---
title: "On the Natural Faculties · Περὶ φυσικῶν δυνάμεων"
author: "Galen"
translator: "Arthur John Brock"
languages: [grc, en]
shelf: "Classical Greek"
section: 5 of 9
url: https://scriptura.si/works/galen-on-the-natural-faculties/5/
cite: "Galen, tr. Arthur John Brock, On the Natural Faculties · Περὶ φυσικῶν δυνάμεων, section 5. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/galen-on-the-natural-faculties/5/"
---

# On the Natural Faculties · Περὶ φυσικῶν δυνάμεων

*Galen, tr. Arthur John Brock*

The great physician of Rome on how the body grows, nourishes itself and gets rid of waste, against the atomists who think nature works blindly.

> Greek: ed. A. J. Brock, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-greekLit, tlg0057.tlg010, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Arthur John Brock, from the Perseus Digital Library (tlg0057.tlg010.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (books, chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 5. Book II · sections 6–8

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/galen-on-the-natural-faculties/5/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/galen-on-the-natural-faculties/5/#p-N

[¶0] And an emptied space which merely existed in theory could not compel the adjacent fluid to come and fill it. At this point, again, I should like Erasistratus himself to answer regarding this small elementary nerve, whether it is actually one and definitely continuous, or whether it consists of many small bodies, such as those assumed by Epicurus, Leucippus, and Democritus. For I see that the Erasistrateans are at variance on this subject. Some of them consider it one and continuous, for otherwise, as they say, he would not have called it simple; and some venture to resolve it into yet other elementary bodies. But if it be one and continuous, then what is evacuated from it in the so-called insensible transpiration of the physicians will leave no empty space in it; otherwise it would not be one body but many, separated by empty spaces. But if it consists of many bodies, then we have “escaped by the back door,” as the saying is, to Asclepiades, seeing that we have postulated certain inharmonious elements. Once again, then, we must call Nature “inartistic”; for this necessarily follows the assumption of such elements.

> Greek: ἠβουλόμην δʼ αὖ πάλιν μοι κἀνταῦθα τὸν Ἐρασίστρατον αὐτὸν ἀποκρίνασθαι περὶ τοῦ στοιχειώδους ἐκείνου νεύρου τοῦ σμικροῦ, πότερον ἕν τι καὶ συνεχὲς ἀκριβῶς ἐστιν ἢ ἐκ πολλῶν καὶ σμικρῶν σωμάτων, ὧν Ἐπίκουρος καὶ Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος ὑπέθεντο, σύγ κειται. καὶ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τούτου τοὺς Ἐρασιστρατείους ὁρῶ διαφερομένους. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἕν τι καὶ συνεχὲς αὐτὸ νομίζουσιν ἢ οὐκ ἂν ἁπλοῦν εἰρῆσθαι πρὸς αὐτοῦ φασι· τινὲς δὲ καὶ τοῦτο διαλύειν εἰς ἕτερα στοιχειώδη τολμῶσιν. ἀλλʼ εἰ μὲν ἕν τι καὶ συνεχές ἐστι, τὸ κενούμενον ἐξ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἄδηλον ὑπὸ τῶν ἰατρῶν ὀνομαζομένην διαπνοὴν οὐδεμίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καταλείψει χώραν κενήν. οὕτω γὰρ οὐχ ἓν ἀλλὰ πολλὰ γενήσεται, διειργόμενα δήπου ταῖς κεναῖς χώραις. εἰ δʼ ἐκ πολλῶν σύγκειται, τῇ κηπαίᾳ κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν πρὸς Ἀσκληπιάδην ἀπεχωρήσαμεν ἄναρμά τινα στοιχεῖα τιθέμενοι. πάλιν οὖν ἄτεχνος ἡμῖν ἡ φύσις λεγέσθω· τοῖς γὰρ τοιούτοις στοιχείοις ἐξ ἀνάγκης τοῦθʼ ἕπεται.

[¶1] For this reason some of the Erasistrateans seem to me to have done very foolishly in reducing the simple vessels to elements such as these. Yet it makes no difference to me, since the theory of both parties regarding nutrition will be shown to be absurd. For in these minute simple vessels constituting the large perceptible nerves, it is impossible, according to the theory of those who would keep the former continuous, that any “refilling of a vacuum” should take place, since no vacuum can occur in a continuum even if anything does run away; for the parts left come together (as is seen in the case of water) and again become one, taking up the whole space of that which previously separated them. Nor will any “refilling” occur if we accept the argument of the other Erasistrateans, since none of their elements need it. For this principle only holds of things which are perceptible, and not of those which exist merely in theory; this Erasistratus expressly acknowledges, for he states that it is not a vacuum such as this, interspersed in small portions among the corpuscles, that his various treatises deal with, but a vacuum which is clear, perceptible, complete in itself, large in size, evident, or however else one cares to term it (for, what Erasistratus himself says is, that “there cannot be a perceptible space which is entirely empty”; while I, for my part, being abundantly equipped with terms which are equally elucidatory, at least in relation to the present topic of discussion, have added them as well).

> Greek: διὸ δή μοι καὶ δοκοῦσιν ἀμαθῶς πάνυ τὴν εἰς τὰ τοιαῦτα στοιχεῖα τῶν ἁπλῶν ἀγγείων εἰσάγειν διάλυσιν ἔνιοι τῶν Ἐρασιστρατείων. ἐμοὶ γοῦν οὐδὲν διαφέρει. καθʼ ἑκατέρους γὰρ ἄτοπος ὁ τῆς θρέψεως ἔσται λόγος, ἐκείνοις τοῖς ἁπλοῖς ἀγγείοις τοῖς σμικροῖς τοῖς συντιθεῖσι τὰ μεγάλα τε καὶ αἰσθητὰ νεῦρα κατὰ μὲν τοὺς συνεχῆ φυλάττοντας αὐτὰ μὴ δυναμένης γενέσθαι τῆς πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίας, ὅτι μηδὲν ἐν τῷ συνεχεῖ γίγνεται κενόν, κἂν ἀπορρέῃ τι· συνέρχεται γὰρ πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ καταλειπόμενα μόρια, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὕδατος ὁρᾶται, καὶ πάλιν ἓν γίγνεται πάντα τὴν χώραν τοῦ διαφορηθέντος αὐτὰ καταλαμβάνοντα· κατὰ δὲ τοὺς ἑτέρους, ὅτι τῶν στοιχείων ἐκείνων οὐδὲν δεῖται τῆς πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίας. ἐπὶ γὰρ τῶν αἰσθητῶν μόνων, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῶν λόγῳ θεωρητῶν ἔχει δύναμιν, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ὁμολογεῖ διαρρήδην, οὐ περὶ τοῦ τοιούτου κενοῦ φάσκων ἑκάστοτε ποιεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον, ὃ κατὰ βραχὺ παρέσπαρται τοῖς σώμασιν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τοῦ σαφοῦς καὶ αἰσθητοῦ καὶ ἀθρόου καὶ μεγάλου καὶ ἐναργοῦς καὶ ὅπως ἂν ἄλλως ὀνομάζειν ἐθέλῃς. Ἐρασίστρατος μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸς αἰσθητὸν ἀθρόως οὔ φησι δύνασθαι γενέσθαι κενόν· ἐγὼ δʼ ἐκ περιουσίας εὐπορήσας ὀνομάτων ταὐτὸν δηλοῦν ἔν γε τῷ νῦν προκειμένῳ λόγῳ δυναμένων καὶ τἆλλα προσέθηκα.

[¶2] Thus it seems to me better that we also should help the Erasistrateans with some contribution, since we are on the subject, and should advise those who reduce the vessel called primary and simple by Erasistratus into other elementary bodies to give up their opinion; for not only do they gain nothing by it, but they are also at variance with Erasistratus in this matter. That they gain nothing by it has been clearly demonstrated; for this hypothesis could not escape the difficulty regarding nutrition. And it also seems perfectly evident to me that this hypothesis is not in consonance with the view of Erasistratus, when it declares that what he calls simple and primary is composite, and when it destroys the principle of Nature's artistic skill. For, if we do not grant a certain unity of substance to these simple structures as well, and if we arrive eventually at inharmonious and indivisible elements, we shall most assuredly deprive Nature of her artistic skill, as do all the physicians and philosophers who start from this hypothesis. For, according to such a hypothesis, Nature does not precede, but is secondary to the parts of the animal. Now, it is not the province of what comes secondarily, but of what pre-exists, to shape and to construct. Thus we must necessarily suppose that the faculties of Nature, by which she shapes the animal, and makes it grow and receive nourishment, are present from the seed onwards; whereas none of these inharmonious and non-partite corpuscles contains within itself any formative, incremental, nutritive, or, in a word, any artistic power; it is, by hypothesis, unimpressionable and untransformable, whereas, as we have previously shown, none of the processes mentioned takes place without transformation, alteration, and complete intermixture. And, owing to this necessity, those who belong to these sects are unable to follow out the consequences of their supposed elements, and they are all therefore forced to declare Nature devoid of art. It is not from us, however, that the Erasistrateans should have learnt this, but from those very philosophers who lay most stress on a preliminary investigation into the elements of all existing things.

> Greek: Κάλλιον οὖν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ ἡμᾶς τι συνεισενέγκασθαι τοῖς Ἐρασιστρατείοις, ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τοῦτο γεγόναμεν, καὶ συμβουλεῦσαι τοῖς τὸ πρῶτον ἐκεῖνο καὶ ἁπλοῦν ὑπʼ Ἐρασιστράτου καλούμενον ἀγγεῖον εἰς ἕτερʼ ἄττα σώματα στοιχειώδη διαλύουσιν ἀποστῆναι τῆς ὑπολήψεως, ὡς πρὸς τῷ μηδὲν ἔχειν πλέον ἔτι καὶ διαφερομένοις Ἐρασιστράτῳ. ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐδὲν ἔχει πλέον, ἐπιδέδεικται σαφῶς· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἠδυνήθη διαφυγεῖν τὴν περὶ τῆς θρεψεως ἀπορίαν ἡ ὑπόθεσις· ὅτι δʼ οὐδʼ Ἐρασιστράτῳ σύμφωνός ἐστιν, ὃ ἐκεῖνος ἁπλοῦν καὶ πρῶτον ὀνομάζει, σύνθετον ἀποφαίνουσα, καὶ τὴν τῆς φύσεως τέχνην ἀναιροῦσα, πρόδηλον καὶ τοῦτʼ εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ. εἰ μὴ γὰρ κἀν τοῖς ἁπλοῖς τούτοις ἕνωσίν τινα τῆς οὐσίας ἀπολείψομεν, ἀλλʼ εἰς ἄναρμα καὶ ἀμέριστα καταβησόμεθα στοιχεῖα, παντάπασιν ἀναιρήσομεν τῆς φύσεως τὴν τέχνην, ὥσπερ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐκ ταύτης ὁρμώμενοι τῆς ὑποθέσεως ἰατροὶ καὶ φιλόσοφοι. δευτέρα γὰρ τῶν τοῦ ζῴου μορίων κατὰ τὴν τοιαύτην ὑπόθεσιν ἡ φύσις, οὐ πρώτη γίγνεται. διαπλάττειν δὲ καὶ δημιουργεῖν οὐ τοῦ δευτέρου γεγονότος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ προϋπάρχοντός ἐστιν· ὥστʼ ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν εὐθὺς ἐκ σπερμάτων ὑποθέσθαι τὰς δυνάμεις τῆς φύσεως, αἷς διαπλάττει τε καὶ αὐξάνει καὶ τρέφει τὸ ζῷον· ἀλλʼ ἐκείνων τῶν σωμάτων τῶν ἀνάρμων καὶ ἀμερῶν οὐδὲν ἐν ἑαυτῷ διαπλαστικὴν ἔχει δύναμιν ἢ αὐξητικὴν ἢ θρεπτικὴν ἢ ὅλως τεχνικήν· ἀπαθὲς γὰρ καὶ ἀμετάβλητον ὑπόκειται. τῶν δʼ εἰρημένων οὐδὲν ἄνευ μεταβολῆς καὶ ἀλλοιώσεως καὶ τῆς διʼ ὅλων κράσεως γίγνεται, καθάπερ καὶ διὰ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν ἐνεδειξάμεθα. καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν ἀνάγκην οὐκ ἔχοντες, ὅπως τὰ ἀκόλουθα τοῖς στοιχείοις, οἷς ὑπέθεντο, φυλάττοιεν, οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων αἱρέσεων ἅπαντες ἄτεχνον ἠναγκάσθησαν ἀποφήνασθαι τὴν φύσιν. καίτοι ταῦτά γʼ οὐ παρʼ ἡμῶν ἐχρῆν μανθάνειν τοὺς Ἐρασιστρατείους, ἀλλὰ παρʼ αὐτῶν τῶν φιλοσόφων, οἷς μάλιστα δοκεῖ πρῶτον ἐπισκοπεῖσθαι τὰ στοιχεῖα τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων.

[¶3] Now, one can hardly be right in supposing that Erasistratus could reach such a pitch of foolishness as to be recognizing the logical consequences of this theory, and that, while assuming Nature to be artistically creative, he would at the same time break up substance into insensible, inharmonious, and untransformable elements. If, however, he will grant that there occurs in the elements a process of alteration and transformation, and that there exists in them unity and continuity, then that simple vessel of his (as he himself names it) will turn out to be single and uncompounded. And the simple vein will receive nourishment from itself, and the nerve and artery from the vein.

> Greek: οὔκουν οὐδʼ Ἐρασίστρατον ἄν τις ὀρθῶς ἄχρι τοσαύτης ἀμαθίας νομίζοι προήκειν, ὡς μηδὲ ταύτην γνωρίσαι δυνηθῆναι τὴν ἀκολου θίαν, ἀλλʼ ἅμα μὲν ὑποθέσθαι τεχνικὴν τὴν φύσιν, ἅμα δʼ εἰς ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἄναρμα καὶ ἀμετάβλητα στοιχεῖα καταθραῦσαι τὴν οὐσίαν. καὶ μὴν εἰ δώσει τινʼ ἐν τοῖς στοιχείοις ἀλλοίωσίν τε καὶ μεταβολὴν καὶ ἕνωσιν καὶ συνέχειαν, ἓν ἀσύνθετον αὐτῷ τὸ ἁπλοῦν ἀγγεῖον ἐκεῖνο, καθάπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ὀνομάζει, γενήσεται. ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν ἁπλῆ φλὲψ ἐξ αὑτῆς τραφήσεται, τὸ νεῦρον δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀρτηρία παρὰ τῆς φλεβός.

[¶4] How, and in what way? For, when we were at this point before, we drew attention to the disagreement among the Erasistrateans, and we showed that the nutrition of these simple vessels was impraticable according to the teachings of both parties, although we did not hesitate to adjudicate in their quarrel and to do Erasistratus the honour of placing him in the better sect.

> Greek: πῶς καὶ τίνα τρόπον; ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ δὴ καὶ πρόσθεν γενόμενοι τῷ λόγῳ τῆς τῶν Ἐρασιστρατείων διαφωνίας ἐμνημονεύσαμεν, ἐπεδείξαμεν δὲ καὶ καθʼ ἑκατέρους μὲν ἄπορον εἶναι τὴν τῶν ἁπλῶν ἐκείνων ἀγγείων θρέψιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ κρῖναι τὴν μάχην αὐτῶν οὐκ ὠκνήσαμεν καὶ τιμῆσαι τὸν Ἐρασίστρατον εἰς τὴν βελτίονα μεταστήσαντες αἵρεσιν.

[¶5] Let our argument, then, be transferred again to the doctrine which assumes this elementary nerve to be a single, simple, and entirely unified structure, and let us consider how it is to be nourished; for what is discovered here will at once be found to be common also to the school of Hippocrates.

> Greek: αὖθις οὖν ἐπὶ τὴν ἓν ἁπλοῦν ἡνωμένον ἑαυτῷ πάντη τὸ στοιχειῶδες ἐκεῖνο νεῦρον ὑποτιθεμένην αἵρεσιν ὁ λόγος μεταβὰς ἐπισκοπείσθω, πῶς τραφήσεται· τὸ γὰρ εὑρεθὲν ἐνταῦθα κοινὸν ἂν ἤδη καὶ τῆς Ἱπποκράτους αἱρέσεως γένοιτο.

[¶6] It seems to me that our enquiry can be most rigorously pursued in subjects who are suffering from illness and have become very emaciated, since in these people all parts of the body are obviously atrophied and thin, and in need of additional substance and feeding-up; for the same reason the ordinary perceptible nerve, regarding which we originally began this discussion, has become thin, and requires nourishment. Now, this contains within itself various parts, namely, a great many of these primary, invisible, minute nerves, a few simple arteries, and similarly also veins. Thus, all its elementary nerves have themselves also obviously become emaciated; for, if they had not, neither would the nerve as a whole; and of course, in such a case, the whole nerve cannot require nourishment without each of these requiring it too. Now, if on the one hand they stand in need of feeding-up, and if on the other the principle of the refilling of a vacuum can give them no help — both by reason of the difficulties previously mentioned and the actual thinness, as I shall show — we must then seek another cause for nutrition.

> Greek: Κάλλιον δʼ ἄν μοι δοκῶ τὸ ζητού μενον ἐπὶ τῶν νενοσηκότων καὶ σφόδρα καταλελεπτυσμένων βασανισθῆναι. πάντα γὰρ τούτοις ἐναργῶς φαίνεται τὰ μόρια τοῦ σώματος ἄτροφα καὶ λεπτὰ καὶ πολλῆς προσθήκης τε καὶ ἀναθρέψεως δεόμενα. καὶ τοίνυν καὶ τὸ νεῦρον τοῦτο τὸ αἰσθητόν, ἐφʼ οὗπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποιησάμην τὸν λόγον, ἰσχνὸν μὲν ἱκανῶς γέγονε, δεῖται δὲ θρέψεως. ἔχει δʼ ἐν ἑαυτῷ μέρη πάμπολλα μὲν ἐκεῖνα τὰ πρῶτα καὶ ἀόρατα νεῦρα τὰ σμικρὰ καί τινας ἀρτηρίας ἁπλᾶς ὀλίγας καὶ φλέβας ὁμοίως. ἅπαντʼ οὖν αὐτοῦ τὰ νεῦρα τὰ στοιχειώδη καταλελέπτυνται δηλονότι καὶ αὐτά, ἤ, εἰ μηδʼ ἐκεῖνα, οὐδὲ τὸ ὅλον. καὶ τοίνυν καὶ θρέψεως οὐ τὸ μὲν ὅλον δεῖται νεῦρον, ἕκαστον δʼ ἐκείνων οὐ δεῖται. καὶ μὴν εἰ δεῖται μὲν ἀναθρέψεως, οὐδὲν δʼ ἡ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθία βοηθεῖν αὐτοῖς δύναται διά τε τὰς ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένας ἀπορίας καὶ διὰ τὴν ὑπόγυιον ἰσχνότητα, καθάπερ δείξω, ζητητέον ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἑτέραν αἰτίαν θρέψεως.

[¶7] How is it, then, that the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled is unable to afford nourishment to one in such a condition? Because its rule is that only so much of the contiguous matter should succeed as has flowed away. Now this is sufficient for nourishment in the case of those who are in good condition, for, in them, what is presented must be equal to what has flowed away. But in the case of those who are very emaciated and who need a great restoration of nutrition, unless what was presented were many times greater than what has been emptied out, they would never be able to regain their original habit. It is clear, therefore, that these parts will have to exert a greater amount of attraction, in so far as their requirements are greater. And I fail to understand how Erasistratus does not perceive that here again he is putting the cart before the horse. Because, in the case of the sick, there must be a large amount of presentation in order to feed them up, he argues that the factor of “refilling” must play an equally large part. And how could much presentation take place if it were not preceded by an abundant delivery of nutriment? And if he calls the conveyance of food through the veins delivery, and its assumption by each of these simple and visible nerves and arteries not delivery but distribution. For it has been shown that at least in relation to these there is no question of the refilling of a vacuum being in operation, and especially where the parts are very attenuated. It is worth while listening to what Erasistratus says about these cases in the second book of his “General Principles”: “In the ultimate simple [vessels], which are thin and narrow, presentation takes place from the adjacent vessels, the nutriment being attracted through the sides of the vessels and deposited in the empty spaces left by the matter which has been carried away.” Now, in this statement firstly I admit and accept the words “through the sides.” For, if the simple nerve were actually to take in the food through its mouth, it could not distribute it through its whole substance; for the mouth is dedicated to the psychic pneuma. It can, however, take it in through its sides from the adjacent simple vein. Secondly, I also accept in Erasistratus' statement the expression which precedes “through the sides.” What does this say? “The nutriment being attracted through the sides of the vessels.” Now I, too, agree that it is attracted, but it has been previously shown that this is not through the tendency of evacuated matter to be replaced.

> Greek: πῶς οὖν ἡ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθία τρέφειν ἀδύνατός ἐστι τὸν οὕτω διακείμενον; ὅτι τοσοῦτον ἀκολουθεῖν ἀναγκάζει τῶν συνεχῶν, ὅσον ἀπορρεῖ. τοῦτο δʼ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν εὐεκτούντων ἱκανόν ἐστιν εἰς τὴν θρέψιν, ἴσα γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτῶν εἶναι χρὴ τοῖς ἀπορρέουσι τὰ προστιθέμενα· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐσχάτως ἰσχνῶν καὶ πολλῆς ἀναθρέψεως δεομένων εἰ μὴ πολλαπλάσιον εἴη τὸ προστιθέμενον τοῦ κενουμένου, τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἕξιν ἀναλαβεῖν οὐκ ἄν ποτε δύναιντο. δῆλον οὖν, ὡς ἕλκειν αὐτὰ δεήσει τοσούτῳ πλεῖον, ὅσῳ καὶ δεῖται πλείονος. Ἐρασίστρατος δὲ κἀνταῦθα πρότερον ποιήσας τὸ δεύτερον οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅπως οὐκ αἰσθάνεται. διότι γάρ, φησί, πολλὴ πρόσθεσις εἰς ἀνάθρεψιν γίγνεται τοῖς νενοσηκόσι, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ πρὸς ταύτην ἀκολουθία πολλή. πῶς δʼ ἂν πολλὴ πρόσθεσις γένοιτο μὴ προηγουμένης ἀναδόσεως δαψιλοῦς; εἰ δὲ τὴν διὰ τῶν φλεβῶν φορὰν τῆς τροφῆς ἀνάδοσιν καλεῖ, τὴν δʼ εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν ἁπλῶν καὶ ἀοράτων ἐκείνων νεύρων καὶ ἀρτηριῶν μετάληψιν οὐκ ἀνάδοσιν ἀλλὰ διάδοσιν, ὥς τινες ὀνομάζειν ἠξίωσαν, εἶτα τὴν διὰ τῶν φλεβῶν μόνῃ τῇ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίᾳ φησὶ γίγνεσθαι, τὴν εἰς τὰ λόγῳ θεωρητὰ μετάληψιν ἡμῖν ἐξηγησάσθω. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ οὐκέτʼ ἐπὶ τούτων ἡ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθία λέγεσθαι δύναται καὶ μάλιστʼ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐσχάτως ἰσχνῶν, ἀποδέδεικται. τί δέ φησιν ἐπʼ αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν καθόλου λόγων ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος, ἄξιον ἐπακοῦσαι τῆς λέξεως· "Τοῖς δʼ ἐσχάτοις τε καὶ ἁπλοῖς, λεπτοῖς τε καὶ στενοῖς οὖσιν, ἐκ τῶν παρακειμένων ἀγγείων ἡ πρόσθεσις συμβαίνει εἰς τὰ κενώματα τῶν ἀπενεχθέντων κατὰ τὰ πλάγια τῶν ἀγγείων ἑλκομένης τῆς τροφῆς καὶ καταχωριζομένης." ἐκ ταύτης τῆς λέξεως πρῶτον μὲν τὸ κατὰ τὰ πλάγια προσίεμαί τε καὶ ἀποδέχομαι· κατὰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸ τὸ στόμα τὸ ἁπλοῦν νεῦρον οὐκ ἂν δύναιτο δεχόμενον τὴν τροφὴν οὕτως εἰς ὅλον ἑαυτὸ διανέμειν· ἀνάκειται γὰρ ἐκεῖνο τῷ ψυχικῷ πνεύματι· κατὰ δὲ τὸ πλάγιον ἐκ τῆς παρακειμένης φλεβὸς τῆς ἁπλῆς ἐγχωρεῖ λαβεῖν αὐτό. δεύτερον δʼ ἀποδέχομαι τῶν ἐκ τῆς Ἐρασιστράτου λέξεως ὀνομάτων τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐφεξῆς τῷ κατὰ τὰ πλάγια. τί γάρ φησι; "Κατὰ τὰ πλάγια τῶν ἀγγείων ἑλκομένης τῆς τροφῆς." ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἕλκεται, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν, ὅτι δʼ οὐ τῇ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίᾳ, δέδεικται πρόσθεν.

[¶8] 7. Let us, then, consider together how it is attracted. How else than in the way that iron is attracted by the lodestone, the latter having a faculty attractive of this particular quality [existing in iron]? But if the beginning of anadosis depends on the squeezing action of the stomach, and the whole movement thereafter on the peristalsis and propulsive action of the veins, as well as on the traction exerted by each of the parts which are undergoing nourishment, then we can abandon the principle of replacement of evacuated matter, as not being suitable for a man who assumes Nature to be a skilled artist; thus we shall also have avoided the contradiction of Asclepiades though we cannot refute it: for the disjunctive argument used for the purposes of demonstration is, in reality, disjunctive not of two but of three alternatives; now, if we treat the disjunction as a disjunction of two alternatives, one of the two propositions assumed in constructing our proof must be false; and if as a disjunctive of three alternatives, no conclusion will be arrived at.

> Greek: 7. Ἐξεύρωμεν οὖν κοινῇ, τῶς ἕλκεται. πῶς δʼ ἄλλως ἢ ὡς ὁ σίδηρος ὑπὸ τῆς ἡρακλείας λίθου δύναμιν ἐχούσης ἑλκτικὴν τοιαύτης ποιότητος; ἀλλʼ εἰ τὴν μὲν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἀναδόσεως ἡ τῆς κοιλίας ἔνθλιψις παρέχεται, τὴν δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα φορὰν ἅπασαν αἵ τε φλέβες περιστελλόμεναι καὶ προωθοῦσαι καὶ τῶν τρεφομένων ἕκαστον ἐπισπώμενον εἰς ἑαυτό, τῆς πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίας ἀποστάντες, ὡς οὐ πρεπούσης ἀνδρὶ τεχνικὴν ὑποθεμένῳ τὴν φύσιν, οὕτως ἂν ἤδη καὶ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν εἴημεν πεφευγότες τὴν Ἀσκληπιάδου μὴ δυνάμενοί γε λύειν αὐτήν. τὸ γὰρ εἰς τὴν ἀπόδειξιν παραλαμβανόμενον λῆμμα τὸ διεζευγμένον οὐκ ἐκ δυοῖν ἀλλʼ ἐκ τριῶν ἐστι κατά γε τὴν ἀλήθειαν διεζευγμένον. εἰ μὲν οὖν ὡς ἐκ δυοῖν αὐτῷ χρησαίμεθα, ψεῦδος ἔσται τι τῶν εἰς τὴν ἀπόδειξιν παρειλημμένων· εἰ δʼ ὡς ἐκ τριῶν, ἀπέραντος ὁ λόγος γενήσεται.

[¶9] 8. Now Erasistratus ought not to have been ignorant of this if he had ever had anything to do with the Peripatetics — even in a dream. Nor, similarly, should he have been unacquainted with the genesis of the humours, about which, not having even anything moderately plausible to say, he thinks to deceive us by the excuse that the consideration of such matters is not the least useful. Then, in Heaven's name, is it useful to know how food is digested in the stomach, but unnecessary to know how bile comes into existence in the veins? Are we to pay attention merely to the evacuation of this humour, and not to its genesis? As though it were not far better to prevent its excessive development from the beginning than to give ourselves all the trouble of expelling it! And it is a strange thing to be entirely unaware as to whether its genesis is to be looked on as taking place in the body, or whether it comes from without and is contained in the food. For, if it was right to raise this problem, why should we not make investigations concerning the blood as well — whether it takes its origin in the body, or is distributed through the food as is maintained by those who postulate homoeomeries? Assuredly it would be much more useful to investigate what kinds of food are suited, and what kinds unsuited, to the process of blood-production rather than to enquire into what articles of diet are easily mastered by the activity of the stomach, and what resist and contend with it. For the choice of the latter bears reference merely to digestion, while that of the former is of importance in regard to the generation of useful blood. For it is not equally important whether the aliment be imperfectly chylified in the stomach or whether it fail to be turned into useful blood. Why is Erasistratus not ashamed to distinguish all the various kinds of digestive failure and all the occasions which give rise to them, whilst in reference to the errors of blood-production he does not utter a single word — nay, not a syllable? Now, there is certainly to be found in the veins both thick and thin blood; in some people it is redder, in others yellower, in some blacker, in others more of the nature of phlegm. And one who realizes that it may smell offensively not in one way only, but in a great many different respects (which cannot be put into words, although perfectly appreciable to the senses), would, I imagine, condemn in no measured terms the carelessness of Erasistratus in omitting a consideration so essential to the practice of our art.

> Greek: 8. καὶ ταῦτʼ οὐκ ἐχρῆν ἀγνοεῖν τὸν Ἐρασίστρατον, εἴπερ κἂν ὄναρ ποτὲ τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου συνέτυχεν, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐδὲ τὰ περὶ τῆς γενέσεως τῶν χυμῶν, ὑπὲρ ὧν οὐδὲν ἔχων εἰπεῖν οὐδὲ μέχρι τοῦ μετρίου πιθανὸν οἴεται παρακρούεσθαι σκηπτόμενος, ὡς οὐδὲ χρήσιμος ὅλως ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν τοιούτων ἐπίσκεψις. εἶτʼ, ὦ πρὸς θεῶν, ὅπως μὲν τὰ σιτία κατὰ τὴν γαστέρα πέττεται χρήσιμον ἐπίστασθαι, πῶς δʼ ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶν ἡ χολὴ γίγνεται, περιττόν; καὶ τῆς κενώσεως ἄρα φροντιστέον αὐτῆς μόνης, ἀμελητέον δὲ τῆς γενέσεως; ὥσπερ οὐκ ἄμεινον ὑπάρχον μακρῷ τὸ κωλύειν εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς γεννᾶσθαι πλείονα τοῦ πράγματʼ ἔχειν ἐκκενοῦντας. θαυμαστὸν δὲ καὶ τὸ διαπορεῖν, εἴτʼ ἐν τῷ σώματι τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῆς ὑποθετέον εἴτʼ εὐθὺς ἔξωθεν ἐν τοῖς σιτίοις περιέχεσθαι φατέον, εἰ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο καλῶς ἠπόρηται, τί οὐχὶ καὶ περὶ τοῦ αἵματος ἐπισκεψόμεθα, πότερον ἐν τῷ σώματι λαμβάνει τὴν γένεσιν ἢ τοῖς σιτίοις παρέσπαρται, καθάπερ οἱ τὰς ὁμοιομερείας ὑποτιθέμενοί φασι; καὶ μὴν πολλῷ γʼ ἦν χρησιμώτερον ζητεῖσθαι, ποῖα τῶν σιτίων ὁμολογεῖ τῇ τῆς αἱματώσεως ἐνεργείᾳ καὶ ποῖα διαφέρεται, τοῦ ζητεῖν, τίνα μὲν τῇ τῆς γαστρὸς ἐνεργείᾳ νικᾶται Ῥᾳδίως, τίνα δʼ ἀντιβαίνει καὶ μάχεται. τούτων μὲν γὰρ ἡ ἔκλεξις εἰς πέψιν μόνην, ἐκείνων δʼ εἰς αἵματος χρηστοῦ διαφέρει γένεσιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἴσον ἐστὶν ἢ μὴ καλῶς ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ χυλωθῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἢ μὴ χρηστὸν αἷμα γεννηθῆναι. πῶς δʼ οὐκ αἰδεῖται τὰς μὲν τῆς πέψεως ἀποτυχίας διαιρούμενος, ὡς πολλαί τʼ εἰσὶ καὶ κατὰ πολλὰς γίγνονται προφάσεις, ὑπὲρ δὲ τῶν τῆς αἱματώσεως σφαλμάτων οὐδʼ ἄχρι Ῥήματος ἑνὸς οὐδʼ ἄχρι συλλαβῆς μιᾶς φθεγξάμενος; καὶ μὴν εὑρίσκεταί γε καὶ παχὺ καὶ λεπτὸν ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶν αἷμα καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἐρυθρότερον, τοῖς δὲ ξανθότερον, τοῖς δὲ μελάντερον, τοῖς δὲ φλεγματωδέστερον. εἰ δʼ ὅτι καὶ δυσῶδες οὐχ ἕνα τρόπον ἀλλʼ ἐν πολλαῖς πάνυ διαφοραῖς ἀρρήτοις μὲν λόγῳ, σαφεστάταις δʼ αἰσθήσεσι φαίνεται γιγνόμενον, εἰδείη τις, οὐκ ἂν οἶμαι μετρίως ἔτι καταγνώσεσθαι τῆς Ἐρασιστράτου Ῥᾳθυμίας αὐτὸν οὕτω γʼ ἀναγκαίαν εἰς τὰ ἔργα τῆς τέχνης θεωρίαν παραλιπόντος.

[¶10] Thus it is clear what errors in regard to the subject of dropsies logically follow this carelessness. For, does it not show the most extreme carelessness to suppose that the blood is prevented from going forward into the liver owing to the narrowness of the passages, and that dropsy can never occur in any other way? For, to imagine that dropsy is never caused by the spleen or any other part, but always by induration of the liver, is the standpoint of a man whose intelligence is perfectly torpid and who is quite out of touch with things that happen every day. For, not merely once or twice, but frequently, we have observed dropsy produced by chronic haemorrhoids which have been suppressed, or which, through immoderate bleeding, have given the patient a severe chill; similarly, in women, the complete disappearance of the monthly discharge, or an undue evacuation such as is caused by violent bleeding from the womb, often provoke dropsy; and in some of them the so-called female flux ends in this disorder. I leave out of account the dropsy which begins in the flanks or in any other susceptible part; this clearly confutes Erasistratus' assumption, although not so obviously as does that kind of dropsy which is brought about by an excessive chilling of the whole constitution; this, which is the primary reason for the occurrence of dropsy, results from a failure of blood-production, very much like the diarrhoea which follows imperfect digestion of food;

> Greek: ἐναργῆ γὰρ δὴ καὶ τὰ περὶ τῶν ὑδέρων ἁμαρτήματα τῇ Ῥᾳθυμίᾳ ταύτῃ κατὰ λόγον ἠκολουθηκότα. τό τε γὰρ τῇ στενοχωρίᾳ τῶν ὁδῶν κωλύεσθαι νομίζειν πρόσω τοῦ ἥπατος ἰέναι τὸ αἷμα καὶ μηδέποτʼ ἂν ἄλλως ὕδερον δύνασθαι συστῆναι πῶς οὐκ ἐσχάτην ἐνδείκνυται Ῥᾳθυμίαν; τό τε μὴ διὰ τὸν σπλῆνα μηδὲ διʼ ἄλλο τι μόριον, ἀλλʼ ἀεὶ διὰ τὸν ἐν τῷ ἥπατι σκίρρον ὕδερον οἴεσθαι γίγνεσθαι τελέως ἀργοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀνθρώπου καὶ μηδενὶ τῶν ὁσημέραι γιγνομένων παρακολουθοῦντος. ἐπὶ μέν γε χρονίαις αἱμορροΐσιν ἐπισχεθείσαις ἢ διὰ κένωσιν ἄμετρον εἰς ψῦξιν ἐσχάτην ἀγαγούσαις τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐχ ἅπαξ οὐδὲ δὶς ἀλλὰ πολλάκις ἤδη τεθεάμεθα συστάντας ὑδέρους, ὥσπερ γε καὶ γυναιξὶν ἥ τε τῆς ἐφʼ ἑκάστῳ μηνὶ καθάρσεως ἀπώλεια παντελὴς καὶ ἄμετρος κένωσις, ὅταν αἱμορραγήσωσί ποθʼ αἱ μῆτραι σφοδρῶς, ἐπεκαλέσαντο πολλάκις ὕδερον καί τισιν αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ γυναικεῖος ὀνομαζόμενος Ῥοῦς εἰς τοῦτʼ ἐτελεύτησε τὸ πάθος, ἵνα τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν κενεώνων ἀρχομένους ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν ἐπικαίρων μορίων ὑδέρους παραλίπω, σαφῶς μὲν καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐξελέγχοντας τὴν Ἐρασιστράτειον ὑπόληψιν, ἀλλʼ οὐχ οὕτως ἐναργῶς ὡς οἱ διὰ κατάψυξιν σφοδρὰν τῆς ὅλης ἕξεως ἀποτελούμενοι. πρώτη γὰρ αὕτη γενέσεως ὑδέρων αἰτία διὰ τὴν ἀποτυχίαν τῆς αἱματώσεως γιγνομένη τρόπον ὁμοιότατον ταῖς ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν σιτίων ἀπεψίᾳ διαρροίαις. οὐ μὴν ἐσκίρρωταί γε κατὰ τοὺς τοιούτους ὑδέρους οὐδʼ ἄλλο τι σπλάγχνον οὐδὲ τὸ ἧπαρ.

[¶11] certainly in this kind of dropsy neither the liver nor any other viscus becomes indurated. The learned Erasistratus, however, overlooks — nay, despises — what neither Hippocrates, Diocles, Praxagoras, nor Philistion despised, nor indeed any of the best philosophers, whether Plato, Aristotle, or Theophrastus; he passes by whole functions as though it were but a trifling and casual department of medicine which he was neglecting, without deigning to argue whether or not these authorities are right in saying that the bodily parts of all animals are governed by the Warm, the Cold, the Dry and the Moist, the one pair being active the other passive, and that among these the Warm has most power in connection with all functions, but especially with the genesis of the humours. Now, one cannot be blamed for not agreeing with all these great men, nor for imagining that one knows more than they; but not to consider such distinguished teaching worthy either of contradiction or even mention shows an extraordinary arrogance.

> Greek: ἀλλʼ Ἐρασίστρατος ὁ σοφὸς ὑπεριδὼν καὶ καταφρονήσας, ὧν οὔθʼ Ἱπποκράτης οὔτε Διοκλῆς οὔτε Πραξαγόρας οὔτε Φιλιστίων ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρίστων φιλοσόφων οὐδεὶς κατεφρόνησεν οὔτε Πλάτων οὔτʼ Ἀριστοτέλης οὔτε Θεόφραστος, ὅλας ἐνεργείας ὑπερβαίνει καθάπερ τι σμικρὸν καὶ τὸ τυχὸν τῆς τέχνης παραλιπὼν μέρος οὐδʼ ἀντειπεῖν ἀξιώσας, εἴτʼ ὀρθῶς εἴτε καὶ μὴ σύμπαντες οὗτοι θερμῷ καὶ ψυχρῷ καὶ ξηρῷ καὶ ὑγρῷ, τοῖς μὲν ὡς δρῶσι, τοῖς δʼ ὡς πάσχουσι, τὰ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα τῶν ζῴων ἁπάντων διοικεῖσθαί φασι καὶ ὡς τὸ θερμὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς εἴς τε τὰς ἄλλας ἐνεργείας καὶ μάλιστʼ εἰς τὴν τῶν χυμῶν γένεσιν τὸ πλεῖστον δύναται. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν μὴ πείθεσθαι τοσούτοις τε καὶ τηλικούτοις ἀνδράσι καὶ πλέον αὐτῶν οἴεσθαί τι γιγνώσκειν ἀνεμέσητον, τὸ δὲ μήτʼ ἀντιλογίας ἀξιῶσαι μήτε μνήμης οὕτως ἔνδοξον δόγμα θαυμαστήν τινα τὴν ὑπεροψίαν ἐνδείκνυται.

[¶12] Now, Erasistratus is thoroughly small-minded and petty to the last degree in all his disputations — when, for instance, in his treatise “On Digestion,” he argues jealously with those who consider that this is a process of putrefaction of the food; and, in his work “On Anadosis,” with those who think that the anadosis of blood through the veins results from the contiguity of the arteries; also, in his work “On Respiration,” with those who maintain that the air is forced along by contraction. Nay, he did not even hesitate to contradict those who maintain that the urine passes into the bladder in a vaporous state, as also those who say that imbibed fluids are carried into the lung. Thus he delights to choose always the most valueless doctrines, and to spend his time more and more in contradicting these; whereas on the subject of the origin of blood (which is in no way less important than the chylification of food in the stomach) he did not deign to dispute with any of the ancients, nor did he himself venture to bring forward any other opinion, despite the fact that at the beginning of his treatise on “General Principles” he undertook to say how all the various natural functions take place, and through what parts of the animal! Now, is it possible that, when the faculty which naturally digests food is weak, the animal's digestion fails, whereas the faculty which turns the digested food into blood cannot suffer any kind of impairment? Are we to suppose this latter faculty alone to be as tough as steel and unaffected by circumstances? Or is it that weakness of this faculty will result in something else than dropsy?

> Greek: καὶ μὴν σμικρότατός ἐστι τὴν γνώμην καὶ ταπεινὸς ἐσχάτως ἐν ἁπάσαις ταῖς ἀντιλογίαις ἐν μὲν τοῖς περὶ τῆς πέψεως λόγοις τοῖς σήπεσθαι τὰ σιτία νομίζουσι φιλοτίμως ἀντιλέγων, ἐν δὲ τοῖς περὶ τῆς ἀναδόσεως τοῖς διὰ τὴν παράθεσιν τῶν ἀρτηριῶν ἀναδίδοσθαι τὸ διὰ τῶν φλεβῶν αἷμα νομίζουσιν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς περὶ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς τοῖς περιωθεῖσθαι τὸν ἀέρα φάσκουσιν. οὐκ ὤκνησε δʼ οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀτμοειδῶς εἰς τὴν κύστιν ἰέναι τὰ οὖρα νομίζουσιν ἀντειπεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς εἰς τὸν πνεύμονα φέρεσθαι τὸ ποτόν. οὕτως ἐν ἅπασι τὰς χειρίστας ἐπιλεγόμενος δόξας ἀγάλλεται διατρίβων ἐπὶ πλέον ἐν ταῖς ἀντιλογίαις· ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς τοῦ αἵματος γενέσεως οὐδὲν ἀτιμοτέρας οὔσης τῆς ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ χυλώσεως τῶν σιτίων οὔτʼ ἀντειπεῖν τινι τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἠξίωσεν οὔτʼ αὐτὸς εἰσηγήσασθαί τινʼ ἑτέραν γνώμην ἐτόλμησεν, ὁ περὶ πασῶν τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἐν ἀρχῇ τῶν καθόλου λόγων ὑποσχόμενος ἐρεῖν, ὅπως τε γίγνονται καὶ διʼ ὧντινων τοῦ ζῴου μορίων. ἢ τῆς μὲν πέττειν τὰ σιτία πεφυκυίας δυνάμεως ἀρρωστούσης ἀπεπτήσει τὸ ζῷον, τῆς δʼ αἱματούσης τὰ πεφθέντα οὐδὲν ἔσται πάθημα τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλʼ ἀδαμαντίνη τις ἡμῖν αὕτη μόνη καὶ ἀπαθής ἐστιν; ἢ ἄλλο τι τῆς ἀρρωστίας αὐτῆς ἔκγονον ὑπάρξει καὶ οὐχ ὕδερος; δῆλος οὖν ἐναργῶς ἐστιν ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ἐξ ὧν ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις οὐδὲ ταῖς φαυλοτάταις δόξαις ἀντιλέγειν ὤκνησεν, ἐνταυθοῖ δʼ οὔτʼ ἀντειπεῖν τοῖς πρόσθεν οὔτʼ αὐτὸς εἰπεῖν τι καινὸν ἐτόλμησε, τὸ σφάλμα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γνωρίζων αἱρέσεως.

[¶13] The fact, therefore, that Erasistratus, in regard to other matters, did not hesitate to attack even the most trivial views, whilst in this he neither dared to contradict his predecessors nor to advance any new view of his own, proves plainly that he recognized the fallacy of his own way of thinking. For what could a man possibly say about blood who had no use for innate heat? What could he say about yellow or black bile, or phlegm? Well, of course, he might say that the bile could come directly from without, mingled with the food! Thus Erasistratus practically says so in the following words: “It is of no value in practical medicine to find out whether fluid of this kind arises from the elaboration of food in the stomach-region, or whether it reaches the body because it is mixed with the food taken in from outside.” But my very good Sir, you most certainly maintain also that this humour has to be evacuated from the animal, and that it causes great pain if it be not evacuated.

> Greek: τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ λέγειν ἔσχεν ὑπὲρ αἵματος ἄνθρωπος εἰς μηδὲν τῷ συμφύτῳ θερμῷ χρώμενος; τί δὲ περὶ ξανθῆς χολῆς ἢ μελαίνης ἢ φλέγματος; ὅτι νὴ Δία δυνατόν ἐστιν ἀναμεμιγμένην τοῖς σιτίοις εὐθὺς ἔξωθεν παραγίγνεσθαι τὴν χολήν. λέγει γοῦν ὧδέ πως αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασι· "Πότερον δʼ ἐν τῇ περὶ τὴν κοιλίαν κατεργασίᾳ τῆς τροφῆς γεννᾶται τοιαύτη ὑγρασία ἢ μεμιγμένη τοῖς ἔξωθεν προσφερομένοις παραγίγνεται, οὐδὲν χρήσιμον πρὸς ἰατρικὴν ἐπεσκέφθαι." καὶ μήν, ὦ γενναιότατε, καὶ κενοῦσθαι χρῆναι φάσκεις ἐκ τοῦ ζῴου τὸν χυμὸν τοῦτον καὶ μεγάλως λυπεῖν, εἰ μὴ κενωθείη. πῶς οὖν οὐδὲν ἐξ αὐτοῦ χρηστὸν ὑπολαμβάνων γίγνεσθαι τολμᾷς ἄχρηστον λέγειν εἰς ἰατρικὴν εἶναι τὴν περὶ τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ σκέψιν;

[¶14] How, then, if you suppose that no good comes from the bile, do you venture to say that an investigation into its origin is of no value in medicine? Well, let us suppose that it is contained in the food, and not specifically secreted in the liver (for you hold these two things possible). In this case, it will certainly make a considerable difference whether the ingested food contains a minimum or a maximum of bile; for the one kind is harmless, whereas that containing a large quantity of bile, owing to the fact that it cannot be properly purified in the liver, will result in the various affections — particularly jaundice — which Erasistratus himself states to occur where there is much bile. Surely, then, it is most essential for the physician to know in the first place, that the bile is contained in the food itself from outside, and, secondly, that for example, beet contains a great deal of bile, and bread very little, while olive oil contains most, and wine least of all, and all the other articles of diet different quantities.

> Greek: ὑποκείσθω γὰρ ἐν μὲν τοῖς σιτίοις περιέχεσθαι, μὴ διακρίνεσθαι δʼ ἀκριβῶς ἐν ἥπατι· ταῦτα γὰρ ἀμφότερα νομίζεις εἶναι δυνατά. καὶ μὴν οὐ σμικρὸν ἐνταῦθα τὸ διαφέρον ἢ ἐλαχίστην ἢ παμπόλλην χολὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς περιέχοντα προσάρασθαι σιτία. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀκίνδυνα, τὰ δὲ παμπόλλην περιέχοντα τῷ μὴ δύνασθαι πᾶσαν αὐτὴν ἐν ἥπατι καθαρθῆναι καλῶς αἴτια καταστήσεται τῶν τʼ ἄλλων παθῶν, ὧν αὐτὸς ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ἐπὶ πλήθει χολῆς γίγνεσθαί φησι, καὶ τῶν ἰκτέρων οὐχ ἥκιστα. πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἀναγκαιότατον ἰατρῷ γιγνώσκειν, πρῶτον μέν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς σιτίοις αὐτοῖς ἔξωθεν ἡ χολὴ περιέχεται, δεύτερον δʼ, ὡς τὸ μὲν τεῦτλον, εἰ τύχοι, παμπόλλην, ὁ δʼ ἄρτος ἐλαχίστην καὶ τὸ μὲν ἔλαιον πλείστην, ὁ δʼ οἶνος ὀλιγίστην ἕκαστόν τε τῶν ἄλλων ἄνισον τῷ πλήθει περιέχει τὴν χολήν; πῶς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν εἴη γελοιότατος, ὃς ἂν ἑκὼν αἱρῆται τὰ πλείονα χολὴν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς περιέχοντα πρὸ τῶν ἐναντίων;

[¶15] Would it not be absurd for any one to choose voluntarily those articles which contain more bile, rather than those containing less? What, however, if the bile is not contained in the food, but comes into existence in the animal's body? Will it not also be useful to know what state of the body is followed by a greater, and what by a smaller occurrence of bile? For obviously it is in our power to alter and transmute morbid states of the body — in fact, to give them a turn for the better.

> Greek: τί δʼ εἰ μὴ περιέχεται μὲν ἐν τοῖς σιτίοις ἡ χολή, γίγνεται δʼ ἐν τοῖς τῶν ζῴων σώμασιν; ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο χρήσιμον ἐπίστασθαι, τίνι μὲν καταστάσει σώματος ἕπεται πλείων αὐτῆς ἡ γένεσις, τίνι δʼ ἐλάττων; ἀλλοιοῦν γὰρ δήπου καὶ μεταβάλλειν οἷοί τʼ ἐς μὲν καὶ τρέπειν ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον ἀεὶ τὰς μοχθηρὰς καταστάσεις τοῦ σώματος. ἀλλʼ εἰ μὴ γιγνώσκοιμεν, καθότι μοχθηραὶ καὶ ὅπῃ τῆς δεούσης ἐξίστανται, πῶς ἂν αὐτὰς ἐπανάγειν οἷοί τʼ εἴημεν ἐπὶ τὸ κρεῖττον;

[¶16] But if we did not know in what respect they were morbid or in what way they diverged from the normal, how should we be able to ameliorate them? Therefore it is not useless in treatment, as Erasistratus says, to know the actual truth about the genesis of bile. Certainly it is not impossible, or even difficult to discover that the reason why honey produces yellow bile is not that it contains a large quantity of this within itself, but because it [the honey] undergoes change, becoming altered and transmuted into bile. For it would be bitter to the taste if it contained bile from the outset, and it would produce an equal quantity of bile in every person who took it. The facts, however, are not so. For in those who are in the prime of life, especially if they are warm by nature and are leading a life of toil, the honey changes entirely into yellow bile. Old people, however, it suits well enough, inasmuch as the alteration which it undergoes is not into bile, but into blood. Erasistratus, however, in addition to knowing nothing about this, shows no intelligence even in the division of his argument; he says that it is of no practical importance to investigate whether the bile is contained in the food from the beginning or comes into existence as a result of gastric digestion. He ought surely to have added something about its genesis in liver and veins, seeing that the old physicians and philosophers declare that it along with the blood is generated in these organs.

> Greek: οὔκουν ἄχρηστόν ἐστιν εἰς τὰς ἰάσεις, ὡς Ἐρασίστρατός φησιν, ἐπίστασθαι τἀληθὲς αὐτὸ περὶ γενέσεως χολῆς. οὐ μὴν οὐδʼ ἀδύνατον οὐδʼ ἀσαφὲς ἐξευρεῖν, ὅτι μὴ τῷ πλείστην ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχειν τὸ μέλι τὴν ξανθὴν χολὴν ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ σώματι μεταβαλλόμενον εἰς αὐτὴν ἀλλοιοῦταί τε καὶ τρέπεται. πικρόν τε γὰρ ἂνͅ ἦν γευομένοις, εἰ χολὴν ἔξωθεν εὐθὺς ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιεῖχεν ἅπασί τʼ ἂν ὡσαύτως τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἴσον αὐτῆς ἐγέννα τὸ πλῆθος. ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὧδʼ ἔχει τἀληθές. ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖς ἀκμάζουσι καὶ μάλιστʼ εἰ φύσει θερμότεροι καὶ βίον εἶεν βιοῦντες ταλαίπωρον, ἅπαν εἰς ξανθὴν χολὴν μεταβάλλει τὸ μέλι· τοῖς γέρουσι δʼ ἱκανῶς ἐστιν ἐπιτήδειον, ὡς ἂν οὐκ εἰς χολὴν ἀλλʼ εἰς αἷμα τὴν ἀλλοίωσιν ἐν ἐκείνοις λαμβάνον. Ἐρασίστρατος δὲ πρὸς τῷ μηδὲν τούτων γιγνώσκειν οὐδὲ περὶ τὴν διαίρεσιν τοῦ λόγου σωφρονεῖ, πότερον ἐν τοῖς σιτίοις ἡ χολὴ περιέχεται εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἢ κατὰ τὴν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ κατεργασίαν ἐγένετο, μηδὲν εἶναι χρήσιμον εἰς ἰατρικὴν ἐπεσκέφθαι λέγων. ἐχρῆν γὰρ δήπου προσθεῖναί τι καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐν ἥπατι καὶ φλεψὶ γενέσεως αὐτῆς, ἐν τοῖσδε τοῖς ὀργάνοις γεννᾶσθαι τὴν χολὴν ἅμα τῷ αἵματι τῶν παλαιῶν ἰατρῶν τε καὶ φιλοσόφων ἀποφηναμένων. ἀλλὰ τοῖς εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς σφαλεῖσι καὶ διαμαρτάνουσι τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ τοιαῦτά τε ληρεῖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι καὶ προσέτι τῶν χρησιμωτάτων εἰς τὴν τέχνην παραλιπεῖν τὴν ζήτησιν.

[¶17] But it is inevitable that people who, from the very outset, go astray, and wander from the right road, should talk such nonsense, and should, over and above this, neglect to search for the factors of most practical importance in medicine. Having come to this point in the argument, I should like to ask those who declare that Erasistratus was very familiar with the Peripatetics, whether they know what Aristotle stated and demonstrated with regard to our bodies being compounded out of the Warm, the Cold, the Dry and the Moist, and how he says that among these the Warm is the most active, and that those animals which are by nature warmest have abundance of blood, whilst those that are colder are entirely lacking in blood, and consequently in winter lie idle and motionless, lurking in holes like corpses. Further, the question of the colour of the blood has been dealt with not only by Aristotle but also by Plato. Now I, for my part, as I have already said, did not set before myself the task of stating what has been so well demonstrated by the Ancients, since I cannot surpass these men either in my views or in my method of giving them expression.

> Greek: ἡδέως δʼ ἂν ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου γεγονὼς ἠρόμην τοὺς ὁμιλῆσαι φάσκοντας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου φιλοσόφοις, εἰ γιγνώσκουσιν, ὅσα περὶ τοῦ κεκρᾶσθαι τὰ σώμαθʼ ἡμῶν ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ καὶ ὑγροῦ πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλους εἴρηταί τε καὶ ἀποδέδεικται, καὶ ὡς τὸ θερμὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐστι τὸ δραστικώτατον καὶ ὡς τῶν ζῴων ὅσα μὲν θερμότερα φύσει, ταῦτα πάντως ἔναιμα, τὰ δʼ ἐπὶ πλέον ψυχρότερα πάντως ἄναιμα καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ χειμῶνος ἀργὰ καὶ ἀκίνητα κεῖται φωλεύοντα δίκην νεκρῶν. εἴρηται δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς χροιᾶς τοῦ αἵματος οὐκ Ἀριστοτέλει μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ Πλάτωνι. καὶ ἡμεῖς νῦν, ὅπερ ἤδη καὶ πρόσθεν εἶπον, οὐ τὰ καλῶς ἀποδεδειγμένα τοῖς παλαιοῖς λέγειν προὐθέμεθα, μήτε τῇ γνώμῃ μήτε τῇ λέξει τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐκείνους ὑπερβαλέσθαι δυνάμενοι· τὰ δʼ ἤτοι χωρὶς ἀποδείξεως ὡς ἐναργῆ πρὸς αὐτῶν εἰρημένα διὰ τὸ μηδʼ ὑπονοῆσαι μοχθηροὺς οὕτως ἔσεσθαί τινας σοφιστάς, οἳ καταφρονήσουσι τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀληθείας, ἢ καὶ παραλελειμμένα τελέως ὑπʼ ἐκείνων ἀξιοῦμεν εὑρίσκειν τε καὶ ἀποδεικνύναι.

[¶18] Doctrines, however, which they either stated without demonstration, as being self-evident (since they never suspected that there could be sophists so degraded as to contemn the truth in these matters), or else which they actually omitted to mention at all — these I propose to discover and prove. Now in reference to the genesis of the humours, I do not know that any one could add anything wiser than what has been said by Hippocrates, Aristotle, Praxagoras, Philotimus and many other among the Ancients. These men demonstrated that when the nutriment becomes altered in the veins by the innate heat, blood is produced when it is in moderation, and the other humours when it is not in proper proportion. And all the observed facts agree with this argument. Thus, those articles of food, which are by nature warmer are more productive of bile, while those which are colder produce more phlegm. Similarly of the periods of life, those which are naturally warmer tend more to bile, and the colder more to phlegm. Of occupations also, localities and seasons, and, above all, of natures themselves, the colder are more phlegmatic, and the warmer more bilious. Also cold diseases result from and warmer ones from yellow bile. There is not a single thing to be found which does not bear witness to the truth of this account. How could it be otherwise? For, seeing that every part functions in its own special way because of the manner in which the four qualities are compounded, it is absolutely necessary that the function [activity] should be either completely destroyed, or, at least hampered, by any damage to the qualities, and that thus the animal should fall ill, either as a whole, or in certain of its parts.

> Greek: περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν χυμῶν γενέσεως οὐκ οἶδʼ, εἰ ἔχει τις ἕτερον προσθεῖναι σοφώτερον ὧν Ἱπποκράτης εἶπε καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Πραξαγόρας καὶ Φιλότιμος καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν παλαιῶν. ἀποδέδεικται γὰρ ἐκείνοις τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἀλλοιουμένης τῆς τροφῆς ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶν ὑπὸ τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας αἷμα μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς συμμετρίας τῆς κατʼ αὐτήν, οἱ δʼ ἄλλοι χυμοὶ διὰ τὰς ἀμετρίας γιγνόμενοι· καὶ τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ πάνθʼ ὁμολογεῖ τὰ φαινόμενα. καὶ γὰρ τῶν ἐδεσμάτων ὅσα μέν ἐστι θερμότερα φύσει, χολωδέστερα, τὰ δὲ ψυχρότερα φλεγματικώτερα· καὶ τῶν ἡλικιῶν ὡσαύτως χολωδέστεραι μὲν αἱ θερμότεραι φύσει, φλεγματωδέστεραι δʼ αἱ ψυχρότεραι· καὶ τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων δὲ καὶ τῶν χωρῶν καὶ τῶν ὡρῶν καὶ πολὺ δὴ πρότερον ἔτι τῶν φύσεων αὐτῶν αἱ μὲν ψυχρότεραι φλεγματωδέστεραι, χολωδέστεραι δʼ αἱ θερμότεραι· καὶ νοσημάτων τὰ μὲν ψυχρὰ τοῦ φλέγματος ἔκγονα, τὰ δὲ θερμὰ τῆς ξανθῆς χολῆς· καὶ ὅλως οὐδὲν ἔστιν εὑρεῖν τῶν πάντων, ὃ μὴ τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ μαρτυρεῖ. πῶς δʼ οὐ μέλλει; διὰ γὰρ τὴν ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων ποιὰν κρᾶσιν ἑκάστου τῶν μορίων ὡδί πως ἐνεργοῦντος ἀνάγκη πᾶσα καὶ διὰ τὴν βλάβην αὐτῶν ἢ διαφθείρεσθαι τελέως ἢ ἐμποδίζεσθαί γε τὴν ἐνέργειαν καὶ οὕτω νοσεῖν τὸ ζῷον ἢ ὅλον ἢ κατὰ τὰ μόρια.

[¶19] Also the diseases which are primary and most generic are four in number, and differ from each other in warmth, cold, dryness and moisture. Now, Erasistratus himself confesses this, albeit unintentionally; for when he says that the digestion of food becomes worse in fever, not because the innate heat has ceased to be in due proportion, as people previously supposed, but because the stomach, with its activity impaired, cannot contract and triturate as before — then, I say, one may justly ask him what it is that has impaired the activity of the stomach.

> Greek: καὶ τὰ πρῶτά γε καὶ γενικώτατα νοσήματα τέτταρα τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὑπάρχει θερμότητι καὶ ψυχρότητι καὶ ξηρότητι καὶ ὑγρότητι διαφέροντα. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ὁμολογεῖ καίτοι μὴ βουλόμενος. ὅταν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πυρετοῖς χείρους τῶν σιτίων τὰς πέψεις γίγνεσθαι λέγῃ, μὴ διότι τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας ἡ συμμετρία διέφθαρται, καθάπερ οἱ πρόσθεν ὑπελάμβανον, ἀλλʼ ὅτι περιστέλλεσθαι καὶ τρίβειν ἡ γαστὴρ οὐχ ὁμοίως δύναται βεβλαμμένη τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἐρέσθαι δίκαιον αὐτόν, ὑπὸ τίνος ἡ τῆς γαστρὸς ἐνέργεια βέβλαπται.

[¶20] Thus, for example, when a bubo develops following an accidental wound gastric digestion does not become impaired until the patient has become fevered; neither the bubo nor the sore of itself impedes in any way or damages the activity of the stomach. But if fever occurs, the digestion at once deteriorates, and we are also right in saying that the activity of the stomach at once becomes impaired. We must add, however, by what it has been impaired. For the wound was not capable of impairing it, nor yet the bubo, for, if they had been, then they would have caused this damage before the fever as well. If it was not these that caused it, then it was the excess of heat (for these two symptoms occurred besides the bubo — an alteration in the arterial and cardiac movements and an excessive development of natural heat). Now the alteration of these movements will not merely not impair the function of the stomach in any way: it will actually prove an additional help among those animals in which, according to Erasistratus, the pneuma, which is propelled through the arteries and into the alimentary canal, is of great service in digestion; there is only left, then, the disproportionate heat to account for the damage to the gastric activity. For the pneuma is driven in more vigorously and continuously, and in greater quantity now than before; thus in this case, the animal whose digestion is promoted by pneuma will digest more, whereas the remaining factor — abnormal heat — will give them indigestion. For to say, on the one hand, that the pneuma has a certain property by virtue of which it promotes digestion, and then to say that this property disappears in cases of fever, is simply to admit the absurdity.

> Greek: γενομένου γάρ, εἰ τύχοι, βουβῶνος ἐπὶ προσπταίσματι, πρὶν μὲν πυρέξαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἂν χεῖρον ἡ γαστὴρ πέψειεν· οὐ γὰρ ἱκανὸν ἦν οὐδέτερον αὐτῶν οὔθʼ ὁ βουβὼν οὔτε τὸ ἕλκος ἐμποδίσαι τι καὶ βλάψαι τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς κοιλίας· εἰ δὲ πυρέξειεν, εὐθὺς μὲν αἱ πέψεις γίγνονται χείρους, εὐθὺς δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς γαστρὸς βεβλάφθαι φαμὲν ὀρθῶς λέγοντες. ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ τίνος ἐβλάβη, προσθεῖναι χρὴ τῷ λόγῳ. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἕλκος οὐχ οἷόν τʼ ἦν αὐτὴν βλάπτειν, ὥσπερ οὐδʼ ὁ βουβών· ἦ γὰρ ἂν ἔβλαψε καὶ πρὸ τοῦ πυρετοῦ. εἰ δὲ μὴ ταῦτα, δῆλον, ὡς ἡ τῆς θερμασίας πλεονεξία. δύο γὰρ ταῦτα προσεγένετο τῷ βουβῶνι, ἡ τῆς κατὰ τὰς ἀρτηρίας τε καὶ τὴν καρδίαν κινήσεως ἀλλοίωσις καὶ ἡ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν θερμασίας πλεονεξία. ἀλλʼ ἡ μὲν τῆς κινήσεως ἀλλοίωσις οὐ μόνον οὐδὲν βλάψει τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς γαστρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσωφελήσει κατʼ ἐκεῖνα τῶν ζῴων, ἐν οἷς εἰς τὴν πέψιν ὑπέθετο πλεῖστον δύνασθαι τὸ διὰ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν ἐμπῖπτον πνεῦμα. διὰ λοιπὴν οὖν ἔτι καὶ μόνην τὴν ἄμετρον θερμασίαν ἡ βλάβη τῆς ἐνεργείας τῇ γαστρί. τὸ μὲν γὰρ πνεῦμα σφοδρότερόν τε καὶ συνεχέστερον καὶ πλέον ἐμπίπτει νῦν ἢ πρότερον. ὥστε ταύτῃ μὲν μᾶλλον πέψει τὰ διὰ τὸ πνεῦμα καλῶς πέττοντα ζῷα, διὰ λοιπὴν δʼ ἔτι τὴν παρὰ φύσιν θερμασίαν ἀπεπτήσει. τὸ γὰρ καὶ τῷ πνεύματι φάναι τινʼ ὑπάρχειν ἰδιότητα, καθʼ ἣν πέττει, κἄπειτα ταύτην πυρεττόντων διαφθείρεσθαι καθʼ ἕτερον τρόπον ἐστὶν ὁμολογῆσαι τὸ ἄτοπον. ἐρωτηθέντες γὰρ αὖθις, ὑπὸ τίνος ἠλλοιώθη τὸ πνεῦμα, μόνην ἕξουσιν ἀποκρίνεσθαι τὴν παρὰ φύσιν θερμασίαν καὶ μάλιστʼ ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν κοιλίαν· οὐδὲ γὰρ πλησιάζει κατʼ οὐδὲν τοῦτο τῷ βουβῶνι.