hippokrat\u00eas elegen, ouden men allo lypousa, kathairousa\n  d' oxe\u00f4s to pan s\u00f4ma kai tas pl\u00easmonas ekkenousa, dia\n  t\u00f4n aut\u00f4n d\u00eapou phleb\u00f4n t\u00eas phoras t\u00f4n peritt\u00f4n\n  epiteloumen\u00eas, di' h\u00f4n emprosthen h\u00ea anadosis egigneto.\n\n  Pollakis d' en nosois h\u00ea physis dia men t\u00f4n aut\u00f4n d\u00eapou\n  phleb\u00f4n to pan ekkathairei z\u00f4on, ou m\u00ean haimat\u00f4d\u00eas g' h\u00ea\n  ken\u00f4sis autois, alla kata ton lypounta gignetai chymon.\n  hout\u00f4 de kan tais cholerais ekkenoutai to pan s\u00f4ma dia\n  t\u00f4n eis entera te kai gastera kath\u00eakous\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n.\n\n  To d' oiesthai mian einai tais hylais phoran tele\u00f4s\n  agnoountos esti tas physikas || dynameis tas t' allas         193\n  kai t\u00ean ekkritik\u00ean enantian ousan t\u00ea helktikt\u00ea; tais gar\n  enantiais dynamesin enantias kin\u00easeis te kai phoras t\u00f4n\n  hyl\u00f4n anankaion akolouthein. hekaston gar t\u00f4n mori\u00f4n,\n  hotan helkys\u00ea ton oikeion chymon, epeita katasch\u00ea kai\n  apolaus\u00ea, to peritton hapan apothesthai speudei, kathoti\n  malista dynatai tachista th' hama kai kallista, kata t\u00ean\n  tou perittou rhop\u00ean.\n\n  Hothen h\u00ea gast\u00ear ta men epipolazonta t\u00f4n peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n\n  emetois ekkathairei, ta d' hyphistamena diarrhoiais. kai\n  to ge nauti\u00f4des gignesthai to z\u00f4on tout' estin horm\u00easai\n  t\u00ean gastera ken\u00f4th\u00eanai di' emetou. hout\u00f4 de d\u00ea ti biaion\n  kai sphodron h\u00ea ekkritik\u00ea dynamis echei, h\u00f4st' en tois\n  eileois, hotan apokleisth\u00ea tele\u00f4s h\u00ea kat\u00f4 diexodos,\n  emeitai kopros. kaitoi prin dielthein to te lepton\n  enteron hapan kai t\u00ean n\u00eastin kai ton pyl\u00f4ron kai t\u00ean\n  gastera kai ton oisophagon ouch hoion te dia tou\n  stomatos ekpesein oudeni toiout\u00f4 peritt\u00f4mati. ti d\u00ea\n  thaumaston, ei kak t\u00eas eschat\u00eas epiphaneias t\u00eas kata to\n  derma mechri t\u00f4n enter\u00f4n te kai t\u00eas gastros aphiknoito\n  ti || metalambanomenon, h\u00f4s kai touth' Hippokrat\u00eas h\u00eamas      194\n  edidaxen, ou pneuma monon \u00ea peritt\u00f4ma phask\u00f4n alla kai\n  t\u00ean troph\u00ean aut\u00ean ek t\u00eas eschat\u00eas epiphaneias authis epi\n  t\u00ean arch\u00ean, hothen an\u00eanechth\u00ea, katapheresthai.\n  elachistai gar rhopai kin\u00ease\u00f4n t\u00ean ekkritik\u00ean taut\u00ean\n  oiakizousi dynamin, h\u00f4s an dia t\u00f4n enkarsi\u00f4n men in\u00f4n\n  gignomen\u00ean, \u00f4kytata de diadidomen\u00ean apo t\u00eas kin\u00easas\u00eas\n  arch\u00eas epi ta katantikry perata. oukoun apeikos oud'\n  adynaton a\u00eathei pote psyxei to pros t\u00f4 dermati morion\n  exaiphn\u00eas pil\u00eathen hama men arrh\u00f4stoteron auto\n  genomenon, hama d' hoion achthos ti mallon \u00ea paraskeu\u00ean\n  threpse\u00f4s echon t\u00ean emprosthen alyp\u00f4s aut\u00f4 paresparmen\u00ean\n  hygrot\u00eata kai dia tout' ap\u00f4theisthai speudon, hama de\n  t\u00eas ex\u00f4 phoras apokekleismen\u00eas t\u00ea pykn\u00f4sei, pros t\u00ean\n  loip\u00ean epistraph\u00eanai kai hout\u00f4 biasamenon eis to\n  parakeimenon aut\u00f4 morion athro\u00f4s ap\u00f4sasthai to peritton,\n  ekeino d' au palin eis to met' auto, || kai touto m\u00ea          195\n  pausasthai gignomenon, achris an h\u00ea metal\u00eapsis epi ta\n  entos perata t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n teleut\u00eas\u00ea.\n\n  Hai men d\u00ea toiautai kin\u00easeis thatton apopauontai, hai d'\n  apo t\u00f4n endothen dierethizont\u00f4n, h\u00f4s en te tois\n  kathairousi pharmakois kai tais cholerais ischyroterai\n  te poly kai monim\u00f4terai gignontai kai diamenousin, est'\n  an kai h\u00ea peri tois stomasi t\u00f4n angei\u00f4n diathesis, h\u00ea to\n  pl\u00easion helkousa, paramen\u00ea. haut\u00ea men gar to syneches\n  ekkenoi morion, ekeino d' au to met' auto kai tout' ou\n  pauetai mechri t\u00eas eschat\u00eas epiphaneias, h\u00f4ste\n  diadidont\u00f4n t\u00f4n ephex\u00eas aei mori\u00f4n heter\u00f4n heterois to\n  pr\u00f4ton pathos \u00f4kytata diikneisthai mechri t\u00f4n eschat\u00f4n.\n  hout\u00f4s oun echei kapi t\u00f4n eile\u00f4n. auto men gar to\n  phlegmainon enteron oute tou barous oute t\u00eas drimyt\u00eatos\n  anechetai t\u00f4n peritt\u00f4mat\u00f4n kai dia tout' ekkrinein auta\n  speudei kai ap\u00f4theisthai porrh\u00f4tat\u00f4. k\u00f4lyomenon de kat\u00f4\n  poieisthai t\u00ean di\u00f4sin, hotan entauthoi pote to\n  sphodrotaton \u00ea t\u00eas phlegmon\u00eas, eis ta pl\u00easiazonta t\u00f4n\n  hyperkeimen\u00f4n enter\u00f4n ap\u00f4theitai. kai hout\u00f4s \u00ead\u00ea kata ||      196\n  to syneches t\u00ean rhop\u00ean t\u00eas ekkritik\u00eas dyname\u00f4s an\u00f4\n  poi\u00easamen\u00eas achri tou stomatos epanerchetai ta\n  peritt\u00f4mata.\n\n  Tauta men oun d\u00ea kan tois t\u00f4n nos\u00eamat\u00f4n logismois epi\n  pleon eir\u00easetai. to d' ek pantos eis pan pheresthai ti\n  kai metalambanesthai kai mian hapant\u00f4n einai sympnoian\n  te kai syrrhoian, h\u00f4s Hippokrat\u00eas elegen, \u00ead\u00ea moi dok\u00f4\n  dedeichthai saph\u00f4s kai m\u00eaket' an tina, m\u00ead' ei bradys\n  aut\u00f4 nous enei\u00ea, peri t\u00f4n toiout\u00f4n apor\u00easai m\u00eadenos,\n  hoion hop\u00f4s h\u00ea gast\u00ear \u00ea ta entera trephetai kai tina\n  tropon ek t\u00eas eschat\u00eas epiphaneias eis\u00f4 ti diikneitai.\n  pant\u00f4n gar t\u00f4n mori\u00f4n helkein men to pros\u00eakon te kai\n  philion, apokrinein de to barynon \u00ea daknon echont\u00f4n\n  dynamin ouden thaumaston enantias synech\u00f4s gignesthai\n  kin\u00easeis en autois, h\u00f4sper epi te t\u00eas kardias horatai\n  saph\u00f4s kai t\u00f4n art\u00eari\u00f4n hapas\u00f4n kai tou th\u00f4rakos kai tou\n  pneumonos. epi men ge tout\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n monon ou kath'\n  hekast\u00ean kairou rhop\u00ean tas enantias kin\u00easeis th' hama\n  t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n kai phoras t\u00f4n hyl\u00f4n || enarg\u00f4s estin idein       197\n  gignomenas. eit' epi men t\u00eas tracheias art\u00earias ouk\n  aporeis enallax pote men eis\u00f4 paragous\u00eas eis ton\n  pneumona to pneuma, pote d' ex\u00f4, kai t\u00f4n kata tas rhinas\n  por\u00f4n kai holou tou stomatos h\u00f4saut\u00f4s oud' einai soi\n  dokei thaumaston oude paradoxon, ei, di' hou mikr\u00f4\n  prosthen eis\u00f4 parekomizeto to pneuma, dia toutou nyn\n  ekpempetai, peri de t\u00f4n ex h\u00eapatos eis entera te kai\n  gastera kath\u00eakous\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n aporeis kai soi thaumaston\n  einai phainetai, dia t\u00f4n aut\u00f4n anadidosthai th' hama t\u00ean\n  troph\u00ean eis h\u00eapar helkesthai t' ex ekeinou palin eis\n  gastera? diorisai d\u00ea to hama touto poter\u00f4s legeis. ei\n  men gar kata ton auton chronon, oud' h\u00eameis touto ge\n  phamen. h\u00f4sper gar eispneomen en heter\u00f4 chron\u00f4 kai\n  authis palin en heter\u00f4 antekpneomen, hout\u00f4 kai troph\u00ean\n  en heter\u00f4 men chron\u00f4 to h\u00eapar ek t\u00eas gastros, en heter\u00f4\n  d' h\u00ea gast\u00ear ek tou h\u00eapatos epispatai. ei d' hoti kath'\n  hen kai tauto z\u00f4on hen organon enantiais phorais hyl\u00f4n\n  hyp\u00earetei, touto soi bouletai d\u00ealoun to hama kai touto\n  se tarattei, t\u00ean t' || eispno\u00ean ide kai t\u00ean ekpno\u00ean.          198\n  pant\u00f4s pou kai hautai dia men t\u00f4n aut\u00f4n organ\u00f4n\n  gignontai, trop\u00f4 de kin\u00ease\u00f4s te kai phoras t\u00f4n hyl\u00f4n\n  diapherousin.\n\n  Ho pneum\u00f4n men oun kai ho th\u00f4rax kai art\u00eariai hai\n  tracheiai kai hai leiai kai kardia kai stoma kai rhines\n  en elachistais chronou rhopais eis enantias kin\u00easeis\n  auta te metaballei kai tas hylas methist\u00easin. hai d' ex\n  h\u00eapatos eis entera kai gastera kath\u00eakousai phlebes ouk\n  en hout\u00f4 brachesi chronou moriois all' en pollais\n  h\u00eamerais hapax eniote t\u00ean enantian kinountai kin\u00easin.\n\n  Echei gar h\u00f4de to sympan. hekaston t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n eis\n  heauto t\u00ean pl\u00easiazousan epispatai troph\u00ean ekboskomenon\n  aut\u00eas hapasan t\u00ean chr\u00east\u00ean notida, mechris an hikan\u00f4s\n  koresth\u00ea, kai taut\u00ean, h\u00f4s kai prosthen edeiknymen,\n  enapotithetai heaut\u00f4 kai meta tauta prosphyei te kai\n  homoioi, toutesti trephetai. di\u00f4ristai gar hikan\u00f4s\n  emprosthen heteron ti t\u00eas threpse\u00f4s ex anank\u00eas aut\u00eas\n  pro\u00eagoumenon h\u00ea prosphysis hyparchein, ekein\u00eas d' eti\n  proteron h\u00ea prosthesis. h\u00f4sper oun || tois z\u00f4ois autois       199\n  horos esti t\u00eas ed\u00f4d\u00eas to pl\u00ear\u00f4sai t\u00ean gastera, kata ton\n  auton tropon hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n mori\u00f4n horos esti t\u00eas\n  prosthese\u00f4s h\u00ea pl\u00ear\u00f4sis t\u00eas oikeias hygrot\u00eatos. epei\n  toinyn hapan morion t\u00ea gastri homoi\u00f4s oregetai\n  trephesthai, kai periptyssetai t\u00ea troph\u00ea kai hout\u00f4\n  sphingei pantachothen aut\u00ean h\u00f4s h\u00ea gast\u00ear. hepetai d' ex\n  anank\u00eas tout\u00f4, kathaper kai prosthen errheth\u00ea, to\n  pettesthai tois sitiois, t\u00eas gastros ou dia touto\n  peristellomen\u00eas autois, hin' epit\u00eadeia tois allois\n  ergas\u00eatai moriois; hout\u00f4 gar an ouketi physikon organon\n  alla z\u00f4on ti gignoito logismon te kai noun echon, h\u00f4s\n  haireisthai to beltion.\n\n  All' haut\u00ea men peristelletai t\u00f4 to pan s\u00f4ma dynamin\n  helktik\u00ean tina kai apolaustik\u00ean kekt\u00easthai t\u00f4n oikei\u00f4n\n  poiot\u00eat\u00f4n, h\u00f4s emprosthen edeiknyto; symbainei d' en\n  tout\u00f4 tois sitiois alloiousthai. kai mentoi kai\n  pl\u00ear\u00f4theisa t\u00eas ex aut\u00f4n hygrot\u00eatos kai korestheisa\n  baros h\u00eageitai to loipon auta. to peritton oun euthys\n  apotribetai te kai \u00f4thei kat\u00f4 pros || heteron ergon aut\u00ea      200\n  trepomen\u00ea, t\u00ean prosphysin. en de tout\u00f4 t\u00f4 chron\u00f4\n  dierchomen\u00ea to enteron hapan h\u00ea troph\u00ea dia t\u00f4n eis auto\n  kath\u00eakont\u00f4n angei\u00f4n anarpazetai, pleist\u00ea men eis tas\n  phlebas, olig\u00ea de tis eis tas art\u00earias, h\u00f4s mikron\n  hysteron apodeixomen. en tout\u00f4 d' au t\u00f4 chron\u00f4 kai tois\n  t\u00f4n enter\u00f4n chit\u00f4si prostithetai.\n\n  Kai moi tem\u00f4n \u00ead\u00ea t\u00f4 logism\u00f4 t\u00ean t\u00eas troph\u00eas oikonomian\n  hapasan eis treis moiras chron\u00f4n, en men t\u00ea pr\u00f4t\u00ea noei\n  menousan th' hama kata t\u00ean koilian aut\u00ean kai pettomen\u00ean\n  kai prostithemen\u00ean eis koron t\u00ea gastri kai ti kai t\u00f4\n  h\u00eapati par' aut\u00eas anapheromenon.\n\n  En de t\u00ea deutera, dierchomen\u00ean ta t' entera kai\n  prostithemen\u00ean eis koron autois te toutois kai t\u00f4 h\u00eapati\n  kai ti brachy meros aut\u00eas pant\u00ea tou s\u00f4matos pheromenon;\n  en de d\u00ea tout\u00f4 t\u00f4 kair\u00f4 to prostethen en t\u00f4 pr\u00f4t\u00f4 chron\u00f4\n  prosphyesthai noei t\u00ea gastri.\n\n  Kata de t\u00ean trit\u00ean moiran tou chronou trephesthai men\n  \u00ead\u00ea t\u00ean koilian homoi\u00f4sasan heaut\u00ea tele\u00f4s ta prosphynta,\n  prosphysin de tois enterois kai t\u00f4 h\u00eapati gignesthai t\u00f4n\n  prostethent\u00f4n, ana||dosin de pant\u00ea tou s\u00f4matos kai            201\n  prosthesin. ei men oun epi toutois euthe\u00f4s to z\u00f4on\n  lambanoi troph\u00ean, en h\u00f4 palin h\u00ea gast\u00ear chron\u00f4 pettei te\n  taut\u00ean kai apolauei prostitheisa pan ex aut\u00eas to\n  chr\u00easton tois heaut\u00eas chit\u00f4si, ta men entera tele\u00f4s\n  homoi\u00f4sei ton prosphynta chymon, h\u00f4saut\u00f4s de kai to\n  h\u00eapar. en hol\u00f4 de t\u00f4 s\u00f4mati prosphysis t\u00f4n prostethent\u00f4n\n  t\u00eas troph\u00eas estai mori\u00f4n. ei d' asitos anankazoito\n  menein h\u00ea gast\u00ear en tout\u00f4 t\u00f4 chron\u00f4, para t\u00f4n en\n  mesenteri\u00f4 te kai h\u00eapati phleb\u00f4n helxei t\u00ean troph\u00ean; ou\n  gar ex autou ge tou s\u00f4matos tou h\u00eapatos. leg\u00f4 de s\u00f4ma\n  tou h\u00eapatos aut\u00ean te t\u00ean idian autou sarka pr\u00f4t\u00ean kai\n  malista, meta de t\u00eande kai t\u00f4n angei\u00f4n hekaston t\u00f4n kat'\n  auto. ton men gar en hekast\u00f4 t\u00f4n mori\u00f4n \u00ead\u00ea\n  periechomenon chymon ouket' eulogon antispan heter\u00f4\n  mori\u00f4 kai malisth' hotan \u00ead\u00ea prosphysis \u00ea exomoi\u00f4sis\n  autou gign\u00eatai. ton d' en tais eurych\u00f4riais t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n\n  to mallon ischyon th' hama kai deomenon antispa morion.\n\n  Hout\u00f4s oun kai h\u00ea gast\u00ear en || h\u00f4 chron\u00f4 deitai men aut\u00ea      202\n  troph\u00eas, esthiei d' oudep\u00f4 to z\u00f4on, en tout\u00f4 t\u00f4n kata to\n  h\u00eapar exarpazei phleb\u00f4n. epei de kai ton spl\u00eana dia t\u00f4n\n  emprosthen edeiknymen hoson en h\u00eapati pachyteron\n  helkonta katergazesthai te kai metaballein epi to\n  chr\u00eastoteron, ouden oud' entautha thaumaston helkesthai\n  ti kak tou spl\u00eanos eis hekaston t\u00f4n koin\u00f4nount\u00f4n aut\u00f4\n  kata tas phlebas organ\u00f4n, hoion eis epiploon kai\n  mesenterion kai lepton enteron kai k\u00f4lon kai aut\u00ean t\u00ean\n  gastera; kata de ton auton tropon exereugesthai men eis\n  t\u00ean gastera to peritt\u00f4ma kath' heteron chronon, auton d'\n  authis ek t\u00eas gastros helkein ti t\u00eas oikeias troph\u00eas en\n  heter\u00f4 kair\u00f4.\n\n  Katholou d' eipein, ho kai prosthen \u00ead\u00ea lelektai, pan ek\n  pantos helkein te kai pempein ench\u00f4rei kata diapherontas\n  chronous, homoiotatou gignomenou tou symbainontos, h\u00f4s\n  ei kai z\u00f4a no\u00easais polla troph\u00ean aphthonon en koin\u00f4\n  katakeimen\u00ean, eis hoson bouletai, prospheromena. kath'\n  hon gar \u00ead\u00ea pepautai chronon hetera, kata touton eikos\n  esthiein hetera, kai mellein ge ta men || pauesthai, ta       203\n  d' archesthai, kai tina men synesthionta, ta d' ana\n  meros esthionta kai nai ma Dia ge to heteron harpazein\n  thaterou pollakis, ei to men heteron epideoito, t\u00f4 d'\n  aphthon\u00f4s parakeoito. kai hout\u00f4s ouden thaumaston out'\n  ek t\u00eas eschat\u00eas epiphaneias eis\u00f4 ti palin hypostrephein\n  oute dia t\u00f4n aut\u00f4n angei\u00f4n ex h\u00eapatos te kai spl\u00eanos eis\n  koilian anenechth\u00eanai ti, di' h\u00f4n ek taut\u00eas eis ekeina\n  proteron an\u00eanechth\u00ea.\n\n  Kata men gar tas art\u00earias hikan\u00f4s enarges to toiouton,\n  h\u00f4sper kai kata t\u00ean kardian te kai ton th\u00f4raka kai ton\n  pneumona. tout\u00f4n gar hapant\u00f4n diastellomen\u00f4n te kai\n  systellomen\u00f4n enallax anankaion, ex h\u00f4n heilkysth\u00ea ti\n  proteron, eis tauth' hysteron ekpempesthai. kai taut\u00ean\n  ara t\u00ean anank\u00ean h\u00ea physis progign\u00f4skousa tois en t\u00ea\n  kardia stomasi t\u00f4n angei\u00f4n hymenas epephyse k\u00f4lysontas\n  eis toupis\u00f4 pheresthai tas hylas. all' hop\u00f4s men touto\n  gignetai kai kath' hontina tropon, en tois peri chreias\n  mori\u00f4n eir\u00easetai deiknynt\u00f4n h\u00eam\u00f4n ta t' alla kai h\u00f4s\n  adynaton hout\u00f4s akrib\u00f4s kleiesthai ta stomata t\u00f4n\n  angei\u00f4n, h\u00f4s || m\u00eaden palindromein. eis men gar t\u00ean           204\n  art\u00earian t\u00ean phleb\u00f4d\u00ea, kai gar kai tout' en ekeinois\n  deichth\u00easetai, poly pleon \u00ea dia t\u00f4n all\u00f4n stomat\u00f4n eis\n  toupis\u00f4 palin anankaion epanerchesthai. to d' eis ta\n  paronta chr\u00easimon, h\u00f4s ouk endechetai ti t\u00f4n aisth\u00eat\u00ean\n  kai megal\u00ean echont\u00f4n euryt\u00eata m\u00ea ouk \u00eatoi diastellomenon\n  helkein ex hapant\u00f4n t\u00f4n pl\u00easion \u00ea ekthlibein authis eis\n  tauta systellomenon ek te t\u00f4n \u00ead\u00ea proeir\u00eamen\u00f4n en t\u00f4de\n  t\u00f4 log\u00f4 saphes an ei\u00ea kax h\u00f4n Erasistratos te kai h\u00eameis\n  heter\u00f4thi peri t\u00eas pros to kenoumenon akolouthias\n  edeixamen.\n\n\n                             XIV\n\nAnd further, it has been shown in other treatises that all the\narteries possess a power which derives from the heart, and by virtue\nof which they dilate and contract.\n\nPut together, therefore, the two facts--that the arteries have this\nmotion, and that everything, when it dilates, draws neighbouring\nmatter into itself--and you will find nothing strange in the fact that\nthose arteries which reach the skin draw in the outer air when they\ndilate, while those which anastomose at any point with the veins\nattract the thinnest and most vaporous part of the blood which these\ncontain, and as for those arteries which are near the heart, it is on\nthe heart itself that they exert their traction. For, by virtue of the\ntendency by which a vacuum becomes refilled, the lightest and thinnest\npart obeys the tendency before that which is heavier and thicker. Now\nthe lightest and thinnest of anything in the body is firstly pneuma,\nsecondly vapour, and in the third place that part of the blood which\nhas been accurately elaborated and refined.\n\nThese, then, are what the arteries draw into themselves on every side;\nthose arteries which reach the skin draw in the outer air[390] (this\nbeing near them and one of the lightest of things); as to the other\narteries, those which pass up from the heart into the neck, and that\nwhich lies along the spine, as also such arteries as are near\nthese--draw mostly from the heart itself; and those which are further\nfrom the heart and skin necessarily draw the lightest part of the\nblood out of the veins. So also the traction exercised by the diastole\nof the arteries which go to the stomach and intestines takes place at\nthe expense of the heart itself and the numerous veins in its\nneighbourhood; for these arteries cannot get anything worth speaking\nof from the thick heavy nutriment contained in the intestines and\nstomach,[391] since they first become filled with lighter elements.\nFor if you let down a tube into a vessel full of water and sand, and\nsuck the air out of the tube with your mouth, the sand cannot come up\nto you before the water, for in accordance with the principle of the\nrefilling of a vacuum the lighter matter is always the first to\nsucceed to the evacuation.\n\n\n                      XIV\n\n  Alla m\u00ean kai h\u00f4s en hekast\u00ea t\u00f4n art\u00eari\u00f4n esti tis\n  dynamis ek t\u00eas kardias epirrheousa, kath' h\u00ean\n  diastellontai te kai systellontai, dedeiktai di'\n  heter\u00f4n.\n\n  Eiper oun synthei\u00eas amph\u00f4 to te taut\u00ean einai t\u00ean kin\u00easin\n  autais to te pan to diastellomenon helkein ek t\u00f4n\n  pl\u00easion eis heauto, thaumaston ouden soi phaneitai tas\n  art\u00earias, hosai men eis to derma perainousin aut\u00f4n,\n  epispasthai ton ex\u00f4then aera diastellomenas, hosai de\n  kata ti pros tas || phlebas anestom\u00f4ntai, to leptotaton       205\n  en autais kai atm\u00f4destaton epispasthai tou haimatos,\n  hosai d' engys t\u00eas kardias eisin, ex aut\u00eas ekein\u00eas\n  poieisthai t\u00ean holk\u00ean. en gar t\u00ea pros to kenoumenon\n  akolouthia to kouphotaton te kai leptotaton hepetai\n  pr\u00f4ton tou baryterou te kai pachyterou; kouphotaton d'\n  esti kai leptotaton hapant\u00f4n t\u00f4n kata to s\u00f4ma pr\u00f4ton men\n  to pneuma, deuteron d' ho atmos, epi tout\u00f4 de triton,\n  hoson an akrib\u00f4s \u00ea kateirgasmenon te kai leleptysmenon\n  haima.\n\n  Taut' oun eis heautas helkousin hai art\u00eariai\n  pantachothen, hai men eis to derma kath\u00eakousai ton\n  ex\u00f4then aera; pl\u00easion te gar autais houtos esti kai\n  kouphotatos en tois malista; t\u00f4n d' all\u00f4n h\u00ea men epi ton\n  trach\u00ealon ek t\u00eas kardias aniousa kai h\u00ea kata rhachin,\n  \u00ead\u00ea de kai hosai tout\u00f4n engys ex aut\u00eas malista t\u00eas\n  kardias; hosai de kai t\u00eas kardias porrh\u00f4ter\u00f4 kai tou\n  dermatos, helkein tautais anankaion ek t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n to\n  kouphotaton tou haimatos; h\u00f4ste kai t\u00f4n eis t\u00ean gastera\n  te kai ta entera kath\u00eakous\u00f4n art\u00eari\u00f4n t\u00ean holk\u00ean en t\u00f4\n  diastellesthai gignesthai para te t\u00eas || kardias aut\u00eas        206\n  kai t\u00f4n parakeimen\u00f4n aut\u00ea phleb\u00f4n pampoll\u00f4n ous\u00f4n. ou\n  gar d\u00ea ek ge t\u00f4n enter\u00f4n kai t\u00eas koilias troph\u00ean hout\u00f4\n  pacheian te kai bareian en heautois echont\u00f4n dynantai ti\n  metalambanein, ho ti kai axion logou, phthanousai\n  pl\u00earousthai tois kouphoterois. oude gar ei katheis\n  auliskon eis angeion hydatos te kai psammou pl\u00eares\n  epispasaio t\u00f4 stomati ton ek tou auliskou aera, dynait'\n  an akolouth\u00easai soi pro tou hydatos h\u00ea psammos; aei gar\n  en t\u00ea pros to kenoumenon akolouthia to kouphoteron\n  hepetai proteron.\n\n\n                              XV\n\nIt is not to be wondered at, therefore, that only a very little\n[nutrient matter] such, namely, as has been accurately\nelaborated--gets from the stomach into the arteries, since these first\nbecome filled with lighter matter. We must understand that _there are\ntwo kinds of attraction_, that by which a vacuum becomes refilled and\nthat caused by appropriateness of quality;[392] air is drawn into\nbellows in one way, and iron by the lodestone in another. And we must\nalso understand that the traction which results from evacuation acts\nprimarily on what is light, whilst that from appropriateness of\nquality acts frequently, it may be, on what is heavier (if this should\nbe naturally more nearly related[393]). Therefore, in the case of the\nheart and the arteries, it is in so far as they are hollow organs,\ncapable of diastole, that they always attract the lighter matter\nfirst, while, in so far as they require nourishment, it is actually\ninto their _coats_ (which are the real _bodies_ of these organs) that\nthe appropriate matter is drawn.[394] Of the blood, then, which is\ntaken into their cavities when they dilate, that part which is most\nproper to them and most able to afford nourishment is attracted by\ntheir actual coats.\n\nNow, apart from what has been said,[395] the following is sufficient\nproof that something is taken over from the veins into the arteries.\nIf you will kill an animal by cutting through a number of its large\narteries, you will find the veins becoming empty along with the\narteries: now, this could never occur if there were not anastomoses\nbetween them. Similarly, also, in the heart itself, the thinnest\nportion of the blood is drawn from the right ventricle into the left,\nowing to there being perforations in the septum between them: these\ncan be seen for a great part [of their length]; they are like a kind\nof fossae [pits] with wide mouths, and they get constantly narrower;\nit is not possible, however, actually to observe their extreme\nterminations, owing both to the smallness of these and to the fact\nthat when the animal is dead all the parts are chilled and\nshrunken.[396] Here, too, however, our argument,[397] starting from\nthe principle that nothing is done by Nature in vain, discovers these\nanastomoses between the ventricles of the heart; for it could not be\nat random and by chance that there occurred fossae ending thus in\nnarrow terminations.\n\nAnd secondly [the presence of these anastomoses has been assumed] from\nthe fact that, of the two orifices in the right ventricle, the one\nconducting blood in and the other out, the former[398] is much the\nlarger. For, the fact that the insertion of the vena cava into the\nheart[399] is larger than the vein which is inserted into the\nlungs[400] suggests that not all the blood which the vena cava gives\nto the heart is driven away again from the heart to the lungs. Nor can\nit be said that any of the blood is expended in the nourishment of the\nactual body of the heart, since there is another vein[401] which\nbreaks up in it and which does not take its origin nor get its share\nof blood from the heart itself. And even if a certain amount is so\nexpended, still the vein leading to the lungs is not to such a slight\nextent smaller than that inserted into the heart as to make it likely\nthat the blood is used as nutriment for the heart: the disparity is\nmuch too great for such an explanation. It is, therefore, clear that\nsomething _is_ taken over into the left ventricle.[402]\n\nMoreover, of the two vessels connected with it, that which brings\npneuma into it from the lungs[403] is much smaller than the great\noutgrowing artery[404] from which the arteries all over the body\noriginate; this would suggest that it not merely gets pneuma from the\nlungs, but that it also gets blood from the right ventricle through\nthe anastomoses mentioned.\n\nNow it belongs to the treatise \"On the Use of Parts\" to show that it\nwas best that some parts of the body should be nourished by pure,\nthin, and vaporous blood, and others by thick, turbid blood, and that\nin this matter also Nature has overlooked nothing. Thus it is not\ndesirable that these matters should be further discussed. Having\nmentioned, however, that there are two kinds of attraction, certain\nbodies exerting attraction along wide channels during diastole (by\nvirtue of the principle by which a vacuum becomes refilled) and others\nexerting it by virtue of their appropriateness of quality, we must\nnext remark that the former bodies can attract even from a distance,\nwhile the latter can only do so from among things which are quite\nclose to them; the very longest tube let down into water can easily\ndraw up the liquid into the mouth, but if you withdraw iron to a\ndistance from the lodestone or corn from the jar (an instance of this\nkind has in fact been already given[405]) no further attraction can\ntake place.\n\nThis you can observe most clearly in connection with _garden\nconduits_. For a certain amount of moisture is distributed from these\ninto every part lying close at hand but it cannot reach those lying\nfurther off: therefore one has to arrange the flow of water into all\nparts of the garden by cutting a number of small channels leading from\nthe large one. The intervening spaces between these small channels are\nmade of such a size as will, presumably, best allow them [the spaces]\nto satisfy their needs by drawing from the liquid which flows to them\nfrom every side. So also is it in the bodies of animals. Numerous\nconduits distributed through the various limbs bring them pure blood,\nmuch like the garden water-supply, and, further, the intervals between\nthese conduits have been wonderfully arranged by Nature from the\noutset so that the intervening parts should be plentifully provided\nfor when absorbing blood, and that they should never be deluged by a\nquantity of superfluous fluid running in at unsuitable times.\n\nFor the way in which they obtain nourishment is somewhat as follows.\nIn the body[406] which is continuous throughout, such as Erasistratus\nsupposes his _simple vessel_ to be, it is the superficial parts which\nare the first to make use of the nutriment with which they are brought\ninto contact; then the parts coming next draw their share from these\nby virtue of their contiguity; and again others from these; and this\ndoes not stop until the quality of the nutrient substance has been\ndistributed among all parts of the corpuscle in question. And for such\nparts as need the humour which is destined to nourish them to be\naltered still further, Nature has provided a kind of storehouse,\neither in the form of a central cavity or else as separate\ncaverns,[407] or something analogous to caverns. Thus the flesh of the\nviscera and of the muscles is nourished from the blood directly, this\nhaving undergone merely a slight alteration; the bones, however, in\norder to be nourished, require very great change, and what blood is to\nflesh marrow is to bone; in the case of the small bones, which do not\npossess central cavities, this marrow is distributed in their caverns,\nwhereas in the larger bones which do contain central cavities the\nmarrow is all concentrated in these.\n\nFor, as was pointed out in the first book,[408] things having a\nsimilar substance can easily change into one another, whereas it is\nimpossible for those which are very different to be assimilated to one\nanother without intermediate stages. Such a one in respect to\ncartilage is the myxoid substance which surrounds it, and in respect\nto ligaments, membranes, and nerves the viscous liquid dispersed\ninside them; for each of these consists of numerous fibres, which are\nhomogeneous[409]--in fact, actual _sensible elements_; and in the\nintervals between these fibres is dispersed the humour most suited for\nnutrition; this they have drawn from the blood in the veins, choosing\nthe most appropriate possible, and now they are assimilating it step\nby step and changing it into their own substance.\n\nAll these considerations, then, agree with one another, and bear\nsufficient witness to the truth of what has been already demonstrated;\nthere is thus no need to prolong the discussion further. For, from\nwhat has been said, anyone can readily discover in what way all the\nparticular [vital activities] come about. For instance, we could in\nthis way ascertain why it is that in the case of many people who are\npartaking freely of wine, the fluid which they have drunk is rapidly\nabsorbed[410] through the body and almost the whole of it is passed by\nthe kidneys within a very short time. For here, too, the rapidity with\nwhich the fluid is absorbed depends on appropriateness of quality, on\nthe thinness of the fluid, on the width of the vessels and their\nmouths, and on the efficiency of the attractive faculty. The parts\nsituated near the alimentary canal, by virtue of their appropriateness\nof quality, draw in the imbibed food for their own purposes, then the\nparts next to them in their turn snatch it away, then those next again\ntake it from these, until it reaches the vena cava, whence finally the\nkidneys attract that part of it which is proper to them. Thus it is in\nno way surprising that wine is taken up more rapidly than water, owing\nto its appropriateness of quality, and, further, that the white clear\nkind of wine is absorbed more rapidly owing to its thinness, while\nblack turbid wine, is checked on the way and retarded because of its\nthickness.\n\nThese facts, also, will afford abundant proof of what has already been\nsaid about the arteries; everywhere, in fact, such blood as is both\nspecifically appropriate and at the same time thin in consistency\nanswers more readily to their traction than does blood which is not\nso; this is why the arteries which, in their diastole, absorb vapour,\npneuma, and thin blood attract either none at all or very little of\nthe juices contained in the stomach and intestines.\n\n\n                       XV\n\n  Oukoun chr\u00ea thaumazein, ei pantel\u00f4s oligon ek t\u00eas\n  koilias, hoson an akrib\u00f4s \u00ea kateirgasmenon, eis tas\n  art\u00earias paragignetai phthanousas pl\u00earousthai t\u00f4n\n  kouphoter\u00f4n, all' ekeino gign\u00f4skein, h\u00f4s dy' eston\n  holk\u00eas eid\u00ea, to men t\u00ea pros to kenoumenon akolouthia, to\n  d' oikeiot\u00eati poiot\u00eatos gignomenon; heter\u00f4s men gar eis\n  tas physas ho a\u00ear, heter\u00f4s d' ho sid\u00earos hypo t\u00eas\n  h\u00earakleias epispatai lithou; kai h\u00f4s h\u00ea men pros to\n  kenoumenon akolouthia || to kouphoteron helkei proteron,      207\n  h\u00ea de kata t\u00ean t\u00eas poiot\u00eatos oikeiot\u00eata pollakis, ei\n  hout\u00f4s etyche, to baryteron, an t\u00ea physei syngenesteron\n  hyparch\u00ea. kai toinyn kai tais art\u00eariais te kai t\u00ea\n  kardia, h\u00f4s men koilois te kai diastellesthai dynamenois\n  organois, aei to kouphoteron akolouthei proteron, h\u00f4s de\n  trephesthai deomenois, eis autous tous chit\u00f4nas, hoi d\u00ea\n  ta s\u00f4mata t\u00f4n organ\u00f4n eisin, helketai to oikeion. hoson\n  an oun eis t\u00ean koilot\u00eata diastellomen\u00f4n aut\u00f4n haimatos\n  metal\u00eaphth\u00ea, toutou to oikeiotaton te kai malista\n  trephein dynamenon hoi chit\u00f4nes autoi t\u00f4n angei\u00f4n\n  episp\u00f4ntai.\n\n  Tou d' ek t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n eis tas art\u00earias metalambanesthai\n  ti pros tois eir\u00eamenois hikanon kai touto ge tekm\u00earion.\n  ei pollas kai megalas art\u00earias diatem\u00f4n apokteinai to\n  z\u00f4on boul\u00eathei\u00eas, heur\u00easeis autou tas phlebas homoi\u00f4s\n  tais art\u00earias ekkenoumenas, ouk an toutou pote genomenou\n  ch\u00f4ris t\u00f4n pros all\u00ealas autais anastom\u00f4se\u00f4n. h\u00f4saut\u00f4s de\n  kai kat' aut\u00ean t\u00ean kardian ek t\u00eas dexias koilias eis t\u00ean\n  aristeran helketai to lepto||taton echontos tina tr\u00eamata      208\n  tou mesou diaphragmatos aut\u00f4n, ha mechri men pleistou\n  dynaton estin idein, hoion bothynous tinas ex euryterou\n  stomatos aei kai mallon eis stenoteron pro\u00efontas. ou m\u00ean\n  auta ge ta eschata perata dynaton eti theasasthai dia te\n  smikrot\u00eata kai hoti tethne\u00f4tos \u00ead\u00ea tou z\u00f4ou katepsyktai\n  te kai pepykn\u00f4tai panta. all' ho logos kantautha pr\u00f4ton\n  men ek tou m\u00eaden hypo t\u00eas physe\u00f4s gignesthai mat\u00ean\n  horm\u00f4menos exeuriskei tas anastom\u00f4seis tautas t\u00f4n\n  koili\u00f4n t\u00eas kardias; ou gar d\u00ea eik\u00ea ge kai h\u00f4s etychen\n  hoi es stenon hout\u00f4 teleut\u00f4ntes egenonto bothynoi.\n\n  Deuteron de kak tou dyoin ontoin stomatoin en t\u00ea dexia\n  t\u00eas kardias koilia tou men eisagontos to haima, tou d'\n  exagontos poly meizon einai to eisagon. h\u00f4s gar ou\n  pantos tou haimatos, hoson h\u00ea koil\u00ea phleps did\u00f4si t\u00ea\n  kardia, palin ex ekein\u00eas ekpempomenou t\u00f4 pneumoni,\n  meiz\u00f4n estin h\u00ea apo t\u00eas koil\u00eas eis aut\u00ean emphysis t\u00eas\n  emphyomen\u00eas eis ton pneumona phlebos. oude || gar tout'       209\n  estin eipein, h\u00f4s edapan\u00eath\u00ea ti tou haimatos eis t\u00ean\n  autou tou s\u00f4matos t\u00eas kardias threpsin. hetera gar esti\n  phleps h\u00ea eis ekeino kataschizomen\u00ea m\u00eate t\u00ean genesin ek\n  t\u00eas kardias aut\u00eas m\u00eate t\u00ean tou haimatos echousa\n  metal\u00eapsin. ei de kai dapanatai ti, all' ou tosouton ge\n  mei\u00f4n estin h\u00ea eis ton pneumona phleps agousa t\u00eas eis\n  t\u00ean kardian emphyomen\u00eas, hoson eikos eis t\u00ean troph\u00ean\n  an\u00eal\u00f4sthai t\u00eas kardias, alla pleon poll\u00f4. d\u00ealon oun, h\u00f4s\n  eis t\u00ean aristeran ti metalambanetai koilian.\n\n  Kai gar oun kai t\u00f4n kat' ekein\u00ean angei\u00f4n dyoin ont\u00f4n\n  elatton esti poll\u00f4 to ek tou pneumonos eis aut\u00ean eisagon\n  to pneuma t\u00eas ekphyomen\u00eas art\u00earias t\u00eas megal\u00eas, aph' h\u00eas\n  hai kata to s\u00f4ma sympasai pephykasin, h\u00f4s an m\u00ea monon ek\n  tou pneumonos pneuma metalambanous\u00eas aut\u00eas, alla kak t\u00eas\n  dexias koilias haima dia t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n anastom\u00f4se\u00f4n.\n\n  Hoti d' ameinon \u00ean tois tou s\u00f4matos moriois tois men\n  hypo katharou kai leptou kai atm\u00f4dous haimatos\n  trephesthai, tois d' hypo pacheos kai tholerou kai h\u00f4s\n  oud' entautha ti pare\u00f4ratai t\u00ea physei, t\u00eas || peri            210\n  chreias mori\u00f4n pragmateias estin, h\u00f4st' ou chr\u00ea nyn\n  hyper tout\u00f4n eti legein, all' hypomn\u00easantas, h\u00f4s dyo\n  eston holk\u00eas eid\u00ea, t\u00f4n men eureiais hodois en t\u00f4\n  diastellesthai t\u00ea pros to kenoumenon akolouthia t\u00ean\n  helxin poioumen\u00f4n, t\u00f4n d' oikeiot\u00eati poiot\u00eatos, ephex\u00eas\n  legein, h\u00f4s ta men protera kai porrh\u00f4then helkein ti\n  dynatai, ta de deutera ek t\u00f4n engytat\u00f4 mon\u00f4n. auliskon\n  men gar hoti m\u00eakiston eis hyd\u00f4r enesti kathenta rhadi\u00f4s\n  anaspan eis to stoma di' autou to hygron; ou m\u00ean ei g'\n  epi pleon apagagois t\u00eas h\u00earakleias lithou ton sid\u00earon \u00ea\n  tous pyrous tou keramiou--kai gar kai toiouton ti\n  prosthen elegeto paradeigma--dynait' an eti genesthai\n  tis holk\u00ea.\n\n  Saphestata d' an auto mathois epi t\u00f4n en tois k\u00eapois\n  ochet\u00f4n; ek tout\u00f4n gar eis men ta parakeimena kai\n  pl\u00easion hapanta diadidotai tis ikmas, eis de ta\n  porrh\u00f4ter\u00f4 proselthein ouketi dynatai, kai dia tout'\n  anankazontai pollois ochetois mikrois apo tou megalou\n  tetm\u00eamenois eis hekaston meros tou k\u00eapou t\u00ean epirrhysin\n  tou hydatos epitechnasthai; kai t\u00ealikauta ge ta ||            211\n  metaxy diast\u00eamata tout\u00f4n t\u00f4n mikr\u00f4n ochet\u00f4n poiousin,\n  h\u00ealika malista nomizousin arkein eis to hikan\u00f4s\n  apolauein helkonta t\u00eas hekater\u00f4then autois epirrheous\u00eas\n  hygrot\u00eatos. hout\u00f4s oun echei kan tois t\u00f4n z\u00f4\u00f4n s\u00f4masin.\n  ochetoi polloi kata panta ta mel\u00ea diesparmenoi\n  paragousin autois haima kathaper en k\u00eapois hydreian\n  tina. kai tout\u00f4n t\u00f4n ochet\u00f4n ta metaxy diast\u00eamata\n  thaumast\u00f4s hypo t\u00eas physe\u00f4s euthys ex arch\u00eas diatetaktai\n  pros to m\u00eat' ende\u00f4s chor\u00eageisthai tois metaxy moriois\n  helkousin eis heauta to haima m\u00eate kataklyzesthai pot'\n  auta pl\u00eathei peritt\u00eas hygrot\u00eatos akair\u00f4s epirrheous\u00eas.\n\n  Ho gar d\u00ea tropos t\u00eas threpse\u00f4s aut\u00f4n toiosde tis esti.\n  tou synechous heaut\u00f4 s\u00f4matos, hoionper to haploun\n  angeion Erasistratos hypotithetai, ta men epipol\u00eas mer\u00ea\n  pr\u00f4ta t\u00eas homilous\u00eas apolauei troph\u00eas; ek de tout\u00f4n au\n  metalambanei kata to syneches helkonta ta tout\u00f4n hex\u00eas,\n  eit' ex ekein\u00f4n authis hetera kai tout' ou pauetai\n  gignomenon, achris an eis hapant' autou diadoth\u00ea ta\n  moria t\u00eas trephous\u00eas ousias h\u00ea poiot\u00eas. hosa de t\u00f4n\n  mori\u00f4n epi pleon || alloioumenou deitai tou mellontos         212\n  auta threpsein chymou, toutois h\u00f4sper ti tamieion h\u00ea\n  physis pareskeuasen \u00eatoi koilias \u00ea s\u00earangas \u00ea ti tais\n  s\u00earanxin analogon. hai men gar sarkes hai te t\u00f4n\n  splanchn\u00f4n hapant\u00f4n hai te t\u00f4n my\u00f4n ex haimatos autou\n  trephontai bracheian alloi\u00f4sin dexamenou. ta d' osta\n  pampoll\u00eas en t\u00f4 metaxy deitai t\u00eas metabol\u00eas, hina\n  traph\u00ea, kai estin hoionper to haima tais sarxi, toioutos\n  ho myelos tois ostois en men tois mikrois te kai\n  akoiliois kata tas s\u00earangas aut\u00f4n diesparmenos, en de\n  tois meizosi te kai koilias echousin en ekeinais\n  \u00eathroismenos.\n\n  H\u00f4s gar kai dia tou pr\u00f4tou grammatos edeiknyto, tois men\n  homoian echousi t\u00ean ousian eis all\u00eala metaballein\n  ench\u00f4rei, tois de pampoly diest\u00f4sin am\u00eachanon all\u00ealois\n  homoi\u00f4th\u00eanai ch\u00f4ris t\u00f4n en mes\u00f4 metabol\u00f4n. toiouton ti\n  kai tois chondrois esti to perikechymenon myx\u00f4des kai\n  tois syndesmois kai tois hymesi kai tois neurois to\n  paresparmenon en autois hygron glischron; hekaston gar\n  || tout\u00f4n ex in\u00f4n synkeitai poll\u00f4n, haiper homoiomereis       213\n  t' eisi kai ont\u00f4s aisth\u00eata stoicheia. kata de tas metaxy\n  ch\u00f4ras aut\u00f4n ho oikeiotatos eis threpsin parespartai\n  chymos, hon heilkysan men ek t\u00f4n phleb\u00f4n tou haimatos,\n  hoson hoion t' \u00ean eklexamenai ton epit\u00eadeiotaton,\n  exomoiousi de kata brachy kai metaballousin eis t\u00ean\n  heaut\u00f4n ousian.\n\n  Hapant' oun tauta kai all\u00ealois homologei kai tois\n  emprosthen apodedeigmenois hikan\u00f4s martyrei kai ou chr\u00ea\n  m\u00eakynein eti ton logon; ek gar t\u00f4n eir\u00eamen\u00f4n enestin\n  hekast\u00f4 ta kata meros hapanta kath' hontina gignetai\n  tropon exeuriskein hetoim\u00f4s, h\u00f4sper kai dia ti pollois\n  k\u00f4th\u00f4nizomenois pampoly tachista men anadidotai to\n  pothen, oureitai d' oligou dein hapan entos ou pollou\n  chronou. kai gar kantautha t\u00ea te t\u00eas poiot\u00eatos\n  oikeiot\u00eati kai t\u00ea t\u00eas hygrot\u00eatos leptot\u00eati kai t\u00ea t\u00f4n\n  angei\u00f4n te kai t\u00f4n kat' auta stomat\u00f4n euryt\u00eati kai t\u00ea\n  t\u00eas helktik\u00eas dyname\u00f4s eur\u00f4stia to tachos synteleitai\n  t\u00eas anadose\u00f4s, t\u00f4n men pl\u00easion t\u00eas koilias tetagmen\u00f4n\n  mori\u00f4n oikeiot\u00eati poiot\u00eatos || heaut\u00f4n heneka helkont\u00f4n       214\n  to poma, t\u00f4n d' hex\u00eas toutois exarpazont\u00f4n kai aut\u00f4n eis\n  heauta kapeita t\u00f4n ephex\u00eas palin ek tout\u00f4n\n  metalambanont\u00f4n, achris an eis t\u00ean koil\u00ean aphik\u00eatai\n  phleba, tounteuthen d' \u00ead\u00ea t\u00f4n nephr\u00f4n to oikeion\n  episp\u00f4men\u00f4n. h\u00f4st' ouden thaumaston oinon men hydatos\n  analambanesthai thatton oikeiot\u00eati poiot\u00eatos, auton de\n  ton oinon ton men leukon kai katharon hetoim\u00f4s\n  anadidosthai dia leptot\u00eata, ton d' au melana kai\n  tholeron ischesthai te kata t\u00ean hodon kai bradynein hypo\n  pachous.\n\n  Ei\u00ea d' an tauta kai t\u00f4n hyper t\u00f4n art\u00eari\u00f4n emprosthen\n  eir\u00eamen\u00f4n ou smikra martyria. pantachou gar hoson\n  oikeion te kai lepton haima tou m\u00ea toioutou rhaon\n  hepetai tois helkousin. atmon oun helkousai kai pneuma\n  kai lepton haima kata tas diastaseis hai art\u00eariai t\u00f4n\n  kata t\u00ean koilian kai ta entera periechomen\u00f4n chym\u00f4n \u00ea\n  oud' hol\u00f4s \u00ea pantapasin episp\u00f4ntai brachy.\n\n\n    [299] \"Of food to feeder,\" _i.e._ of the environment to\n    the organism. _cf._ p. 39, chap. xi.\n\n    [300] \"Drawing\"; _cf._ p. 116, note 2 (168).\n\n    [301] For these terms (_prosthesis_ and _prosphysis_ in\n    Greek) _cf._ p. 39, notes 5 (66) and 6 (67).\n\n    [302] Lit. \"through the _energizing_ (or _functioning_)\n    of the attractive faculty\"; the faculty ([Greek:\n    dynamis]) _in operation_ is an activity ([Greek:\n    energeia]). _cf._ p. 3, note 2 (6).\n\n    [303] This chapter is an excellent example of Galen's\n    method of reasoning _a priori_. The complementary\n    inductive method, however, is employed in the next\n    chapter. _cf._ p. 209, note 1 (288).\n\n    [304] The deductive.\n\n    [305] The _logos_ is the argument or \"theory\" arrived\n    at by the process of [Greek: logik\u00ea the\u00f4ria] or\n    \"theorizing\"; _cf._ p. 151, note 3 (214); p. 205, note 1\n    (282).\n\n    [306] The Greek words for the uterus (_m\u00eatrae_ and\n    _hysterae_) probably owe their plural form to the belief\n    that the organ was bicornuate in the human, as it is in\n    some of the lower species.\n\n    [307] Note this expression. For Galen's views on the\n    origin of species, _cf._ Introduction, p. xxxi.,\n    footnote (3).\n\n    [308] Herophilus of Chalcedon (_circa_ 300 B.C.) was,\n    like Erasistratus, a representative of the anatomical\n    school of Alexandria. His book on Midwifery was known\n    for centuries. _cf._ Introduction, p. xii.\n\n    [309] Relaxation of utero-sacral ligaments as an\n    important predisposing cause of prolapsus uteri.\n\n    [310] That is, at the end of the first stage of labour.\n\n    [311] The pylorus.\n\n    [312] \"Chylosis,\" chylification. _cf._ p. 240, note 1\n    (314).\n\n    [313] Lit. barley-\"chyle,\" _i.e._ barley-water.\n\n    [314] _i.e._ not the mere mechanical breaking down of\n    food, but a distinctively vital action of \"alteration.\"\n\n    [315] _Pepsis._\n\n    [316] Book I., chaps. x., xi.\n\n    [317] _cf._ p. 222, note 1 (299).\n\n    [318] _Choledochous_.\n\n    [319] More exactly _peristol\u00e9_; _cf._ p. 97, note 1\n    (146).\n\n    [320] Neuburger says of Erasistratus that \"dissection\n    had taught him to think in terms of anatomy.\" It was\n    chiefly the gross movements or structure of organs with\n    which he concerned himself. Where an organ had no\n    obvious function, he dubbed it \"useless\"; _e.g._ the\n    spleen (_cf._ p. 143).\n\n    [321] _i.e._ contracting and dilating; no longitudinal\n    movements involved; _cf._ p. 263, note 2 (341).\n\n    [322] _cf._ p. 282, note 1 (356).\n\n    [323] Book II., chaps. ii. and viii.\n\n    [324] Note use of psychological terms in biology. _cf._\n    also p. 133, note 3 (191).\n\n    [325] \"In everything.\" _cf._ p. 66, note 3 (104).\n\n    [326] Galen confuses the nutrition of organs with that\n    of the ultimate living elements or cells; the stomach\n    does not, of course, feed itself in the way a cell does.\n    _cf._ Introduction, p. xxxii.\n\n    [327] _cf._ Asclepiades's theory regarding the urine, p.\n    51.\n\n    [328] The process of _application_ or _prosthesis_.\n    _cf._ p. 223, note 3 (301).\n\n    [329] Mutual influence of organism and environment.\n\n    [330] Qualitative change. _cf._ Book I., chap. ii.\n\n    [331] Apparently skin-diseases in which a superficial\n    crust (resembling the lichen on a tree-trunk)\n    forms--_e.g._ psoriasis.\n\n    [332] Note especially pneuma and innate heat, which\n    practically stand for oxygen and the heat generated in\n    oxidation. _cf._ p. 41, note 3 (70).\n\n    [333] Book I., chap. x.\n\n    [334] That is to say, faeces are obviously altered food.\n    This alteration cannot have taken place entirely in the\n    small intestine: therefore alteration of food must take\n    place in the stomach.\n\n    [335] _cf._ p. 39.\n\n    [336] Asclepiades held that there was no such thing as\n    real qualitative change; the food was merely broken up\n    into its constituent molecules, and absorbed unaltered.\n    _cf._ p. 49, note 5 (82).\n\n    [337] _i.e._ denial of forethought in the Physis.\n\n    [338] _v._ p. 9, _et passim_.\n\n    [339] _cf._ p. 97.\n\n    [340] It appears to me, from comparison between this and\n    other passages in Galen's writings (notably _Use of\n    Parts_, iv., 8), that he means by the \"two coats\" simply\n    the mucous and the muscular coats. In this case the\n    \"straight\" or \"longitudinal\" fibres of the inner coat\n    would be the _rugae_; the \"circular\" fibres of the inner\n    intestinal coat would be the _valvulae conniventes_.\n\n    [341] The term here rendered _peristalsis_ is\n    _peristol\u00e9_ in Greek; it is applied only to the\n    intermittent movements of muscles placed circularly\n    round a lumen or cavity, and comprehends _systol\u00e9_ or\n    contraction and _diastol\u00e9_ or dilatation. In its modern\n    significance, _peristalsis_, however, also includes the\n    movements of _longitudinal_ fibres. _cf._ p. 97, note 1\n    (146).\n\n    [342] _i.e._ those containing non-striped or\n    \"involuntary\" muscle fibres; organs governed by the\n    \"natural\" pneuma; _cf._ p. 186, note 3 (265).\n\n    [343] By this term is meant only what we should call the\n    \"voluntary\" muscles.\n\n    [344] _cf._ p. 97.\n\n    [345] For \"symptom,\" _cf._ p. 13, and p. 12, note 3\n    (24). \"Transitum namque materiae per angustum corpus id\n    accidens consequitur\" (Linacre). Less a \"result\" or\n    \"consequence\" than an \"accompaniment.\"\n\n    [346] _i.e._ this is a purely mechanical process.\n\n    [347] _i.e._. this phenomenon is a proof neither of\n    _peristol\u00e9_ nor of attraction. _cf._ p. 97, note 2\n    (147).\n\n    [348] Contraction and dilatation of course being\n    reversed.\n\n    [349] The _channa_ is a kind of sea-perch; \"a species of\n    _Serranus_, either _S. scriba_ or _S. cabrilla_\" (D'Arcy\n    W. Thompson). _cf._ Aristotle's _Nat. Hist._ (D'Arcy\n    Thompson's edition, Oxford, 1910), IV., xi., 538 A, 20.\n    The _synodont_ \"is not to be identified with certainty,\n    but is supposed to be _Dentex vulgaris_,\" that is, an\n    edible Mediterranean perch. \"It is not the stomach,\"\n    adds Prof. Thompson, \"but the air-bladder that gets\n    everted and hangs out of the mouth in fishes, especially\n    when they are hauled in from a considerable depth.\"\n    _cf._ _H. A._, VIII., ii., 591 B, 5.\n\n    [350] Under the term \"neura,\" tendons were often\n    included as well as nerves. Similarly in modern Dutch\n    the word _zenuw_ (\"sinew\") means both a tendon and a\n    nerve; _zenuwachtig_ = \"nervous.\"\n\n    [351] Rather than the alternative reading, [Greek: ton\n    es\u00f4then chit\u00f4na]. Galen apparently supposes that the\n    outer coat will not be damaged, as the cuts will pass\n    _between_ its fibres. These cuts would be, presumably,\n    short ones, at various levels, no single one of them\n    involving the whole circumference of the gullet.\n\n    [352] _cf._ p. 205.\n\n    [353] Thus Galen elsewhere calls the spleen a mere\n    _emunctory_ ([Greek: ekmageion]) of the liver. _cf._ p.\n    214, note 1 (295).\n\n    [354] _cf._ p. 269.\n\n    [355] The urinary bladders of pigs (such as Galen\n    dissected) are thin, and appear to have only one coat.\n\n    [356] _cf._ p. 243.\n\n    [357] My suggestion is that Galen refers to (1) the\n    _mucous_ coat, with its _valvulae conniventes_, and (2)\n    the _muscular_ coat, of which the chief layer is made up\n    of circular fibres. _cf._ p. 262, note 1 (340).\n\n    [358] Or _utility_.\n\n    [359] Relationship between physiology and pathology\n    again emphasized. _cf._ p. 188, note 2 (267).\n\n    [360] Or physicist--the investigator of the Physis or\n    Nature. _cf._ p. 196, note 2 (274). Note here the use of\n    analogical reasoning. _cf._ p. 113, note 2 (166).\n\n    [361] _cf._ p. 95.\n\n    [362] I. xiii.; II. ii.\n\n    [363] Galen's idea is that if reversal of the direction\n    of flow can occur in the _primae viae_ (in vomiting), it\n    may also be expected to occur in the _secundae viae_ or\n    absorptive channels.\n\n    [364] For this \"delivery,\" \"up-yield,\" or _anadosis_,\n    _v._ p. 13, note 5 (26).\n\n    [365] The mesenteric veins.\n\n    [366] Linacre renders: \"Una omnium confluxio ac\n    conspiratio\"; and he adds the marginal note \"Totum\n    corpus nostrum est conspirabile et confluxile per meatus\n    communes.\" _cf._ p. 48.\n\n    [367] The alimentary canal, as not being edible, is not\n    considered a _splanchnon_ or viscus.\n\n    [368] Lit. _rheums_; hence our term _rheumatism_.\n\n    [369] Here Galen apparently indicates that vital\n    functions are at least partly explicable in terms of\n    mechanical law. _cf._ Introduction, p. xxviii.\n\n    [370] _cf._ pp. 211, 247.\n\n    [371] See p. 298, note 1 (369).\n\n    [372] The ends of the veins in the alimentary canal from\n    which absorption or _anadosis_ had originally taken\n    place.\n\n    [373] _Diathesis_.\n\n    [374] _Diathesis_.\n\n    [375] _Pathos_.\n\n    [376] He means, not only under the stress of special\n    circumstances, but also normally.\n\n    [377] Lit. \"rough artery.\" The air-passages as well as\n    the arteries proper were supposed by the Greeks to carry\n    air (pneuma); diastole of arteries was, like expansion\n    of the chest, a movement for drawing in air. _cf._ p.\n    317, note 1 (390).\n\n    [378] _cf._ p. 39, chap. xi.\n\n    [379] Lit. _orexis_.\n\n    [380] Lit. a \"physical\" organ; that is, a mere\n    instrument or organon of the Physis,--not one of the\n    Psyche or conscious personality. _cf._ semen, p. 132,\n    note 1 (189).\n\n    [381] _cf._ p. 317, note 2 (391); p. 319, chap. xv.\n\n    [382] Note that absorption takes place from the stomach\n    as well as the intestines. _cf._ p. 118, note 1 (171).\n\n    [383] That is, among the ultimate tissues or cells.\n\n    [384] Pp. 205-9.\n\n    [385] By this term, of course, the air-passages are also\n    meant; _cf._ p. 305.\n\n    [386] _cf._ p. 34, note 1 (57).\n\n    [387] _cf._ p. 121, note 4 (177).\n\n    [388] Pulmonary vein, or rather, left auricle. Galen\n    means a reflux through the mitral orifice; the left\n    auricle was looked on rather as the termination of the\n    pulmonary veins than as a part of the heart. _cf._ p.\n    323, note 4 (403). He speaks here of a kind of\n    \"physiological\" mitral incompetence.\n\n    [389] _Horror vacui._\n\n    [390] _cf._ p. 305, note 2 (377).\n\n    [391] _cf._ p. 308, note 1 (381).\n\n    [392] The \"mechanical\" principle of _horror vacui_\n    contrasted with the \"physical\" or semi-physiological\n    principle of specific attraction. _Appropriateness_ here\n    might almost be rendered _affinity_ or _kinship_. _cf_.\n    note 2 (393), _infra_.\n\n    [393] \"Related,\" \"akin.\" _cf._ p. 36, note 2 (61).\n\n    [394] The coats exercise the _vital_ traction, the\n    cavities the merely _mechanical_. _cf_. p. 165, note 2\n    (232).\n\n    [395] Chap. xiv.\n\n    [396] These fossae were probably the recesses between\n    the _columnae carnae_.\n\n    [397] On _logos_ _cf._ p. 226, note 2 (305).\n\n    [398] He means the tricuspid orifice. _cf._ p. 121, note\n    4 (177).\n\n    [399] The right auricle was looked on less as a part of\n    the heart than as an expansion or \"insertion\" of the\n    vena cava.\n\n    [400] This \"vein\" (really the pulmonary artery) was\n    supposed to be the channel by which the lungs received\n    nutriment from the right heart. _cf._ p. 121, note 3\n    (176).\n\n    [401] The coronary vein.\n\n    [402] Galen's conclusion, of course, is, so far,\n    correct, but he has substituted an imaginary direct\n    communication between the ventricles for the actual and\n    more roundabout pulmonary circulation, of whose\n    existence he apparently had no idea. His views were\n    eventually corrected by the Renascence anatomists. _cf._\n    Introduction, pp. xxii.-xxiii.\n\n    [403] He means the left auricle, considered as the\n    termination of the pulmonary \"arteries\"; _cf._ p. 314,\n    note 3 (388).\n\n    [404] The aorta, its orifice being circular, appears\n    bigger than the slit-like mitral orifice.\n\n    [405] p. 87.\n\n    [406] Or we may render it \"corpuscle\"; Galen practically\n    means the _cell_. _cf._ p. 153, note 2 (216).\n\n    [407] _cf._ the term \"cavernous tissue.\"\n\n    [408] I. x.\n\n    [409] Lit. _homoeomerous_, _i.e._ \"the same all\n    through,\" of similar structure throughout, the\n    _elements_ of living matter, _cf._ p. 20, note 3 (38),\n    and _cf._ also the \"cell\" of Erasistratus, p. 153.\n\n    [410] \"Delivered,\" \"dispersed\"; _cf._ p. 13, note 5\n    (26).\n\n\n\n\n  INDEX AND GLOSSARY\n\n  (The numbers refer to the pages of the present edition;\n  fuller references will be found in the footnotes.)\n\n\n  Abortifacient drugs, 285\n\n  Abortion, 231, 285\n\n  Absorption from digestive tract (_v. Anadosis_)\n\n  Acidity of urine, 245, 287\n\n  Activity (function), 13\n\n  Adhesion (prosphysis) of nutriment to tissues, 39\n\n  Affinity, 33\n\n  Alimentary canal, 119, 309\n      coats of, 23, 263\n\n  Allopathic treatment, 199\n\n  Alteration (qualitative change), 7, 9, 241, 251\n\n  Anadosis (absorption from digestive tract), 63, 119\n\n  An\u00e6mia, 173\n\n  Anasarca (dropsy), 41\n\n  Anastomoses (communications between arteries and veins), 321\n\n  Anaxagoras, \"preformationist\" doctrine of, 7\n\n  Ancient writers, value of, 279\n\n  Animal life, 3\n\n  Animals (_v._ also _History, Natural_)\n      cold-blooded, 181\n      long-necked, 275\n\n  Anorexia (want of appetite), 247\n\n  Aorta (main artery of body), 143, 323\n\n  Appetite, 249\n\n  Aristotle, 9, _et passim_ (_v._ also _Peripatetic School_)\n\n  Arrows, drugs for extracting heads of, 83\n\n  \"Art\" of Nature (_i.e._ of the living organism), 57\n\n  Arteries, structure of, 283\n      to-and-fro motion in, 313\n      attraction of air by, through skin, 317\n\n  Artery, pulmonary, 121, 323\n\n  Artificer, 133\n\n  Asclepiades, 49, _et passim_\n\n  Asepsis (absence of corruption), 201\n\n  Assimilation, 33\n\n  Asthenia (weakness), 239\n\n  Atomist School in Medicine, 45\n\n  Atrabiliary (melancholic) humour, 209\n\n  Attraction (_v._ also _Horror vacui_)\n      physiological, 45\n      magnetic, 73\n\n  Auricle, left, of heart, 315\n      right, of heart, 321\n\n  Authority, value of, 279\n\n  Aversion, 249\n\n\n  Baking, 259\n\n  Beauty, 47\n\n  Bile, yellow, 63, 123, 177, 191, 289\n      \"vitelline,\" 209\n      black, 203 (_v._ also _Melancholic humour_)\n\n  Bile-passages, mechanical blocking of, 171\n\n  Biliousness, 193\n\n  Biology, repudiation of, by Atomist School, 45\n\n  Bladder, urinary, 51, 53, _et passim_\n      for bile (_v. Gall-bladder_)\n\n  Blood-production, 17, 169, 183, 191, 201\n\n  Boiling, 259\n\n  Boils, 253\n\n  Bone, structure of, 327\n\n  Bone-marrow, 327\n\n  Borborygmi (gurglings) in stomach, 237\n\n  Bread, constitution of, 11\n\n  Bubo (swollen lymphatic glands in groin), 185\n\n  Butchers (as the primitive anatomists), 51\n\n\n  Cadaver (corpse), experiment on, 265\n\n  Cartilage (gristle), 329\n\n  Catarrh (mucous discharge), 215\n\n  Cattle (as typifying \"herd-morality\"), 47\n\n  \"Cell,\" of animal tissues, 153\n      nutrition of, 327\n\n  Change, qualitative (_v. Alteration_)\n\n  Channels (_v. Morphological hypothesis_)\n\n  Cheese-making, 91\n\n  Childbirth, 231, 285\n\n  Children's game, 27\n\n  Chill, 171, 203 (_v._ also _Cold_)\n\n  Cholagogues (drugs that draw off bile), 65\n\n  Cholera, 299\n\n  Chorion (membrane enclosing unborn child), 229\n\n  Chrysippus, 9\n\n  Chyle (emulsified contents of stomach), (_v. Emulsification_)\n\n  Cirrhosis (induration) of liver, 171\n\n  Coats (tunics), 23\n\n  Cold, action of, on skin, 301\n\n  Cold-in-the-head, 215 (_v._ also _Chill_)\n\n  Colon (large intestine), 313\n\n  Colour, 5\n\n  Conception, of semen, 233\n\n  Congius (measure), 111\n\n  Contractions (_v. Peristalsis_)\n\n  Cooking, 191\n\n  Corn, attractive power of, 87\n\n  Coryza (mucous discharge: now a \"cold\"), 215\n\n  Crisis, 75\n\n  Cyathus (measure), 65\n\n\n  Decay, 7\n\n  Deductive reasoning, 227\n\n  Deglutition (swallowing), 95, 261, 265, 273\n\n  Democritus, 153\n\n  Deposits (in tissues), 297\n\n  Desire (appetite), 249, 269\n\n  Destruction (act of perishing), 7\n\n  Diaphragm (midriff), 255\n\n  Diarrhoea, 247, 299\n\n  Diet, 35, 179, 255\n\n  Digestion, cause of, 243\n      impairment of, 185, 217, 237\n\n  Digestive tract, action on food, 251, _et seq._\n      structure (_v. Alimentary Canal_)\n\n  Diocles, 51\n\n  Disease, definition of, 197\n\n  Diseases, the four primary, 185\n\n  Disjunctive argument, 167\n\n  Distribution (diadosis) of nutriment to tissues, 163\n\n  Dropsy, 41, 67, 171\n\n  Drugs, 65, 285, 293 (_v._ also _Poisons_)\n\n  Dyscrasia (abnormal blending of the four qualities), 189\n\n  Dysentery, 205\n\n  Dyspepsia (_v. Indigestion_)\n\n\n  Education, 279\n\n  Effect (product, work done), 13\n\n  Emaciation, 161\n\n  Emanations, 77\n\n  Embryo, 229\n\n  Emesis (_v. Vomiting_)\n\n  Empiricist physicians, 69, 193\n\n  Emulsification, 239\n\n  Epicurus, 71\n\n  Epigastric muscles, 237\n\n  Epispastic (attractive), 117\n\n  Erasistratus, 95\n\n  Erasistrateans, 105\n\n  Etna, 259\n\n  Eucrasia (proper blending of the four qualities), 189\n\n  Evaporation, 51, 87, 251\n\n  Experience (_v. Empiricist physicians_)\n\n  Expulsive faculty, 231\n\n\n  Faculty (potentiality), 13\n\n  F\u00e6ces (ordure from bowel), 255\n\n  Fermentation, 209\n\n  Fever as a cause of indigestion, 185\n\n  Fibres, 329\n      of blood, 215\n      circular and longitudinal, 263\n      oblique, 281\n\n  Filtration, 91\n\n  Fish, voraciousness of, 269\n\n  Flavour, 5\n\n  Fluxions, 297\n\n  Foetus (unborn child), 233\n      death of, 287\n\n  Forced-feeding, 247\n\n  Forces, material, 127, 301\n\n  Function (activity), cause of, 197\n\n\n  Gall-bladder, 147, 245\n      absence of nerves in, 289\n\n  Gardens, irrigation of, 325\n\n  Genesis (development of embryo), 19\n\n  Germander (drug), 67\n\n  Gestation (carrying of embryo by mother), 229\n\n  Give-and-take between organs, 295\n\n  Gravity (explaining secretion of urine), 107\n\n  Greediness, 271\n\n  Growth, 27, 137\n\n  Gullet, 263\n      use of, by stomach, 271\n      function of its two coats, 273\n\n  Gurgling in stomach, 237\n\n\n  Habit of body, 69\n\n  H\u00e6morrhage, intestinal, 297\n\n  H\u00e6morrhoids (_v. Piles_)\n\n  Heartburn, 287\n\n  Heat, innate, 41, 141, 185\n\n  Hepatic veins (entering vena cava from liver), 147\n\n  Herophilus, 233\n\n  Hippocrates, 9, _et passim_\n\n  Histogenesis (tissue-production), 21\n\n  History, natural, 269\n\n  Homoeomeries (similar parts), 169\n\n  Homoeopathy, p. 199, Note 1 (276)\n\n  Honey, 179, 191\n\n  Horror vacui (\"Nature's abhorrence of a vacuum\"), 99, 155\n\n  Humours, the four, origin of, 167, 183, 209\n\n  Hydragogues (drugs that draw water out of the system), 65\n\n\n  Ileus volvulus (obstruction of bowels), 299, 303\n\n  Illusions, sensory, 7\n\n  Indigestion, 185, 217, 237\n\n  Inductive reasoning, 227\n\n  Inflammation, 89, 233\n\n  Interaction of any two bodies, 251\n\n  Intestine, small, 255\n\n  Intestines, structure of, 283\n      movements of, 243\n\n  Ionia, 29\n\n  Iron, 71\n\n  Irrigation of gardens and tissues, 325\n\n\n  Jaundice, 179, 207\n\n  Jejunum (part of small intestine), 299\n\n\n  Kidneys, 49, 89\n\n\n  Labour (_v. Childbirth_)\n\n  Larynx (voice-box), involved in swallowing, 265\n\n  Leprosy, 41\n\n  Leucippus, 153\n\n  Lichen (a skin-disease), 253\n\n  Liver, proper tissue of, 311\n      transverse fissure of, 147\n      induration of, 171\n      give-and-take between it and stomach, 291\n\n  Lodestone, 71\n\n  Love, 47\n\n  Lumen (internal cavity of a vessel), 119\n\n  Lycus, 109\n\n\n  Magnetism, 71\n\n  Marrow of bones, 327\n\n  Mastication, 253\n\n  Material forces, 127\n\n  Medicine, taking of, 269 (_v._ also _Drugs_)\n\n  Melancholic (_v. Atrabiliary_)\n\n  Membranes, foetal, 231, 285 (_v._ also _Chorion_)\n\n  Menander, 105\n\n  Menodotus, 81\n\n  Menstrual blood, 131, 171\n\n  Metabolism, diseases of, 41\n\n  Midwife, 235\n\n  Miscarriage, (_v. Abortion_)\n\n  Molecules (of Asclepiades), 63\n\n  Morphological hypothesis of bile-secretion, 125, 147\n\n  Motion, active and passive, 57\n\n  Mouth, lining of, 261\n      digestion in, 253\n\n  Mucus, 203, 215\n\n  Muscles, voluntary, 263\n\n\n  \"Nature,\" 2;\n      its \"Art,\" 57\n\n  Nature-lore (_v. Physiology_)\n\n  Nausea, 287\n\n  \"Nerve,\" 151, 273\n\n  Nutriment, 41\n\n  Nutrition, 31, 149\n\n\n  Obstetric chair, 235\n\n  Obstruction of bowels, 299, 303\n\n  Oesophagus (_v. Gullet_)\n\n  Omentum (an apron-like fold of fat, overlying the intestine), 143,\n    255, 313\n\n  Organism, unity of, 61\n\n  Organs, nutrition of, 307\n\n  Os uteri (mouth of womb), 229\n\n  Ovum, human, 135\n\n  Oxidation, 211\n\n  Oxygen (_v. Pneuma_)\n\n\n  Pain, 287\n\n  Parturition, 231\n\n  Pathology, relation to Physiology, 189, 287\n\n  Peasants, 87\n\n  Perch (_v. Fish_)\n\n  Peripatetic (Aristotelian) School, 139\n\n  Peristalsis (contraction and dilatation), 97, 243, 263\n\n  Peritoneum, 53\n\n  Phidias, 129\n\n  Philistion, 173\n\n  Philotimus, 183\n\n  Phlegm, 67, 201, 215\n\n  Phlegmatic temperament, 193\n\n  \"Physiology,\" 139\n\n  Piles, 171\n\n  Plant-life, 3\n\n  Plato, 173, 203, 215\n\n  Plethora (congestion), 119\n\n  Pneuma (as a vital principle), 153;\n      (as oxygen), 187\n\n  Poisons, action of, 251\n\n  Porch, the (Stoic School), 145\n\n  \"Pores\" (_v. Channels_)\n\n  Portal vein, 147\n\n  Potter's earth, 213\n\n  Practitioner, 197\n\n  Praxagoras, 51\n\n  Praxiteles, 129\n\n  \"Preformationist\" doctrine of Anaxagoras, p. 7, Note 5 (14)\n\n  Presentation (prosthesis) of nutriment to tissues, 39\n\n  Prevention and Cure, 169\n\n  Principles, the four fundamental (_v. Qualities_)\n\n  Prodicus, 201\n\n  Prolapse of uterus, 235\n\n  Propulsive faculty, 231\n\n  Prosphysis (_v. Adhesion_)\n\n  Prosthesis (_v. Presentation_)\n\n  Psyche, 3, 153\n\n  Psychology, repudiation of, by Atomist School, 45\n\n  Pulmonary artery, 121\n\n  Pylorus (outlet of stomach), 239\n      regurgitation through, 289\n\n  Pyrrhonists (typical sceptics), 197\n\n\n  Qualities, the four fundamental, 9, 183, 259\n      derivative, 21\n\n\n  Relativity, 17\n\n  Renal veins, 107\n\n  Respiration, 175, 305\n\n  Retentive faculty, 225\n\n  Rhetoric, 97\n\n\n  Safflower (drug), 67\n\n  Saliva, action of, 253\n\n  Scammony (drug), 67\n\n  Schools, two contrasted, in Medicine, 45\n\n  Scientist, 197\n\n  Scorpions, 253\n\n  Sculpture, 129\n\n  Sectarianism, 55\n\n  Sects, medical (_v. Schools_)\n\n  Self-control, 47\n\n  Self-education, 279\n\n  Semen, 131, 233\n\n  Sensation, 47\n\n  Septum, perforated, between ventricles of heart, 321\n\n  Serum (watery part of blood or milk), 91, 213\n\n  Shaping (development of organs), 19\n\n  Sieves, 91\n\n  Skin-diseases, 253 (_v._ also _Leprosy_ and _Lichens_)\n\n  Slaves, 103\n\n  Sociability, 47\n\n  Sophistry, 219, 279\n\n  Sophists, 7\n\n  Soul, 45\n\n  Specific selection of nutriment by tissues (_v. Attraction,\n    physiological_)\n\n  Spermatic ducts, 57\n\n  Spirit (_v. Pneuma_)\n\n  Spleen, function and diseases of, 205\n      \"uselessness\" of, 143\n      as an emunctory of the liver, 277\n\n  Statues, 129\n\n  Sting-ray (fish), bite of, 85\n\n  Stoics, 15, 145\n\n  Stomach, function of, 197, 237, 251, 255\n      coats of, 261\n      independent habits of, 271\n      give-and-take between it and liver, 291\n\n  Stone in bladder, 51\n\n  Strength, relative, of different organs, 293\n\n  Substance, 9\n\n  Superfluities (waste-substances), 35, 291\n\n  Swallowing (_v. Deglutition_)\n\n  Symptoms, 13\n\n  Synapse, 147\n\n\n  Teeth, 253\n\n  Temperament (crasis, mixture of elementary principles), 15, 139, 193\n\n  Temperance, 47\n\n  Theophrastus, 139\n\n  Thorns, drugs for extracting, 83\n\n  Tissues, development of, 21\n      their action in producing humours, 179, 195\n\n  Trachea (windpipe), 305\n\n  Transference (passive motion), 7\n\n  Transpiration, 153\n\n  Treatment, principles of, 199\n\n  Tricuspid orifice of heart, 321\n\n  Tubes, rigid, 119, 317, 325\n\n\n  Unity of organism, 61\n\n  Ureters, 23, 51\n\n  Urine, 51\n\n  \"Useless\" organs (Erasistratus), 143\n\n  Uterus (womb), 227\n\n\n  Vacuum, tendency to refill (_v. Horror vacui_)\n\n  Valves of heart, 121, 315\n\n  Vaporisation (_v. Evaporation_)\n\n  Vegetable diet, 35, 179\n\n  Vegetative life, 3\n\n  Veins, structure of, 283\n      \"arterial\" (_v. Pulmonary artery_)\n      coronary, 323\n      hepatic, 147\n      mesenteric, 293, 305\n      portal, 147\n      renal, 107, 143\n      vena cava (chief vein of body), 91\n      collapse of, 119\n\n  Ventricles of heart, communication between, 321\n\n  Vipers, 85\n\n  Vitalist School in Medicine, 45\n\n  Vivisection, 59, 241, 273\n\n  Voluntary motion, 3\n\n  Volvulus (intestinal obstruction), 299, 303\n\n  Vomiting, 241, 247, 267\n      f\u00e6cal, 299\n\n\n  Waste-products (_v. Superfluities_)\n\n  Whey (_v. Serum_)\n\n  Wine, 209, 329\n\n  Womb (_v. Uterus_)\n\n  Wounds, 185\n\n  Wrestling, 125\n\n\n  Zeno, of Citium, 9","title":"Galen: On the Natural Faculties","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":94299}