12. It is quite clear, therefore, that nutrition must necessarily be a process of assimilation of that which is nourishing to that which is being nourished. Some, however, say that this assimilation does not occur in reality, but is merely apparent; these are the people who think that Nature is not artistic, that she does not show forethought for the animal's welfare, and that she has absolutely no native powers whereby she alters some substances, attracts others, and discharges others. Now, speaking generally, there have arisen the following two sects in medicine and philosophy among those who have made any definite pronouncement regarding Nature. I speak, of course, of such of them as know what they are talking about, and who realize the logical sequence of their hypotheses, and stand by them; as for those who cannot understand even this, but who simply talk any nonsense that comes to their tongues, and who do not remain definitely attached either to one sect or the other — such people are not even worth mentioning. What, then, are these sects, and what are the logical consequences of their hypotheses? The one class supposes that all substance which is subject to genesis and destruction is at once continuous and susceptible of alteration. The other school assumes substance to be unchangeable, unalterable, and subdivided into fine particles, which are separated from one another by empty spaces. All people, therefore, who can appreciate the logical sequence of an hypothesis hold that, according to the second teaching, there does not exist any substance or faculty peculiar either to Nature or to Soul, but that these result from the way in which the primary corpuscles, which are unaffected by change, come together. According to the first-mentioned teaching, on the other hand, Nature is not posterior to the corpuscles, but is a long way prior to them and older than they; and therefore in their view it is Nature which puts together the bodies both of plants and animals; and this she does by virtue of certain faculties which she possesses — these being, on the one hand, attractive and assimilative of what is appropriate, and, on the other, explusive of what is foreign. Further, she skilfully moulds everything during the stage of genesis; and she also provides for the creatures after birth, employing here other faculties again, namely, one of affection and forethought for offspring, and one of sociability and friendship for kindred. According to the other school, none of these things exist in the natures [of living things], nor is there in the soul any original innate idea, whether of agreement or difference, of separation or synthesis, of justice or injustice, of the beautiful or ugly; all such things, they say, arise in us from sensation and through sensation, and animals are steered by certain images and memories. Some of these people have even expressly declared that the soul possesses no reasoning faculty, but that we are led like cattle by the impression of our senses, and are unable to refuse or dissent from anything. In their view, obviously, courage, wisdom, temperance, and self-control are all mere nonsense, we do not love either each other or our offspring, nor do the gods care anything for us. This school also despises dreams, birds, omens, and the whole of astrology, subjects with which we have dealt at greater length in another work, in which we discuss the views of Asclepiades the physician. Those who wish to do so may familiarize themselves with these arguments, and they may also consider at this point which of the two roads lying before us is the better one to take. Hippocrates took the first-mentioned. According to this teaching, substance is one and is subject to alteration; there is a consensus in the movements of air and fluid throughout the whole body; Nature acts throughout in an artistic and equitable manner, having certain faculties, by virtue of which each part of the body draws to itself the juice which is proper to it, and, having done so, attaches it to every portion of itself, and completely assimilates it; while such part of the juice as has not been mastered, and is not capable of undergoing complete alteration and being assimilated to the part which is being nourished, is got rid of by yet another (an expulsive) faculty.
12. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαῖον ὁμοίωσίν τινʼ εἶναι τοῦ τρέφοντος τῷ τρεφομένῳ τὴν θρέψιν, ἄντικρυς δῆλον. οὐ μὴν ὑπάρχουσάν γε ταύτην τὴν ὁμοίωσιν, ἀλλὰ φαινομένην μόνον εἶναί φασιν οἱ μήτε τεχνικὴν οἰόμενοι τὴν φύσιν εἶναι μήτε προνοητικὴν τοῦ ζῴου μήθʼ ὅλως τινὰς οἰκείας ἔχειν δυνάμεις, αἷς χρωμένη τὰ μὲν ἀλλοιοῖ, τὰ δʼ ἕλκει, τὰ δʼ ἐκκρίνει. καὶ αὗται δύο γεγόνασιν αἱρέσεις κατὰ γένος ἐν ἰατρικῇ τε καὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ τῶν ἀποφηναμένων τι περὶ φύσεως ἀνδρῶν, ὅσοι γʼ αὐτῶν γιγνώσκουσιν, ὅ τι λέγουσι, καὶ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ὧν ὑπέθεντο θεωροῦσι θʼ ἅμα καὶ διαφυλάττουσιν. ὅσοι δὲ μηδʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο συνιᾶσιν, ἀλλʼ ἁπλῶς, ὅ τι ἂν ἐπὶ γλῶτταν ἔλθῃ, ληροῦσιν, ἐν οὐδετέρᾳ τῶν αἱρέσεων ἀκριβῶς καταμένοντες, οὐδὲ μεμνῆσθαι τῶν τοιούτων προσήκει. τίνες οὖν αἱ δύο αἱρέσεις αὗται καὶ τίς ἡ τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς ὑποθέσεων ἀκολουθία; τὴν ὑποβεβλημένην οὐσίαν γενέσει καὶ φθορᾷ πᾶσαν ἡνωμένην θʼ ἅμα καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι δυναμένην ὑπέθετο θάτερον γένος τῆς αἱρέσεως, ἀμετάβλητον δὲ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον καὶ κατατετμημένην εἰς λεπτὰ καὶ κεναῖς ταῖς μεταξὺ χώραις διειλημμένην ἡ λοιπή. καὶ τοίνυν ὅσοι γε τῆς ἀκολουθίας τῶν ὑποθέσεων αἰσθάνονται, κατὰ μὲν τὴν δευτέραν αἵρεσιν οὔτε φύσεως οὔτε ψυχῆς ἰδίαν τινὰ νομίζουσιν οὐσίαν ἢ δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλʼ ἐν τῇ ποιᾷ συνόδῳ τῶν πρώτων ἐκείνων σωμάτων τῶν ἀπαθῶν ἀποτελεῖσθαι. κατὰ δὲ τὴν προτέραν εἰρημένην αἵρεσιν οὐχ ὑστέρα τῶν σωμάτων ἡ φύσις, ἀλλὰ πολὺ προτέρα τε καὶ πρεσβυτέρα. καὶ τοίνυν κατὰ μὲν τούτους αὕτη τὰ σώματα τῶν τε φυτῶν καὶ τῶν ζῴων συνίστησι δυνάμεις τινὰς ἔχουσα τὰς μὲν ἑλκτικάς θʼ ἅμα καὶ ὁμοιωτικὰς τῶν οἰκείων, τὰς δʼ ἀποκριτικὰς τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, καὶ τεχνικῶς ἅπαντα διαπλάττει τε γεννῶσα καὶ προνοεῖται τῶν γεννωμένων ἑτέραις αὖθίς τισι δυνάμεσι, στερκτικῇ μέν τινι καὶ προνοητικῇ τῶν ἐγγόνων, κοινωνικῇ δὲ καὶ φιλικῇ τῶν ὁμογενῶν. κατὰ δʼ αὖ τοὺς ἑτέρους οὔτε τούτων οὐδὲν ὑπάρχει ταῖς φύσεσιν οὔτʼ ἔννοιά τίς ἐστι τῇ ψυχῇ σύμφυτος ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὐκ ἀκολουθίας οὐ μάχης, οὐ διαιρέσεως οὐ συνθέσεως, οὐ δικαίων οὐκ ἀδίκων, οὐ καλῶν οὐκ αἰσχρῶν, ἀλλʼ ἐξ αἰσθήσεώς τε καὶ διʼ αἰσθήσεως ἅπαντα τὰ τοιαῦθʼ ἡμῖν ἐγγίγνεσθαί φασι καὶ φαντασίαις τισὶ καὶ μνήμαις οἰακίζεσθαι τὰ ζῷα. Ἔνιοι δʼ αὐτῶν καὶ ῥητῶς ἀπεφήναντο μηδεμίαν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς δύναμιν, ᾗ λογιζόμεθα, ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἄγεσθαι παθῶν ἡμᾶς καθάπερ βοσκήματα πρὸς μηδὲν ἀνανεῦσαι μηδʼ ἀντειπεῖν δυναμένους. καθʼ οὓς δηλονότι καὶ ἀνδρεία καὶ φρόνησις καὶ σωφροσύνη καὶ ἐγκράτεια λῆρός ἐστι μακρὸς καὶ φιλοῦμεν οὔτʼ ἀλλήλους οὔτε τὰ ἔγγονα καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς οὐδὲν ἡμῶν μέλει. καταφρονοῦσι δὲ καὶ τῶν ὀνειράτων καὶ τῶν οἰωνῶν καὶ τῶν συμβόλων καὶ πάσης ἀστρολογίας, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἡμεῖς μὲν ἰδίᾳ διʼ ἑτέρων γραμμάτων ἐπὶ πλέον ἐσκεψάμεθα περὶ τῶν Ἀσκληπιάδου τοῦ ἰατροῦ σκοπούμενοι δογμάτων. ἔνεστι δὲ τοῖς βουλομένοις κἀκείνοις μὲν ὁμιλῆσαι τοῖς λόγοις καὶ νῦν δʼ ἤδη σκοπεῖν, ὥσπερ τινῶν δυοῖν ὁδῶν ἡμῖν προκειμένων, ὁποτέραν βέλτιόν ἐστι τρέπεσθαι. Ἱπποκράτης μὲν γὰρ τὴν προτέραν ῥηθεῖσαν ἐτράπετο, καθʼ ἣν ἥνωται μὲν ἡ οὐσία καὶ ἀλλοιοῦται καὶ σύμπνουν ὅλον ἐστὶ καὶ σύρρουν τὸ σῶμα καὶ ἡ φύσις ἅπαντα τεχνικῶς καὶ δικαίως πράττει δυνάμεις ἔχουσα, καθʼ ἃς ἕκαστον τῶν μορίων ἕλκει μὲν ἐφʼ ἑαυτὸ τὸν οἰκεῖον ἑαυτῷ χυμόν, ἕλξαν δὲ προσφύει τε παντὶ μέρει τῶν ἐν αὑτῷ καὶ τελέως ἐξομοιοῖ, τὸ δὲ μὴ κρατηθὲν ἐν τούτῳ μηδὲ τὴν παντελῆ δυνηθὲν ἀλλοίωσίν τε καὶ ὁμοιότητα τοῦ τρεφομένου καταδέξασθαι διʼ ἑτέρας αὖ τινος ἐκκριτικῆς δυνάμεως ἀποτρίβεται.
13. Now the extent of exactitude and truth in the doctrines of Hippocrates may be gauged, not merely from the way in which his opponents are at variance with obvious facts, but also from the various subjects of natural research themselves — the functions of animals, and the rest. For those people who do not believe that there exists in any part of the animal a faculty for attracting its own special quality are compelled repeatedly to deny obvious facts. For instance, Asclepiades, the physician, did this in the case of the kidneys. That these are organs for secreting [separating out] the urine, was the belief not only of Hippocrates, Diocles, Erasistratus, Praxagoras, and all other physicians of eminence, but practically every butcher is aware of this, from the fact that he daily observes both the position of the kidneys and the duct (termed the ureter) which runs from each kidney into the bladder, and from this arrangement he infers their characteristic use and faculty. But, even leaving the butchers aside, all people who suffer either from frequent dysuria or from retention of urine call themselves “nephritics,” when they feel pain in the loins and pass sandy matter in their water.
13. μαθεῖν δʼ ἔνεστιν οὐ μόνον ἐξ ὧν οἱ τἀναντία τιθέμενοι διαφέρονται τοῖς ἐναργῶς φαινομένοις, εἰς ὅσον ὀρθότητός τε καὶ ἀληθείας ἥκει τὰ Ἱπποκράτους δόγματα, ἀλλὰ κἀξ αὐτῶν τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐν τῇ φυσικῇ θεωρίᾳ ζητουμένων τῶν τʼ ἄλλων ἁπάντων καὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις ἐνεργειῶν. ὅσοι γὰρ οὐδεμίαν οὐδενὶ μορίῳ νομίζουσιν ὑπάρχειν ἑλκτικὴν τῆς οἰκείας ποιότητος δύναμιν, ἀναγκάζονται πολλάκις ἐναντία λέγειν τοῖς ἐναργῶς φαινομένοις, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἀσκληπιάδης ὁ ἰατρὸς ἐπὶ τῶν νεφρῶν ἐποίησεν, οὓς οὐ μόνον Ἱπποκράτης ἢ Διοκλῆς ἢ Ἐρασίστρατος ἢ Πραξαγόρας ἤ τις ἄλλος ἰατρὸς ἄριστος ὄργανα διακριτικὰ τῶν οὔρων πεπιστεύκασιν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ μάγειροι σχεδὸν ἅπαντες ἴσασιν, ὁσημέραι θεώμενοι τήν τε θέσιν αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν ἀφʼ ἑκατέρου πόρον εἰς τὴν κύστιν ἐμβάλλοντα, τὸν οὐρητῆρα καλούμενον, ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς κατασκευῆς ἀναλογιζόμενοι τήν τε χρείαν αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν. καὶ πρό γε τῶν μαγείρων ἅπαντες ἄνθρωποι καὶ δυσουροῦντες πολλάκις καὶ παντάπασιν ἰσχουροῦντες, ὅταν ἀλγῶσι μὲν τὰ κατὰ τὰς ψόας, ψαμμώδη δʼ ἐξουρῶσιν, νεφριτικοὺς ὀνομάζουσι σφᾶς αὐτούς.
I do not suppose that Asclepiades ever saw a stone which had been passed by one of these sufferers, or observed that this was preceded by a sharp pain in the region between kidneys and bladder as the stone traversed the ureter, or that, when the stone was passed, both the pain and the retention at once ceased. It is worth while, then, learning how his theory accounts for the presence of urine in the bladder, and one is forced to marvel at the ingenuity of a man who puts aside these broad, clearly visible routes, and postulates others which are narrow, invisible — indeed, entirely imperceptible. His view, in fact, is that the fluid which we drink passes into the bladder by being resolved into vapours, and that, when these have been again condensed, it thus regains its previous form, and turns from vapour into fluid. He simply looks upon the bladder as a sponge or a piece of wool, and not as the perfectly compact and impervious body that it is, with two very strong coats. For if we say that the vapours pass through these coats, why should they not pass through the peritoneum and the diaphragm, thus filling the whole abdominal cavity and thorax with water? “But,” says he, “of course the peritoneal coat is more impervious than the bladder, and this is why it keeps out the vapours, while the bladder admits them.” Yet if he had ever practised anatomy, he might have known that the outer coat of the bladder springs from the peritoneum and is essentially the same as it, and that the inner coat, which is peculiar to the bladder, is more than twice as thick as the former.
Ἀσκληπιάδην δʼ οἶμαι μηδὲ λίθον οὐρηθέντα ποτὲ θεάσασθαι πρὸς τῶν οὕτω πασχόντων μηδʼ ὡς προηγήσατο κατὰ τὴν μεταξὺ τῶν νεφρῶν καὶ τῆς κύστεως χώραν ὀδύνη τις ὀξεῖα διερχομένου τοῦ λίθου τὸν οὐρητῆρα μηδʼ ὡς οὐρηθέντος αὐτοῦ τά τε τῆς ὀδύνης καὶ τὰ τῆς ἰσχουρίας ἐπαύσατο παραχρῆμα. πῶς οὖν εἰς τὴν κύστιν τῷ λόγῳ παράγει τὸ οὖρον, ἄξιον ἀκοῦσαι καὶ θαυμάσαι τἀνδρὸς τὴν σοφίαν, ὅς καταλιπὼν οὕτως εὐρείας ὁδοὺς ἐναργῶς φαινομένας ἀφανεῖς καὶ στενὰς καὶ παντάπασιν ἀναισθήτους ὑπέθετο. βούλεται γὰρ εἰς ἀτμοὺς ἀναλυόμενον τὸ πινόμενον ὑγρὸν εἰς τὴν κύστιν διαδίδοσθαι κἄπειτʼ ἐξ ἐκείνων αὖθις ἀλλήλοις συνιόντων οὕτως ἀπολαμβάνειν αὐτὸ τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἰδέαν καὶ γίγνεσθαι πάλιν ὑγρὸν ἐξ ἀτμῶν ἀτεχνῶς ὡς περὶ σπογγιᾶς τινος ἢ ἐρίου τῆς κύστεως διανοούμενος, ἀλλʼ οὐ σώματος ἀκριβῶς πυκνοῦ καὶ στεγανοῦ δύο χιτῶνας ἰσχυροτάτους κεκτημένου, διʼ ὧν εἴπερ διέρχεσθαι φήσομεν τοὺς ἀτμούς, τί δήποτʼ οὐχὶ διὰ τοῦ περιτοναίου καὶ τῶν φρενῶν διελθόντες ἐνέπλησαν ὕδατος τό τʼ ἐπιγάστριον ἅπαν καὶ τὸν θώρακα; ἀλλὰ παχύτερος, φησίν, ἐστὶ δηλαδὴ καὶ στεγανώτερος ὁ περιτόναιος χιτὼν τῆς κύστεως καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ ἐκεῖνος μὲν ἀποστέγει τοὺς ἀτμούς, ἡ δὲ κύστις παραδέχεται.
Perhaps, however, it is not the thickness or thinness of the coats, but the situation of the bladder, which is the reason for the vapours being carried into it? On the contrary, even if it were probable for every other reason that the vapours accumulate there, yet the situation of the bladder would be enough in itself to prevent this. For the bladder is situated below, whereas vapours have a natural tendency to rise upwards; thus they would fill all the region of the thorax and lungs long before they came to the bladder.
ἀλλʼ εἴπερ ἀνατετμήκει ποτέ, τάχʼ ἂν ἠπίστατο τὸν μὲν ἔξωθεν χιτῶνα τῆς κύστεως ἀπὸ τοῦ περιτοναίου πεφυκότα τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ φύσιν ἔχειν, τὸν δʼ ἔνδοθεν τὸν αὐτῆς τῆς κύστεως ἴδιον πλέον ἢ διπλάσιον ἐκείνου τὸ πάχος ὑπάρχειν. Ἀλλʼ ἴσως οὔτε τὸ πάχος οὔθʼ ἡ λεπτότης τῶν χιτώνων, ἀλλʼ ἡ θέσις τῆς κύστεως αἰτία τοῦ φέρεσθαι τοὺς ἀτμοὺς εἰς αὐτήν. καὶ μὴν εἰ καὶ διὰ τἆλλα πάντα πιθανὸν ἦν αὐτοὺς ἐνταυθοῖ συναθροίζεσθαι, τό γε τῆς θέσεως μόνης αὔταρκες κωλῦσαι.
But why do I mention the situation of the bladder, peritoneum, and thorax? For surely, when the vapours have passed through the coats of the stomach and intestines, it is in the space between these and the peritoneum that they will collect and become liquefied (just as in dropsical subjects it is in this region that most of the water gathers). Otherwise the vapours must necessarily pass straight forward through everything which in any way comes in contact with them, and will never come to a standstill. But, if this be assumed, then they will traverse not merely the peritoneum but also the epigastrium, and will become dispersed into the surrounding air; otherwise they will certainly collect under the skin.
κάτω μὲν γὰρ ἡ κύστις κεῖται, τοῖς δʼ ἀτμοῖς σύμφυτος ἡ πρὸς τὸ μετέωρον φορά, ὥστε πολὺ πρότερον ἂν ἔπλησαν ἅπαντα τὰ κατὰ τὸν θώρακά τε καὶ τὸν πνεύμονα, πρὶν ἐπὶ τὴν κύστιν ἀφικέσθαι. καίτοι τί θέσεως κύστεως καὶ περιτοναίου καὶ θώρακος μνημονεύω; διεκπεσόντες γὰρ δήπου τούς τε τῆς κοιλίας καὶ τῶν ἐντέρων χιτῶνας οἱ ἀτμοὶ κατὰ τὴν μεταξὺ χώραν αὐτῶν τε τούτων καὶ τοῦ περιτοναίου συναθροισθήσονται καὶ ὑγρὸν ἐνταυθοῖ γενήσονται, ὥσπερ καὶ τοῖς ὑδερικοῖς ἐν τούτῳ τῷ χωρίῳ τὸ πλεῖστον ἀθροίζεται τοῦ ὕδατος, ἢ πάντως αὐτοὺς χρὴ φέρεσθαι πρόσω διὰ πάντων τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ὁμιλούντων καὶ μηδέποθʼ ἵστασθαι.
Even these considerations, however, our present-day Asclepiadeans attempt to answer, despite the fact that they always get soundly laughed at by all who happen to be present at their disputations on these subjects — so difficult an evil to get rid of is this sectarian partizanship, so excessively resistant to all cleansing processes, harder to heal than any itch!
ἀλλʼ εἰ καὶ τοῦτό τις ὑπόθοιτο, διεκπεσόντες ἂν οὕτως οὐ τὸ περιτόναιον μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἐπιγάστριον, εἰς τὸ περιέχον σκεδασθεῖεν ἢ πάντως ἂν ὑπὸ τῷ δέρματι συναθροισθεῖεν. ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ταῦτʼ ἀντιλέγειν οἱ νῦν Ἀσκληπιάδειοι πειρῶνται, καίτοι πρὸς ἁπάντων ἀεὶ τῶν παρατυγχανόντων αὐτοῖς, ὅταν περὶ τούτων ἐρίζωσι, καταγελώμενοι.
Thus, one of our Sophists who is a thoroughly hardened disputer and as skilful a master of language as there ever was, once got into a discussion with me on this subject; so far from being put out of countenance by any of the above-mentioned considerations, he even expressed his surprise that I should try to overturn obvious facts by ridiculous arguments! “For,” said he, “one may clearly observe any day in the case of any bladder, that, if one fills it with water or air and then ties up its neck and squeezes it all round, it does not let anything out at any point, but accurately retains all its contents. And surely,” said he, “if there were any large and perceptible channels coming into it from the kidneys the liquid would run out through these when the bladder was squeezed, in the same way that it entered?” Having abruptly made these and similar remarks in precise and clear tones, he concluded by jumping up and departing — leaving me as though I were quite incapable of finding any plausible answer!
οὕτως ἄρα δυσαπότριπτόν τι κακόν ἐστιν ἡ περὶ τὰς αἱρέσεις φιλοτιμία καὶ δυσέκνιπτον ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα καὶ ψώρας ἁπάσης δυσιατότερον. τῶν γοῦν καθʼ ἡμᾶς τις σοφιστῶν τά τʼ ἄλλα καὶ περὶ τοὺς ἐριστικοὺς λόγους ἱκανῶς συγκεκροτημένος καὶ δεινὸς εἰπεῖν, εἴπερ τις ἄλλος, ἀφικόμενος ἐμοί ποθʼ ὑπὲρ τούτων εἰς λόγους, τοσοῦτον ἀπέδει τοῦ δυσωπεῖσθαι πρός τινος τῶν εἰρημένων, ὥστε καὶ θαυμάζειν ἔφασκεν ἐμοῦ τὰ σαφῶς φαινόμενα λόγοις ληρώδεσιν ἀνατρέπειν ἐπιχειροῦντος. ἐναργῶς γὰρ ὁσημέραι θεωρεῖσθαι τὰς κύστεις ἁπάσας, εἴ τις αὐτὰς ἐμπλήσειεν ὕδατος ἢ ἀέρος, εἶτα δήσας τὸν τράχηλον πιέζοι πανταχόθεν, οὐδαμόθεν μεθιείσας οὐδέν, ἀλλʼ ἀκριβῶς ἅπαν ἐντὸς ἑαυτῶν στεγούσας. καίτοι γʼ εἴπερ ἦσάν τινες ἐκ τῶν νεφρῶν εἰς αὐτὰς ἥκοντες αἰσθητοὶ καὶ μεγάλοι πόροι, πάντως ἄν, ἔφη, διʼ ἐκείνων, ὥσπερ εἰσῄει τὸ ὑγρὸν εἰς αὐτάς, οὕτω καὶ θλιβόντων ἐξεκρίνετο.
The fact is that those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn! Instead of listening, as they ought, to the reason why liquid can enter the bladder through the ureters, but is unable to go back again the same way, — instead of admiring Nature's artistic skil, — they refuse to learn; they even go so far as to scoff, and maintain that the kidneys, as well as many other things, have been made by Nature for no purpose! And some of them who had allowed themselves to be shown the ureters coming from the kidneys and becoming implanted in the bladder, even had the audacity to say that these also existed for no purpose; and others said that they were spermatic ducts, and that this was why they were inserted into the neck of the bladder and not into its cavity. When, therefore, we had demonstrated to them the real spermatic ducts entering the neck of the bladder lower down than the ureters, we supposed that, if we had not done so before, we would now at least draw them away from their false assumptions, and convert them forthwith to the opposite view. But even this they presumed to dispute, and said that it was not to be wondered at that the semen should remain longer in these latter ducts, these being more constricted, and that it should flow quickly down the ducts which came from the kidneys, seeing that these were well dilated. We were, therefore, further compelled to show them in a still living animal, the urine plainly running out through the ureters into the bladder; even thus we hardly hoped to check their nonsensical talk.
ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτʼ εἰπὼν ἐξαίφνης ἀπταίστῳ καὶ σαφεῖ τῷ στόματι τελευτῶν ἀναπηδήσας ἀπῄει καταλιπὼν ἡμᾶς ὡς οὐδὲ πιθανῆς τινος ἀντιλογίας εὐπορῆσαι δυναμένους. οὕτως οὐ μόνον ὑγιὲς οὐδὲν ἴσασιν οἱ ταῖς αἱρέσεσι δουλεύοιτες, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ μαθεῖν ὑπομένουσι. δέον γὰρ ἀκοῦσαι τὴν αἰτίαν, διʼ ἣν εἰσιέναι μὲν δύναται διὰ τῶν οὐρητήρων εἰς τὴν κύστιν τὸ ὑγρόν, ἐξιέναι δʼ αὖθις ὀπίσω τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν οὐκέθʼ οἷόν τε, καὶ θαυμάσαι τὴν τέχνην τῆς φύσεως, οὔτε μαθεῖν ἐθέλουσι καὶ λοιδοροῦνται προσέτι μάτην ὑπʼ αὐτῆς ἄλλα τε πολλὰ καὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς γεγονέναι φάσκοντες. εἰσὶ δʼ οἳ καὶ δειχθῆναι παρόντων αὐτῶν τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν νεφρῶν εἰς τὴν κύστιν ἐμφυομένους οὐρητῆρας ὑπομείναντες ἐτόλμησαν εἰπεῖν οἱ μέν, ὅτι μάτην καὶ οὗτοι γεγόνασιν, οἱ δʼ, ὅτι σπερματικοί τινές εἰσι πόροι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κατὰ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτῆς, οὐκ εἰς τὸ κῦτος ἐμφύονται. δείξαντες οὖν ἡμεῖς αὐτοῖς τοὺς ὡς ἀληθῶς σπερματικοὺς πόρους κατωτέρω τῶν οὐρητήρων ἐμβάλλοντας εἰς τὸν τράχηλον, νῦν γοῦν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πρότερον, ᾠήθημεν ἀπάξειν τε τῶν ψευδῶς ὑπειλημμένων ἐπί τε τἀναντία μεταστήσειν αὐτίκα. οἱ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοῦτʼ ἀντιλέγειν ἐτόλμων οὐδὲν εἶναι θαυμαστὸν εἰπόντες, ἐν ἐκείνοις μὲν ὡς ἂν στεγανωτέροις οὖσιν ἐπὶ πλέον ὑπομένειν τὸ σπέρμα, κατὰ δὲ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν νεφρῶν ὡς ἂν ἱκανῶς ἀνευρυσμένους ἐκρεῖν διὰ ταχέων.
Now the method of demonstration is as follows. One has to divide the peritoneum in front of the ureters, then secure these with ligatures, and next, having bandaged up the animal, let him go (for he will not continue to urinate). After this one loosens the external bandages and shows the bladder empty and the ureters quite full and distended — in fact almost on the point of rupturing; on removing the ligature from them, one then plainly sees the bladder becoming filled with urine.
ἡμεῖς οὖν ἠναγκάσθημεν αὐτοῖς τοῦ λοιποῦ δεικνύειν εἰσρέον τῇ κύστει διὰ τῶν οὐρητήρων τὸ οὖρον ἐναργῶς ἐπὶ ζῶντος ἔτι τοῦ ζῴου, μόγις ἂν οὕτω ποτὲ τὴν φλυαρίαν αὐτῶν ἐπισχήσειν ἐλπίζοντες. ὁ δὲ τρόπος τῆς δείξεώς ἐστι τοιόσδε. διελεῖν χρὴ τὸ πρὸ τῶν οὐρητήρων περιτόναιον, εἶτα βρόχοις αὐτοὺς ἐκλαβεῖν κἄπειτʼ ἐπιδήσαντας ἐᾶσαι τὸ ζῷον· οὐ γὰρ ἂν οὐρήσειεν ἔτι.
When this has been made quite clear, then, before the animal urinates, one has to tie a ligature round his penis and then to squeeze the bladder all over; still nothing goes back through the ureters to the kidneys. Here, then, it becomes obvious that not only in a dead animal, but in one which is still living, the ureters are prevented from receiving back the urine from the bladder. These observations having been made, one now loosens the ligature from the animal's penis and allows him to urinate, then again ligatures one of the ureters and leaves the other to discharge into the bladder. Allowing, then, some time to elapse, one now demonstrates that the ureter which was ligatured is obviously full and distended on the side next to the kidneys, while the other one — that from which the ligature had been taken — is itself flaccid, but has filled the bladder with urine. Then, again, one must divide the full ureter, and demonstrate how the urine spurts out of it, like blood in the operation of vene-section; and after this one cuts through the other also, and both being thus divided, one bandages up the animal externally. Then when enough time seems to have elapsed, one takes off the bandages; the bladder will now be found empty, and the whole region between the intestines and the peritoneum full of urine, as if the animal were suffering from dropsy. Now, if anyone will but test this for himself on an animal, I think he will strongly condemn the rashness of Asclepiades, and if he also learns the reason why nothing regurgitates from the bladder into the ureters, I think he will be persuaded by this also of the forethought and art shown by Nature in relation to animals.
μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα λύειν μὲν τοὺς ἔξωθεν δεσμούς, δεικνύναι δὲ κενὴν μὲν τὴν κύστιν, μεστοὺς δʼ ἱκανῶς καὶ διατεταμένους τοὺς οὐρητῆρας καὶ κινδυνεύοντας Ῥαγῆναι κἄπειτα τοὺς βρόχους αὐτῶν ἀφελόντας ἐναργῶς ὁρᾶν ἤδη πληρουμένην οὔρου τὴν κύστιν. Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτω φανέντι, πρὶν οὐρῆσαι τὸ ζῷον, βρόχον αὐτοῦ περιβαλεῖν χρὴ τῷ αἰδοίῳ κἄπειτα θλίβειν πανταχόθεν τὴν κύστιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν οὐδὲν ἔτι διὰ τῶν οὐρητήρων ἐπανέλθοι πρὸς τοὺς νεφρούς. κἀν τούτῳ δῆλον γίγνεται τὸ μὴ μόνον ἐπὶ τεθνεῶτος ἀλλὰ καὶ περιόντος ἔτι τοῦ ζῴου κωλύεσθαι μεταλαμβάνειν αὖθις ἐκ τῆς κύστεως τοὺς οὐρητῆρας τὸ οὖρον. ἐπὶ τούτοις ὀφθεῖσιν ἐπιτρέπειν ἤδη τὸ ζῷον οὐρεῖν λύοντας αὐτοῦ τὸν ἐπὶ τῷ αἰδοίῳ βρόχον, εἶτʼ αὖθις ἐπιβαλεῖν μὲν θατέρῳ τῶν οὐρητήρων, ἐᾶσαι δὲ τὸν ἕτερον εἰς τὴν κύστιν συρρεῖν καί τινα διαλιπόντας χρόνον ἐπιδεικνύειν ἤδη, πῶς ὁ μὲν ἕτερος αὐτῶν ὁ δεδεμένος μεστὸς καὶ διατεταμένος κατὰ τὰ πρὸς τῶν νεφρῶν μέρη φαίνεται, ὁ δʼ ἕτερος ὁ λελυμένος αὐτὸς μὲν χαλαρός ἐστι, πεπλήρωκε δʼ οὔρου τὴν κύστιν. εἶτʼ αὖθις διατεμεῖν πρῶτον μὲν τὸν πλήρη καὶ δεῖξαι, πῶς ἐξακοντίζεται τὸ οὖρον ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς φλεβοτομίαις τὸ αἷμα, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ καὶ τὸν ἕτερον αὖθις διατεμεῖν κἄπειτʼ ἐπιδῆσαι τὸ ζῷον ἔξωθεν, ἀμφοτέρων διῃρημένων, εἶθʼ ὅταν ἱκανῶς ἔχειν δοκῇ, λῦσαι τὸν δεσμόν. εὑρεθήσεται γὰρ ἡ μὲν κύστις κενή, πλῆρες δʼ οὔρου τὸ μεταξὺ τῶν ἐντέρων τε καὶ τοῦ περιτοναίου χωρίον ἅπαν, ὡς ἂν εἰ καὶ ὑδερικὸν ἦν τὸ ζῷον. ταῦτʼ οὖν εἴ τις αὐτὸς καθʼ ἑαυτὸν βουληθείη βασανίζειν ἐπὶ ζῴου, μεγάλως μοι δοκεῖ καταγνώσεσθαι τῆς Ἀσκληπιάδου προπετείας.
Now Hippocrates, who was the first known to us of all those who have been both physicians and philosophers in as much as he was the first to recognize what Nature effects, expresses his admiration of her, and is constantly singing her praises and calling her “just.” Alone, he says, she suffices for the animal in every respect, performing of her own accord and without any teaching all that is required. Being such, she has, as he supposes, certain faculties, one attractive of what is appropriate, and another eliminative of what is foreign, and she nourishes the animal, makes it grow, and expels its diseases by crisis. Therefore he says that there is in our bodies a concordance in the movements of air and fluid, and that everything is in sympathy. According to Asclepiades, however, nothing is naturally in sy mpathy with anything else, all substance being divided and broken up into inharmonious elements and absurd “molecules.” Necessarily, then, besides making countless other statements in opposition to plain fact, he was ignorant of Nature's faculties, both that attracting what is appropriate, and that expelling what is foreign. Thus he invented some wretched nonsense to explain blood-production and anadosis, and, being utterly unable to find anything to say regarding the clearing-out of superfluities, he did not hesitate to join issue with obvious facts, and, in this matter of urinary secretion, to deprive both the kidneys and the ureters of their activity, by assuming that there were certain invisible channels opening into the bladder. It was, of course, a grand and impressive thing to do, to mistrust the obvious, and to pin one's faith in things which could not be seen!
εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν μάθοι, διʼ ἣν οὐδὲν ἐκ τῆς κύστεως εἰς τοὺς οὐρητῆρας ἀντεκρεῖ, πεισθῆναι ἄν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ διὰ τοῦδε τὴν εἰς τὰ ζῷα πρόνοιάν τε καὶ τέχνην τῆς φύσεως. Ἱπποκράτης μὲν οὖν ὧν ἴσμεν ἰατρῶν τε καὶ φιλοσόφων πρῶτος ἁπάντων, ὡς ἂν καὶ πρῶτος ἐπιγνοὺς τὰ τῆς φύσεως ἔργα, θαυμάζει τε καὶ διὰ παντὸς αὐτὴν ὑμνεῖ δικαίαν ὀνομάζων καὶ μόνην ἐξαρκεῖν εἰς ἅπαντα τοῖς ζῴοις φησίν, αὐτὴν ἐξ αὑτῆς ἀδιδάκτως πράττουσαν ἅπαντα τὰ δέοντα· τοιαύτην δʼ οὖσαν αὐτὴν εὐθέως καὶ δυνάμεις ὑπέλαβεν ἔχειν ἑλκτικὴν μὲν τῶν οἰκείων, ἀποκριτικὴν δὲ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων καὶ τρέφειν τε καὶ αὔξειν αὐτὴν τὰ ζῷα καὶ κρίνειν τὰ νοσήματα· καὶ διὰ τοῦτʼ ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν ἡμῶν σύμπνοιάν τε μίαν εἶναί φησι καὶ σύρροιαν καὶ πάντα συμπαθέα. κατὰ δὲ τὸν Ἀσκληπιάδην οὐδὲν οὐδενὶ συμπαθές ἐστι φύσει, διῃρημένης τε καὶ κατατεθραυσμένης εἰς ἄναρμα στοιχεῖα καὶ ληρώδεις ὄγκους ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας. ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὖν ἄλλα τε μυρία τοῖς ἐναργῶς φαινομένοις ἐναντίως ἀπεφήνατο καὶ τῆς φύσεως ἠγνόησε τήν τε τῶν οἰκείων ἐπισπαστικὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἀποκριτικήν. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἐξαιματώσεώς τε καὶ ἀναδόσεως ἐξεῦρέ τινα ψυχρὰν ἀδολεσχίαν· εἰς δὲ τὴν τῶν περιττωμάτων κάθαρσιν οὐδὲν ὅλως εὑρὼν εἰπεῖν οὐκ ὤκνησεν ὁμόσε χωρῆσαι τοῖς φαινομένοις, ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς τῶν οὔρων διακρίσεως ἀποστερήσας μὲν τῶν τε νεφρῶν καὶ τῶν οὐρητήρων τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἀδήλους δέ τινας πόρους εἰς τὴν κύστιν ὑποθέμενος·
Also, in the matter of the yellow bile, he makes an even grander and more spirited venture; for he says this is actually generated in the bile-ducts, not merely separated out.
τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν δηλαδὴ μέγα καὶ σεμνὸν ἀπιστήσαντα τοῖς φαινομένοις πιστεῦσαι τοῖς ἀδήλοις. Ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς ξανθῆς χολῆς ἔτι μεῖζον αὐτῷ καὶ νεανικώτερόν ἐστι τὸ τόλμημα·
How comes it, then, that in cases of jaundice two things happen at the same time — that the dejections contain absolutely no bile, and that the whole body becomes full of it? He is forced here again to talk nonsense, just as he did in regard to the urine. He also talks no less nonsense about the black bile and the spleen, not understanding what was said by Hippocrates; and he attempts in stupid — I might say insane — language, to contradict what he knowsnothing about.
γεννᾶσθαι γὰρ αὐτὴν ἐν τοῖς χοληδόχοις ἀγγείοις, οὐ διακρίνεσθαι λέγει. πῶς οὖν τοῖς ἰκτερικοῖς ἅμʼ ἄμφω συμπίπτει, τὰ μὲν διαχωρήματα μηδὲν ὅλως ἐν αὑτοῖς ἔχοντα χολῆς, ἀνάπλεων δʼ αὐτοῖς γιγνόμενον ὅλον τὸ σῶμα; ληρεῖν πάλιν ἐνταῦθʼ ἀναγκάζεται τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν οὔρων εἰρημένοις παραπλησίως.
And what profit did he derive from these opinions from the point of view of treatment? He neither was able to cure a kidney ailment, nor jaundice, nor a disease of black bile, nor would he agree with the view held not merely by Hippocrates but by all men regarding drugs — that some of them purge away yellow bile, and others black, some again phlegm, and others the thin and watery superfluity; he held that all the substances evacuated were produced by the drugs themselves, just as yellow bile is produced by the biliary passages! It matters nothing, according to this extraordinary man, whether we give a hydragogue or a cholagogue in a case of dropsy, for these all equally purge and dissolve the body, and produce a solution having such and such an appearance, which did not exist as such before!
ληρεῖ δʼ οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ περὶ τῆς μελαίνης χολῆς καὶ τοῦ σπληνὸς οὔτε τί ποθʼ ὑφʼ Ἱπποκράτους εἴρηται συνιεὶς ἀντιλέγειν τʼ ἐπιχειρῶν οἷς οὐκ οἶδεν ἐμπλήκτῳ τινὶ καὶ μανικῷ στόματι. Τί δὴ τὸ κέρδος ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων δογμάτων εἰς τὰς θεραπείας ἐκτήσατο; μήτε νεφριτικόν τι νόσημα δύνασθαι θεραπεῦσαι μήτʼ ἰκτερικὸν μήτε μελαγχολικόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τοῦ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις οὐχ Ἱπποκράτει μόνον ὁμολογουμένου τοῦ καθαίρειν τῶν φαρμάκων ἔνια μὲν τὴν ξανθὴν χολήν, ἔνια δὲ τὴν μέλαιναν, ἄλλα δέ τινα φλέγμα καί τινα τὸ λεπτὸν καὶ ὑδατῶδες περιττωμα, μηδὲ περὶ τούτων συγχωρεῖν, ἀλλʼ ὑπʼ αὐτῶν τῶν φαρμάκων γίγνεσθαι λέγειν τοιοῦτον ἕκαστον τῶν κενουμένων, ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τῶν χοληδόχων πόρων τὴν χολήν·
Must we not, therefore, suppose he was either mad, or entirely unacquainted with practical medicine? For who does not know that if a drug for attracting phlegm be given in a case of jaundice it will not even evacuate four cyathi of phlegm? Similarly also if one of the hydragogues be given. A cholagogue, on the other hand, clears away a great quantity of bile, and the skin of patients so treated at once becomes clear. I myself have, in many cases, after treating the liver condition, then removed the disease by means of a single purgation; whereas, if one had employed a drug for removing phlegm one would have done no good.
καὶ μηδὲν διαφέρειν κατὰ τὸν θαυμαστὸν Ἀσκληπιάδην ἢ ὑδραγωγὸν διδόναι τοῖς ὑδεριῶσιν ἢ χολαγωγὸν φάρμακον· ἅπαντα γὰρ ὁμοίως κενοῦν καὶ συντήκειν τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὸ σύντηγμα τοιόνδε τι φαίνεσθαι ποιεῖν, μὴ πρότερον ὑπάρχον τοιοῦτον. ἆρʼ οὖν οὐ μαίνεσθαι νομιστέον αὐτὸν ἢ παντάπασιν ἄπειρον εἶναι τῶν ἔργων τῆς τέχνης; τίς γὰρ οὐκ οἶδεν, ὡς, εἰ μὲν φλέγματος ἀγωγὸν δοθείη φάρμακον τοῖς ἰκτεριῶσιν, οὐκ ἂν οὐδὲ τέτταρας κυάθους καθαρθεῖεν· οὕτω δʼ οὐδʼ εἰ τῶν ὑδραγωγῶν τι· χολαγωγῷ δὲ φαρμάκῳ πλεῖστον μὲν ἐκκενοῦται χολῆς, αὐτίκα δὲ καθαρὸς τοῖς οὕτω καθαρθεῖσιν ὁ χρὼς γίγνεται.
Nor is Hippocrates the only one who knows this to be so, whilst those who take experience alone as their starting-point know otherwise; they, as well as all physicians who are engaged in the practice of medicine, are of this opinion. Asclepiades, however, is an exception; he would hold it a betrayal of his assumed “elements” to confess the truth about such matters. For if a single drug were to be discovered which attracted such and such a humour only, there would obviously be danger of the opinion gaining ground that there is in every body a faculty which attracts its own particular quality. He therefore says that safflower, the Cnidian berry, and Hippophaes, do not draw phlegm from the body, but actually make it. Moreover, he holds that the flower and scales of bronze, and burnt bronze itself, and germander, and wild mastich dissolve the body into water, and that dropsical patients derive benefit from these substances, not because they are purged by them, but because they are rid of substances which actually help to increase the disease; for, if the medicine does not evacuate the dropsical fluid contained in the body, but generates it, it aggravates the condition further. Moreover, scammony, according to the Asclepiadean argument, not only fails to evacuate the bile from the bodies of jaundiced subjects, but actually turns the useful blood into bile, and dissolves the body; in fact it does all manner of evil and increases the disease.
πολλοὺς γοῦν ἡμεῖς μετὰ τὸ θεραπεῦσαι τὴν ἐν τῷ ἥπατι διάθεσιν ἅπαξ καθήραντες ἀπηλλάξαμεν τοῦ παθήματος. οὐ μὴν οὐδʼ εἰ φλέγματος ἀγωγῷ καθαίροις φαρμάκῳ, πλέον ἄν τι διαπράξαιο. καὶ ταῦτʼ οὐχ Ἱπποκράτης μὲν οὕτως οἶδε γιγνόμενα, τοῖς δʼ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐμπειρίας μόνης ὁρμωμένοις ἑτέρως ἔγνωσται, ἀλλὰ κἀκείνοις ὡσαύτως καὶ πᾶσιν ἰατροῖς, οἷς μέλει τῶν ἔργων τῆς τέχνης, οὕτω δοκεῖ πλὴν Ἀσκληπιάδου. προδοσίαν γὰρ εἶναι νενόμικε τῶν στοιχείων ὧν ὑπέθετο τὴν ἀληθῆ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ὁμολογίαν. εἰ γὰρ ὅλως εὑρεθείη τι φάρμακον ἑλκτικὸν τοῦδέ τινος τοῦ χυμοῦ μόνου, κίνδυνος κρατεῖν δηλαδὴ τῷ λόγῳ τὸ ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν σωμάτων εἶναί τινα δύναμιν ἐπισπαστικὴν τῆς οἰκείας ποιότητος. διὰ τοῦτο κνῆκον μὲν καὶ κόκκον τὸν κνίδιον καὶ ἱπποφαὲς οὐχ ἕλκειν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἀλλὰ ποιεῖν τὸ φλέγμα φησίν· ἄνθος δὲ χαλκοῦ καὶ λεπίδα καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν κεκαυμένον χαλκὸν καὶ χαμαίδρυν καὶ χαμαιλέοντα εἰς ὕδωρ ἀναλύειν τὸ σῶμα καὶ τοὺς ὑδερικοὺς ὑπὸ τούτων οὐ καθαιρομένους ὀνίνασθαι ἀλλὰ κενουμένους συναυξόντων δηλαδὴ τὸ πάθος. εἰ γὰρ οὐ κενοῖ τὸ περιεχόμενον ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν ὑδατῶδες ὑγρὸν ἀλλʼ αὐτὸ γεννᾷ, τῷ νοσήματι προστιμωρεῖται.
And yet this drug may be clearly seen to do good to numbers of people! “Yes,” says he, “they derive benefit certainly, but merely in proportion to the evacuation.”... But if you give these cases a drug which draws off phlegm they will not be benefited. This is so obvious that even those who make experience alone their starting-point are aware of it; and these people make it a cardinal point of their teaching to trust to no arguments, but only to what can be clearly seen. In this, then, they show good sense; whereas Asclepiades goes far astray in bidding us distrust our senses where obvious facts plainly overturn his hypotheses. Much better would it have been for him not to assail obvious facts, but rather to devote himself entirely to these.
καὶ μέν γε καὶ ἡ σκαμμωνία πρὸς τῷ μὴ κενοῦν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τῶν ἰκτερικῶν τὴν χολὴν ἔτι καὶ τὸ χρηστὸν αἷμα χολὴν ἐργαζομένη καὶ συντήκουσα τὸ σῶμα καὶ τηλικαῦτα κακὰ δρῶσα καὶ τὸ πάθος ἐπαύξουσα κατά γε τὸν Ἀσκληπιάδου λόγον. ὅμως ἐναργῶς ὁρᾶται πολλοὺς ὠφελοῦσα. ναί, φησίν, ὀνίνανται μέν, ἀλλʼ αὐτῷ μόνῳ τῷ λόγῳ τῆς κενώσεως. καὶ μὴν εἰ φλέγματος ἀγωγὸν αὐτοῖς δοίης φάρμακον, οὐκ ὀνήσονται. καὶ τοῦθʼ οὕτως ἐναργές ἐστιν, ὥστε καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ μόνης τῆς ἐμπειρίας ὁρμώμενοι γιγνώσκουσιν αὐτό. καίτοι τούτοις γε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν αὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτʼ ἔστι φιλοσόφημα, τὸ μηδενὶ λόγῳ πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ μόνοις τοῖς ἐναργῶς φαινομένοις. ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν σωφρονοῦσιν·
Is it, then, these facts only which are plainly irreconcilable with the views of Asclepiades? Is not also the fact that in summer yellow bile is evacuated in greater quantity by the same drugs, and in winter phlegm, and that in a young man more bile is evacuated, and in an old man more phlegm? Obviously each drug attracts something which already exists, and does not generate something previously non-existent. Thus if you give in the summer season a drug which attracts phlegm to a young man of a lean and warm habit, who has lived neither idly nor too luxuriously, you will with great difficulty evacuate a very small quantity of this humour, and you will do the man the utmost harm. On the other hand, if you give him a cholagogue, you will produce an abundant evacuation and not injure him at all.
Ἀσκληπιάδης δὲ παραπαίει ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἡμᾶς ἀπιστεῖν κελεύων, ἔνθα τὸ φαινόμενον ἀνατρέπει σαφῶς αὐτοῦ τὰς ὑποθέσεις. καίτοι μακρῷ γʼ ἦν ἄμεινον οὐχ ὁμόσε χωρεῖν τοῖς φαινομένοις ἀλλʼ ἐκείνοις ἀναθέσθαι τὸ πᾶν. ἆρʼ οὖν ταῦτα μόνον ἐναργῶς μάχεται τοῖς Ἀσκληπιάδου δόγμασιν ἢ καὶ τὸ θέρους μὲν πλείονα κενοῦσθαι τὴν ξανθὴν χολὴν ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν φαρμάκων, χειμῶνος δὲ τὸ φλέγμα, καὶ νεανίσκῳ μὲν πλείονα τὴν χολήν, πρεσβύτῃ δὲ τὸ φλέγμα; φαίνεται γὰρ ἕκαστον ἕλκειν τὴν οὖσαν, οὐκ αὐτὸ γεννᾶν τὴν οὐκ οὖσαν. εἰ γοῦν ἐθελήσαις νεανίσκῳ τινὶ τῶν ἰσχνῶν καὶ θερμῶν ὥρᾳ θέρους μήτʼ ἀργῶς βεβιωκότι μήτʼ ἐν πλησμονῇ φλέγματος ἀγωγὸν δοῦναι φάρμακον, ὀλίγιστον μὲν καὶ μετὰ βίας πολλῆς ἐκκενώσεις τοῦ χυμοῦ, βλάψεις δʼ ἐσχάτως τὸν ἄνθρωπον·
Do we still, then, disbelieve that each drug attracts that humour which is proper to it? Possibly the adherents of Asclepiades will assent to this — or rather, they will — not possibly, but certainly — declare that they disbelieve it, lest they should betray their darling prejudices. (1)The ureters. (2) About 4 oz., or one-third of a pint.
ἔμπαλιν δʼ εἰ χολαγωγὸν δοίης, καὶ πάμπολυ κενώσεις καὶ βλάψεις οὐδέν. ἆρʼ ἀπιστοῦμεν ἔτι τῷ μὴ οὐχ ἕκαστον τῶν φαρμάκων ἐπάγεσθαι τὸν οἰκεῖον ἑαυτῷ χυμόν; ἴσως φήσουσιν οἱ ἀπʼ Ἀσκληπιάδου, μᾶλλον δʼ οὐκ ἴσως, ἀλλὰ πάντως ἀπιστεῖν ἐροῦσιν, ἵνα μὴ προδῶσι τὰ φίλτατα.
14. Let us pass on, then, again to another piece of nonsense; for the sophists do not allow one to engage in enquiries that are of any worth, albeit there are many such; they compel one to spend one's time in dissipating the fallacious arguments which they bring forward.
14. πάλιν οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐφʼ ἑτέραν μεταβῶμεν ἀδολεσχίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπουσιν οἱ σοφισταὶ τῶν ἀξίων τι ζητημάτων προχειρίζεσθαι καίτοι παμπόλλων ὑπαρχόντων, ἀλλὰ κατατρίβειν ἀναγκάζουσι τὸν χρόνον εἰς τὴν τῶν σοφισμάτων, ὧν προβάλλουσι, λύσιν.
What, then, is this piece of nonsense? It has to do with the famous and far-renowned stone which draws iron [the lodestone]. It might be thought that this would draw their minds to a belief that there are in all bodies certain faculties by which they attract their own proper qualities.
τίς οὖν ἡ ἀδολεσχία; ἡ ἔνδοξος αὕτη καὶ πολυθρύλητος λίθος ἡ τὸν σίδηρον ἐπισπωμένη. τάχα γὰρ ἂν αὕτη ποτὲ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἐπισπάσαιτο πιστεύειν εἶναί τινας ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν σωμάτων ἑλκτικὰς τῶν οἰκείων ποιοτήτων δυνάμεις.
Now Epicurus, despite the fact that he employs in his “Physics” elements similar to those of Asclepiades, yet allows that iron is attracted by the lodestone, and chaff by amber. He even tries to give the cause of the phenomenon. His view is that the atoms which flow from the stone are related in shape to those flowing from the iron, and so they become easily interlocked with one another; thus it is that, after colliding with each of the two compact masses (the stone and the iron) they then rebound into the middle and so become entangled with each other, and draw the iron after them. So far, then, as his hypotheses regarding causation go, he is perfectly unconvincing; nevertheless, he does grant that there is an attraction. Further, he says that it is on similar principles that there occur in the bodies of animals the dispersal of nutriment and the discharge of waste matters, as also the actions of cathartic drugs.
Ἐπίκουρος μὲν οὖν καίτοι παραπλησίοις Ἀσκληπιάδῃ στοιχείοις πρὸς τὴν φυσιολογίαν χρώμενος ὅμως ὁμολογεῖ, πρὸς μὲν τῆς ἡρακλείας λίθου τὸν σίδηρον ἕλκεσθαι, πρὸς δὲ τῶν ἠλέκτρων τὰ κυρήβια καὶ πειρᾶταί γε καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ἀποδιδόναι τοῦ φαινομένου. τὰς γὰρ ἀπορρεούσας ἀτόμους ἀπὸ τῆς λίθου ταῖς ἀπορρεούσαις ἀπὸ τοῦ σιδήρου τοῖς σχήμασιν οἰκείας εἶναί φησιν, ὥστε περιπλέκεσθαι Ῥᾳδίως. προσκρουούσας οὖν αὐτὰς τοῖς συγκρίμασιν ἑκατέροις τῆς τε λίθου καὶ τοῦ σιδήρου κἄπειτʼ εἰς τὸ μέσον ἀποπαλλομένας οὕτως ἀλλήλαις τε περιπλέκεσθαι καὶ συνεπισπᾶσθαι τὸν σίδηρον. τὸ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὑποθέσεων εἰς τὴν αἰτιολογίαν ἀπίθανον ἄντικρυς δῆλον, ὅμως δʼ οὖν ὁμολογεῖ τὴν ὁλκήν. καὶ οὕτω γε καὶ κατὰ τὰ σώματα τῶν ζῴων φησὶ γίγνεσθαι τάς τʼ ἀναδόσεις καὶ τὰς διακρίσεις τῶν περιττωμάτων καὶ τὰς τῶν καθαιρόντων φαρμάκων ἐνεργείας.
Asclepiades, however, who viewed with suspicion the incredible character of the cause mentioned, and who saw no other credible cause on the basis of his supposed elements, shamelessly had recourse to the statement that nothing is in any way attracted by anything else. Now, if he was dissatisfied with what Epicurus said, and had nothing better to say himself, he ought to have refrained from making hypotheses, and should have said that Nature is a constructive artist and that the substance of things is always tending towards unity and also towards alteration because its own parts act upon and are acted upon by one another. For, if he had assumed this, it would not have been difficult to allow that this constructive Nature has powers which attract appropriate and expel alien matter. For in no other way could she be constructive, preservative of the animal, and eliminative of its diseases, unless it be allowed that she conserves what is appropriate and discharges what is foreign.
Ἀσκληπιάδης δὴ τό τε τῆς εἰρημένης αἰτίας ἀπίθανον ὑπιδόμενος καὶ μηδεμίαν ἄλλην ἐφʼ οἷς ὑπέθετο στοιχείοις ἐξευρίσκων πιθανὴν ἐπὶ τὸ μηδʼ ὅλως ἕλκεσθαι λέγειν ὑπὸ μηδενὸς μηδὲν ἀναισχυντήσας ἐτράπετο, δέον, εἰ μήθʼ οἷς Ἐπίκουρος εἶπεν ἠρέσκετο μήτʼ ἄλλα βελτίω λέγειν εἶχεν, ἀποστῆναι τῶν ὑποθέσεων καὶ τήν τε φύσιν εἰπεῖν τεχνικὴν καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν ὄντων ἑνουμένην τε πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἀεὶ καὶ ἀλλοιουμένην ὑπὸ τῶν ἑαυτῆς μορίων εἰς ἄλληλα δρώντων τε καὶ πασχόντων. εἰ γὰρ ταῦθʼ ὑπέθετο, χαλεπὸν οὐδὲν ἦν τὴν τεχνικὴν ἐκείνην φύσιν ὁμολογῆσαι δύναμεις ἔχειν ἐπισπαστικὴν μὲν τῶν οἰκείων, ἀποκριτικὴν δὲ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων. οὐ γὰρ διʼ ἄλλο τί γʼ ἦν αὐτῇ τὸ τεχνικῇ τʼ εἶναι καὶ τοῦ ζῴου διασωστικῇ καὶ τῶν νοσημάτων κριτικῇ παρὰ τὸ προσίεσθαι μὲν καὶ φυλάττειν τὸ οἰκεῖον, ἀποκρίνειν δὲ τὸ ἀλλότριον.
But in this matter, too, Asclepiades realized the logical sequence of the principles he had assumed; he showed no scruples, however, in opposing plain fact; he joins issue in this matter also, not merely with all physicians, but with everyone else, and maintains that there is no such thing as a crisis, or critical day, and that Nature does absolutely nothing for the preservation of the animal. For his constant aim is to follow out logical consequences and to upset obvious fact, in this respect being opposed to Epicurus; for the latter always stated the observed fact, although he gives an ineffective explanation of it. For, that these small corpuscles belonging to the lodestone rebound, and become entangled with other similar particles of the iron, and that then, by means of this entanglement (which cannot be seen anywhere) such a heavy substance as iron is attracted — I fail to understand how anybody could believe this. Even if we admit this, the same principle will not explain the fact that, when the iron has another piece brought in contact with it, this becomes attached to it.
ἀλλʼ Ἀσκληπιάδης κἀνταῦθα τὸ μὲν ἀκόλουθον ταῖς ἀρχαῖς αἷς ὑπέθετο συνεῖδεν, οὐ μὴν τήν γε πρὸς τὸ φαινόμενον ἐναργῶς ᾐδέσθη μάχην, ἀλλʼ ὁμόσε χωρεῖ καὶ περὶ τούτου πᾶσιν οὐκ ἰατροῖς μόνον ἀλλʼ ἤδη καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις οὔτε κρίσιν εἶναί τινα λέγων οὔθʼ ἡμέραν κρίσιμον οὔθʼ ὅλως οὐδὲν ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τοῦ ζῴου πραγματεύσασθαι τὴν φύσιν. ἀεὶ γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἀκόλουθον φυλάττειν βούλεται, τὸ δʼ ἐναργῶς φαινόμενον ἀνατρέπειν ἔμπαλιν Ἐπικούρῳ. τιθεὶς γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἀεὶ τὸ φαινόμενον αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ ψυχρὰν ἀποδίδωσι. τὰ γὰρ ἀποπαλλόμενα σμικρὰ σώματα τῆς ἡρακλείας λίθου τοιούτοις ἑτέροις περιπλέκεσθαι μορίοις τοῦ σιδήρου κἄπειτα διὰ τῆς περιπλοκῆς ταύτης μηδαμοῦ φαινομένης ἐπισπᾶσθαι βαρεῖαν οὕτως οὐσίαν οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅπως ἄν τις πεισθείη. καὶ γὰρ εἰ τοῦτο συγχωρήσομεν, τό γε τῷ σιδήρῳ πάλιν ἕτερον προστεθέν τι συνάπτεσθαι τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν οὐκέτι προσίεται.
For what are we to say? That, forsooth, some of the particles that flow from the lodestone collide with the iron and then rebound back, and that it is by these that the iron becomes suspended? that others penetrate into it, and rapidly pass through it by way of its empty channels? that these then collide with the second piece of iron and are not able to penetrate it although they penetrated the first piece? and that they then course back to the first piece, and produce entanglements like the former ones?
τί γὰρ ἐροῦμεν; ἢ δηλαδὴ τῶν ἀπορρεόντων τῆς λίθου μορίων ἔνια μὲν προσκρούσαντα τῷ σιδήρῳ πάλιν ἀποπάλλεσθαι καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἶναι, διʼ ὧν κρεμάννυσθαι συμβαίνει τὸν σίδηρον, τὰ δʼ εἰς αὐτὸν εἰσδυόμενα διὰ τῶν κενῶν πόρων διεξέρχεσθαι τάχιστα κἄπειτα τῷ παρακειμένῳ σιδήρῳ προσκρούοντα μήτʼ ἐκεῖνον διαδῦναι δύνασθαι, καίτοι τόν γε πρῶτον διαδύντα, παλινδρομοῦντα δʼ αὖθις ἐπὶ τὸν πρότερον ἑτέρας αὖθις ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς προτέραις ὁμοίας περιπλοκάς;
The hypothesis here becomes clearly refuted by its absurdity. As a matter of fact, I have seen five writing-stylets of iron attached to one another in a line, only the first one being in contact with the lodestone, and the power being transmitted through it to the others. Moreover, it cannot be said that if you bring a second stylet into contact with the lower end of the first, it becomes held, attached, and suspended, whereas, if you apply it to any other part of the side it does not become attached. For the power of the lodestone is distributed in all directions; it merely needs to be in contact with the first stylet at any point; from this stylet again the power flows, as quick as a thought, all through the second, and from that again to the third. Now, if you imagine a small lodestone hanging in a house, and in contact with it all round a large number of pieces of iron, from them again others, from these others, and so on, — all these pieces of iron must surely become filled with the corpuscles which emanate from the stone; therefore, this first little stone is likely to become dissipated by disintegrating into these emanations. Further, even if there be no iron in contact with it, it still disperses into the air, particularly if this be also warm.
ἐναργῶς γὰρ ἐνταῦθα τὸ ληρῶδες τῆς αἰτίας ἐλέγχεται. γραφεῖα γοῦν οἶδά ποτε σιδηρᾶ πέντε κατὰ τὸ συνεχὲς ἀλλήλοις συναφθέντα, τοῦ πρώτου μὲν μόνου τῆς λίθου ψαύσαντος, ἐξ ἐκείνου δʼ εἰς τἆλλα τῆς δυνάμεως διαδοθείσης· καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ὡς, εἰ μὲν τῷ κάτω τοῦ γραφείου πέρατι προσάγοις ἕτερον, ἔχεταί τε καὶ συνάπτεται καὶ κρέμαται τὸ προσενεχθέν· εἰ δʼ ἄλλῳ τινὶ μέρει τῶν πλαγίων προσθείης, οὐ συνάπτεται. πάντη γὰρ ὁμοίως ἡ τῆς λίθου διαδίδοται δύναμις, εἰ μόνον ἅψαιτο κατά τι τοῦ πρώτου γραφείου. καὶ μέντοι κἀκ τούτου πάλιν εἰς τὸ δεύτερον ὅλον ἡ δύναμις ἅμα νοήματι διαρρεῖ κἀξ ἐκείνου πάλιν εἰς τὸ τρίτον ὅλον. εἰ δὴ νοήσαις σμικράν τινα λίθον ἡρακλείαν ἐν οἴκῳ τινὶ κρεμαμένην, εἶτʼ ἐν κύκλῳ ψαύοντα πάμπολλα σιδήρια κἀκείνων πάλιν ἕτερα κἀκείνων ἄλλα καὶ τοῦτʼ ἄχρι πλείονος, ἅπαντα δήπου πίμπλασθαι δεῖ τὰ σιδήρια τῶν ἀπορρεόντων τῆς λίθου σωμάτων. καὶ κινδυνεύει διαφορηθῆναι τὸ σμικρὸν ἐκεῖνο λιθίδιον εἰς τὰς ἀπορροὰς διαλυθέν. καίτοι, κἂν εἰ μηδὲν παρακέοιτʼ αὐτῷ σιδήριον, εἰς τὸν ἀέρα σκεδάννυται, μάλιστʼ εἰ καὶ θερμὸς ὑπάρχοι.
“Yes,” says Epicurus, “but these corpuscles must be looked on as exceedingly small, so that some of them are a ten-thousandth part of the size of the very smallest particles carried in the air.” Then do you venture to say that so great a weight of iron can be suspended by such small bodies? If each of them is a ten-thousandth part as large as the dust particles which are borne in the atmosphere, how big must we suppose the hook-like extremities by which they interlock with each other to be? For of course this is quite the smallest portion of the whole particle.
ναί, φησί, σμικρὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ χρὴ πάνυ νοεῖν, ὥστε τῶν ἐμφερομένων τῷ ἀέρι ψηγμάτων τούτων δὴ τῶν σμικροτάτων ἐκείνων ἔνια μυριοστὸν εἶναι μέρος. εἶτʼ ἐξ οὕτω σμικρῶν τολμᾶτε λέγειν κρεμάννυσθαι βάρη τηλικαῦτα σιδήρου; εἰ γὰρ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν μυριοστόν ἐστι μέρος τῶν ἐν τῷ ἀέρι φερομένων ψηγμάτων, πηλίκον χρὴ νοῆσαι τὸ πέρας αὐτῶν τὸ ἀγκιστροειδές, ᾧ περιπλέκεται πρὸς ἄλληλα; πάντως γὰρ δήπου τοῦτο σμικρότατόν ἐστιν ὅλου τοῦ ψήγματος.