Galen_ On the Natural Faculties (Ancient Greek (to 1453)) Galen 1593 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Galen: On the Natural
Faculties
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Galen: On the Natural Faculties

Author: Galen

Translator: Arthur John Brock

Release date: August 2, 2013 [eBook #43383]

Language: English, Greek, Ancient

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43383

Credits: Produced by Eileen Gormly, Turgut Dincer, Ted Garvin and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALEN: ON
THE NATURAL FACULTIES ***

Transcribers Note:

References to footnotes in text and footnotes following page
numbers are the original footnote numbers while superscripted
references refer to the reindexed footnote numbers.

GALEN
ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES
WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY
ARTHUR JOHN BROCK, M.D.
EDINBURGH

LONDON : WILLIAM HEINEMANN
NEW YORK : G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
MCMXVI

Pg v

PREFACE
The text used is (with a few unimportant modifications) that of Kühn (Vol.
II), as edited by Georg Helmreich; Teubner, Leipzig, 1893. The numbers of

the pages of Kühn’s edition are printed at the side of the Greek text, a
parallel mark (||) in the line indicating the exact point of division between
Kühn’s pages.
Words in the English text which are enclosed in square brackets are
supplementary or explanatory; practically all explanations, however, are
relegated to the footnotes or introduction. In the footnotes, also, attention is
drawn to words which are of particular philological interest from the point
of view of modern medicine.
I have made the translation directly from the Greek; where passages of
special difficulty occurred, I have been able to compare my own version
with Linacre’s Latin translation (1523) and the French rendering of Charles
Daremberg (1854-56); in this respect I am also peculiarly fortunate in
having had the help of Mr. A. W. Pickard Cambridge of Balliol College,
Oxford, who most kindly went through the Pg vi proofs and made many
valuable suggestions from the point of view of exact scholarship.
My best thanks are due to the Editors for their courtesy and for the kindly
interest they have taken in the work. I have also gratefully to acknowledge
the receipt of much assistance and encouragement from Sir William Osler,
Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, and from Dr. J. D. Comrie, first
lecturer on the History of Medicine at Edinburgh University. Professor
D’Arcy W. Thompson of University College, Dundee, and Sir W. T.
Thiselton-Dyer, late director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, have
very kindly helped me to identify several animals and plants mentioned by
Galen.
I cannot conclude without expressing a word of gratitude to my former
biological teachers, Professors Patrick Geddes and J. Arthur Thomson. The
experience reared on the foundation of their teaching has gone far to help
me in interpreting the great medical biologist of Greece.
I should be glad to think that the present work might help, however little, to
hasten the coming reunion between the “humanities” and modern biological
science; their present separation I believe to be against the best interest of
both.
A. J. B.

22nd Stationary Hospital, Aldershot.
March, 1916.

Pg vii-viii

CONTENTS
page
preface v
introduction ix
bibliography xli
synopsis of chapters xliii
book i 1
book ii 117
book iii 223
index and glossary 335

Pg ix

INTRODUCTION
Hippocrates
and Galen. If the work of Hippocrates be taken as representing the foundation
upon which the edifice of historical Greek medicine was reared, then the
work of Galen, who lived some six hundred years later, may be looked
upon as the summit or apex of the same edifice. Galen’s merit is to have
crystallised or brought to a focus all the best work of the Greek medical
schools which had preceded his own time. It is essentially in the form of
Galenism that Greek medicine was transmitted to after ages.

The Beginnings
of
Medicine
in Greece. The ancient Greeks referred the origins of medicine to a god
Asklepios (called in Latin Aesculapius), thereby testifying to their
appreciation of the truly divine function of the healing art. The emblem of
Aesculapius, familiar in medical symbolism at the present day, was a staff
with a serpent coiled round it, the animal typifying wisdom in general, and
more particularly the wisdom of the medicine-man, with his semi-
miraculous powers over life and death.
Pg x “Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”

The Asclepiea
or
Health-Temples. The temples of Aesculapius were scattered over the ancient
Hellenic world. To them the sick and ailing resorted in crowds. The
treatment, which was in the hands of an hereditary priesthood, combined
the best of the methods carried on at our present-day health-resorts, our
hydropathics, sanatoriums, and nursing-homes. Fresh air, water-cures,
massage, gymnastics, psychotherapy, and natural methods in general were
chiefly relied on.
Hippocrates
and the
Unity of the
Organism. Hippocrates, the “Father of Medicine” (5th to 4th centuries, B.C.)
was associated with the Asclepieum of Cos, an island off the south-west
coast of Asia Minor, near Rhodes. He apparently revitalized the work of the
health-temples, which had before his time been showing a certain decline in
vigour, coupled with a corresponding excessive tendency towards sophistry
and priestcraft.
Celsus says: “Hippocrates Cous primus quidem ex omnibus memoria dignis
ab studio sapientiae disciplinam hanc separavit.” He means that
Hippocrates first gave the physician an independent standing, separating
him from the cosmological speculator. Hippocrates confined the medical
man to medicine. He did with medical thought what Socrates did with

thought in general—he “brought it down from heaven to earth.” His
watchword was “Back to Nature!”
At the same time, while assigning the physician his post, Hippocrates would
not let him regard that post as sacrosanct. He set his face against any Pg xi
tendency to mystery-mongering, to exclusiveness, to sacerdotalism. He
was, in fact, opposed to the spirit of trade-unionism in medicine. His
concern was rather with the physician’s duties than his “rights.”
At the dawn of recorded medical history Hippocrates stands for the
fundamental and primary importance of seeing clearly—that is of clinical
observation. And what he observed was that the human organism, when
exposed to certain abnormal conditions—certain stresses—tends to behave
in a certain way: that in other words, each “disease” tends to run a certain
definite course. To him a disease was essentially a process, one and
indivisible, and thus his practical problem was essentially one of prognosis
—“what will be the natural course of this disease, if left to itself?” Here he
found himself to no small extent in opposition with the teaching of the
neighbouring medical school of Cnidus, where a more static view-point laid
special emphasis upon the minutiae of diagnosis.
Observation taught Hippocrates to place unbounded faith in the
recuperative powers of the living organism—in what we sometimes call
nowadays the vis medicatrix Naturae. His observation was that even with a
very considerable “abnormality” of environmental stress the organism, in
the large majority of cases, manages eventually by its own inherent powers
to adjust itself to the new conditions. “Merely give Nature a chance,” said
the father of medicine in effect, “and most Pg xii diseases will cure
themselves.” And accordingly his treatment was mainly directed towards
“giving Nature a chance.”
His keen sense of the solidarity (or rather, of the constant interplay)
between the organism and its environment (the “conditions” to which it is
exposed) is instanced in his book, “Airs, Waters, and Places.” As we
recognise, in our popular everyday psychology, that “it takes two to make a
quarrel,” so Hippocrates recognised that in pathology, it takes two
(organism and environment) to make a disease.

As an outstanding example of his power of clinical observation we may
recall the facies Hippocratica, an accurate study of the countenance of a
dying man.
His ideals for the profession are embodied in the “Hippocratic oath.”
Anatomy. Impressed by this view of the organism as a unity, the Hippocratic
school tended in some degree to overlook the importance of its constituent
parts. The balance was re-adjusted later on by the labours of the anatomical
school of Alexandria, which, under the aegis of the enlightened Ptolemies,
arose in the 3rd century B.C. Two prominent exponents of anatomy
belonging to this school were Herophilus and Erasistratus, the latter of
whom we shall frequently meet with in the following pages (v. p. 95 et
seq.). Pg xiii
The Empirics. After the death of the Master, the Hippocratic school tended, as
so often happens with the best of cultural movements, to show signs itself
of diminishing vitality: the letter began to obscure and hamper the spirit.
The comparatively small element of theory which existed in the Hippocratic
physiology was made the groundwork of a somewhat over-elaborated
“system.” Against this tendency on the part of the “Dogmatic” or
“Rationalist” school there arose, also at Alexandria, the sect of the
Empiricists. “It is not,” they said, “the cause but the cure of diseases that
concerns us; not how we digest, but what is digestible.”
Greek
Medicine
in Rome. Horace said “Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.” Political
domination, the occupation of territory by armies, does not necessarily
mean real conquest. Horace’s statement applied to medicine as to other
branches of culture.
The introducer of Greek medicine into Rome was Asclepiades (1st century
B.C.). A man of forceful personality, and equipped with a fully developed
philosophic system of health and disease which commended itself to the
Roman savants of the day, he soon attained to the pinnacle of professional
success in the Latin capital: he is indeed to all time the type of the
fashionable (and somewhat “faddy”) West-end physician. His system was a
purely mechanistic one, being based upon Pg xiv the atomic doctrine of

Leucippus and Democritus, which had been completed by Epicurus and
recently introduced to the Roman public in Lucretius’s great poem “De
Rerum Natura.” The disbelief of Asclepiades in the self-maintaining powers
of the living organism are exposed and refuted at considerable length by
Galen in the volume before us.
The
Methodists. Out of the teaching of Asclepiades that physiological processes
depend upon the particular way in which the ultimate indivisible molecules
come together (ἐν τῇ ποίᾳ συνόδῳ τῶν πρώτων ἐκείνων σωμάτων τῶν
άπαθῶν) there was developed by his pupil, Themison of Laodicea, a system
of medicine characterised by the most engaging simplicity both of diagnosis
and treatment. This so-called “Methodic” system was intended to strike a
balance between the excessive leaning to apriorism shown by the
Rationalist (Hippocratic) school and the opposite tendency of the
Empiricists. “A pathological theory we must have,” said the Methodists in
effect, “but let it be simple.” They held that the molecular groups
constituting the tissues were traversed by minute channels (πόροι, “pores”);
all diseases belonged to one or other of two classes; if the channels were
constricted the disease was one of stasis (στέγνωσις), and if they were
dilated the disease was one of flux (ῥύσις). Flux and stasis were indicated
respectively by increase and diminution of the natural secretions; Pg xv
treatment was of opposites by opposites—of stasis by methods causing
dilatation of the channels, and conversely.
Wild as it may seem, this pathological theory of the Methodists contained
an element of truth; in various guises it has cropped up once and again at
different epochs of medical history; even to-day there are pathologists who
tend to describe certain classes of disease in terms of vaso-constriction and
vaso-dilatation. The vice of the Methodist teaching was that it looked on a
disease too much as something fixed and finite, an independent entity, to be
considered entirely apart from its particular setting. The Methodists
illustrate for us the tyranny of names. In its defects as in its virtues this
school has analogues at the present day; we are all acquainted with the
medical man to whom a name (such, let us say, as “tuberculosis,” “gout,” or
“intestinal auto-intoxication”) stands for an entity, one and indivisible, to be
treated by a definite and unvarying formula.

To such an individual the old German saying “Jedermann hat am Ende ein
Bischen Tuberkulose” is simply—incomprehensible.

Galen. All the medical schools which I have mentioned were still holding
their ground in the 2nd century a.d., with more or less popular acceptance,
when the great Galen made his entry into the world of Graeco-Roman
medicine. Pg xvi
His Nature and Nurture. Claudius Galenus was born at Pergamos in Asia Minor
in the year 131 a.d. His father was one Nicon, a well-to-do architect of that
city. “I had the great good fortune,” says Galen,1 “to have as a father a
highly amiable, just, good, and benevolent man. My mother, on the other
hand, possessed a very bad temper; she used sometimes to bite her serving-
maids, and she was perpetually shouting at my father and quarrelling with
him—worse than Xanthippe with Socrates. When, therefore, I compared the
excellence of my father’s disposition with the disgraceful passions of my
mother, I resolved to embrace and love the former qualities, and to avoid
and hate the latter.”
Nicon called his son Γαληνός, which means quiet, peaceable, and although
the physician eventually turned out to be a man of elevated character, it is
possible that his somewhat excessive leaning towards controversy
(exemplified in the following pages) may have resulted from the fact that he
was never quite able to throw off the worst side of the maternal inheritance.
His father, a man well schooled in mathematics and philosophy, saw to it
that his son should not lack a liberal education. Pergamos itself was an
ancient centre of civilisation, containing, among other culture-institutions, a
library only second in importance to that of Alexandria itself; it also
contained an Asclepieum.
Pg xvii

Galen’s training was essentially eclectic: he studied all the chief
philosophical systems of the time—Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, and
Epicurean—and then, at the age of seventeen, entered on a course of

medical studies; these he pursued under the best teachers at his own city,
and afterwards, during a period of Wanderjahre, at Smyrna, Alexandria, and
other leading medical centres.
Returning to Pergamos, he received his first professional appointment—that
of surgeon to the gladiators. After four years here he was drawn by ambition
to Rome, being at that time about thirty-one years of age. At Rome the
young Pergamene attained a brilliant reputation both as a practitioner and as
a public demonstrator of anatomy; among his patients he finally numbered
even the Emperor Marcus Aurelius himself.
Medical practice in Rome at this time was at a low ebb, and Galen took no
pains to conceal his contempt for the ignorance, charlatanism, and venality
of his fellow-practitioners. Eventually, in spite of his social popularity, he
raised up such odium against himself in medical circles, that he was forced
to flee the city. This he did hurriedly and secretly in the year 168 a.d., when
thirty-six years of age. He betook himself to his old home at Pergamos,
where he settled down once more to a literary life.
His respite was short, however, for within a year he was summoned back to
Italy by imperial mandate. Marcus Aurelius was about to undertake an Pg
xviii expedition against the Germans, who at that time were threatening the
northern frontiers of the Empire, and he was anxious that his consulting
physician should accompany him to the front. “Patriotism” in this sense,
however, seems to have had no charms for the Pergamene, and he pleaded
vigorously to be excused. Eventually, the Emperor gave him permission to
remain at home, entrusting to his care the young prince Commodus.
Thereafter we know little of Galen’s history, beyond the fact that he now
entered upon a period of great literary activity. Probably he died about the
end of the century.
Subsequent
History of
Galen’s
Works.Galen wrote extensively, not only on anatomy, physiology, and
medicine in general, but also on logic; his logical proclivities, as will be
shown later, are well exemplified in his medical writings. A considerable
number of undoubtedly genuine works of his have come down to us. The

full importance of his contributions to medicine does not appear to have
been recognized till some time after his death, but eventually, as already
pointed out, the terms Galenism and Greek medicine became practically
synonymous.
A few words may be devoted to the subsequent history of his writings.
Byzantine
Medicine. During and after the final break-up of the Roman Empire came
times or confusion and of social reconstruction, which left little opportunity
for scientific Pg xix thought and research. The Byzantine Empire, from the
4th century onwards, was the scene of much internal turmoil, in which the
militant activities of the now State-established Christian church played a
not inconsiderable part. The Byzantine medical scholars were at best
compilers, and a typical compiler was Oribasius, body-physician to the
Emperor Julian (4th century, a.d.); his excellent Synopsis was written in
order to make the huge mass of the Galenic writings available for the
ordinary practitioner.
Arabian
Medicine. Greek medicine spread, with general Greek culture, throughout
Syria, and from thence was carried by the Nestorians, a persecuted heretical
sect, into Persia; here it became implanted, and hence eventually spread to
the Mohammedan world. Several of the Prophet’s successors (such as the
Caliphs Harun-al-Rashid and Abdul-Rahman III) were great patrons of
Greek learning, and especially of medicine. The Arabian scholars imbibed
Aristotle and Galen with avidity. A partial assimilation, however, was the
farthest stage to which they could attain; with the exception of
pharmacology, the Arabians made practically no independent additions to
medicine. They were essentially systematizers and commentators. “Averrois
che il gran comento feo”2 Pg xx may stand as the type par excellence of the
Moslem sage.
Avicenna (Ebn Sina), (10th to 11th century) is the foremost name in
Arabian medicine: his “Book of the Canon in Medicine,” when translated
into Latin, even overshadowed the authority of Galen himself for some four
centuries. Of this work the medical historian Max Neuburger says:
“Avicenna, according to his lights, imparted to contemporary medical

science the appearance of almost mathematical accuracy, whilst the art of
therapeutics, although empiricism did not wholly lack recognition, was
deduced as a logical sequence from theoretical (Galenic and Aristotelian)
premises.”
Introduction
of
Arabian
Medicine
to the West.
Arabo-Scholastic
Period. Having arrived at such a condition in the hands of the Mohammedans,
Galenism was now destined to pass once more to the West. From the 11th
century onwards Latin translations of this “Arabian” Medicine (being Greek
medicine in oriental trappings) began to make their way into Europe; here
they helped to undermine the authority of the one medical school of native
growth which the West produced during the Middle Ages—namely the
School of Salerno.
Blending with the Scholastic philosophy at the universities of Naples and
Montpellier, the teachings of Aristotle and Galen now assumed a position of
supreme authority: from their word, in matters Pg xxi scientific and medical,
there was no appeal. In reference to this period the Pergamene was referred
to in later times as the “Medical Pope of the Middle Ages.”
It was of course the logical side of Galenism which chiefly commended it to
the mediaeval Schoolmen, as to the essentially speculative Moslems.
The
Renascence. The year 1453, when Constantinople fell into the hands of the
Turks, is often taken as marking the commencement of the Renascence.
Among the many factors which tended to stimulate and awaken men’s
minds during these spacious times was the rediscovery of the Greek
classics, which were brought to Europe by, among others, the scholars who
fled from Byzantium. The Arabo-Scholastic versions of Aristotle and Galen
were now confronted by their Greek originals. A passion for Greek learning
was aroused. The freshness and truth of these old writings helped to awaken

men to a renewed sense of their own dignity and worth, and to brace them
in their own struggle for self-expression.
Prominent in this “Humanist” movement was the English physician,
Thomas Linacre (c. 1460-1524) who, having gained in Italy an
extraordinary zeal for the New Learning, devoted the rest of his life, after
returning to England, to the promotion of the litterae humaniores, and
especially to making Galen accessible to readers of Latin. Thus the “De
Naturalibus Facultatibus” appeared in London in Pg xxii 1523, and was
preceded and followed by several other translations, all marked by minute
accuracy and elegant Latinity.
Two new parties now arose in the medical world—the so-called “Greeks”
and the more conservative “Arabists.”
Paracelsus. But the swing of the pendulum did not cease with the creation of
the liberal “Greek” party; the dazzling vision of freedom was to drive some
to a yet more anarchical position. Paracelsus, who flourished in the first half
of the 16th century, may be taken as typifying this extremist tendency. His
one cry was, “Let us away with all authority whatsoever, and get back to
Nature!” At his first lecture as professor at the medical school of Basle he
symbolically burned the works of Galen and of his chief Arabian exponent,
Avicenna.
The
Renascence
Anatomists.But the final collapse of authority in medicine could not be
brought about by mere negativism. It was the constructive work of the
Renascence anatomists, particularly those of the Italian school, which
finally brought Galenism to the ground.
Vesalius (1514-64), the modern “Father of Anatomy,” for dissecting human
bodies, was fiercely assailed by the hosts of orthodoxy, including that stout
Galenist, his old teacher Jacques Dubois (Jacobus Sylvius). Vesalius held on
his way, however, proving, inter alia, that Galen had been wrong Pg xxiii in
saying that the interventricular septum of the heart was permeable (cf.
present volume, p. 321).

Michael Servetus (1509-53) suggested that the blood, in order to get from
the right to the left side of the heart, might have to pass through the lungs.
For his heterodox opinions he was burned at the stake.
Another 16th-century anatomist, Andrea Cesalpino, is considered by the
Italians to have been a discoverer of the circulation of the blood before
Harvey; he certainly had a more or less clear idea of the circulation, but, as
in the case of the “organic evolutionists before Darwin,” he failed to prove
his point by conclusive demonstration.
William
Harvey
(1578-1657). William Harvey, the great Englishman who founded modern
experimental physiology and was the first to establish not only the fact of
the circulation but also the physical laws governing it, is commonly
reckoned the Father of Modern Medicine. He owed his interest in the
movements of the blood to Fabricio of Acquapendente, his tutor at Padua,
who drew his attention to the valves in the veins, thus suggesting the idea of
a circular as opposed to a to-and-fro motion. Harvey’s great generalisation,
based upon a long series of experiments in vivo, was considered to have
given the coup de grâce to the Galenic physiology, and hence threw
temporary discredit upon the whole system of medicine associated
therewith.
Modern medicine, based upon a painstaking Pg xxiv research into the details
of physiological function, had begun.
Back to
Galen! While we cannot sufficiently commend the results of the long modern
period of research-work to which the labours of the Renascence anatomists
from Vesalius to Harvey form a fitting prelude, we yet by no means allow
that Galen’s general medical outlook was so entirely invalidated as many
imagine by the conclusive demonstration of his anatomical errors. It is time
for us now to turn to Galen again after three hundred years of virtual
neglect: it may be that he will help us to see something fundamentally
important for medical practice which is beyond the power even of our
microscopes and X-rays to reveal. While the value of his work undoubtedly
lies mainly in its enabling us to envisage one of the greatest of the early

steps attained by man in medical knowledge, it also has a very definite
intrinsic value of its own.
Galen’s
Debt to his
Precursors. No attempt can be made here to determine how much of Galen’s
work is, in the true sense of the word, original, and how much is drawn
from the labours of his predecessors. In any case, there is no doubt that he
was much more than a mere compiler and systematizer of other men’s
work: he was great enough to be able not merely to collect, to digest, and to
assimilate all the best of the work done before his time, but, adding to this
the outcome of his own observations, experiments, and reflections, to
present Pg xxv the whole in an articulated “system” showing that perfect
balance of parts which is the essential criterion of a work of art. Constantly,
however, in his writings we shall come across traces of the influence of,
among others, Plato, Aristotle, and writers of the Stoic school.
Influence of
Hippocrates
on Galen. Although Galen is an eclectic in the best sense of influence of the
term, there is one name to which he pays a very special tribute—that of his
illustrious forerunner Hippocrates. Him on quite a number of occasions he
actually calls “divine” (cf. p. 293).
“Hippocrates,” he says, “was the first known to us of all who have been
both physicians and philosophers, in that he was the first to recognise what
nature does.” Here is struck the keynote of the teaching of both Hippocrates
and Galen; this is shown in the volume before us, which deals with “the
natural faculties”—that is with the faculties of this same “Nature” or vital
principle referred to in the quotation.
“The
Natural
Faculties.” If Galen be looked on as a crystallisation of Greek medicine, then
this book may be looked on as a crystallisation of Galen. Within its
comparatively short compass we meet with instances illustrating perhaps
most of the sides of this many-sided writer. The “Natural Faculties”

therefore forms an excellent prelude to the study of his larger and more
specialised works. Pg xxvi
Galen’s
“Physiology.” What, now, is this “Nature” or biological principle upon which
Galen, like Hippocrates, bases the whole of his medical teaching, and
which, we may add, is constantly overlooked—if indeed ever properly
apprehended—by many physiologists of the present day? By using this
term Galen meant simply that, when we deal with a living thing, we are
dealing primarily with a unity, which, quâ living, is not further divisible; all
its parts can only be understood and dealt with as being in relation to this
principle of unity. Galen was thus led to criticise with considerable severity
many of the medical and surgical specialists of his time, who acted on the
assumption (implicit if not explicit) that the whole was merely the sum of
its parts, and that if, in an ailing organism, these parts were treated each in
and for itself, the health of the whole organism could in this way be
eventually restored.
Galen expressed this idea of the unity of the organism by saying that it was
governed by a Physis or Nature (ἡ φύσις ἥπερ διοικεῖ τὸ ζῷον), with whose
“faculties” or powers it was the province of φυσιολογία (physiology,
Nature-lore) to deal. It was because Hippocrates had a clear sense of this
principle that Galen called him master. “Greatest,” say the Moslems, “is
Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.” “Greatest,” said Galen, “is the
Physis, and Hippocrates is its prophet.” Never did Mohammed more
zealously maintain the unity of the Godhead than Hippocrates and Galen
the unity of the organism. Pg xxvii
Galen’s
Physics. But we shall not have read far before we discover that the term
Physiology, as used by Galen, stands not merely for what we understand by
it nowadays, but also for a large part of Physics as well. This is one of the
chief sources of confusion in his writings. Having grasped, for example, the
uniqueness of the process of specific selection (ὁλκὴ τοῦ οἰκείου), by which
the tissues nourish themselves, he proceeds to apply this principle in
explanation of entirely different classes of phenomena; thus he mixes it up
with the physical phenomenon of the attraction of the lodestone for iron, of
dry grain for moisture, etc. It is noteworthy, however, in these latter

instances, that he does not venture to follow out his comparison to its
logical conclusion; he certainly stops short of hinting that the lodestone
(like a living organ or tissue) assimilates the metal which it has attracted!
Setting aside, however, these occasional half-hearted attempts to apply his
principle of a φύσις in regions where it has no natural standing, we shall
find that in the field of biology Galen moves with an assurance bred of first-
hand experience.
The
Mechanical
Physicists. Against his attempt to “biologize” physics may be set the converse
attempt of the mechanical Atomist school. Thus in Asclepiades he found a
doughty defender of the view that physiology was “merely” physics.
Galen’s ire being roused, he is not content with driving the enemy out of the
biological camp, but must needs attempt also to Pg xxviii dislodge him from
that of physics, in which he has every right to be.
The Anatomists. In defence of the universal validity of his principle, Galen
also tends to excessive disparagement of morphological factors; witness his
objection to the view of the anatomist Erasistratus that the calibre of vessels
played a part in determining the secretion of fluids (p. 123), that digestion
was caused by the mechanical action of the stomach walls (p. 243), and
dropsy by induration of the liver (p. 171).
Characteristics
of the
Living
Organism. While combating the atomic explanation of physical processes,
Galen of course realised that there were many of these which could only be
explained according to what we should now call “mechanical laws.” For
example, non-living things could be subjected to φορά (passive motion),
they answered to the laws of gravity (ταῖς τῶν ὑλῶν οἰακιζόμενα ῥοπαῖς, p.
126). Furthermore, Galen did not fail to see that living things also were not
entirely exempted from the operation of these laws; they too may be at least
partly subject to gravity (loc. cit.); a hollow organ exerts, by virtue of its
cavity, an attraction similar to that of dilating bellows, as well as, by virtue

of the living tissue of its walls, a specifically “vital” or selective kind of
attraction (p. 325).
As a type of characteristically vital action we may take nutrition, in which
occurs a phenomenon Pg xxix which Galen calls active motion (δραστικὴ
κίνησις) or, more technically, alteration (ἀλλοίωσις). This active type of
motion cannot be adequately stated in terms of the passive movements
(groupings and re-groupings) of its constituent parts according to certain
empirical “laws.” Alteration involves self-movement, a self-determination of
the organism or organic part. Galen does not attempt to explain this
fundamental characteristic of alteration any further; he contents himself
with referring his opponents to Aristotle’s work on the “Complete
Alteration of Substance” (p. 9).
The most important characteristic of the Physis or Nature is its τέχνη—its
artistic creativeness. In other words, the living organism is a creative artist.
This feature may be observed typically in its primary functions of growth
and nutrition; these are dependent on the characteristic faculties or powers,
by virtue of which each part draws to itself what is proper or appropriate to
it (το οἰκεῖον) and rejects what is foreign (το ἀλλότριον), thereafter
appropriating or assimilating the attracted material; this assimilation is an
example of the alteration (or qualitative change) already alluded to; thus the
food eaten is “altered” into the various tissues of the body, each of these
having been provided by “Nature” with its own specific faculties of
attraction and repulsion.
The Three Categories. Any of the operations of the living part may be looked
on in three ways, either (a) as a δύναμις, Pg xxx faculty, potentiality; (b) as
an ἐνέργεια, which is this δύναμις in operation; or (c) as an ἔργον, the
product or effect of the ἐνέργεια.3
Pg xxxi Galen’s
Method. Like his master Hippocrates, Galen attached fundamental importance
to clinical observation—to the evidence of the senses as the indispensable
groundwork of all medical knowledge. He had also, however, a forte for
rapid generalisation from observations, and his logical proclivities disposed
him Pg xxxii particularly to deductive reasoning. Examples of an almost
Euclidean method of argument may be found in the Natural Faculties (e.g.

Book III. chap. i.). While this method undoubtedly gave him much help in
his search for truth, it also not unfrequently led him astray. This is
evidenced by his attempt, already noted, to apply the biological principle of
the φύσις in physics. Characteristic examples of attempts to force facts to fit
premises will be found in Book II. chap. ix., where our author demonstrates
that yellow bile is “virtually” dry, and also, by a process of exclusion,
assigns to the spleen the function of clearing away black bile. Strangest of
all is his attempt to prove that the same principle of specific attraction by
which the ultimate tissues nourish themselves (and the lodestone attracts
iron!) accounts for the reception of food into the stomach, of urine into the
kidneys, of bile into the gall-bladder, and of semen into the uterus.
These instances are given, however, without prejudice to the system of
generalisation and deduction which, in Galen’s hands, often proved
exceedingly fruitful. He is said to have tried “to unite professional and
scientific medicine with a philosophic link.” He objected, however, to such
extreme attempts at simplification of medical science as that of the
Methodists, to whom diseases were isolated entities, without any
relationships in time or space (v. p. xv. supra).
He based much of his pathological reasoning upon Pg xxxiii the “humoral
theory” of Hippocrates, according to which certain diseases were caused by
one or more of the four humours (blood, phlegm, black and yellow bile)
being in excess—that is, by various dyscrasiae. Our modern conception of
“hormone” action shows certain resemblances with this theory.
Besides observation and reasoning, Galen took his stand on experiment; he
was one of the first of experimental physiologists, as is illustrated in the
present book by his researches into the function of the kidneys (p. 59 et
seq.). He also conducted a long series of experiments into the physiology of
the spinal cord, to determine what parts controlled movement and what
sensibility.
As a practitioner he modelled his work largely on the broad and simple
lines laid down by Hippocrates. He had also at his disposal all the
acquisitions of biological science dating from the time of Aristotle five
hundred years earlier, and reinforced by the discoveries in anatomy made

by the Alexandrian school. To these he added a large series of researches of
his own.
Galen never confined himself to what one might call the academic or
strictly orthodox sources of information; he roamed the world over for
answers to his queries. For example, we find him on his journeys between
Pergamos and Rome twice visiting the island of Lemnos in order to procure
some of the terra sigillata, a kind of earth which had a reputation for
healing the bites of serpents and Pg xxxiv other wounds. At other times he
visited the copper-mines of Cyprus in search for copper, and Palestine for
the resin called Balm of Gilead.
By inclination and training Galen was the reverse of a “party-man.” In the
Natural Faculties (p. 55) he speaks of the bane of sectarian partizanship,
“harder to heal than any itch.” He pours scorn upon the ignorant
“Erasistrateans” and “Asclepiadeans,” who attempted to hide their own
incompetence under the shield of some great man’s name (cf. p. 141).
Of the two chief objects of his censure in the Natural Faculties, Galen deals
perhaps less rigorously with Erasistratus than with Asclepiades. Erasistratus
did at least recognize the existence of a vital principle in the organism,
albeit, with his eye on the structures which the scalpel displayed he tended
frequently to forget it. The researches of the anatomical school of
Alexandria had been naturally of the greatest service to surgery, but in
medicine they sometimes had a tendency to check progress by diverting
attention from the whole to the part.
The
Pneuma
or Spirit. Another novel conception frequently occurring in Galen’s writings is
that of the Pneuma (i.e. the breath, spiritus). This word is used in two
senses, as meaning (1) the inspired air, which was drawn into the left side of
the heart and thence carried all over the body by the arteries; this has not a
few analogies with oxygen, particularly as its action in the tissues Pg xxxv is
attended with the appearance of the so-called “innate heat.” (2) A vital
principle, conceived as being made up of matter in the most subtle
imaginable state (i.e. air). This vital principle became resolved into three
kinds: (a) πνεῦμα φυσικόν or spiritus naturalis, carried by the veins, and

presiding over the subconscious vegetative life; this “natural spirit” is
therefore practically equivalent to the φῦσις or “nature” itself. (b) The
πνεῦμα ζωτικόν or spiritus vitalis; here particularly is a source of error,
since the air already alluded to as being carried by the arteries tends to be
confused with this principle of “individuality” or relative autonomy in the
circulatory (including, perhaps, the vasomotor) system. (c) The πνεῦμα
ψυχικόν or spiritus animalis (anima = ψυχή), carried by longitudinal canals
in the nerves; this corresponds to the ψυχή.
This view of a “vital principle” as necessarily consisting of matter in a
finely divided, fluid, or “etheric” state is not unknown even in our day.
Belief in the fundamental importance of the Pneuma formed the basis of the
teaching of another vitalist school in ancient Greece, that of the
Pneumatists.
Galen and
the Circulation
of the
Blood. It is unnecessary to detail here the various ways in which Galen’s
physiological views differ from those of the Moderns, as most of these are
noticed in footnotes to the text of the present translation. His ignorance of
the circulation of the blood does not lessen the force of his general
physiological concluPg xxxvisions to the extent that might be anticipated. In
his opinion, the great bulk of the blood travelled with a to-and-fro motion in
the veins, while a little of it, mixed with inspired air, moved in the same
way along the arteries; whereas we now know that all the blood goes
outward by the arteries and returns by the veins; in either case blood is
carried to the tissues by blood-vessels, and Galen’s ideas of tissue-nutrition
were wonderfully sound. The ingenious method by which (in ignorance of
the pulmonary circulation) he makes blood pass from the right to the left
ventricle, may be read in the present work (p. 321). As will be seen, he was
conversant with the “anastomoses” between the ultimate branches of
arteries and veins, although he imagined that they were not used under
“normal” conditions.
Galen’s
Character. Galen was not only a man of great intellectual gifts, but one also of
strong moral fibre. In his short treatise “That the best Physician is also a

Philosopher” he outlines his professional ideals. It is necessary for the
efficient healer to be versed in the three branches of “philosophy,” viz.: (a)
logic, the science of how to think; (b) physics, the science of what is—i.e.
of “Nature” in the widest sense; (c) ethics, the science of what to do. The
amount of toil which he who wishes to be a physician must undergo—
firstly, in mastering the work of his predecessors and afterwards in studying
disease at first hand—makes it absolutely necessary that he should Pg xxxvii
possess perfect self-control, that he should scorn money and the weak
pleasures of the senses, and should live laborious days.
Readers of the following pages will notice that Galen uses what we should
call distinctly immoderate language towards those who ventured to differ
from the views of his master Hippocrates (which were also his own). The
employment of such language was one of the few weaknesses of his age
which he did not transcend. Possibly also his mother’s choleric temper may
have predisposed him to it.
The fact, too, that his vivisection experiments (e.g. pp. 59, 273) were
carried out apparently without any kind of anaesthetisation being even
thought of is abhorrent to the feelings of to-day, but must be excused also
on the ground that callousness towards animals was then customary, men
having probably never thought much about the subject.
Galen’s
Greek Style. Galen is a master of language, using a highly polished variety of
Attic prose with a precision which can be only very imperfectly reproduced
in another tongue. Every word he uses has an exact and definite meaning
attached to it. Translation is particularly difficult when a word stands for a
physiological conception which is not now held; instances are the words
anadosis, prosthesis, and prosphysis, indicating certain steps in the process
by which nutriment is conveyed from the alimentary canal to the tissues.
Pg xxxviii

Readers will be surprised to find how many words are used by Galen which
they would have thought had been expressly coined to fit modern
conceptions; thus our author employs not merely such terms as physiology,
phthisis, atrophy, anastomosis, but also haematopoietic, anaesthesia, and
even aseptic! It is only fair, however, to remark that these terms,

particularly the last, were not used by Galen in quite their modern
significance.
Summary. To resume, then: What contribution can Galen bring to the art of
healing at the present day? It was not, surely, for nothing that the great
Pergamene gave laws to the medical world for over a thousand years!
Let us draw attention once more to:
(1) The high ideal which he set before the profession.
(2) His insistence on immediate contact with nature as the primary
condition for arriving at an understanding of disease; on the need for due
consideration of previous authorities; on the need also for reflection—for
employment of the mind’s eye (ἡ λογικὴ θεωρία) as an aid to the physical
eye.
(3) His essentially broad outlook, which often helped him in the
comprehension of a phenomenon through his knowledge of an analogous
phenomenon in another field of nature.
Pg xxxix

(4) His keen appreciation of the unity of the organism, and of the inter-
dependence of its parts; his realisation that the vital phenomena
(physiological and pathological) in a living organism can only be
understood when considered in relation to the environment of that organism
or part. This is the foundation for the war that Galen waged à outrance on
the Methodists, to whom diseases were things without relation to anything.
This dispute is, unfortunately, not touched upon in the present volume.
What Galen combated was the tendency, familiar enough in our own day, to
reduce medicine to the science of finding a label for each patient, and then
treating not the patient, but the label. (This tendency, we may remark in
parenthesis, is one which is obviously well suited for the standardising
purposes of a State medical service, and is therefore one which all who
have the weal of the profession at heart must most jealously watch in the
difficult days that lie ahead.)
(5) His realisation of the inappropriateness and inadequacy of physical
formulae in explaining physiological activities. Galen’s disputes with

Asclepiades over τὰ πρῶτα ἐκεῖνα σώματα τὰ ἀπαθῆ, over the ἄναρμα
στοιχεῖα καὶ ληρώδεις ὄγκοι, is but another aspect of his quarrel with the
Methodists regarding their pathological “units,” whose primary
characteristic was just this same ἀπάθεια (impassiveness to environment,
“unimpressionability”). We have of course Pg xl our Physiatric or
Iatromechanical school at the present day, to whom such processes as
absorption from the alimentary canal, the respiratory interchange of gases,
and the action of the renal epithelium are susceptible of a purely physical
explanation.4
(6) His quarrel with the Anatomists, which was in essence the same as that
with the Atomists, and which arose from his clear realisation that that
primary and indispensable desideratum, a view of the whole, could never be
obtained by a mere summation of partial views; hence, also, his sense of the
dangers which would beset the medical art if it were allowed to fall into the
hands of a mere crowd of competing specialists without any organising
head to guide them.
1 On the Affections of the Mind, p. 41 (Kühn’s ed.).

2 “Averrhoës who made the great Commentary” (Dante). It was Averrhoës (Ebn Roshd) who, in the
12th century, introduced Aristotle to the Mohammedan world, and the “Commentary” referred to was
on Aristotle.

3 What appear to me to be certain resemblances between the Galenical and the modern vitalistic
views of Henri Bergson may perhaps be alluded to here. Galen’s vital principle, ἡ τεχνικὴ φύσις
(“creative growth”), presents analogies with l’Evolution créatrice: both manifest their activity in
producing qualitative change (ἀλλοίωσις, changement): in both, the creative change cannot be
analysed into a series of static states, but is one and continuous. In Galen, however, it comes to an
end with the development of the individual, whereas in Bergson it continues indefinitely as the
evolution of life. The three aspects of organic life may be tabulated thus:—

δύναμις ἐνέργεια ἔργον
Work to be done. Work being done. Work done, finished.
Future aspect. Present aspect. Past aspect.
Function. Structure.
The élan vital. A “thing.”
A changing which cannot be
understood as a sum of static
parts; a constant becoming,
never stopping—at least till
the ἔργον is reached.

Bergson’s “teleological” Bergson’s “philosophical” Bergson’s “outlook of physical
aspect. aspect. science.”

Galen recognized “creativeness” (τέχνη) in the development of the individual and its parts (ontogeny)
and in the maintenance of these, but he failed to appreciate the creative evolution of species
(phylogeny), which is, of course, part of the same process. To the teleologist the possibilities
(δυνάμεις) of the Physis are limited, to Bergson they are unlimited. Galen and Bergson agree in
attaching most practical importance to the middle category—that of Function.
While it must be conceded that Galen, following Aristotle, had never seriously questioned the fixity
of species, the following quotation from his work On Habits (chap. ii.) will show that he must have at
least had occasional glimmerings of our modern point of view on the matter. Referring to
assimilation, he says: “Just as everything we eat or drink becomes altered in quality, so of course
also does the altering factor itself become altered.... A clear proof of the assimilation of things which
are being nourished to that which is nourishing them is the change which occurs in plants and seeds;
this often goes so far that what is highly noxious in one soil becomes, when transplanted into another
soil, not merely harmless, but actually useful. This has been largely put to the test by those who
compose memoirs on farming and on plants, as also by zoological authors who have written on the
changes which occur according to the countries in which animals live. Since, therefore, not only is
the nourishment altered by the creature nourished, but the latter itself also undergoes some slight
alteration, this slight alteration must necessarily become considerable in the course of time, and thus
properties resulting from prolonged habit must come to be on a par with natural properties.”
Galen fails to see the possibility that the “natural” properties themselves originated in this way, as
activities which gradually became habitual—that is to say, that the effects of nurture may become a
“second nature,” and so eventually nature itself.
The whole passage, however, may be commended to modern biologists—particularly, might one say,
to those bacteriologists who have not yet realised how extraordinarily relative is the term
“specificity” when applied to the subject-matter of their science.

4 In terms of filtration, diffusion, and osmosis.

Pg xli-xlii

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Codices

Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris. No. 2267.
Library of St. Mark. Venice. No. 275.

Translations

Arabic translations by Honain in the Escurial Library, and in the Library at Leyden. Hebrew
translation in the Library at Bonn. Latin translations in the Library of Gonville and Caius
College (MSS.), No. 947; also by Linacre in editions published, London, 1523; Paris, 1528;
Leyden, 1540, 1548, and 1550; also by C.G. Kühn, Leipzig, 1821.

Commentaries and Appreciations

Nic. de Anglia in Bib. Nat. Paris (MSS.), No. 7015; J. Rochon, ibidem, No. 7025; J. Segarra, 1528; J.
Sylvius, 1550, 1560; L. Joubert, 1599; M. Sebitz, 1644, 1645; J.B. Pacuvius, 1554; J.C.G.
Ackermann, 1821, in the introduction to Kühn’s translation, p. lxxx; Ilberg in articles on “Die
Schriftstellerei des Klaudios Galenos,” in Rhein. Mus., Nos. 44, 47, 51, and 52 (years 1889,
1892, 1896 and 1897); I. von Mueller in Quæstiones Criticae de Galeni libris, Erlangen, 1871;
Steinschneider in Virchow’s Archiv, No. cxxiv. for 1891; Wenrich in De auctorum graecorum
versionibus et commentariis syriacis, arabicis, armiacis, persisque, Leipzig, 1842.

Pg xliii

SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS

BOOK I

Chapter I

Distinction between the effects of (a) the organism’s psyche or soul (b) its physis or nature. The
author proposes to confine himself to a consideration of the latter—the vegetative—aspect of
life.

Chapter II

Definition of terms. Different kinds of motion. Alteration or qualitative change. Refutation of the
Sophists’ objection that such change is only apparent, not real. The four fundamental qualities of
Hippocrates (later Aristotle). Distinction between faculty, activity (function), and effect (work or
product).

Chapter III

It is by virtue of the four qualities that each part functions. Some authorities subordinate the dry and
the moist principles to the hot and the cold. Aristotle inconsistent here.

Chapter IV

We must suppose that there are faculties corresponding in number to the visible effects (or products)
with which we are familiar.

Chapter V

Genesis, growth, and nutrition. Genesis (embryogeny) sub-divided into histogenesis and
organogenesis. Growth is a tridimensional expansion of the solid parts formed during genesis.
Nutrition.

Pg xliv

Chapter VI

The process of genesis (embryogeny) from insemination onwards. Each of the simple, elementary,
homogeneous parts (tissues) is produced by a special blend of the four primary alterative
faculties (such secondary alterative faculties being ostopoietic, neuropoietic, etc.). A special
function and use also corresponds to each of these special tissues. The bringing of these tissues
together into organs and the disposal of these organs is performed by another faculty called
diaplastic, moulding, or formative.

Chapter VII

We now pass from genesis to growth. Growth essentially a post-natal process; it involves two factors,
expansion and nutrition, explained by analogy of a familiar child’s game.

Chapter VIII

Nutrition.

Chapter IX

These three primary faculties (genesis, growth, nutrition) have various others subservient to them.

Chapter X

Nutrition not a simple process. (1) Need of subsidiary organs for the various stages of alteration, e.g.,
of bread into blood, of that into bone, etc. (2) Need also of organs for excreting the non-
utilizable portions of the food, e.g., much vegetable matter is superfluous. (3) Need of organs of
a third kind, for distributing the pabulum through the body.

Chapter XI

Nutrition analysed into the stages of application (prosthesis), adhesion (prosphysis), and assimilation.
The stages illustrated by certain pathological conditions. Different shades of meaning of the
term nutriment.

Pg xlv

Chapter XII

The two chief medico-philosophical schools—Atomist and Vitalist. Hippocrates an adherent of the
latter school—his doctrine of an original principle or “nature” in every living thing (doctrine of
the unity of the organism).

Chapter XIII

Failure of Asclepiades to understand the functions of kidneys and ureters. His hypothesis of
vaporization of imbibed fluids is here refuted. A demonstration of urinary secretion in the living
animal; the forethought and artistic skill of Nature vindicated. Refutation also of Asclepiades’s
disbelief in the special selective action of purgative drugs.

Chapter XIV

While Asclepiades denies in toto the obvious fact of specific attraction, Epicurus grants the fact,
although his attempt to explain it by the atomic hypothesis breaks down. Refutation of the
Epicurean theory of magnetic attraction. Instances of specific attraction of thorns and animal
poisons by medicaments, of moisture by corn, etc.

Chapter XV

It now being granted that the urine is secreted by the kidneys, the rationale of this secretion is
enquired into. The kidneys are not mechanical filters, but are by virtue of their nature possessed
of a specific faculty of attraction.

Chapter XVI

Erasistratus, again, by his favourite principle of horror vacui could never explain the secretion of
urine by the kidneys. While, however, he acknowledged that the kidneys do secrete urine, he
makes no attempt to explain this; he ignores, but does not attempt to refute, the Hippocratic
doctrine of specific attraction. “Servile” position taken up by Asclepiades and Erasistratus in
regard to this function of urinary secretion.

Pg xlvi

Chapter XVII

Three other attempts (by adherents of the Erasistratean school and by Lycus of Macedonia) to explain
how the kidneys come to separate out urine from the blood. All these ignore the obvious
principle of attraction.

BOOK II

Chapter I

In order to explain dispersal of food from alimentary canal viâ the veins (anadosis) there is no need
to invoke with Erasistratus, the horror vacui, since here again the principle of specific attraction
is operative; moreover, blood is also driven forward by the compressing action of the stomach
and the contractions of the veins. Possibility, however, of Erasistratus’s factor playing a certain
minor rôle.

Chapter II

The Erasistratean idea that bile becomes separated out from the blood in the liver because, being the
thinner fluid, it alone can enter the narrow stomata of the bile-ducts, while the thicker blood can
only enter the wider mouths of the hepatic venules.

Chapter III

The morphological factors suggested by Erasistratus are quite inadequate to explain biological
happenings. Erasistratus inconsistent with his own statements. The immanence of the physis or
nature; her shaping is not merely external like that of a statuary, but involves the entire
substance. In genesis (embryogeny) the semen is the active, and the menstrual blood the passive,
principle. Attractive, alterative, and formative faculties of the semen. Embryogeny is naturally
followed by growth; these two functions distinguished.

Pg xlvii

Chapter IV

Unjustified claim by Erasistrateans that their founder had associations with the Peripatetic
(Aristotelian) school. The characteristic physiological tenets of that school (which were all
anticipated by Hippocrates) in no way agree with those of Erasistratus, save that both recognize
the purposefulness of Nature; in practice, however, Erasistratus assumed numerous exceptions
to this principle. Difficulty of understanding why he rejected the biological principle of
attraction in favour of anatomical factors.

Chapter V

A further difficulty raised by Erasistratus’s statement regarding secretion of bile in the liver.

Chapter VI

The same holds with nutrition. Even if we grant that veins may obtain their nutrient blood by virtue
of the horror vacui (chap. i.), how could this explain the nutrition of nerves? Erasistratus’s
hypothesis of minute elemental nerves and vessels within the ordinary visible nerves simply
throws the difficulty further back. And is Erasistratus’s minute “simple” nerve susceptible of
further analysis, as the Atomists would assume? If so, this is opposed to the conception of a
constructive and artistic Nature which Erasistratus himself shares with Hippocrates and the
writer. And if his minute nerve is really elementary and not further divisible, then it cannot,
according to his own showing, contain a cavity; therefore the horror vacui does not apply to it.
And how could this principle apply to the restoration to its original bulk of a part which had
become thin through disease, where more matter must become attached than runs away? A
quotation from Erasistratus shows that he did acknowledge an “attraction,” although not exactly
in the Hippocratic sense.

Pg xlviii

Chapter VII

In the last resort, the ultimate living elements (Erasistratus’s simple vessels) must draw in their food
by virtue of an inherent attractive faculty like that which the lodestone exerts on iron. Thus the
process of anadosis, from beginning to end, can be explained without assuming a horror vacui.

Chapter VIII

Erasistratus’s disregard for the humours. In respect to excessive formation of bile, however,
prevention is better than cure: accordingly we must consider its pathology. Does blood pre-exist
in the food, or does it come into existence in the body? Erasistratus’s purely anatomical
explanation of dropsy. He entirely avoids the question of the four qualities (e.g. the importance
of innate heat) in the generation of the humours, etc. Yet the problem of blood-production is no

less important than that of gastric digestion. Proof that bile does not pre-exist in the food. The
four fundamental qualities of Hippocrates and Aristotle. How the humours are formed from food
taken into the veins: when heat is in proportionate amount, blood results; when in excess, bile;
when deficient, phlegm. Various conditions determining cold or warm temperaments. The four
primary diseases result each from excess of one of the four qualities. Erasistratus unwillingly
acknowledges this when he ascribes the indigestion occurring in fever to impaired function of
the stomach. For what causes this functio laesa? Proof that it is the fever (excess of innate heat).

If, then, heat plays so important a part in abnormal functioning, so must it also in normal (i.e.
causes of eucrasia involved in those of dyscrasia, of physiology in those of pathology). A like
argument explains the genesis of the humours. Addition of warmth to things already warm
makes them bitter; thus honey turns to bile in people who are already warm; where warmth
deficient, as in old people, it turns to useful blood. This is a proof that bile does not pre-exist, as
such, in the food.

Pg xlix

Chapter IX

The functions of organs also depend on the way in which the four qualities are mixed—e.g. the
contracting function of the stomach. Treatment only possible when we know the causes of errors
of function. The Erasistrateans practically Empiricists in this respect. On an appreciation of the
meaning of a dyscrasia follows naturally the Hippocratic principle of treating opposites by
opposites (e.g. cooling the over-heated stomach, warming it when chilled, etc.). Useless in
treatment to know merely the function of each organ; we must know the bodily condition which
upsets this function. Blood is warm and moist. Yellow bile is warm and (virtually, though not
apparently) dry. Phlegm is cold and moist. The fourth possible combination (cold and dry) is
represented by black bile. For the clearing out of this humour from the blood, Nature has
provided the spleen—an organ which, according to Erasistratus, fulfils no purpose. Proof of the
importance of the spleen is the jaundice, toxaemia, etc., occurring when it is diseased.
Erasistratus’s failure to mention the views of leading authorities on this organ shows the
hopelessness of his position. The Hippocratic view has now been demonstrated deductively and
inductively. The classical view as to the generation of the humours. Normal and pathological
forms of yellow and black bile. Part played by the innate heat in their production. Other kinds of
bile are merely transition-stages between these extreme types. Abnormal forms removed by liver
and spleen respectively. Phlegm, however, does not need a special excretory organ, as it can
undergo entire metabolism in the body.

Need for studying the works of the Ancients carefully, in order to reach a proper understanding
of this subject.

Pg l

BOOK III

Chapter I

A recapitulation of certain points previously demonstrated. Every part of the animal has an attractive
and an alterative (assimilative) faculty; it attracts the nutrient juice which is proper to it.
Assimilation is preceded by adhesion (prosphysis) and that again, by application (prosthesis).
Application the goal of attraction. It would not, however, be followed by adhesion and
assimilation if each part did not also possess a faculty for retaining in position the nutriment
which has been applied. A priori necessity for this retentive faculty.

Chapter II

The same faculty to be proved a posteriori. Its corresponding function (i.e. the activation of this
faculty or potentiality) well seen in the large hollow organs, notably the uterus and stomach.

Chapter III

Exercise of the retentive faculty particularly well seen in the uterus. Its object is to allow the embryo
to attain full development; this being completed, a new faculty—the expulsive—hitherto
quiescent, comes into play. Characteristic signs and symptoms of pregnancy. Tight grip of uterus
on growing embryo, and accurate closure of os uteri during operation of the retentive faculty.
Dilatation of os and expulsive activities of uterus at full term, or when foetus dies. Prolapse
from undue exercise of this faculty. Rôle of the midwife. Accessory muscles in parturition.

Chapter IV

Same two faculties seen in stomach. Gurglings or borborygmi show that this organ is weak and is not
gripping its contents tightly enough. Undue delay of food in a weak Pg li stomach proved not to
be due to narrowness of pylorus: length of stay depends on whether digestion (another instance
of the characteristically vital process of alteration) has taken place or not. Erasistratus wrong in
attributing digestion merely to the mechanical action of the stomach walls. When digestion
completed, then pylorus opens and allows contents to pass downwards, just as os uteri when
development of embyro completed.

Chapter V

If attraction and elimination always proceeded pari passu, the content of these hollow organs
(including gall-bladder and urinary bladder) would never vary in amount. A retentive faculty,
therefore, also logically needed. Its existence demonstrated. Expulsion determined by qualitative
and quantitative changes of contents. “Diarrhoea” of stomach. Vomiting.

Chapter VI

Every organic part has an appetite and aversion for the qualities which are appropriate and foreign to
it respectively. Attraction necessarily leads to a certain benefit received. This again necessitates
retention.

Chapter VII

Interaction between two bodies; the stronger masters the weaker; a deleterious drug masters the
forces of the body, whereas food is mastered by them; this mastery is an alteration, and the
amount of alteration varies with the different organs; thus a partial alteration is effected in
mouth by saliva, but much greater in stomach, where not only gastric juice, but also bile,
pneuma, innate heat (i.e. oxidation?), and other powerful factors are brought to bear on it; need
of considerable alteration in stomach Pg lii as a transition-stage between food and blood;
appearance of faeces in intestine another proof of great alteration effected in stomach.
Asclepiades’s denial of real qualitative change in stomach rebutted. Erasistratus’s denial that
digestion in any way resembles a boiling process comes from his taking words too literally.

Chapter VIII

Erasistratus denies that the stomach exerts any pull in the act of swallowing. That he is wrong,
however, is proved by the anatomical structure of the stomach—its inner coat with longitudinal
fibres obviously acts as a vis a fronte (attraction), whilst its outer coat exercises through the
contraction of its circular fibres a vis a tergo (propulsion); the latter also comes into play in
vomiting. The stomach uses the oesophagus as a kind of hand, to draw in its food with. The
functions of the two coats proved also by vivisection. Swallowing cannot be attributed merely to
the force of gravity.

Chapter IX

These four faculties which subserve nutrition are thus apparent in many different parts of the body.

Chapter X

Need for elaborating the statements of the ancient physicians. Superiority of Ancients to Moderns.
This state of affairs can only be rectified by a really efficient education of youth. The chief
requisites of such an education.

Chapter XI

For the sake of the few who realty wish truth, the argument will be continued. A third kind of fibre—
the oblique—subserves retention; the way in which this fibre is disposed in different coats.

Pg liii

Chapter XII

The factor which brings the expulsive faculty into action is essentially a condition of the organ or its
contents which is the reverse of that which determined attraction. Analogy between abortion and
normal parturition. Whatever produces discomfort must be expelled. That discomfort also
determines expulsion of contents from gall-bladder is not so evident as in the case of stomach,
uterus, urinary bladder, etc., but can be logically demonstrated.

Chapter XIII

Expulsion takes place through the same channel as attraction (e.g., in stomach, gall-bladder, uterus).
Similarly the delivery (anadosis) of nutriment to the liver from the food-canal viâ the mesenteric
veins may have its direction reversed. Continuous give-and-take between different parts of the
body; superior strength of certain parts is natural, of others acquired. When liver contains
abundant food and stomach depleted, latter may draw on former; this occurs when animal can
get nothing to eat, and so prevents starvation. Similarly, when one part becomes over-distended,
it tends to deposit its excess in some weaker part near it; this passes it on to some still weaker
part, which cannot get rid of it; hence deposits of various kinds. Further instances of reversal of
the normal direction of anadosis from the food canal through the veins. Such reversal of
functions would in any case be expected a priori. In the vomiting of intestinal obstruction,
matter may be carried backwards all the way from the intestine to the mouth; not surprising,
therefore, that, under certain circumstances, food-material might be driven right back from the
skin-surface to the alimentary canal (e.g. in excessive chilling of surface); not much needed to
determine this reversal of direction. Action of purgative drugs upon terminals of veins; one part
draws from another until whole body participates; similarly in intestinal obstruction, each part
passes on the irritating substance to its weaker Pg liv neighbour. Reversal of direction of flow
occurs not merely on occasion but also constantly (as in arteries, lungs, heart, etc.). The various
stages of normal nutrition described. Why the stomach sometimes draws back the nutriment it
had passed on to portal veins and liver. A similar ebb and flow in relation to the spleen.
Comparison of the parts of the body to a lot of animals at a feast. The valves of the heart are a
provision of Nature to prevent this otherwise inevitable regurgitation, though even they are not
quite efficient.

Chapter XIV

The superficial arteries, when they dilate, draw in air from the atmosphere, and the deeper ones a
fine, vaporous blood from the veins and heart. Lighter matter such as air will always be drawn
in preference to heavier; this is why the arteries in the food-canal draw in practically none of the
nutrient matter contained in it.

Chapter XV

The two kinds of attraction—the mechanical attraction of dilating bellows and the “physical” (vital)
attraction by living tissue of nutrient matter which is specifically allied or appropriate to it. The
former kind—that resulting from horror vacui—acts primarily on light matter, whereas vital
attraction has no essential concern with such mechanical factors. A hollow organ exercises, by
virtue of its cavity, the former kind of attraction, and by virtue of the living tissue of its walls,
the second kind. Application of this to question of contents of arteries; anastomoses of arteries
and veins. Foramina in interventricular septum of heart, allowing some blood to pass from right
to left ventricle. Large size of aorta probably due to fact that it not merely carries the pneuma
received from the lungs, but also some of the blood which percolates through septum from right
ventricle. Thus arteries carry not merely pneuma, but also some light vaporous blood, which
certain parts need more Pg lv than the ordinary thick blood of the veins. The organic parts must
have their blood-supply sufficiently near to allow them to absorb it; comparison with an
irrigation system in a garden. Details of the process of nutrition in the ultimate specific tissues;
some are nourished from the blood directly; in others a series of intermediate stages must
precede complete assimilation; for example, marrow is an intermediate stage between blood and
bone.

From the generalisations arrived at in the present work we can deduce the explanation of all
kinds of particular phenomena; an instance is given, showing the co-operation of various factors
previously discussed.

GALEN
ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES5

BOOK I

I
Since feeling and voluntary motion are peculiar to animals, whilst growth
and nutrition are common to plants as well, we may look on the former as
effects6 of the soul7 and the latter as effects of the nature.8 And if there be
anyone who allows a share in soul to plants as well, and separates the two
kinds of soul, naming the kind in question vegetative, and the other sensory,
this person is not saying anything else, although his language is somewhat
unusual. We, however, for our part, are convinced that the chief merit of
language is clearness, and we know that nothing detracts so much from this
as do unfamiliar terms; accordingly we employ those terms which the bulk
of people are accustomed to use, and we say that animals are governed at
once by their soul and by their nature, and plants by their nature alone, and
that growth and nutrition are the effects of nature, not of soul.

II
Thus we shall enquire, in the course of this treatise, from what faculties
these effects themselves, as well as any other effects of nature which there
may be, take their origin.
First, however, we must distinguish and explain clearly the various terms
which we are going to use in this treatise, and to what things we apply
them; and this will prove to be not merely an explanation of terms but at the
same time a demonstration of the effects of nature.

When, therefore, such and such a body undergoes no change from its
existing state, we say that it is at rest; but, if it departs from this in any
respect we then say that in this respect it undergoes motion.9 Accordingly,
when it departs in various ways from its pre-existing state, it will be said to
undergo various kinds of motion. Thus, if that which is white becomes
black, or what is black becomes white, it undergoes motion in respect to
colour; or if what was previously sweet now becomes bitter, or, conversely,
from being bitter now becomes sweet, it will be said to undergo motion in
respect to flavour; to both of these instances, as well as to those previously
mentioned, we shall apply the term qualitative motion. And further, it is not
only things which are altered in regard to colour and flavour which, we say,
undergo motion; when a warm thing becomes cold, and a cold warm, here,
too we speak of its undergoing motion; similarly also when anything moist
becomes dry, or dry moist. Now, the common term which we apply to all
these cases is alteration.
This is one kind of motion. But there is another kind which occurs in bodies
which change their position, or as we say, pass from one place to another;
the name of this is transference.10
These two kinds of motion, then, are simple and primary, while
compounded from them we have growth and decay,11 as when a small thing
becomes bigger, or a big thing smaller, each retaining at the same time its
particular form. And two other kinds of motion are genesis and
destruction,12 genesis being a coming into existence,13 and destruction
being the opposite.
Now, common to all kinds of motion is change from the pre-existing state,
while common to all conditions of rest is retention of the pre-existing state.
The Sophists, however, while allowing that bread in turning into blood
becomes changed as regards sight, taste, and touch, will not agree that this
change occurs in reality. Thus some of them hold that all such phenomena
are tricks and illusions of our senses; the senses, they say, are affected now
in one way, now in another, whereas the underlying substance does not
admit of any of these changes to which the names are given. Others (such as
Anaxagoras)14 will have it that the qualities do exist in it, but that they are

unchangeable and immutable from eternity to eternity, and that these
apparent alterations are brought about by separation and combination.
Now, if I were to go out of my way to confute these people, my subsidiary
task would be greater than my main one. Thus, if they do not know all that
has been written, “On Complete Alteration of Substance”15 by Aristotle,
and after him by Chrysippus,16 I must beg of them to make themselves
familiar with these men’s writings. If, however, they know these, and yet
willingly prefer the worse views to the better, they will doubtless consider
my arguments foolish also. I have shown elsewhere that these opinions
were shared by Hippocrates, who lived much earlier than Aristotle. In fact,
of all those known to us who have been both physicians and philosophers
Hippocrates was the first who took in hand to demonstrate that there are, in
all, four mutually interacting qualities, and that to the operation of these is
due the genesis and destruction of all things that come into and pass out of
being. Nay, more; Hippocrates was also the first to recognise that all these
qualities undergo an intimate mingling with one another; and at least the
beginnings of the proofs to which Aristotle later set his hand are to be found
first in the writings of Hippocrates.
As to whether we are to suppose that the substances as well as their
qualities undergo this intimate mingling, as Zeno of Citium afterwards
declared, I do not think it necessary to go further into this question in the
present treatise;17 for immediate purposes we only need to recognize the
complete alteration of substance. In this way, nobody will suppose that
bread represents a kind of meeting-place18 for bone, flesh, nerve, and all the
other parts, and that each of these subsequently becomes separated in the
body and goes to join its own kind;19 before any separation takes place, the
whole of the bread obviously becomes blood; (at any rate, if a man takes no
other food for a prolonged period, he will have blood enclosed in his veins
all the same).20 And clearly this disproves the view of those who consider
the elements21 unchangeable, as also, for that matter, does the oil which is
entirely used up in the flame of the lamp, or the faggots which, in a
somewhat longer time, turn into fire.
I said, however, that I was not going to enter into an argument with these
people, and it was only because the example was drawn from the subject-

matter of medicine, and because I need it for the present treatise, that I have
mentioned it. We shall then, as I said, renounce our controversy with them,
since those who wish may get a good grasp of the views of the ancients
from our own personal investigations into these matters.
The discussion which follows we shall devote entirely, as we originally
proposed, to an enquiry into the number and character of the faculties of
Nature, and what is the effect which each naturally produces. Now, of
course, I mean by an effect22 that which has already come into existence
and has been completed by the activity23 of these faculties—for example,
blood, flesh, or nerve. And activity is the name I give to the active change
or motion, and the cause of this I call a faculty. Thus, when food turns into
blood, the motion of the food is passive, and that of the vein active.
Similarly, when the limbs have their position altered, it is the muscle which
produces, and the bones which undergo the motion. In these cases I call the
motion of the vein and of the muscle an activity, and that of the food and
the bones a symptom or affection,24 since the first group undergoes
alteration and the second group is merely transported. One might,
therefore, also speak of the activity as an effect of Nature25—for example,
digestion, absorption,26 blood-production; one could not, however, in every
case call the effect an activity; thus flesh is an effect of Nature, but it is, of
course, not an activity. It is, therefore, clear that one of these terms is used
in two senses, but not the other.

III
It appears to me, then, that the vein, as well as each of the other parts,
functions in such and such a way according to the manner in which the four
qualities 27 are mixed. There are, however, a considerable number of not
undistinguished men—philosophers and physicians—who refer action to
the Warm and the Cold, and who subordinate to these, as passive, the Dry
and the Moist; Aristotle, in fact, was the first who attempted to bring back
the causes of the various special activities to these principles, and he was
followed later by the Stoic school. These latter, of course, could logically
make active principles of the Warm and Cold, since they refer the change of
the elements themselves into one another to certain diffusions and

condensations.28 This does not hold of Aristotle, however; seeing that he
employed the four qualities to explain the genesis of the elements, he ought
properly to have also referred the causes of all the special activities to these.
How is it that he uses the four qualities in his book “On Genesis and
Destruction,” whilst in his “Meteorology,” his “Problems,” and many other
works he uses the two only? Of course, if anyone were to maintain that in
the case of animals and plants the Warm and Cold are more active, the Dry
and Moist less so, he might perhaps have even Hippocrates on his side; but
if he were to say that this happens in all cases, he would, I imagine, lack
support, not merely from Hippocrates, but even from Aristotle himself—if,
at least, Aristotle chose to remember what he himself taught us in his work
“On Genesis and Destruction,” not as a matter of simple statement, but with
an accompanying demonstration. I have, however, also investigated these
questions, in so far as they are of value to a physician, in my work “On
Temperaments.”

IV
The so-called blood-making29 faculty in the veins, then, as well as all the
other faculties, fall within the category of relative concepts; primarily
because the faculty is the cause of the activity, but also, accidentally,
because it is the cause of the effect. But if the cause is relative to something
—for it is the cause of what results from it, and of nothing else—it is
obvious that the faculty also falls into the category of the relative; and so
long as we are ignorant of the true essence of the cause which is operating,
we call it a faculty. Thus we say that there exists in the veins a blood-
making faculty, as also a digestive30 faculty in the stomach, a pulsatile31
faculty in the heart, and in each of the other parts a special faculty
corresponding to the function or activity of that part. If, therefore, we are to
investigate methodically the number and kinds of faculties, we must begin
with the effects; for each of these effects comes from a certain activity, and
each of these again is preceded by a cause.

V

The effects of Nature, then, while the animal is still being formed in the
womb, are all the different parts of its body; and after it has been born, an
effect in which all parts share is the progress of each to its full size, and
thereafter its maintenance of itself as long as possible.
The activities corresponding to the three effects mentioned are necessarily
three—one to each—namely, Genesis, Growth, and Nutrition. Genesis,
however, is not a simple activity of Nature, but is compounded of alteration
and of shaping.32 That is to say, in order that bone, nerve, veins, and all
other [tissues] may come into existence, the underlying substance from
which the animal springs must be altered; and in order that the substance so
altered may acquire its appropriate shape and position, its cavities,
outgrowths, attachments, and so forth, it has to undergo a shaping or
formative process.33 One would be justified in calling this substance which
undergoes alteration the material of the animal, just as wood is the material
of a ship, and wax of an image.
Growth is an increase and expansion in length, breadth, and thickness of the
solid parts of the animal (those which have been subjected to the moulding
or shaping process). Nutrition is an addition to these, without expansion.

VI
Let us speak then, in the first place, of Genesis, which, as we have said,
results from alteration together with shaping.
The seed having been cast into the womb or into the earth (for there is no
difference),34 then, after a certain definite period, a great number of parts
become constituted in the substance which is being generated; these differ
as regards moisture, dryness, coldness and warmth,35 and in all the other
qualities which naturally derive therefrom.36 These derivative qualities, you
are acquainted with, if you have given any sort of scientific consideration to
the question of genesis and destruction. For, first and foremost after the
qualities mentioned come the other so-called tangible distinctions, and after
them those which appeal to taste, smell, and sight. Now, tangible
distinctions are hardness and softness, viscosity, friability, lightness,
heaviness, density, rarity, smoothness, roughness, thickness and thinness; all

of these have been duly mentioned by Aristotle.37 And of course you know
those which appeal to taste, smell, and sight. Therefore, if you wish to know
which alterative faculties are primary and elementary, they are moisture,
dryness, coldness, and warmth, and if you wish to know which ones arise
from the combination of these, they will be found to be in each animal of a
number corresponding to its sensible elements. The name sensible elements
is given to all the homogeneous38 parts of the body, and these are to be
detected not by any system, but by personal observation of dissections.39
Now Nature constructs bone, cartilage, nerve, membrane, ligament, vein,
and so forth, at the first stage of the animal’s genesis,40 employing at this
task a faculty which is, in general terms, generative and alterative, and, in
more detail, warming, chilling, drying, or moistening; or such as spring
from the blending of these, for example, the bone-producing, nerve-
producing, and cartilage-producing faculties41 (since for the sake of
clearness these names must be used as well).

Now the peculiar42 flesh of the liver is of this kind as well, also that of the
spleen, that of the kidneys, that of the lungs, and that of the heart; so also
the proper substance of the brain, stomach, gullet, intestines, and uterus is a
sensible element, of similar parts all through, simple, and uncompounded.
That is to say, if you remove from each of the organs mentioned its arteries,
veins, and nerves,43 the substance remaining in each organ is, from the
point of view of the senses, simple and elementary. As regards those organs
consisting of two dissimilar coats,44 of which each is simple, of these
organs the coats are the elements—for example, the coats of the stomach,
oesophagus, intestines, and arteries; each of these two coats has an
alterative faculty peculiar to it, which has engendered it from the menstrual
blood of the mother. Thus the special alterative faculties in each animal are
of the same number as the elementary parts45; and further, the activities
must necessarily correspond each to one of the special parts, just as each
part has its special use—for example, those ducts which extend from the
kidneys into the bladder, and which are called ureters; for these are not
arteries, since they do not pulsate nor do they consist of two coats; and they
are not veins, since they neither contain blood, nor do their coats in any way

resemble those of veins; from nerves they differ still more than from the
structures mentioned.
“What, then, are they?” someone asks—as though every part must
necessarily be either an artery, a vein, a nerve, or a complex of these,46 and
as though the truth were not what I am now stating, namely, that every one
of the various organs has its own particular substance. For in fact the two
bladders—that which receives the urine, and that which receives the yellow
bile—not only differ from all other organs, but also from one another.
Further, the ducts which spring out like kinds of conduits from the gall-
bladder and which pass into the liver have no resemblance either to arteries,
veins or nerves. But these parts have been treated at a greater length in my
work “On the Anatomy of Hippocrates,” as well as elsewhere.
As for the actual substance of the coats of the stomach, intestine, and
uterus, each of these has been rendered what it is by a special alterative
faculty of Nature; while the bringing of these together,47 the combination
therewith of the structures which are inserted into them, the outgrowth into
the intestine,48 the shape of the inner cavities, and the like, have all been
determined by a faculty which we call the shaping or formative faculty49;
this faculty we also state to be artistic—nay, the best and highest art—doing
everything for some purpose, so that there is nothing ineffective or
superfluous, or capable of being better disposed. This, however, I shall
demonstrate in my work “On the Use of Parts.”

VII
Passing now to the faculty of Growth50 let us first mention that this, too, is
present in the foetus in utero as is also the nutritive faculty, but that at that
stage these two faculties are, as it were, handmaids to those already
mentioned,51 and do not possess in themselves supreme authority. When,
however, the animal52 has attained its complete size, then, during the whole
period following its birth and until the acme is reached, the faculty of
growth is predominant, while the alterative and nutritive faculties are
accessory—in fact, act as its handmaids. What, then, is the property of this
faculty of growth? To extend in every direction that which has already come

into existence—that is to say, the solid parts of the body, the arteries, veins,
nerves, bones, cartilages, membranes, ligaments, and the various coats
which we have just called elementary, homogeneous, and simple. And I
shall state in what way they gain this extension in every direction, first
giving an illustration for the sake of clearness.
Children take the bladders of pigs, fill them with air, and then rub them on
ashes near the fire, so as to warm, but not to injure them. This is a common
game in the district of Ionia, and among not a few other nations. As they
rub, they sing songs, to a certain measure, time, and rhythm, and all their
words are an exhortation to the bladder to increase in size. When it appears
to them fairly well distended, they again blow air into it and expand it
further; then they rub it again. This they do several times, until the bladder
seems to them to have become large enough. Now, clearly, in these doings
of the children, the more the interior cavity of the bladder increases in size,
the thinner, necessarily, does its substance become. But, if the children were
able to bring nourishment to this thin part, then they would make the
bladder big in the same way that Nature does. As it is, however, they cannot
do what Nature does, for to imitate this is beyond the power not only of
children, but of any one soever; it is a property of Nature alone.
It will now, therefore, be clear to you that nutrition is a necessity for
growing things. For if such bodies were distended, but not at the same time
nourished, they would take on a false appearance of growth, not a true
growth. And further, to be distended in all directions belongs only to bodies
whose growth is directed by Nature; for those which are distended by us
undergo this distension in one direction but grow less in the others; it is
impossible to find a body which will remain entire and not be torn through
whilst we stretch it in the three dimensions. Thus Nature alone has the
power to expand a body in all directions so that it remains unruptured and
preserves completely its previous form.
Such then is growth, and it cannot occur without the nutriment which flows
to the part and is worked up into it.

VIII

We have, then, it seems, arrived at the subject of Nutrition, which is the
third and remaining consideration which we proposed at the outset. For,
when the matter which flows to each part of the body in the form of
nutriment is being worked up into it, this activity is nutrition, and its cause
is the nutritive faculty. Of course, the kind of activity here involved is also
an alteration, but not an alteration like that occurring at the stage of
genesis.53 For in the latter case something comes into existence which did
not exist previously, while in nutrition the inflowing material becomes
assimilated to that which has already come into existence. Therefore, the
former kind of alteration has with reason been termed genesis, and the
latter, assimilation.

IX
Now, since the three faculties of Nature have been exhaustively dealt with,
and the animal would appear not to need any others (being possessed of the
means for growing, for attaining completion, and for maintaining itself as
long a time as possible), this treatise might seem to be already complete,
and to constitute an exposition of all the faculties of Nature. If, however,
one considers that it has not yet touched upon any of the parts of the animal
(I mean the stomach, intestines, liver, and the like), and that it has not dealt
with the faculties resident in these, it will seem as though merely a kind of
introduction had been given to the practical parts of our teaching. For the
whole matter is as follows: Genesis, growth, and nutrition are the first, and,
so to say, the principal effects of Nature; similarly also the faculties which
produce these effects—the first faculties—are three in number, and are the
most dominating of all. But as has already been shown, these need the
service both of each other, and of yet different faculties. Now, these which
the faculties of generation and growth require have been stated. I shall now
say what ones the nutritive faculty requires.

X
For I believe that I shall prove that the organs which have to do with the
disposal54 of the nutriment, as also their faculties, exist for the sake of this
nutritive faculty. For since the action of this faculty55 is assimilation, and it

is impossible for anything to be assimilated by, and to change into anything
else unless they already possess a certain community and affinity in their
qualities,56 therefore, in the first place, any animal cannot naturally derive
nourishment from any kind of food, and secondly, even in the case of those
from which it can do so, it cannot do this at once. Therefore, by reason of
this law,57 every animal needs several organs for altering the nutriment. For
in order that the yellow may become red, and the red yellow, one simple
process of alteration is required, but in order that the white may become
black, and the black white, all the intermediate stages are needed.58 So also,
a thing which is very soft cannot all at once become very hard, nor vice
versa; nor, similarly can anything which has a very bad smell suddenly
become quite fragrant, nor again, can the converse happen.
How, then, could blood ever turn into bone, without having first become, as
far as possible, thickened and white? And how could bread turn into blood
without having gradually parted with its whiteness and gradually acquired
redness? Thus it is quite easy for blood to become flesh; for, if Nature
thicken it to such an extent that it acquires a certain consistency and ceases
to be fluid, it thus becomes original newly-formed flesh; but in order that
blood may turn into bone, much time is needed and much elaboration and
transformation of the blood. Further, it is quite clear that bread, and, more
particularly lettuce, beet, and the like, require a great deal of alteration in
order to become blood.
This, then, is one reason why there are so many organs concerned in the
alteration of food. A second reason is the nature of the superfluities.59 For,
as we are unable to draw any nourishment from grass, although this is
possible for cattle, similarly we can derive nourishment from radishes,
albeit not to the same extent as from meat; for almost the whole of the latter
is mastered by our natures60; it is transformed and altered and constituted
useful blood; but, in the radish, what is appropriate61 and able of being
altered (and that only with difficulty, and with much labour) is the very
smallest part; almost the whole of it is surplus matter, and passes through
the digestive organs, only a very little being taken up into the veins as blood
—nor is this itself entirely utilisable blood. Nature, therefore had need of a
second process of separation for the superfluities in the veins. Moreover,
these superfluities need, on the one hand, certain fresh routes to conduct

them to the outlets, so that they may not spoil the useful substances, and
they also need certain reservoirs, as it were, in which they are collected till
they reach a sufficient quantity, and are then discharged.
Thus, then, you have discovered bodily parts of a second kind, consecrated
in this case to the [removal of the] superfluities of the food. There is,
however, also a third kind, for carrying the pabulum in every direction;
these are like a number of roads intersecting the whole body.
Thus there is one entrance—that through the mouth—for all the various
articles of food. What receives nourishment, however, is not one single part,
but a great many parts, and these widely separated; do not be surprised,
therefore, at the abundance of organs which Nature has created for the
purpose of nutrition. For those of them which have to do with alteration
prepare the nutriment suitable for each part; others separate out the
superfluities; some pass these along, others store them up, others excrete
them; some, again, are paths for the transit62 in all directions of the
utilisable juices. So, if you wish to gain a thorough acquaintance with all
the faculties of Nature,63 you will have to consider each one of these
organs.
Now in giving an account of these we must begin with those effects of
Nature, together with their corresponding parts and faculties, which are
closely connected with the purpose to be achieved.64

XI
Let us once more, then, recall the actual purpose for which Nature has
constructed all these parts. Its name, as previously stated, is nutrition, and
the definition corresponding to the name is: an assimilation of that which
nourishes to that which receives nourishments.65 And in order that this may
come about, we must assume a preliminary process of adhesion,66 and for
that, again, one of presentation.67 For whenever the juice which is destined
to nourish any of the parts of the animal is emitted from the vessels, it is in
the first place dispersed all through this part, next it is presented, and next it
adheres, and becomes completely assimilated.

The so-called white [leprosy] shows the difference between assimilation
and adhesion, in the same way that the kind of dropsy which some people
call anasarca clearly distinguishes presentation from adhesion. For, of
course, the genesis of such a dropsy does not come about as do some of the
conditions of atrophy and wasting,68 from an insufficient supply of
moisture; the flesh is obviously moist enough,—in fact it is thoroughly
saturated,—and each of the solid parts of the body is in a similar condition.
While, however, the nutriment conveyed to the part does undergo
presentation, it is still too watery, and is not properly transformed into a
juice,69 nor has it acquired that viscous and agglutinative quality which
results from the operation of innate heat;70 therefore, adhesion cannot come
about, since, owing to this abundance of thin, crude liquid, the pabulum
runs off and easily slips away from the solid parts of the body. In white
[leprosy], again, there is adhesion of the nutriment but no real assimilation.
From this it is clear that what I have just said is correct, namely, that in that
part which is to be nourished there must first occur presentation, next
adhesion, and finally assimilation proper.
Strictly speaking, then, nutriment is that which is actually nourishing, while
the quasi-nutriment which is not yet nourishing (e.g. matter which is
undergoing adhesion or presentation) is not, strictly speaking, nutriment,
but is so called only by an equivocation. Also, that which is still contained
in the veins, and still more, that which is in the stomach, from the fact that it
is destined to nourish if properly elaborated, has been called “nutriment.”
Similarly we call the various kinds of food “nutriment,” not because they
are already nourishing the animal, nor because they exist in the same state
as the material which actually is nourishing it, but because they are able and
destined to nourish it if they be properly elaborated.
This was also what Hippocrates said, viz., “Nutriment is what is engaged in
nourishing, as also is quasi-nutriment, and what is destined to be
nutriment.” For to that which is already being assimilated he gave the name
of nutriment; to the similar material which is being presented or becoming
adherent, the name of quasi-nutriment; and to everything else—that is,
contained in the stomach and veins—the name of destined nutriment.

XII

It is quite clear, therefore, that nutrition must necessarily be a process of
assimilation of that which is nourishing to that which is being nourished.
Some, however, say that this assimilation does not occur in reality, but is
merely apparent; these are the people who think that Nature is not artistic,
that she does not show forethought for the animal’s welfare, and that she
has absolutely no native powers whereby she alters some substances,
attracts others, and discharges others.
Now, speaking generally, there have arisen the following two sects in
medicine and philosophy among those who have made any definite
pronouncement regarding Nature. I speak, of course, of such of them as
know what they are talking about, and who realize the logical sequence of
their hypotheses, and stand by them; as for those who cannot understand
even this, but who simply talk any nonsense that comes to their tongues,
and who do not remain definitely attached either to one sect or the other—
such people are not even worth mentioning.
What, then, are these sects, and what are the logical consequences of their
hypotheses?71 The one class supposes that all substance which is subject to
genesis and destruction is at once continuous72 and susceptible of
alteration. The other school assumes substance to be unchangeable,
unalterable, and sub-divided into fine particles, which are separated from
one another by empty spaces.
All people, therefore, who can appreciate the logical sequence of an
hypothesis hold that, according to the second teaching, there does not exist
any substance or faculty peculiar either to Nature or to Soul,73 but that these
result from the way in which the primary corpuscles,74 which are unaffected
by change, come together. According to the first-mentioned teaching, on the
other hand, Nature is not posterior to the corpuscles, but is a long way prior
to them and older than they; and therefore in their view it is Nature which
puts together the bodies both of plants and animals; and this she does by
virtue of certain faculties which she possesses—these being, on the one
hand, attractive and assimilative of what is appropriate, and, on the other,
expulsive of what is foreign. Further, she skilfully moulds everything
during the stage of genesis; and she also provides for the creatures after
birth, employing here other faculties again, namely, one of affection and

forethought for offspring, and one of sociability and friendship for kindred.
According to the other school, none of these things exist in the natures75 [of
living things], nor is there in the soul any original innate idea, whether of
agreement or difference, of separation or synthesis, of justice or injustice, of
the beautiful or ugly; all such things, they say, arise in us from sensation
and through sensation, and animals are steered by certain images and
memories.
Some of these people have even expressly declared that the soul possesses
no reasoning faculty, but that we are led like cattle by the impression of our
senses, and are unable to refuse or dissent from anything. In their view,
obviously, courage, wisdom, temperance, and self-control are all mere
nonsense, we do not love either each other or our offspring, nor do the gods
care anything for us. This school also despises dreams, birds, omens, and
the whole of astrology, subjects with which we have dealt at greater length
in another work,76 in which we discuss the views of Asclepiades the
physician.77 Those who wish to do so may familiarize themselves with
these arguments, and they may also consider at this point which of the two
roads lying before us is the better one to take. Hippocrates took the first-
mentioned. According to this teaching, substance is one and is subject to
alteration; there is a consensus in the movements of air and fluid
throughout the whole body;78 Nature acts throughout in an artistic and
equitable manner, having certain faculties, by virtue of which each part of
the body draws to itself the juice which is proper to it, and, having done so,
attaches it to every portion of itself, and completely assimilates it; while
such part of the juice as has not been mastered,79 and is not capable of
undergoing complete alteration and being assimilated to the part which is
being nourished, is got rid of by yet another (an expulsive) faculty.

XIII
Now the extent of exactitude and truth in the doctrines of Hippocrates may
be gauged, not merely from the way in which his opponents are at variance
with obvious facts, but also from the various subjects of natural research
themselves—the functions of animals, and the rest. For those people who
do not believe that there exists in any part of the animal a faculty for

attracting its own special quality80 are compelled repeatedly to deny
obvious facts.81 For instance, Asclepiades, the physician,82 did this in the
case of the kidneys. That these are organs for secreting [separating out] the
urine, was the belief not only of Hippocrates, Diocles, Erasistratus,
Praxagoras,83 and all other physicians of eminence, but practically every
butcher is aware of this, from the fact that he daily observes both the
position of the kidneys and the duct (termed the ureter) which runs from
each kidney into the bladder, and from this arrangement he infers their
characteristic use and faculty. But, even leaving the butchers aside, all
people who suffer either from frequent dysuria or from retention of urine
call themselves “nephritics,”84 when they feel pain in the loins and pass
sandy matter in their water.
I do not suppose that Asclepiades ever saw a stone which had been passed
by one of these sufferers, or observed that this was preceded by a sharp pain
in the region between kidneys and bladder as the stone traversed the ureter,
or that, when the stone was passed, both the pain and the retention at once
ceased. It is worth while, then, learning how his theory accounts for the
presence of urine in the bladder, and one is forced to marvel at the ingenuity
of a man who puts aside these broad, clearly visible routes,85 and postulates
others which are narrow, invisible—indeed, entirely imperceptible. His
view, in fact, is that the fluid which we drink passes into the bladder by
being resolved into vapours, and that, when these have been again
condensed, it thus regains its previous form, and turns from vapour into
fluid. He simply looks upon the bladder as a sponge or a piece of wool, and
not as the perfectly compact and impervious body that it is, with two very
strong coats. For if we say that the vapours pass through these coats, why
should they not pass through the peritoneum86 and the diaphragm, thus
filling the whole abdominal cavity and thorax with water? “But,” says he,
“of course the peritoneal coat is more impervious than the bladder, and this
is why it keeps out the vapours, while the bladder admits them.” Yet if he
had ever practised anatomy, he might have known that the outer coat of the
bladder springs from the peritoneum and is essentially the same as it, and
that the inner coat, which is peculiar to the bladder, is more than twice as
thick as the former.

Perhaps, however, it is not the thickness or thinness of the coats, but the
situation of the bladder, which is the reason for the vapours being carried
into it? On the contrary, even if it were probable for every other reason that
the vapours accumulate there, yet the situation of the bladder would be
enough in itself to prevent this. For the bladder is situated below, whereas
vapours have a natural tendency to rise upwards; thus they would fill all the
region of the thorax and lungs long before they came to the bladder.
But why do I mention the situation of the bladder, peritoneum, and thorax?
For surely, when the vapours have passed through the coats of the stomach
and intestines, it is in the space between these and the peritoneum87 that
they will collect and become liquefied (just as in dropsical subjects it is in
this region that most of the water gathers).88 Otherwise the vapours must
necessarily pass straight forward through everything which in any way
comes in contact with them, and will never come to a standstill. But, if this
be assumed, then they will traverse not merely the peritoneum but also the
epigastrium, and will become dispersed into the surrounding air; otherwise
they will certainly collect under the skin.
Even these considerations, however, our present-day Asclepiadeans attempt
to answer, despite the fact that they always get soundly laughed at by all
who happen to be present at their disputations on these subjects—so
difficult an evil to get rid of is this sectarian partizanship, so excessively
resistant to all cleansing processes, harder to heal than any itch!
Thus, one of our Sophists who is a thoroughly hardened disputer and as
skilful a master of language as there ever was, once got into a discussion
with me on this subject; so far from being put out of countenance by any of
the above-mentioned considerations, he even expressed his surprise that I
should try to overturn obvious facts by ridiculous arguments! “For,” said he,
“one may clearly observe any day in the case of any bladder, that, if one
fills it with water or air and then ties up its neck and squeezes it all round, it
does not let anything out at any point, but accurately retains all its contents.
And surely,” said he, “if there were any large and perceptible channels
coming into it from the kidneys the liquid would run out through these
when the bladder was squeezed, in the same way that it entered?”89 Having
abruptly made these and similar remarks in precise and clear tones, he

concluded by jumping up and departing—leaving me as though I were quite
incapable of finding any plausible answer!
The fact is that those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid
of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn! Instead of
listening, as they ought, to the reason why liquid can enter the bladder
through the ureters, but is unable to go back again the same way,—instead
of admiring Nature’s artistic skill90—they refuse to learn; they even go so
far as to scoff, and maintain that the kidneys, as well as many other things,
have been made by Nature for no purpose!91 And some of them who had
allowed themselves to be shown the ureters coming from the kidneys and
becoming implanted in the bladder, even had the audacity to say that these
also existed for no purpose; and others said that they were spermatic ducts,
and that this was why they were inserted into the neck of the bladder and
not into its cavity. When, therefore, we had demonstrated to them the real
spermatic ducts92 entering the neck of the bladder lower down than the
ureters, we supposed that, if we had not done so before, we would now at
least draw them away from their false assumptions, and convert them
forthwith to the opposite view. But even this they presumed to dispute, and
said that it was not to be wondered at that the semen should remain longer
in these latter ducts, these being more constricted, and that it should flow
quickly down the ducts which came from the kidneys, seeing that these
were well dilated. We were, therefore, further compelled to show them in a
still living animal, the urine plainly running out through the ureters into the
bladder; even thus we hardly hoped to check their nonsensical talk.
Now the method of demonstration is as follows. One has to divide the
peritoneum in front of the ureters, then secure these with ligatures, and next,
having bandaged up the animal, let him go (for he will not continue to
urinate). After this one loosens the external bandages and shows the bladder
empty and the ureters quite full and distended—in fact almost on the point
of rupturing; on removing the ligature from them, one then plainly sees the
bladder becoming filled with urine.
When this has been made quite clear, then, before the animal urinates, one
has to tie a ligature round his penis and then to squeeze the bladder all over;
still nothing goes back through the ureters to the kidneys. Here, then, it
becomes obvious that not only in a dead animal, but in one which is still

living, the ureters are prevented from receiving back the urine from the
bladder. These observations having been made, one now loosens the
ligature from the animal’s penis and allows him to urinate, then again
ligatures one of the ureters and leaves the other to discharge into the
bladder. Allowing, then, some time to elapse, one now demonstrates that the
ureter which was ligatured is obviously full and distended on the side next
to the kidneys, while the other one—that from which the ligature had been
taken—is itself flaccid, but has filled the bladder with urine. Then, again,
one must divide the full ureter, and demonstrate how the urine spurts out of
it, like blood in the operation of venesection; and after this one cuts through
the other also, and both being thus divided, one bandages up the animal
externally. Then when enough time seems to have elapsed, one takes off the
bandages; the bladder will now be found empty, and the whole region
between the intestines and the peritoneum full of urine, as if the animal
were suffering from dropsy. Now, if anyone will but test this for himself on
an animal, I think he will strongly condemn the rashness of Asclepiades,
and if he also learns the reason why nothing regurgitates from the bladder
into the ureters, I think he will be persuaded by this also of the forethought
and art shown by Nature in relation to animals.93
Now Hippocrates, who was the first known to us of all those who have been
both physicians and philosophers inasmuch as he was the first to recognize
what Nature effects, expresses his admiration of her, and is constantly
singing her praises and calling her “just.” Alone, he says, she suffices for
the animal in every respect, performing of her own accord and without any
teaching all that is required. Being such, she has, as he supposes, certain
faculties, one attractive of what is appropriate,94 and another eliminative of
what is foreign, and she nourishes the animal, makes it grow, and expels its
diseases by crisis.95 Therefore he says that there is in our bodies a
concordance in the movements of air and fluid, and that everything is in
sympathy. According to Asclepiades, however, nothing is naturally in
sympathy with anything else, all substance being divided and broken up
into inharmonious elements and absurd “molecules.” Necessarily, then,
besides making countless other statements in opposition to plain fact, he
was ignorant of Nature’s faculties, both that attracting what is appropriate,
and that expelling what is foreign. Thus he invented some wretched
nonsense to explain blood-production and anadosis,96 and, being utterly

unable to find anything to say regarding the clearing-out97 of superfluities,
he did not hesitate to join issue with obvious facts, and, in this matter of
urinary secretion, to deprive both the kidneys and the ureters of their
activity, by assuming that there were certain invisible channels opening into
the bladder. It was, of course, a grand and impressive thing to do, to
mistrust the obvious, and to pin one’s faith in things which could not be
seen!
Also, in the matter of the yellow bile, he makes an even grander and more
spirited venture; for he says this is actually generated in the bile-ducts, not
merely separated out.
How comes it, then, that in cases of jaundice two things happen at the same
time—that the dejections contain absolutely no bile, and that the whole
body becomes full of it? He is forced here again to talk nonsense, just as he
did in regard to the urine. He also talks no less nonsense about the black
bile and the spleen, not understanding what was said by Hippocrates; and he
attempts in stupid—I might say insane—language, to contradict what he
knows nothing about.
And what profit did he derive from these opinions from the point of view of
treatment? He neither was able to cure a kidney ailment, nor jaundice, nor a
disease of black bile, nor would he agree with the view held not merely by
Hippocrates but by all men regarding drugs—that some of them purge away
yellow bile, and others black, some again phlegm, and others the thin and
watery superfluity98; he held that all the substances evacuated99 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 purge99 and dissolve the body, and produce a solution
having such and such an appearance, which did not exist as such before!100
Must we not, therefore, suppose he was either mad, or entirely
unacquainted with practical medicine? For who does not know that if a drug
for attracting phlegm be given in a case of jaundice it will not even
evacuate four cyathi101 of phlegm? Similarly also if one of the hydragogues
be given. A cholagogue, on the other hand, clears away a great quantity of
bile, and the skin of patients so treated at once becomes clear. I myself

have, in many cases, after treating the liver condition, then removed the
disease by means of a single purgation; whereas, if one had employed a
drug for removing phlegm one would have done no good.
Nor is Hippocrates the only one who knows this to be so, whilst those who
take experience alone as their starting-point102 know otherwise; they, as
well as all physicians who are engaged in the practice of medicine, are of
this opinion. Asclepiades, however is an exception; he would hold it a
betrayal of his assumed “elements”103 to confess the truth about such
matters. For if a single drug were to be discovered which attracted such and
such a humour only, there would obviously be danger of the opinion
gaining ground that there is in every body104 a faculty which attracts its
own particular quality. He therefore says that safflower,105 the Cnidian
berry,106 and Hippophaes,107 do not draw phlegm from the body, but
actually make it. Moreover, he holds that the flower and scales of bronze,
and burnt bronze itself, and germander,108 and wild mastich109 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 evacuate110 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 evacuate110 the bile from the
bodies of jaundiced subjects, but actually turns the useful blood into bile,
and dissolves the body; in fact it does all manner of evil and increases the
disease.
And yet this drug may be clearly seen to do good to numbers of people!
“Yes,” says he, “they derive benefit certainly, but merely in proportion to
the evacuation.” ... But if you give these cases a drug which draws off
phlegm they will not be benefited. This is so obvious that even those who
make experience alone their starting-point111 are aware of it; and these
people make it a cardinal point of their teaching to trust to no arguments,
but only to what can be clearly seen. In this, then, they show good sense;
whereas Asclepiades goes far astray in bidding us distrust our senses where
obvious facts plainly overturn his hypotheses. Much better would it have

been for him not to assail obvious facts, but rather to devote himself
entirely to these.
Is it, then, these facts only which are plainly irreconcilable with the views
of Asclepiades? Is not also the fact that in summer yellow bile is evacuated
in greater quantity by the same drugs, and in winter phlegm, and that in a
young man more bile is evacuated, and in an old man more phlegm?
Obviously each drug attracts something which already exists, and does not
generate something previously non-existent. Thus if you give in the summer
season a drug which attracts phlegm to a young man of a lean and warm
habit, who has lived neither idly nor too luxuriously, you will with great
difficulty evacuate a very small quantity of this humour, and you will do the
man the utmost harm. On the other hand, if you give him a cholagogue, you
will produce an abundant evacuation and not injure him at all.
Do we still, then, disbelieve that each drug attracts that humour which is
proper to it?112 Possibly the adherents of Asclepiades will assent to this—or
rather, they will—not possibly, but certainly—declare that they disbelieve
it, lest they should betray their darling prejudices.

XIV
Let us pass on, then, again to another piece of nonsense; for the sophists do
not allow one to engage in enquiries that are of any worth, albeit there are
many such; they compel one to spend one’s time in dissipating the
fallacious arguments which they bring forward.
What, then, is this piece of nonsense? It has to do with the famous and far-
renowned stone which draws iron [the lodestone]. It might be thought that
this would draw113 their minds to a belief that there are in all bodies certain
faculties by which they attract their own proper qualities.

Now Epicurus, despite the fact that he employs in his Physics114 elements
similar to those of Asclepiades,115 yet allows that iron is attracted by the
lodestone,116 and chaff by amber. He even tries to give the cause of the
phenomenon. His view is that the atoms which flow from the stone are
related in shape to those flowing from the iron, and so they become easily

interlocked with one another; thus it is that, after colliding with each of the
two compact masses (the stone and the iron) they then rebound into the
middle and so become entangled with each other, and draw the iron after
them. So far, then, as his hypotheses regarding causation117 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 nutriment118 and the discharge of
waste matters, as also the actions of cathartic drugs.
Asclepiades, however, who viewed with suspicion the incredible character
of the cause mentioned, and who saw no other credible cause on the basis of
his supposed elements, shamelessly had recourse to the statement that
nothing is in any way attracted by anything else. Now, if he was dissatisfied
with what Epicurus said, and had nothing better to say himself, he ought to
have refrained from making hypotheses, and should have said that Nature is
a constructive artist and that the substance of things is always tending
towards unity and also towards alteration because its own parts act upon
and are acted upon by one another.119 For, if he had assumed this, it would
not have been difficult to allow that this constructive nature has powers
which attract appropriate and expel alien matter. For in no other way could
she be constructive, preservative of the animal, and eliminative of its
diseases,120 unless it be allowed that she conserves what is appropriate and
discharges what is foreign.
But in this matter, too, Asclepiades realized the logical sequence of the
principles he had assumed; he showed no scruples, however, in opposing
plain fact; he joins issue in this matter also, not merely with all physicians,
but with everyone else, and maintains that there is no such thing as a crisis,
or critical day,121 and that Nature does absolutely nothing for the
preservation of the animal. For his constant aim is to follow out logical
consequences and to upset obvious fact, in this respect being opposed to
Epicurus; for the latter always stated the observed fact, although he gives an
ineffective explanation of it. For, that these small corpuscles belonging to
the lodestone rebound, and become entangled with other similar particles of
the iron, and that then, by means of this entanglement (which cannot be
seen anywhere) such a heavy substance as iron is attracted—I fail to
understand how anybody could believe this. Even if we admit this, the same

principle will not explain the fact that, when the iron has another piece
brought in contact with it, this becomes attached to it.
For what are we to say? That, forsooth, some of the particles that flow from
the lodestone collide with the iron and then rebound back, and that it is by
these that the iron becomes suspended? that others penetrate into it, and
rapidly pass through it by way of its empty channels?122 that these then
collide with the second piece of iron and are not able to penetrate it
although they penetrated the first piece? and that they then course back to
the first piece, and produce entanglements like the former ones?
The hypothesis here becomes clearly refuted by its absurdity. As a matter of
fact, I have seen five writing-stylets of iron attached to one another in a
line, only the first one being in contact with the lodestone, and the power123
being transmitted through it to the others. Moreover, it cannot be said that if
you bring a second stylet into contact with the lower end of the first, it
becomes held, attached, and suspended, whereas, if you apply it to any
other part of the side it does not become attached. For the power of the
lodestone is distributed in all directions; it merely needs to be in contact
with the first stylet at any point; from this stylet again the power flows, as
quick as a thought, all through the second, and from that again to the third.
Now, if you imagine a small lodestone hanging in a house, and in contact
with it all round a large number of pieces of iron, from them again others,
from these others, and so on,—all these pieces of iron must surely become
filled with the corpuscles which emanate from the stone; therefore, this first
little stone is likely to become dissipated by disintegrating into these
emanations.124 Further, even if there be no iron in contact with it, it still
disperses into the air, particularly if this be also warm.
“Yes,” says Epicurus, “but these corpuscles must be looked on as
exceedingly small, so that some of them are a ten-thousandth part of the
size of the very smallest particles carried in the air.” Then do you venture to
say that so great a weight of iron can be suspended by such small bodies? If
each of them is a ten-thousandth part as large as the dust particles which are
borne in the atmosphere, how big must we suppose the hook-like
extremities by which they interlock with each other125 to be? For of course
this is quite the smallest portion of the whole particle.

Then, again, when a small body becomes entangled with another small
body, or when a body in motion becomes entangled with another also in
motion, they do not rebound at once. For, further, there will of course be
others which break in upon them from above, from below, from front and
rear, from right and left, and which shake and agitate them and never let
them rest. Moreover, we must perforce suppose that each of these small
bodies has a large number of these hook-like extremities. For by one it
attaches itself to its neighbours, by another—the topmost one—to the
lodestone, and by the bottom one to the iron. For if it were attached to the
stone above and not interlocked with the iron below, this would be of no
use.126 Thus, the upper part of the superior extremity must hang from the
lodestone, and the iron must be attached to the lower end of the inferior
extremity; and, since they interlock with each other by their sides as well,
they must, of course, have hooks there too. Keep in mind also, above
everything, what small bodies these are which possess all these different
kinds of outgrowths. Still more, remember how, in order that the second
piece of iron may become attached to the first, the third to the second, and
to that the fourth, these absurd little particles must both penetrate the
passages in the first piece of iron and at the same time rebound from the
piece coming next in the series, although this second piece is naturally in
every way similar to the first.
Such an hypothesis, once again, is certainly not lacking in audacity; in fact,
to tell the truth, it is far more shameless than the previous ones; according
to it, when five similar pieces of iron are arranged in a line, the particles of
the lodestone which easily traverse the first piece of iron rebound from the
second, and do not pass readily through it in the same way. Indeed, it is
nonsense, whichever alternative is adopted. For, if they do rebound, how
then do they pass through into the third piece? And if they do not rebound,
how does the second piece become suspended to the first? For Epicurus
himself looked on the rebound as the active agent in attraction.
But, as I have said, one is driven to talk nonsense whenever one gets into
discussion with such men. Having, therefore, given a concise and summary
statement of the matter, I wish to be done with it. For if one diligently
familiarizes oneself with the writings of Asclepiades, one will see clearly
their logical dependence on his first principles, but also their disagreement
with observed facts. Thus, Epicurus, in his desire to adhere to the facts, cuts

an awkward figure by aspiring to show that these agree with his principles,
whereas Asclepiades safeguards the sequence of principles, but pays no
attention to the obvious fact. Whoever, therefore, wishes to expose the
absurdity of their hypotheses, must, if the argument be in answer to
Asclepiades, keep in mind his disagreement with observed fact; or if in
answer to Epicurus, his discordance with his principles. Almost all the other
sects depending on similar principles are now entirely extinct, while these
alone maintain a respectable existence still. Yet the tenets of Asclepiades
have been unanswerably confuted by Menodotus the Empiricist, who draws
his attention to their opposition to phenomena and to each other; and, again,
those of Epicurus have been confuted by Asclepiades, who adhered always
to logical sequence, about which Epicurus evidently cares little.
Now people of the present day do not begin by getting a clear
comprehension of these sects, as well as of the better ones, thereafter
devoting a long time to judging and testing the true and false in each of
them; despite their ignorance, they style themselves, some “physicians” and
others “philosophers.” No wonder, then, that they honour the false equally
with the true. For everyone becomes like the first teacher that he comes
across, without waiting to learn anything from anybody else. And there are
some of them, who, even if they meet with more than one teacher, are yet so
unintelligent and slow-witted that even by the time they have reached old
age they are still incapable of understanding the steps of an argument.... In
the old days such people used to be set to menial tasks.... What will be the
end of it God knows!
Now, we usually refrain from arguing with people whose principles are
wrong from the outset. Still, having been compelled by the natural course of
events to enter into some kind of a discussion with them, we must add this
further to what was said—that it is not only cathartic drugs which naturally
attract their special qualities,127 but also those which remove thorns and the
points of arrows such as sometimes become deeply embedded in the flesh.
Those drugs also which draw out animal poisons or poisons applied to
arrows all show the same faculty as does the lodestone. Thus, I myself have
seen a thorn which was embedded in a young man’s foot fail to come out
when we exerted forcible traction with our fingers, and yet come away
painlessly and rapidly on the application of a medicament. Yet even to this
some people will object, asserting that when the inflammation is dispersed

from the part the thorn comes away of itself, without being pulled out by
anything. But these people seem, in the first place, to be unaware that there
are certain drugs for drawing out inflammation and different ones for
drawing out embedded substances; and surely if it was on the cessation of
an inflammation that the abnormal matters were expelled, then all drugs
which disperse inflammations ought, ipso facto, to possess the power of
extracting these substances as well.128
And secondly, these people seem to be unaware of a still more surprising
fact, namely, that not merely do certain medicaments draw out thorns and
others poisons, but that of the latter there are some which attract the poison
of the viper, others that of the sting-ray,129 and others that of some other
animal; we can, in fact, plainly observe these poisons deposited on the
medicaments. Here, then, we must praise Epicurus for the respect he shows
towards obvious facts, but find fault with his views as to causation. For how
can it be otherwise than extremely foolish to suppose that a thorn which we
failed to remove by digital traction could be drawn out by these minute
particles?
Have we now, therefore, convinced ourselves that everything which
exists130 possesses a faculty by which it attracts its proper quality, and that
some things do this more, and some less?
Or shall we also furnish our argument with the illustration afforded by
corn?131 For those who refuse to admit that anything is attracted by
anything else, will, I imagine, be here proved more ignorant regarding
Nature than the very peasants. When, for my own part, I first learned of
what happens, I was surprised, and felt anxious to see it with my own eyes.
Afterwards, when experience also had confirmed its truth, I sought long
among the various sects for an explanation, and, with the exception of that
which gave the first place to attraction, I could find none which even
approached plausibility, all the others being ridiculous and obviously quite
untenable.
What happens, then, is the following. When our peasants are bringing corn
from the country into the city in wagons, and wish to filch some away
without being detected, they fill earthen jars with water and stand them
among the corn; the corn then draws the moisture into itself through the jar

and acquires additional bulk and weight, but the fact is never detected by
the onlookers unless someone who knew about the trick before makes a
more careful inspection. Yet, if you care to set down the same vessel in the
very hot sun, you will find the daily loss to be very little indeed. Thus corn
has a greater power than extreme solar heat of drawing to itself the moisture
in its neighbourhood.132 Thus the theory that the water is carried towards
the rarefied part of the air surrounding us133 (particularly when that is
distinctly warm) is utter nonsense; for although it is much more rarefied
there than it is amongst the corn, yet it does not take up a tenth part of the
moisture which the corn does.

XV
Since then, we have talked sufficient nonsense—not willingly, but because
we were forced, as the proverb says, “to behave madly among madmen”—
let us return again to the subject of urinary secretion. Here let us forget the
absurdities of Asclepiades, and, in company with those who are persuaded
that the urine does pass through the kidneys, let us consider what is the
character of this function. For, most assuredly, either the urine is conveyed
by its own motion to the kidneys, considering this the better course (as do
we when we go off to market!134), or, if this be impossible, then some other
reason for its conveyance must be found. What, then, is this? If we are not
going to grant the kidneys a faculty for attracting this particular quality,135
as Hippocrates held, we shall discover no other reason. For, surely everyone
sees that either the kidneys must attract the urine, or the veins must propel it
—if, that is, it does not move of itself. But if the veins did exert a
propulsive action when they contract, they would squeeze out into the
kidneys not merely the urine, but along with it the whole of the blood which
they contain.136 And if this is impossible, as we shall show, the remaining
explanation is that the kidneys do exert traction.
And how is propulsion by the veins impossible? The situation of the
kidneys is against it. They do not occupy a position beneath the hollow vein
[vena cava] as does the sieve-like [ethmoid] passage in the nose and palate
in relation to the surplus matter from the brain;137 they are situated on both
sides of it. Besides, if the kidneys are like sieves, and readily let the thinner

serous [whey-like] portion through, and keep out the thicker portion, then
the whole of the blood contained in the vena cava must go to them, just as
the whole of the wine is thrown into the filters. Further, the example of milk
being made into cheese will show clearly what I mean. For this, too,
although it is all thrown into the wicker strainers, does not all percolate
through; such part of it as is too fine in proportion to the width of the
meshes passes downwards, and this is called whey [serum]; the remaining
thick portion which is destined to become cheese cannot get down, since the
pores of the strainers will not admit it. Thus it is that, if the blood-serum has
similarly to percolate through the kidneys, the whole of the blood must
come to them, and not merely one part of it.
What, then, is the appearance as found on dissection?

One division of the vena cava is carried upwards138 to the heart, and the
other mounts upon the spine and extends along its whole length as far as the
legs; thus one division does not even come near the kidneys, while the other
approaches them but is certainly not inserted into them. Now, if the blood
were destined to be purified by them as if they were sieves, the whole of it
would have to fall into them, the thin part being thereafter conveyed
downwards, and the thick part retained above. But, as a matter of fact, this
is not so. For the kidneys lie on either side of the vena cava. They therefore
do not act like sieves, filtering fluid sent to them by the vena cava, and
themselves contributing no force. They obviously exert traction; for this is
the only remaining alternative.
How, then, do they exert this traction? If, as Epicurus thinks, all attraction
takes place by virtue of the rebounds and entanglements of atoms, it would
be certainly better to maintain that the kidneys have no attractive action at
all; for his theory, when examined, would be found as it stands to be much
more ridiculous even than the theory of the lodestone, mentioned a little
while ago. Attraction occurs in the way that Hippocrates laid down; this will
be stated more clearly as the discussion proceeds; for the present our task is
not to demonstrate this, but to point out that no other cause of the secretion
of urine can be given except that of attraction by the kidneys,139 and that
this attraction does not take place in the way imagined by people who do
not allow Nature a faculty of her own.140

For if it be granted that there is any attractive faculty at all in those things
which are governed by Nature,141 a person who attempted to say anything
else about the absorption of nutriment142 would be considered a fool.

XVI
Now, while Erasistratus[143] for some reason replied at great length to
certain other foolish doctrines, he entirely passed over the view held by
Hippocrates, not even thinking it worth while to mention it, as he did in his
work “On Deglutition”; in that work, as may be seen, he did go so far as at
least to make mention of the word attraction, writing somewhat as follows:

“Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any attraction.”143 But when
he is dealing with anadosis he does not mention the Hippocratic view even
to the extent of a single syllable. Yet we should have been satisfied if he had
even merely written this: “Hippocrates lies in saying ‘The flesh144 attracts
both from the stomach and from without,’ for it cannot attract either from
the stomach or from without.” Or if he had thought it worth while to state
that Hippocrates was wrong in criticizing the weakness of the neck of the
uterus, “seeing that the orifice of the uterus has no power of attracting
semen,”145 or if he [Erasistratus] had thought proper to write any other
similar opinion, then we in our turn would have defended ourselves in the
following terms:
“My good sir, do not run us down in this rhetorical fashion without some
proof; state some definite objection to our view, in order that either you
may convince us by a brilliant refutation of the ancient doctrine, or that, on
the other hand, we may convert you from your ignorance.” Yet why do I say
“rhetorical”? For we too are not to suppose that when certain rhetoricians
pour ridicule upon that which they are quite incapable of refuting, without
any attempt at argument, their words are really thereby constituted rhetoric.
For rhetoric proceeds by persuasive reasoning; words without reasoning are
buffoonery rather than rhetoric. Therefore, the reply of Erasistratus in his
treatise “On Deglutition” was neither rhetoric nor logic. For what is it that
he says? “Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any traction.” Let
us testify against him in return, and set our argument beside his in the same

form. Now, there appears to be no peristalsis146 of the gullet. “And how
does this appear?” one of his adherents may perchance ask. “For is it not
indicative of peristalsis that always when the upper parts of the gullet
contract the lower parts dilate?” Again, then, we say, “And in what way
does the attraction of the stomach not appear? For is it not indicative of
attraction that always when the lower parts of the gullet dilate the upper
parts contract?” Now, if he would but be sensible and recognize that this
phenomenon is not more indicative of the one than of the other view, but
that it applies equally to both,147 we should then show him without further
delay the proper way to the discovery of truth.
We will, however, speak about the stomach again. And the dispersal of
nutriment [anadosis] need not make us have recourse to the theory
regarding the natural tendency of a vacuum to become refilled,148 when
once we have granted the attractive faculty of the kidneys. Now, although
Erasistratus knew that this faculty most certainly existed, he neither
mentioned it nor denied it, nor did he make any statement as to his views on
the secretion of urine.
Why did he give notice at the very beginning of his “General Principles”
that he was going to speak about natural activities—firstly what they are,
how they take place, and in what situations—and then, in the case of
urinary secretion, declared that this took place through the kidneys, but left
out its method of occurrence? It must, then, have been for no purpose that
he told us how digestion occurs, or spends time upon the secretion of biliary
superfluities;149 for in these cases also it would have been sufficient to have
named the parts through which the function takes place, and to have omitted
the method. On the contrary, in these cases he was able to tell us not merely
through what organs, but also in what way it occurs—as he also did, I think,
in the case of anadosis; for he was not satisfied with saying that this took
place through the veins, but he also considered fully the method, which he
held to be from the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled. Concerning
the secretion of urine, however, he writes that this occurs through the
kidneys, but does not add in what way it occurs. I do not think he could say
that this was from the tendency of matter to fill a vacuum,150 for, if this
were so, nobody would have ever died of retention of urine, since no more
can flow into a vacuum than has run out. For, if no other factor comes into

operation151 save only this tendency by which a vacuum becomes refilled,
no more could ever flow in than had been evacuated. Nor could he suggest
any other plausible cause, such, for example, as the expression of nutriment
by the stomach152 which occurs in the process of anadosis; this had been
entirely disproved in the case of blood in the vena cava;153 it is excluded,
not merely owing to the long distance, but also from the fact that the
overlying heart, at each diastole, robs the vena cava by violence of a
considerable quantity of blood.

In relation to the lower part of the vena cava154 there would still remain,
solitary and abandoned, the specious theory concerning the filling of a
vacuum. This, however, is deprived of plausibility by the fact that people
die of retention of urine, and also, no less, by the situation of the kidneys.
For, if the whole of the blood were carried to the kidneys, one might
properly maintain that it all undergoes purification there. But, as a matter of
fact, the whole of it does not go to them, but only so much as can be
contained in the veins going to the kidneys;155 this portion only, therefore,
will be purified. Further, the thin serous part of this will pass through the
kidneys as if through a sieve, while the thick sanguineous portion remaining
in the veins will obstruct the blood flowing in from behind; this will first,
therefore, have to run back to the vena cava, and so to empty the veins
going to the kidneys; these veins will no longer be able to conduct a second
quantity of unpurified blood to the kidneys—occupied as they are by the
blood which had preceded, there is no passage left. What power have we,
then, which will draw back the purified blood from the kidneys? And what
power, in the next place, will bid this blood retire to the lower part of the
vena cava, and will enjoin on another quantity coming from above not to
proceed downwards before turning off into the kidneys?
Now Erasistratus realized that all these ideas were open to many objections,
and he could only find one idea which held good in all respects—namely,
that of attraction. Since, therefore, he did not wish either to get into
difficulties or to mention the view of Hippocrates, he deemed it better to say
nothing at all as to the manner in which secretion occurs.
But even if he kept silence, I am not going to do so. For I know that if one
passes over the Hippocratic view and makes some other pronouncement

about the function of the kidneys, one cannot fail to make oneself utterly
ridiculous. It was for this reason that Erasistratus kept silence and
Asclepiades lied; they are like slaves who have had plenty to say in the
early part of their career, and have managed by excessive rascality to escape
many and frequent accusations, but who, later, when caught in the act of
thieving, cannot find any excuse; the more modest one then keeps silence,
as though thunderstruck, whilst the more shameless continues to hide the
missing article beneath his arm and denies on oath that he has ever seen it.
For it was in this way also that Asclepiades, when all subtle excuses had
failed him and there was no longer any room for nonsense about
“conveyance towards the rarefied part [of the air],”156 and when it was
impossible without incurring the greatest derision to say that this superfluity
[i.e. the urine] is generated by the kidneys as is bile by the canals in the
liver—he, then, I say, clearly lied when he swore that the urine does not
reach the kidneys, and maintained that it passes, in the form of vapour,
straight from the region of the vena cava,157 to collect in the bladder.
Like slaves, then, caught in the act of stealing, these two are quite
bewildered, and while the one says nothing, the other indulges in shameless
lying.

XVII
Now such of the younger men as have dignified themselves with the names
of these two authorities by taking the appellations “Erasistrateans” or
“Asclepiadeans” are like the Davi and Getae—the slaves introduced by the
excellent Menander into his comedies. As these slaves held that they had
done nothing fine unless they had cheated their master three times, so also
the men I am discussing have taken their time over the construction of
impudent sophisms, the one party striving to prevent the lies of Asclepiades
from ever being refuted, and the other saying stupidly what Erasistratus had
the sense to keep silence about.
But enough about the Asclepiadeans. The Erasistrateans, in attempting to
say how the kidneys let the urine through, will do anything or suffer
anything or try any shift in order to find some plausible explanation which
does not demand the principle of attraction.

Now those near the times of Erasistratus maintain that the parts above the
kidneys receive pure blood, whilst the watery residue, being heavy, tends to
run downwards; that this, after percolating through the kidneys themselves,
is thus rendered serviceable, and is sent, as blood, to all the parts below the
kidneys.
For a certain period at least this view also found favour and flourished, and
was held to be true; after a time, however, it became suspect to the
Erasistrateans themselves, and at last they abandoned it. For apparently the
following two points were assumed, neither of which is conceded by
anyone, nor is even capable of being proved. The first is the heaviness of
the serous fluid, which was said to be produced in the vena cava, and which
did not exist, apparently, at the beginning, when this fluid was being carried
up from the stomach to the liver. Why, then, did it not at once run
downwards when it was in these situations? And if the watery fluid is so
heavy, what plausibility can anyone find in the statement that it assists in
the process of anadosis?
In the second place there is this absurdity, that even if it be agreed that all
the watery fluid does fall downwards, and only when it is in the vena
cava,158 still it is difficult, or, rather, impossible, to say through what means
it is going to fall into the kidneys, seeing that these are not situated below,
but on either side of the vena cava, and that the vena cava is not inserted
into them, but merely sends a branch159 into each of them, as it also does
into all the other parts.
What doctrine, then, took the place of this one when it was condemned?
One which to me seems far more foolish than the first, although it also
flourished at one time. For they say, that if oil be mixed with water and
poured upon the ground, each will take a different route, the one flowing
this way and the other that, and that, therefore, it is not surprising that the
watery fluid runs into the kidneys, while the blood falls downwards along
the vena cava. Now this doctrine also stands already condemned. For why,
of the countless veins which spring from the vena cava, should blood flow
into all the others, and the serous fluid be diverted to those going to the
kidneys? They have not answered the question which was asked; they
merely state what happens and imagine they have thereby assigned the
reason.

Once again, then (the third cup to the Saviour!),160 let us now speak of the
worst doctrine of all, lately invented by Lycus of Macedonia,161 but which
is popular owing to its novelty. This Lycus, then, maintains, as though
uttering an oracle from the inner sanctuary, that urine is residual matter
from the nutrition of the kidneys!162 Now, the amount of urine passed every
day shows clearly that it is the whole of the fluid drunk which becomes
urine, except for that which comes away with the dejections or passes off as
sweat or insensible perspiration. This is most easily recognized in winter in
those who are doing no work but are carousing, especially if the wine be
thin and diffusible; these people rapidly pass almost the same quantity as
they drink. And that even Erasistratus was aware of this is known to those
who have read the first book of his “General Principles.”163 Thus Lycus is
speaking neither good Erasistratism, nor good Asclepiadism, far less good
Hippocratism. He is, therefore, as the saying is, like a white crow, which
cannot mix with the genuine crows owing to its colour, nor with the pigeons
owing to its size. For all this, however, he is not to be disregarded; he may,
perhaps, be stating some wonderful truth, unknown to any of his
predecessors.
Now it is agreed that all parts which are undergoing nutrition produce a
certain amount of residue, but it is neither agreed nor is it likely, that the
kidneys alone, small bodies as they are, could hold four whole congii,164
and sometimes even more, of residual matter. For this surplus must
necessarily be greater in quantity in each of the larger viscera; thus, for
example, that of the lung, if it corresponds in amount to the size of the
viscus, will obviously be many times more than that in the kidneys, and
thus the whole of the thorax will become filled, and the animal will be at
once suffocated. But if it be said that the residual matter is equal in amount
in each of the other parts, where are the bladders, one may ask, through
which it is excreted? For, if the kidneys produce in drinkers three and
sometimes four congii of superfluous matter, that of each of the other
viscera will be much more, and thus an enormous barrel will be needed to
contain the waste products of them all. Yet one often urinates practically the
same quantity as one has drunk, which would show that the whole of what
one drinks goes to the kidneys.

Thus the author of this third piece of trickery would appear to have
achieved nothing, but to have been at once detected, and there still remains
the original difficulty which was insoluble by Erasistratus and by all others
except Hippocrates. I dwell purposely on this topic, knowing well that
nobody else has anything to say about the function of the kidneys, but that
either we must prove more foolish than the very butchers165 if we do not
agree that the urine passes through the kidneys; or, if one acknowledges
this, that then one cannot possibly give any other reason for the secretion
than the principle of attraction.
Now, if the movement of urine does not depend on the tendency of a
vacuum to become refilled,166 it is clear that neither does that of the blood
nor that of the bile; or if that of these latter does so, then so also does that of
the former. For they must all be accomplished in one and the same way,
even according to Erasistratus himself.
This matter, however, will be discussed more fully in the book following
this.

5 That is, “On the Natural Powers,” the powers of the Physis or Nature. By that Galen practically
means what we would call the physiological or biological powers, the characteristic faculties of the
living organism; his Physis is the subconscious vital principle of the animal or plant. Like Aristotle,
however, he also ascribes quasi-vital properties to inanimate things, cf. Introduction, p. xxvii.

6 Ergon, here rendered an effect, is literally a work or deed; strictly speaking, it is something done,
completed, as distinguished from energeia, which is the actual doing, the activity which produces this
ergon, cf. p. 13, and Introduction, p. xxx.

7 Gk. psyche, Lat. anima.

8 Gk. physis, Lat. natura.

9 Motion (kinesis) is Aristotle’s general term for what we would rather call change. It includes
various kinds of change, as well as movement proper, cf. Introduction, p. xxix.

10 “Conveyance,” “transport,” “transit”; purely mechanical or passive motion, as distinguished from
alteration (qualitative change).

11 “Waxing and waning,” the latter literally phthisis, a wasting or “decline;” cf. Scotch divining,
Dutch verdwijnen.

12 Becoming and perishing: Latin, generatio et corruptio.

13 “Ad substantiam productio seu ad formam processus” (Linacre).

14 “Preformationist” doctrine of Anaxagoras. To him the apparent alteration in qualities took place
when a number of minute pre-existing bodies, all bearing the same quality, came together in
sufficient numbers to impress that quality on the senses. The factor which united the minute quality-
bearers was Nous. “In the beginning,” says Anaxagoras, “all things existed together—then came
Nous and brought them into order.”

15 “De ea alteratione quae per totam fit substantiam” (Linacre).

16 The systematizer of Stoicism and successor of Zeno.

17 Note characteristic impatience with metaphysics. To Galen, as to Hippocrates and Aristotle, it
sufficed to look on the qualitative differences apprehended by the senses as fundamental. Zeno of
Citium was the founder of the Stoic school; on the further analysis by this school of the qualities into
bodies cf. p. 144, note 3.

18 A rallying-ground: lit. a place where two glens meet.

19 Thus according to Gomperz (Greek Thinkers), the hypothesis of Anaxagoras was that “the bread
... already contained the countless forms of matter as such which the human body displays. Their
minuteness of size would withdraw them from our perception. For the defect or ‘weakness’ of the
senses is the narrowness of their receptive area. These elusive particles are rendered visible and
tangible by the process of nutrition, which combines them.”

20 Therefore the blood must have come from the bread. The food from the alimentary canal was
supposed by Galen to be converted into blood in and by the portal veins, cf. p. 17.

21 By “elements” is meant all homogeneous, amorphous substances, such as metals, &c., as well as
the elementary tissues.

22 Work or product. Lat. opus. cf. p. 3, note 2.

23 Operation, activation, or functioning. Lat. actio. cf. loc. cit.

24 i.e. a concomitant (secondary) or passive affection. Galen is contrasting active and passive
“motion.” cf. p. 6, note 1.

25 As already indicated, there is no exact English equivalent for the Greek term physis, which is a
principle immanent in the animal itself, whereas our term “Nature” suggests something more
transcendent; we are forced often, however, to employ it in default of a better word. cf. p. 2, note 1.

26 In Greek anadosis. This process includes two stages: (1) transmission of food from alimentary
canal to liver (rather more than our “absorption”); (2) further transmission from liver to tissues.
Anadosis is lit. a yielding-up, a “delivery;” it may sometimes be rendered “dispersal.” “Distribution”
(diadosis) is a further stage; cf. p. 163, note 4.

27 cf. p. 9.

28 Since heat and cold tend to cause diffusion and condensation respectively.

29 Lit. haematopoietic. cf. p. 11, note 3.

30 Lit. peptic.

31 Lit. sphygmic.

32 Genesis corresponds to the intrauterine life, or what we may call embryogeny. Alteration here
means histogenesis or tissue-production; shaping or moulding (in Greek diaplasis) means the
ordering of these tissues into organs (organogenesis).

33 cf. p. 25, note 4.

34 Note inadequate analogy of semen with fertilised seeds of plants (i.e. of gamete with zygote).
Strictly speaking, of course, semen corresponds to pollen. cf. p. 130, note 2.

35 i.e. the four primary qualities; cf. chap. iii. supra.

36 Various secondary or derivative differences in the tissues. Note pre-eminence of sense of touch.

37 De Anima, ii. et seq.

38 Lit. homoeomerous = of similar parts throughout, “the same all through.” He refers to the
elementary tissues, conceived as not being susceptible of further analysis.

39 That is, by the bodily eye, and not by the mind’s eye. The observer is here called an autoptes or
“eye-witness.” Our medical term autopsy thus means literally a persona inspection of internal parts,
ordinarily hidden.

40 i.e. “alteration” is the earlier of the two stages which constitute embryogeny or “genesis.” cf. p.
18, note 1.

41 The terms Galen actually uses are: ostopoietic, neuropoietic, chondropoietic.

42 As we should say, parenchyma (a term used by Erasistratus).

43 Those were all the elemental tissues that Aristotle, for example, had recognized; other tissues (e.g.
flesh or muscle) he believed to be complexes of these.

44 Or tunics.

45 i.e. tissues.

46 As, for example, Aristotle had held; cf. p. 23, note 3. Galen added many new tissues to those
described by Aristotle.

47 Lit. synthesis.

48 By this is meant the duodenum, considered as an outgrowth or prolongation of the stomach
towards the intestines.

49 cf. p. 19, note 2.

50 Lit. the auxetic or incremental faculty.

51 i.e. to the alterative and shaping faculties (histogenetic and organogenetic).

52 If the reading is correct we can only suppose that Galen meant the embryo.

53 i.e. not the pre-natal development of tissue already described. cf. chap. vi.

54 Administration, lit. “economy.”

55 The activation or functioning of this faculty, the faculty in actual operation. cf. p. 3, note 2.

56 “Un rapport commun et une affinité” (Daremberg). “Societatem aliquam cognationemque in
qualitatibus” (Linacre). cf. p. 36, note 2.

57 Lit. “necessity”; more restrictive, however, than our “law of Nature.” cf. p. 314, note 1.

58 His point is that no great change, in colours or in anything else, can take place at one step.

59 Not quite our “waste products,” since these are considered as being partly synthetic, whereas the
Greek perittomata were simply superfluous substances which could not be used and were thrown
aside.

60 Note “our natures,” cf. p. 12, note 4; p. 47, note 1.

61 The term οἰκεῖος, here rendered appropriate, is explained on p. 33. cf. also footnote on same page.
Linacre often translated it conveniens, and it may usually be rendered proper, peculiar, own special,
or own particular in English. Sometimes it is almost equal to akin, cognate, related: cf. p. 319,
note 2. With Galen’s οἰκεῖος and ἀλλότριος we may compare the German terms eigen and fremd used
by Aberhalden in connection with his theory of defensive ferments in the blood-serum.

62 Transit, cf. p. 6, note 1.

63 i.e. of the living organism, cf. p. 2, note 1.

64 i.e. with nutrition.

65 We might perhaps say, more shortly, “assimilation of food to feeder,” or, “of food to fed”; Linacre
renders, “nutrimenti cum nutrito assimilatio.”

66 Lit. prosphysis, i.e. attachment, implantation.

67 Lit. prosthesis, “apposition.” One is almost tempted to retain the terms prosthesis and prosphysis
in translation, as they obviously correspond much more closely to Galen’s physiological conceptions
than any English or semi-English words can.

68 Lit. phthisis. cf. p. 6, note 2. Now means tuberculosis only.

69 More literally, “chymified.” In anasarca the subcutaneous tissue is soft, and pits on pressure. In
the “white” disease referred to here (by which is probably meant nodular leprosy) the same tissues
are indurated and “brawny.” The principle of certain diseases being best explained as cases of arrest
at various stages of the metabolic path is recognized in modern pathology, although of course the
instances given by Galen are too crude to stand.

70 The effects of oxidation attributed to the heat which accompanies it? cf. p. 141, note 1; p. 254,
note 1.

71 Here follows a contrast between the Vitalists and the Epicurean Atomists. cf. p. 153 et seq.

72 A unity or continuum, an individuum.

73 Lit. to the physis or the psyche; that is, a denial of the autonomy of physiology and psychology.

74 Lit. somata.

75 For “natures” in the plural, involving the idea of a separate nature immanent in each individual, cf.
p. 36, note 1.

76 A lost work.

77 For Asclepiades v. p. 49, note 5.

78 “Le corps tout entier a unité de souffle (perspiration et expiration) et unité de flux (courants,
circulation des liquides)” (Daremberg). “Conspirabile et confluxile corpus esse” (Linacre).
Apparently Galen refers to the pneuma and the various humours. cf. p. 293, note 2.

79 i.e. “appropriated”; very nearly “assimilated.”

80 “Attractricem convenientis qualitatis vim” (Linacre). cf. p. 36, note 2.

81 Lit. “obvious phenomena.”

82 Asclepiades of Bithynia, who flourished in the first half of the first century B.C., was an adherent
of the atomistic philosophy of Democritus, and is the typical representative of the Mechanistic school
in Graeco-Roman medicine; he disbelieved in any principle of individuality (“nature”) in the
organism, and his methods of treatment, in accordance with his pathology, were mechano-
therapeutical. cf. p. 64, note 3.

83 Diocles of Carystus was the chief representative of the Dogmatic or Hippocratic school in the first
half of the fourth century B.C. Praxagoras was his disciple, and followed him in the leadership of the
school. For Erasistratus, cf. p. 95 et seq.

84 Sufferers from kidney-trouble.

85 The ureters.

86 Unless otherwise stated, “peritoneum” stands for parietal peritoneum alone.

87 In the peritoneal cavity.

88 Contrast, however, anasarca, p. 41.

89 Regurgitation, however, is prevented by the fact that the ureter runs for nearly one inch obliquely
through the bladder wall before opening into its cavity, and thus an efficient valve is produced.

90 On the τέχνη (artistic or creative skill) shown by the living organism (φύσις) v. pp. 25, 45, 47;
Introduction, p. xxix.

91 Direct denial of Aristotle’s dictum that “Nature does nothing in vain.” We are reminded of the
view of certain modern laboratory physicians and surgeons that the colon is a “useless” organ, cf.
Erasistratus, p. 143.

92 The vasa deferentia.

93 “De l’habileté et de la prévoyance de la nature à l’égard des animaux” (Daremberg). cf. p. 56, note
1.

94 cf. p. 36, note 2.

95 The morbid material passed successively through the stages of “crudity,” “coction” (pepsis), and
“elimination” (crisis). For “critical days” cf. p. 74, note 1.

96 This was the process by which nutriment was taken up from the alimentary canal; “absorption,”
“dispersal;” cf. p. 13, note 5. The subject is dealt with more fully in chap. xvi.

97 Lit. catharsis.

98 i.e. urine.

99 On use of κενόω v. p. 67, note 9.

100 i.e. bile and phlegm had no existence as such before the drugs were given; they are the products
of dissolved tissue. Asclepiades did not believe that diseases were due to a materia peccans, but to
disturbances in the movements of the molecules (ὄγκοι) which constitute the body; thus, in
opposition to the humoralists such as Galen, he had no use for drugs. cf. p. 49, note 5.

101 About 4 oz., or one-third of a pint.

102 The Empiricists, cf. Introduction, p. xiii.

103 His ὄγκοι or molecules.

104 He does not say “organized” or “living” body; inanimate things were also thought to possess
“natures”; cf. p. 2, note 1.

105 Carthamus tinctorius.

106 Daphne Gnidium.

107 Euphorbia acanthothamnos.

108 Teucrium chamaedrys.

109 Atractylis gummifera.

110 On use of κενόω cf. p. 98, note 1.

111 Empiricist physicians.

112 Note that drugs also have “natures”; cf. p. 66, note 3, and pp. 83-84.

113 Pun here.

114 Lit. physiology, i.e. nature-lore, almost our “Natural Philosophy”; cf. Introduction, p. xxvi.

115 The ultimate particle of Epicurus was the ἄτομος or atom (lit. “non-divisible”), of Asclepiades,
the ὄγκος or molecule. Asclepiades took his atomic theory from Epicurus, and he again from
Democritus; cf. p. 49, note 5.

116 Lit. Herculean stone.

117 Lit. aetiology.

118 Anadosis; cf. p. 62, note 1.

119 cf. p. 45.

120 The vis conservatrix et medicatrix Naturae.

121 cf. p. 61, note 3. The crisis or resolution in fevers was observed to take place with a certain
regularity; hence arose the doctrine of “critical days.”

122 These were hypothetical spaces or channels between the atoms; cf. Introduction, p. xiv.

123 He means the specific drawing power or faculty of the lodestone.

124 cf. our modern “radium-emanations.”

125 cf. Ehrlich’s hypothesis of “receptors” in explanation of the “affinities” of animal cells.

126 i.e. from the point of view of the theory.

127 cf. p. 69, note 2.

128 That is to say, the two properties should go together in all cases—which they do not.

129 Trygon pastinaca.

130 cf. p. 66, note 3.

131 The way that corn can attract moisture.

132 Specific attraction of the “proper” quality; cf. p. 85, note 3.

133 Theory of evaporation insufficient to account for it. cf. p. 104, note 1.

134 Playful suggestion of free-will in the urine.

135 Specific attraction, cf. p. 87, note 2.

136 i.e. there would be no selective action.

137 Nasal mucus was supposed to be the non-utilizable part of the nutriment conveyed to the brain,
cf. p. 214, note 3.

138 He means from its origin in the liver (i.e. in the three hepatic veins). His idea was that the upper
division took nutriment to heart, lungs, head, etc., and the lower division to lower part of body. On
the relation of right auricle to vena cava and right ventricle, cf. p. 321, notes 4 and 5.

139 We arrive at our belief by excluding other possibilities.

140 i.e. the mechanistic physicists. cf. pp. 45-47.

141 cf. p. 85, note 3.

142 The subject of anadosis is taken up in the next chapter. cf. also p. 62, note 1.

143 On Erasistratus v. Introd. p. xii. His view that the stomach exerts no holké, or attraction, is dealt
with more fully in Book III., chap. viii.

144 i.e. the tissues.

145 cf. p. 291.

146 Peristalsis may be used here to translate Gk. peristolé, meaning the contraction and dilation of
muscle-fibres circularly round a lumen, cf. p. 263, note 2.

147 For a demonstration that this phenomenon is a conclusive proof neither of peristolé nor of real
vital attraction, but is found even in dead bodies v. p. 267.

148 This was Erasistratus’s favourite principle, known in Latin as the “horror vacui” and in English
as “Nature’s abhorrence of a vacuum,” although these terms are not an exact translation of the Greek.
τὸ κενούμενον probably means the vacuum, not the matter evacuated, although Galen elsewhere uses
κενόω in the latter (non-classical) sense, e.g. pp. 67, 215. Akolouthia is a following-up, a sequence,
almost a consequence.

149 v. p. 123.

150 cf. Book II., chap. i.

151 Vital factor necessary over and above the mechanical.

152 cf. p. 119, note 2.

153 pp. 91, 93.

154 i.e. the part below the liver; cf. p. 91, note 2.

155 Renal veins.

156 cf. p. 87, note 3.

157 κοίλην: the usual reading is κοιλίαν, which would make it “from the region of the alimentary
canal.” cf. p. 118, note 1.

158 Not at an earlier stage, when it is still on its way from the alimentary canal to the liver.

159 i.e. a renal vein.

160 In a toast, the third cup was drunk to Zeus Sôtêr (the Saviour).

161 An anatomist of the Alexandrian school.

162 cf. nasal mucus, p. 90, note 1.

163 “Sur l’Ensemble des Choses” (Daremberg).

164 About twelve quarts. This is about five times as much as the average daily excretion, and could
only be passed if a very large amount of wine were drunk.

165 cf. p. 51.

166 Horror vacui. Note analogical reasoning; cf. p. 289, note 1.

BOOK II

I
In the previous book we demonstrated that not only Erasistratus, but also all
others who would say anything to the purpose about urinary secretion, must
acknowledge that the kidneys possess some faculty which attracts to them
this particular quality existing in the urine.167 Besides this we drew
attention to the fact that the urine is not carried through the kidneys into the
bladder by one method, the blood into parts of the animal by another, and
the yellow bile separated out on yet another principle. For when once there
has been demonstrated in any one organ, the drawing, or so-called
epispastic168 faculty, there is then no difficulty in transferring it to the rest.
Certainly Nature did not give a power such as this to the kidneys without
giving it also to the vessels which abstract the biliary fluid,169 nor did she
give it to the latter without also giving it to each of the other parts. And,
assuredly, if this is true, we must marvel that Erasistratus should make
statements concerning the delivery of nutriment from the food-canal170
which are so false as to be detected even by Asclepiades. Now, Erasistratus
considers it absolutely certain that, if anything flows from the veins, one of
two things must happen: either a completely empty space will result, or the
contiguous quantum of fluid will run in and take the place of that which has
been evacuated. Asclepiades, however, holds that not one of two, but one of
three things must be said to result in the emptied vessels: either there will
be an entirely empty space, or the contiguous portion will flow in, or the

vessel will contract. For whereas, in the case of reeds and tubes it is true to
say that, if these be submerged in water, and are emptied of the air which
they contain in their lumens, then either a completely empty space will be
left, or the contiguous portion will move onwards; in the case of veins this
no longer holds, since their coats can collapse and so fall in upon the
interior cavity. It may be seen, then, how false this hypothesis—by Zeus, I
cannot call it a demonstration!—of Erasistratus is.
And, from another point of view, even if it were true, it is superfluous, if the
stomach171 has the power of compressing the veins, as he himself supposed,
and the veins again of contracting upon their contents and propelling them
forwards.172 For, apart from other considerations, no plethora173 would
ever take place in the body, if delivery of nutriment resulted merely from
the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled. Now, if the compression of
the stomach becomes weaker the further it goes, and cannot reach to an
indefinite distance, and if, therefore, there is need of some other mechanism
to explain why the blood is conveyed in all directions, then the principle of
the refilling of a vacuum may be looked on as a necessary addition;174 there
will not, however, be a plethora in any of the parts coming after the liver,175
or, if there be, it will be in the region of the heart and lungs; for the heart
alone of the parts which come after the liver draws the nutriment into its
right ventricle, thereafter sending it through the arterioid vein176 to the
lungs (for Erasistratus himself will have it that, owing to the membranous
excrescences,177 no other parts save the lungs receive nourishment from the
heart). If, however, in order to explain how plethora comes about, we
suppose the force of compression by the stomach to persist indefinitely, we
have no further need of the principle of the refilling of a vacuum, especially
if we assume contraction of the veins in addition—as is, again, agreeable to
Erasistratus himself.

II
Let me draw his attention, then, once again, even if he does not wish it, to
the kidneys, and let me state that these confute in the very clearest manner
such people as object to the principle of attraction. Nobody has ever said
anything plausible, nor, as we previously showed, has anyone been able to

discover, by any means, any other cause for the secretion of urine; we
necessarily appear mad if we maintain that the urine passes into the kidneys
in the form of vapour, and we certainly cut a poor figure when we talk
about the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled;178 this idea is foolish in
the case of blood, and impossible, nay, perfectly nonsensical, in the case of
the urine.179
This, then, is one blunder made by those who dissociate themselves from
the principle of attraction. Another is that which they make about the
secretion of yellow bile. For in this case, too, it is not a fact that when the
blood runs past the mouths [stomata] of the bile-ducts there will be a
thorough separation out [secretion] of biliary waste-matter. “Well,” say
they, “let us suppose that it is not secreted but carried with the blood all
over the body.” But, you sapient folk, Erasistratus himself supposed that
Nature took thought for the animals’ future, and was workmanlike in her
method; and at the same time he maintained that the biliary fluid was
useless in every way for the animals. Now these two things are
incompatible. For how could Nature be still looked on as exercising
forethought for the animal when she allowed a noxious humour such as this
to be carried off and distributed with the blood?...
This, however, is a small matter. I shall again point out here the greatest and
most obvious error. For if the yellow bile adjusts itself to the narrower
vessels and stomata, and the blood to the wider ones, for no other reason
than that blood is thicker and bile thinner, and that the stomata of the veins
are wider and those of the bile-ducts narrower,180 then it is clear that this
watery and serous superfluity,181 too, will run out into the bile-ducts quicker
than does the bile, exactly in proportion as it is thinner than the bile! How is
it, then, that it does not run out? “Because,” it may be said, “urine is thicker
than bile!” This was what one of our Erasistrateans ventured to say, herein
clearly disregarding the evidence of his senses, although he had trusted
these in the case of the bile and blood. For, if it be that we are to look on
bile as thinner than blood because it runs more, then, since the serous
residue181 passes through fine linen or lint or a sieve more easily even than
does bile, by these tokens bile must also be thicker than the watery fluid.
For here, again, there is no argument which will demonstrate that bile is
thinner than the serous superfluities.

But when a man shamelessly goes on using circumlocutions, and never
acknowledges when he has had a fall, he is like the amateur wrestlers, who,
when they have been overthrown by the experts and are lying on their backs
on the ground, so far from recognizing their fall, actually seize their
victorious adversaries by the necks and prevent them from getting away,
thus supposing themselves to be the winners!

III
Thus, every hypothesis of channels182 as an explanation of natural
functioning is perfect nonsense. For, if there were not an inborn faculty
given by Nature to each one of the organs at the very beginning, then
animals could not continue to live even for a few days, far less for the
number of years which they actually do. For let us suppose they were under
no guardianship, lacking in creative ingenuity183 and forethought; let us
suppose they were steered only by material forces,184 and not by any special
faculties (the one attracting what is proper to it, another rejecting what is
foreign, and yet another causing alteration and adhesion of the matter
destined to nourish it); if we suppose this, I am sure it would be ridiculous
for us to discuss natural, or, still more, psychical, activities—or, in fact, life
as a whole.185
For there is not a single animal which could live or endure for the shortest
time if, possessing within itself so many different parts, it did not employ
faculties which were attractive of what is appropriate, eliminative of what is
foreign, and alterative of what is destined for nutrition. On the other hand, if
we have these faculties, we no longer need channels, little or big, resting on
an unproven hypothesis, for explaining the secretion of urine and bile, and
the conception of some favourable situation (in which point alone
Erasistratus shows some common sense, since he does regard all the parts
of the body as having been well and truly placed and shaped by Nature).
But let us suppose he remained true to his own statement that Nature is
“artistic”—this Nature which, at the beginning, well and truly shaped and
disposed all the parts of the animal,186 and, after carrying out this function
(for she left nothing undone), brought it forward to the light of day,
endowed with certain faculties necessary for its very existence, and,

thereafter, gradually increased it until it reached its due size. If he argued
consistently on this principle, I fail to see how he can continue to refer
natural functions to the smallness or largeness of canals, or to any other
similarly absurd hypothesis. For this Nature which shapes and gradually
adds to the parts is most certainly extended throughout their whole
substance. Yes indeed, she shapes and nourishes and increases them through
and through, not on the outside only. For Praxiteles and Phidias and all the
other statuaries used merely to decorate their material on the outside, in so
far as they were able to touch it; but its inner parts they left unembellished,
unwrought, unaffected by art or forethought, since they were unable to
penetrate therein and to reach and handle all portions of the material. It is
not so, however, with Nature. Every part of a bone she makes bone, every
part of the flesh she makes flesh, and so with fat and all the rest; there is no
part which she has not touched, elaborated, and embellished. Phidias, on the
other hand, could not turn wax into ivory and gold, nor yet gold into wax:
for each of these remains as it was at the commencement, and becomes a
perfect statue simply by being clothed externally in a form and artificial
shape. But Nature does not preserve the original character of any kind of
matter; if she did so then all parts of the animal would be blood—that
blood, namely, which flows to the semen from the impregnated female and
which is, so to speak, like the statuary’s wax, a single uniform matter,
subjected to the artificer. From this blood there arises no part of the animal
which is as red and moist [as blood is], for bone, artery, vein, nerve,
cartilage, fat, gland, membrane, and marrow are not blood, though they
arise from it.
I would then ask Erasistratus himself to inform me what the altering,
coagulating, and shaping agent is. He would doubtless say, “Either Nature
or the semen,” meaning the same thing in both cases, but explaining it by
different devices. For that which was previously semen, when it begins to
procreate and to shape the animal, becomes, so to say, a special nature.187
For in the same way that Phidias possessed the faculties of his art even
before touching his material, and then activated these in connection with
this material (for every faculty remains inoperative in the absence of its
proper material), so it is with the semen: its faculties it possessed from the
beginning,188 while its activities it does not receive from its material, but it
manifests them in connection therewith.

And, of course, if it were to be overwhelmed with a great quantity of blood,
it would perish, while if it were to be entirely deprived of blood it would
remain inoperative and would not turn into a nature. Therefore, in order that
it may not perish, but may become a nature in place of semen, there must
be an afflux to it of a little blood—or, rather, one should not say a little, but
a quantity commensurate with that of the semen. What is it then that
measures the quantity of this afflux? What prevents more from coming?
What ensures against a deficiency? What is this third overseer of animal
generation that we are to look for, which will furnish the semen with a due
amount of blood? What would Erasistratus have said if he had been alive,
and had been asked this question? Obviously, the semen itself. This, in fact,
is the artificer analogous with Phidias, whilst the blood corresponds to the
statuary’s wax.
Now, it is not for the wax to discover for itself how much of it is required;
that is the business of Phidias. Accordingly the artificer will draw to itself
as much blood as it needs. Here, however, we must pay attention and take
care not unwittingly to credit the semen with reason and intelligence; if we
were to do this, we would be making neither semen nor a nature, but an
actual living animal.189 And if we retain these two principles—that of
proportionate attraction190 and that of the non-participation of intelligence
—we shall ascribe to the semen a faculty for attracting blood similar to that
possessed by the lodestone for iron.191 Here, then, again, in the case of the
semen, as in so many previous instances, we have been compelled to
acknowledge some kind of attractive faculty.
And what is the semen? Clearly the active principle of the animal, the
material principle being the menstrual blood.192 Next, seeing that the active
principle employs this faculty primarily, therefore, in order that any one of
the things fashioned by it may come into existence, it [the principle] must
necessarily be possessed of its own faculty. How, then, was Erasistratus
unaware of it, if the primary function of the semen be to draw to itself a due
proportion of blood? Now, this fluid would be in due proportion if it were
so thin and vaporous, that, as soon as it was drawn like dew into every part
of the semen, it would everywhere cease to display its own particular
character; for so the semen will easily dominate and quickly assimilate it—
in fact, will use it as food. It will then, I imagine, draw to itself a second and

a third quantum, and thus by feeding it acquires for itself considerable bulk
and quantity.193 In fact, the alterative faculty has now been discovered as
well, although about this also Erasistratus has not written a word. And,
thirdly the shaping194 faculty will become evident, by virtue of which the
semen firstly surrounds itself with a thin membrane like a kind of
superficial condensation; this is what was described by Hippocrates in the
sixth-day birth, which, according to his statement, fell from the singing-girl
and resembled the pellicle of an egg. And following this all the other stages
will occur, such as are described by him in his work “On the Child’s
Nature.”
But if each of the parts formed were to remain as small as when it first
came into existence, of what use would that be? They have, then, to grow.
Now, how will they grow? By becoming extended in all directions and at
the same time receiving nourishment. And if you will recall what I
previously said about the bladder which the children blew up and rubbed,195
you will also understand my meaning better as expressed in what I am now
about to say.
Imagine the heart to be, at the beginning, so small as to differ in no respect
from a millet-seed, or, if you will, a bean; and consider how otherwise it is
to become large than by being extended in all directions and acquiring
nourishment throughout its whole substance, in the way that, as I showed a
short while ago, the semen is nourished. But even this was unknown to
Erasistratus—the man who sings the artistic skill of Nature! He imagines
that animals grow like webs, ropes, sacks, or baskets, each of which has,
woven on to its end or margin, other material similar to that of which it was
originally composed.
But this, most sapient sir, is not growth, but genesis! For a bag, sack,
garment, house, ship, or the like is said to be still coming into existence
[undergoing genesis] so long as the appropriate form for the sake of which
it is being constructed by the artificer is still incomplete. Then, when does it
grow? Only when the basket, being complete, with a bottom, a mouth, and a
belly, as it were, as well as the intermediate parts, now becomes larger in all
these respects. “And how can this happen?” someone will ask. Only by our
basket suddenly becoming an animal or a plant; for growth belongs to
living things alone. Possibly you imagine that a house grows when it is

being built, or a basket when being plaited, or a garment when being
woven? It is not so however. Growth belongs to that which has already been
completed in respect to its form, whereas the process by which that which is
still becoming attains its form is termed not growth but genesis. That which
is, grows, while that which is not, becomes.

IV
This also was unknown to Erasistratus, whom nothing escaped, if his
followers speak in any way truly in maintaining that he was familiar with
the Peripatetic philosophers. Now, in so far as he acclaims Nature as being
an artist in construction, even I recognize the Peripatetic teachings, but in
other respects he does not come near them. For if anyone will make himself
acquainted with the writings of Aristotle and Theophrastus, these will
appear to him to consist of commentaries on the Nature-lore
[physiology]196 of Hippocrates—according to which the principles of heat,
cold, dryness and moisture act upon and are acted upon by one another, the
hot principle being the most active, and the cold coming next to it in power;
all this was stated in the first place by Hippocrates and secondly by
Aristotle.197 Further, it is at once the Hippocratic and the Aristotelian
teaching that the parts which are being nourished receive that nourishment
throughout their whole substance, and that, similarly, processes of mingling
and alteration involve the entire substance.198 Moreover, that digestion is a
species of alteration—a transmutation of the nutriment into the proper
quality of the thing receiving it; that blood-production also is an alteration,
and nutrition as well; that growth results from extension in all directions,
combined with nutrition; that alteration is effected mainly by the warm
principle, and that therefore digestion, nutrition, and the generation of the
various humours, as well as the qualities of the surplus substances, result
from the innate heat;199 all these and many other points besides in regard to
the aforesaid faculties, the origin of diseases, and the discovery of remedies,
were correctly stated first by Hippocrates of all writers whom we know, and
were in the second place correctly expounded by Aristotle. Now, if all these
views meet with the approval of the Peripatetics, as they undoubtedly do,
and if none of them satisfy Erasistratus, what can the Erasistrateans
possibly mean by claiming that their leader was associated with these

philosophers? The fact is, they revere him as a god, and think that
everything he says is true. If this be so, then we must suppose the
Peripatetics to have strayed very far from truth, since they approve of none
of the ideas of Erasistratus. And, indeed, the disciples of the latter produce
his connection with the Peripatetics in order to furnish his Nature-lore with
a respectable pedigree.
Now, let us reverse our argument and put it in a different way from that
which we have just employed. For if the Peripatetics were correct in their
teaching about Nature, there could be nothing more absurd than the
contentions of Erasistratus. And, I will leave it to the Erasistrateans
themselves to decide; they must either advance the one proposition or the
other. According to the former one the Peripatetics had no accurate
acquaintance with Nature, and according to the second, Erasistratus. It is
my task, then, to point out the opposition between the two doctrines, and
theirs to make the choice....
But they certainly will not abandon their reverence for Erasistratus. Very
well, then; let them stop talking about the Peripatetic philosophers. For
among the numerous physiological teachings regarding the genesis and
destruction of animals, their health, their diseases, and the methods of
treating these, there will be found one only which is common to Erasistratus
and the Peripatetics—namely, the view that Nature does everything for
some purpose, and nothing in vain.
But even as regards this doctrine their agreement is only verbal; in practice
Erasistratus makes havoc of it a thousand times over. For, according to him,
the spleen was made for no purpose, as also the omentum; similarly, too,
the arteries which are inserted into kidneys200—although these are
practically the largest of all those that spring from the great artery [aorta]!
And to judge by the Erasistratean argument, there must be countless other
useless structures; for, if he knows nothing at all about these structures, he
has little more anatomical knowledge than a butcher, while, if he is
acquainted with them and yet does not state their use, he clearly imagines
that they were made for no purpose, like the spleen. Why, however, should I
discuss these structures fully, belonging as they do to the treatise “On the
Use of Parts,” which I am personally about to complete?

Let us, then, sum up again this same argument, and, having said a few
words more in answer to the Erasistrateans, proceed to our next topic. The
fact is, these people seem to me to have read none of Aristotle’s writings,
but to have heard from others how great an authority he was on “Nature,”
and that those of the Porch201 follow in the steps of his Nature-lore;
apparently they then discovered a single one of the current ideas which is
common to Aristotle and Erasistratus, and made up some story of a
connection between Erasistratus and these people.202 That Erasistratus,
however, has no share in the Nature-lore of Aristotle is shown by an
enumeration of the aforesaid doctrines, which emanated first from
Hippocrates, secondly from Aristotle, thirdly from the Stoics (with a single
modification, namely, that for them the qualities are bodies).203
Perhaps, however, they will maintain that it was in the matter of logic that
Erasistratus associated himself with the Peripatetic philosophers? Here they
show ignorance of the fact that these philosophers never brought forward
false or inconclusive arguments, while the Erasistratean books are full of
them.
So perhaps somebody may already be asking, in some surprise, what
possessed Erasistratus that he turned so completely from the doctrines of
Hippocrates, and why it is that he takes away the attractive faculty from the
biliary204 passages in the liver—for we have sufficiently discussed the
kidneys—alleging [as the cause of bile-secretion] a favourable situation, the
narrowness of vessels, and a common space into which the veins from the
gateway [of the liver]205 conduct the unpurified blood, and from which, in
the first place, the [biliary] passages take over the bile, and secondly, the
[branches] of the vena cava take over the purified blood. For it would not
only have done him no harm to have mentioned the idea of attraction, but
he would thereby have been able to get rid of countless other disputed
questions.

V
At the actual moment, however, the Erasistrateans are engaged in a
considerable battle, not only with others but also amongst themselves, and
so they cannot explain the passage from the first book of the “General

Principles,” in which Erasistratus says, “Since there are two kinds of vessels
opening206 at the same place, the one kind extending to the gall-bladder and
the other to the vena cava, the result is that, of the nutriment carried up from
the alimentary canal, that part which fits both kinds of stomata is received
into both kinds of vessels, some being carried into the gall-bladder, and the
rest passing over into the vena cava.” For it is difficult to say what we are to
understand by the words “opening at the same place” which are written at
the beginning of this passage. Either they mean there is a junction207
between the termination of the vein which is on the concave surface of the
liver208 and two other vascular terminations (that of the vessel on the
convex surface of the liver209 and that of the bile-duct), or, if not, then we
must suppose that there is, as it were, a common space for all three vessels,
which becomes filled from the lower vein,210 and empties itself both into
the bile-duct and into the branches of the vena cava. Now, there are many
difficulties in both of these explanations, but if I were to state them all, I
should find myself inadvertently writing an exposition of the teaching of
Erasistratus, instead of carrying out my original undertaking. There is,
however, one difficulty common to both these explanations, namely, that
the whole of the blood does not become purified. For it ought to fall into the
bile-duct as into a kind of sieve, instead of going (running, in fact, rapidly)
past it, into the larger stoma, by virtue of the impulse of anadosis.
Are these, then, the only inevitable difficulties in which the argument of
Erasistratus becomes involved through his disinclination to make any use of
the attractive faculty, or is it that the difficulty is greatest here, and also so
obvious that even a child could not avoid seeing it?

VI
And if one looks carefully into the matter one will find that even
Erasistratus’s reasoning on the subject of nutrition, which he takes up in the
second book of his “General Principles,” fails to escape this same difficulty.
For, having conceded one premise to the principle that matter tends to fill a
vacuum, as we previously showed, he was only able to draw a conclusion in
the case of the veins and their contained blood.211 That is to say, when
blood is running away through the stomata of the veins, and is being

dispersed, then, since an absolutely empty space cannot result, and the veins
cannot collapse (for this was what he overlooked), it was therefore shown to
be necessary that the adjoining quantum of fluid should flow in and fill the
place of the fluid evacuated. It is in this way that we may suppose the veins
to be nourished; they get the benefit of the blood which they contain. But
how about the nerves?212 For they do not also contain blood. One might
obviously say that they draw their supply from the veins.213 But Erasistratus
will not have it so. What further contrivance, then, does he suppose? He
says that a nerve has within itself veins and arteries, like a rope woven by
Nature out of three different strands. By means of this hypothesis he
imagined that his theory would escape from the idea of attraction. For if the
nerve contain within itself a blood-vessel it will no longer need the
adventitious flow of other blood from the real vein lying adjacent; this
fictitious vessel, perceptible only in theory,214 will suffice it for
nourishment.
But this, again, is succeeded by another similar difficulty. For this small
vessel will nourish itself, but it will not be able to nourish this adjacent
simple nerve or artery, unless these possess some innate proclivity for
attracting nutriment. For how could the nerve, being simple, attract its
nourishment, as do the composite veins, by virtue of the tendency of a
vacuum to become refilled? For, although according to Erasistratus, it
contains within itself a cavity of sorts, this is not occupied with blood, but
with psychic pneuma,215 and we are required to imagine the nutriment
introduced, not into this cavity, but into the vessel containing it, whether it
needs merely to be nourished, or to grow as well. How, then, are we to
imagine it introduced? For this simple vessel [i.e. nerve] is so small—as are
also the other two—that if you prick it at any part with the finest needle you
will tear the whole three of them at once. Thus there could never be in it a
perceptible space entirely empty. 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.216 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.
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).
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.217 For, if we do not grant a certain unity of substance218 to these
simple structures as well, and if we arrive eventually at inharmonious and
indivisible elements,219 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.220 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,221
nutritive, or, in a word, any artistic power; it is, by hypothesis,
unimpressionable and untransformable,222 whereas, as we have previously
shown,223 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.
Now, one can hardly be right in supposing that Erasistratus could reach
such a pitch of foolishness as to be incapable of 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. How, and in what way? For, when

we were at this point before, we drew attention to the disagreement among
the Erasistrateans,224 and we showed that the nutrition of these simple
vessels was impracticable 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.225
Let our argument, then, be transferred again to the doctrine which assumes
this elementary nerve226 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.
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 vacuum227 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.
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 presented228 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 presentation228 in order to feed them up, he argues that
the factor of “refilling”227 must play an equally large part. And how could
much presentation take place if it were not preceded by an abundant
delivery229 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,230 as some people have
thought fit to name it, and then ascribes conveyance through the veins to the
principle of vacuum-refilling alone, let him explain to us the assumption of
food by the hypothetical elements.231 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.232 It can, however, take it in through its
sides from the adjacent simple vein. Secondly, I also accept in Erasistratus’s
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.

VII
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]?233 But if the beginning of

anadosis depends on the squeezing action of the stomach,234 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
Asclepiades235 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.

VIII
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!236 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 homœmeries?237 Assuredly it would be much more useful to
investigate what kinds of food are suited, and what kinds unsuited, to the
process of blood-production238 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 chylified239 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.
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 spleen240 or any other part, but always by induration of the liver,241
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,242 or which, through
immoderate bleeding, have given the patient a severe chill; similarly, in
women, the complete disappearance of the monthly discharge,243 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’s 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,244 very much like the diarrhoea which follows imperfect
digestion of food; 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 Philistion245 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 and 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.246 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.
Now, Erasistratus is thoroughly small-minded and petty to the last degree in
all his disputations—when, for instance, in his treatise “On Digestion,”247
he argues jealously with those who consider that this is a process of
putrefaction of the food; and, in his work “On Anadosis,”248 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,249 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 chylification250 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?251 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? The fact, therefore, that Erasistratus, in regard to other matters, did
not hesitate to attack even the most trivial views, whilst in this case 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.252
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
a fluid of this kind253 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. 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 purified254 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. 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?255 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. 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.256 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. 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.257 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. 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, Philotimus258 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 facts259
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 natures260 themselves, the
colder are more phlegmatic, and the warmer more bilious. Also cold
diseases result from phlegm, 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.
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;261 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.

Thus, for example, when a bubo develops following an accidental wound262
gastric digestion does not become impaired until after 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
heat263 (for these two symptoms occurred besides the bubo—an alteration
in the arterial and cardiac movements264 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;265 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. For when they are again asked what it is that has
altered the pneuma, they will only be able to reply, “the abnormal heat,” and
particularly if it be the pneuma in the food canal which is in question (since
this does not come in any way near the bubo).
Yet why do I mention those animals in which the property of the pneuma
plays an important part, when it is possible to base one’s argument upon
human beings, in whom it is either of no importance at all, or acts quite
faintly and feebly?266 But Erasistratus himself agrees that human beings
digest badly in fevers, adding as the cause that the activity of the stomach
has been impaired. He cannot, however, advance any other cause of this
impairment than abnormal heat. But if it is not by accident that the
abnormal heat impairs this activity, but by virtue of its own essence and
power, then this abnormal heat must belong to the primary diseases. But,

indeed, if disproportion of heat belongs to the primary diseases, it cannot
but be that a proportionate blending [eucrasia] of the qualities produces the
normal activity.267 For a disproportionate blend [dyscrasia] can only
become a cause of the primary diseases through derangement of the
eucrasia. That is to say, it is because the [normal] activities arise from the
eucrasia that the primary impairments of these activities necessarily arise
from its derangement.
I think, then, it has been proved to the satisfaction of those people who are
capable of seeing logical consequences, that, even according to
Erasistratus’s own argument, the cause of the normal functions is eucrasia
of the Warm.268 Now, this being so, there is nothing further to prevent us
from saying that, in the case of each function, eucrasia is followed by the
more, and dyscrasia by the less favourable alternative. And, therefore, if this
be the case, we must suppose blood to be the outcome of proportionate, and
yellow bile of disproportionate heat. So we naturally find yellow bile
appearing in greatest quantity in ourselves at the warm periods of life, in
warm countries, at warm seasons of the year, and when we are in a warm
condition; similarly in people of warm temperaments, and in connection
with warm occupations, modes of life, or diseases.
And to be in doubt as to whether this humour has its genesis in the human
body or is contained in the food is what you would expect from one who
has—I will not say failed to see that, when those who are perfectly healthy
have, under the compulsion of circumstances, to fast contrary to custom,
their mouths become bitter and their urine bile-coloured, while they suffer
from gnawing pains in the stomach—but has, as it were, just made a sudden
entrance into the world, and is not yet familiar with the phenomena which
occur there. Who, in fact, does not know that anything which is overcooked
grows at first salt and afterwards bitter? And if you will boil honey itself,
far the sweetest of all things, you can demonstrate that even this becomes
quite bitter. For what may occur as a result of boiling in the case of other
articles which are not warm by nature, exists naturally in honey; for this
reason it does not become sweeter on being boiled, since exactly the same
quantity of heat as is needed for the production of sweetness exists from
beforehand in the honey. Therefore the external heat, which would be useful
for insufficiently warm substances, becomes in the honey a source of

damage, in fact an excess; and it is for this reason that honey, when boiled,
can be demonstrated to become bitter sooner than the others. For the same
reason it is easily transmuted into bile in those people who are naturally
warm, or in their prime, since warm when associated with warm becomes
readily changed into a disproportionate combination and turns into bile
sooner than into blood. Thus we need a cold temperament and a cold period
of life if we would have honey brought to the nature of blood.269 Therefore
Hippocrates not improperly advised those who were naturally bilious not to
take honey, since they were obviously of too warm a temperament. So also,
not only Hippocrates, but all physicians say that honey is bad in bilious
diseases but good in old age; some of them having discovered this through
the indications afforded by its nature, and others simply through
experiment,270 for the Empiricist physicians too have made precisely the
same observation, namely, that honey is good for an old man and not for a
young one, that it is harmful for those who are naturally bilious, and
serviceable for those who are phlegmatic. In a word, in bodies which are
warm either through nature, disease, time of life, season of the year,
locality, or occupation, honey is productive of bile, whereas in opposite
circumstances it produces blood.
But surely it is impossible that the same article of diet can produce in
certain persons bile and in others blood, if it be not that the genesis of these
humours is accomplished in the body. For if all articles of food contained
bile from the beginning and of themselves, and did not produce it by
undergoing change in the animal body, then they would produce it similarly
in all bodies; the food which was bitter to the taste would, I take it, be
productive of bile, while that which tasted good and sweet would not
generate even the smallest quantity of bile. Moreover, not only honey but
all other sweet substances are readily converted into bile in the aforesaid
bodies which are warm for any of the reasons mentioned.
Well, I have somehow or other been led into this discussion,—not in
accordance with my plan, but compelled by the course of the argument.
This subject has been treated at great length by Aristotle and Praxagoras,
who have correctly expounded the view of Hippocrates and Plato.

IX

For this reason the things that we have said are not to be looked upon as
proofs but rather as indications of the dulness271 of those who think
differently, and who do not even recognise what is agreed on by everyone
and is a matter of daily observation. As for the scientific proofs of all this,
they are to be drawn from these principles of which I have already
spoken272—namely, that bodies act upon and are acted upon by each other
in virtue of the Warm, Cold, Moist and Dry. And if one is speaking of any
activity, whether it be exercised by vein, liver, arteries, heart, alimentary
canal, or any part, one will be inevitably compelled to acknowledge that
this activity depends upon the way in which the four qualities are blended.
Thus I should like to ask the Erasistrateans why it is that the stomach
contracts upon the food, and why the veins generate blood. There is no use
in recognizing the mere fact of contraction, without also knowing the cause;
if we know this, we shall also be able to rectify the failures of function.
“This is no concern of ours,” they say; “we do not occupy ourselves with
such causes as these; they are outside the sphere of the practitioner,273 and
belong to that of the scientific investigator.”274 Are you, then, going to
oppose those who maintain that the cause of the function of every organ is a
natural eucrasia,275 that the dyscrasia is itself known as a disease, and that it
is certainly by this that the activity becomes impaired? Or, on the other
hand, will you be convinced by the proofs which the ancient writers
furnished? Or will you take a midway course between these two, neither
perforce accepting these arguments as true nor contradicting them as false,
but suddenly becoming sceptics—Pyrrhonists, in fact? But if you do this
you will have to shelter yourselves behind the Empiricist teaching. For how
are you going to be successful in treatment, if you do not understand the
real essence of each disease? Why, then, did you not call yourselves
Empiricists from the beginning? Why do you confuse us by announcing that
you are investigating natural activities with a view to treatment? If the
stomach is, in a particular case, unable to exercise its peristaltic and
grinding functions, how are we going to bring it back to the normal if we do
not know the cause of its disability? What I say is276 that we must cool the
over-heated stomach and warm the chilled one; so also we must moisten the
one which has become dried up, and conversely; so, too, in combinations of
these conditions; if the stomach becomes at the same time warmer and drier
than normally, the first principle of treatment is at once to chill and moisten

it; and if it become colder and moister, it must be warmed and dried; so also
in other cases. But how on earth are the followers of Erasistratus going to
act, confessing as they do that they make no sort of investigation into the
cause of disease? For the fruit of the enquiry into activities is that by
knowing the causes of the dyscrasiae one may bring them back to the
normal, since it is of no use for the purposes of treatment merely to know
what the activity of each organ is.
Now, it seems to me that Erasistratus is unaware of this fact also, that the
actual disease is that condition of the body which, not accidentally, but
primarily and of itself, impairs the normal function. How, then, is he going
to diagnose or cure diseases if he is entirely ignorant of what they are, and
of what kind and number? As regards the stomach, certainly, Erasistratus
held that one should at least investigate how it digests the food. But why
was not investigation also made as to the primary originative cause of this?
And, as regards the veins and the blood, he omitted even to ask the question
“how?”
Yet neither Hippocrates nor any of the other physicians or philosophers
whom I mentioned a short while ago thought it right to omit this; they say
that when the heat which exists naturally in every animal is well blended
and moderately moist it generates blood; for this reason they also say that
the blood is a virtually warm and moist humour, and similarly also that
yellow bile is warm and dry, even though for the most part it appears moist.
(For in them the apparently dry would seem to differ from the virtually
dry.) Who does not know that brine and sea-water preserve meat and keep it
uncorrupted,277 whilst all other water—the drinkable kind—readily spoils
and rots it? And who does not know that when yellow bile is contained in
large quantity in the stomach, we are troubled with an unquenchable thirst,
and that when we vomit this up, we at once become much freer from thirst
than if we had drunk very large quantities of fluid? Therefore this humour
has been very properly termed warm, and also virtually dry. And, similarly,
phlegm has been called cold and moist; for about this also clear proofs have
been given by Hippocrates and the other Ancients.

Prodicus278 also, when in his book “On the Nature of Man” he gives the
name “phlegm” (from the verb πεφλέχθαι) to that element in the humours
which has been burned or, as it were, over-roasted, while using a different

terminology, still keeps to the fact just as the others do; this man’s
innovations in nomenclature have also been amply done justice to by
Plato.279 Thus, the white-coloured substance which everyone else calls
phlegm, and which Prodicus calls blenna [mucus],280 is the well-known
cold, moist humour which collects mostly in old people and in those who
have been chilled281 in some way, and not even a lunatic could say that this
was anything else than cold and moist.
If, then, there is a warm and moist humour, and another which is warm and
dry, and yet another which is moist and cold, is there none which is
virtually cold and dry? Is the fourth combination of temperaments, which
exists in all other things, non-existent in the humours alone? No; the black
bile is such a humour. This, according to intelligent physicians and
philosophers, tends to be in excess, as regards seasons, mainly in the fall of
the year, and, as regards ages, mainly after the prime of life. And, similarly,
also they say that there are cold and dry modes of life, regions,
constitutions, and diseases. Nature, they suppose, is not defective in this
single combination like the three other combinations, it extends
everywhere.
At this point, also, I would gladly have been able to ask Erasistratus
whether his “artistic” Nature has not constructed any organ for clearing
away a humour such as this. For whilst there are two organs for the
excretion of urine, and another of considerable size for that of yellow bile,
does the humour which is more pernicious than these wander about
persistently in the veins mingled with the blood? Yet Hippocrates says,
“Dysentery is a fatal condition if it proceeds from black bile”; while that
proceeding from yellow bile is by no means deadly, and most people
recover from it; this proves how much more pernicious and acrid in its
potentialities is black than yellow bile. Has Erasistratus, then, not read the
book, “On the Nature of Man,” any more than any of the rest of
Hippocrates’s writings, that he so carelessly passes over the consideration
of the humours? Or, does he know it, and yet voluntarily neglect one of the
finest studies282 in medicine? Thus he ought not to have said anything about
the spleen,283 nor have stultified himself by holding that an artistic Nature
would have prepared so large an organ for no purpose. As a matter of fact,
not only Hippocrates and Plato—who are no less authorities on Nature than

is Erasistratus—say that this viscus also is one of those which cleanse the
blood, but there are thousands of the ancient physicians and philosophers as
well who are in agreement with them. Now, all of these the high and mighty
Erasistratus affected to despise, and he neither contradicted them nor even
so much as mentioned their opinion. Hippocrates, indeed, says that the
spleen wastes in those people in whom the body is in good condition, and
all those physicians also who base themselves on experience284 agree with
this. Again, in those cases in which the spleen is large and is increasing
from internal suppuration, it destroys the body and fills it with evil
humours;285 this again is agreed on, not only by Hippocrates, but also by
Plato and many others, including the Empiric physicians. And the jaundice
which occurs when the spleen is out of order is darker in colour, and the
cicatrices of ulcers are dark. For, generally speaking, when the spleen is
drawing the atrabiliary286 humour into itself to a less degree than is proper,
the blood is unpurified, and the whole body takes on a bad colour. And
when does it draw this in to a less degree than proper? Obviously, when it
[the spleen] is in a bad condition. Thus, just as the kidneys, whose function
it is to attract the urine, do this badly when they are out of order, so also the
spleen, which has in itself a native power of attracting an atrabiliary
quality,287 if it ever happens to be weak, must necessarily exercise this
attraction badly, with the result that the blood becomes thicker and darker.
Now all these points, affording as they do the greatest help in the diagnosis
and in the cure of disease were entirely passed over by Erasistratus, and he
pretended to despise these great men—he who does not despise ordinary
people, but always jealously attacks the most absurd doctrines. Hence, it
was clearly because he had nothing to say against the statements made by
the ancients regarding the function and utility of the spleen, and also
because he could discover nothing new himself, that he ended by saying
nothing at all. I, however, for my part, have demonstrated, firstly from the
causes by which everything throughout nature is governed (by the causes I
mean the Warm, Cold, Dry and Moist) and secondly, from obvious bodily
phenomena, that there must needs be a cold and dry humour.288 And having
in the next place drawn attention to the fact that this humour is black bile
[atrabiliary] and that the viscus which clears it away is the spleen—having
pointed this out by help of as few as possible of the proofs given by ancient
writers, I shall now proceed to what remains of the subject in hand.

What else, then, remains but to explain clearly what it is that happens in the
generation of the humours, according to the belief and demonstration of the
Ancients? This will be more clearly understood from a comparison.
Imagine, then, some new wine which has been not long ago pressed from
the grape, and which is fermenting and undergoing alteration through the
agency of its contained heat.289 Imagine next two residual substances
produced during this process of alteration, the one tending to be light and
air-like and the other to be heavy and more of the nature of earth; of these
the one, as I understand, they call the flower and the other the lees. Now
you may correctly compare yellow bile to the first of these, and black bile
to the latter, although these humours have not the same appearance when
the animal is in normal health as that which they often show when it is not
so; for then the yellow bile becomes vitelline,290 being so termed because it
becomes like the yolk of an egg, both in colour and density; and again, even
the black bile itself becomes much more malignant than when in its normal
condition,291 but no particular name has been given to [such a condition of]
the humour, except that some people have called it corrosive or acetose,
because it also becomes sharp like vinegar and corrodes the animal’s body
—as also the earth, if it be poured out upon it—and it produces a kind of
fermentation and seething, accompanied by bubbles—an abnormal
putrefaction having become added to the natural condition of the black
humour. It seems to me also that most of the ancient physicians give the
name black humour and not black bile to the normal portion of this humour,
which is discharged from the bowel and which also frequently rises to the
top [of the stomach-contents]; and they call black bile that part which,
through a kind of combustion and putrefaction, has had its quality changed
to acid. There is no need, however, to dispute about names, but we must
realise the facts, which are as follow:—

In the genesis of blood, everything in the nutriment292 which belongs
naturally to the thick and earth-like part of the food,292 and which does not
take on well the alteration produced by the innate heat—all this the spleen
draws into itself. On the other hand, that part of the nutriment which is
roasted, so to speak, or burnt (this will be the warmest and sweetest part of
it, like honey and fat), becomes yellow bile, and is cleared away through the
so-called biliary293 vessels; now, this is thin, moist, and fluid, not like what

it is when, having been roasted to an excessive degree, it becomes yellow,
fiery, and thick, like the yolk of eggs; for this latter is already abnormal,
while the previously mentioned state is natural. Similarly with the black
humour: that which does not yet produce, as I say, this seething and
fermentation on the ground, is natural, while that which has taken over this
character and faculty is unnatural; it has assumed an acridity owing to the
combustion caused by abnormal heat, and has practically become
transformed into ashes.294 In somewhat the same way burned lees differ
from unburned. The former is a warm substance, able to burn, dissolve, and
destroy the flesh. The other kind, which has not yet undergone combustion,
one may find the physicians employing for the same purposes that one uses
the so-called potter’s earth and other substances which have naturally a
combined drying and chilling action.
Now the vitelline bile also may take on the appearance of this combusted
black bile, if ever it chance to be roasted, so to say, by fiery heat. And all
the other forms of bile are produced, some from a blending of those
mentioned, others being, as it were, transition-stages in the genesis of these
or in their conversion into one another. And they differ in that those first
mentioned are unmixed and unique, while the latter forms are diluted with
various kinds of serum. And all the serums in the humours are waste
substances, and the animal body needs to be purified from them. There is,
however, a natural use for the humours first mentioned, both thick and thin;
the blood is purified both by the spleen and by the bladder beside the liver,
and a part of each of the two humours is put away, of such quantity and
quality that, if it were carried all over the body, it would do a certain
amount of harm. For that which is decidedly thick and earthy in nature, and
has entirely escaped alteration in the liver, is drawn by the spleen into
itself295; the other part which is only moderately thick, after being
elaborated [in the liver], is carried all over the body. For the blood in many
parts of the body has need of a certain amount of thickening, as also, I take
it, of the fibres which it contains. And the use of these has been discussed
by Plato,296 and it will also be discussed by me in such of my treatises as
may deal with the use of parts. And the blood also needs, not least, the
yellow humour, which has as yet not reached the extreme stage of
combustion; in the treatises mentioned it will be pointed out what purpose
is subserved by this.

Now Nature has made no organ for clearing away phlegm, this being cold
and moist, and, as it were, half-digested nutriment; such a substance,
therefore, does not need to be evacuated, but remains in the body and
undergoes alteration there. And perhaps one cannot properly give the name
of phlegm to the surplus-substance which runs down from the brain,297 but
one should call it mucus [blenna] or coryza—as, in fact, it is actually
termed; in any case it will be pointed out, in the treatise “On the Use of
Parts,” how Nature has provided for the evacuation of this substance.
Further, the device provided by Nature which ensures that the phlegm
which forms in the stomach and intestines may be evacuated in the most
rapid and effective way possible—this also will be described in that
commentary. As to that portion of the phlegm which is carried in the veins,
seeing that this is of service to the animal it requires no evacuation. Here
too, then, we must pay attention and recognise that, just as in the case of
each of the two kinds of bile, there is one part which is useful to the animal
and in accordance with its nature, while the other part is useless and
contrary to nature, so also is it with the phlegm; such of it as is sweet is
useful to the animal and according to nature, while, as to such of it as has
become bitter or salt, that part which is bitter is completely undigested,
while that part which is salt has undergone putrefaction. And the term
“complete indigestion” refers of course to the second digestion—that which
takes place in the veins; it is not a failure of the first digestion—that in the
alimentary canal—for it would not have become a humour at the outset if it
had escaped this digestion also.
It seems to me that I have made enough reference to what has been said
regarding the genesis and destruction of humours by Hippocrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Praxagoras, and Diocles, and many others among the Ancients; I
did not deem it right to transport the whole of their final pronouncements
into this treatise. I have said only so much regarding each of the humours as
will stir up the reader, unless he be absolutely inept, to make himself
familiar with the writings of the Ancients, and will help him to gain more
easy access to them. In another treatise298 I have written on the humours
according to Praxagoras, son of Nicarchus; although this authority makes as
many as ten humours, not including the blood (the blood itself being an
eleventh), this is not a departure from the teaching of Hippocrates; for

Praxagoras divides into species and varieties the humours which
Hippocrates first mentioned, with the demonstration proper to each.
Those, then, are to be praised who explain the points which have been duly
mentioned, as also those who add what has been left out; for it is not
possible for the same man to make both a beginning and an end. Those, on
the other hand, deserve censure who are so impatient that they will not wait
to learn any of the things which have been duly mentioned, as do also those
who are so ambitious that, in their lust after novel doctrines, they are always
attempting some fraudulent sophistry, either purposely neglecting certain
subjects, as Erasistratus does in the case of the humours, or unscrupulously
attacking other people, as does this same writer, as well as many of the
more recent authorities.
But let this discussion come to an end here, and I shall add in the third book
all that remains.

167 cf. p. 89.

168 This term is nowadays limited to the drawing action of a blister, cf. p. 223.

169 The radicles of the hepatic ducts in the liver were supposed to be the active agents in extracting
bile from the blood. cf. pp. 145-149.

170 Anadosis; cf. p. 13, note 5.

171 The term κοιλία is used both specifically for the stomach proper and also (as probably here) in a
somewhat wider sense for the stomach region, including the adjacent part of the small intestine; this
was the part of the alimentary canal from which nutriment was believed to be absorbed by the
mesenteric veins; cf. p. 309, note 2.

172 cf. p. 100, note 2; p. 167, note 2.

173 A characteristic “lesion” in Erasistratus’s pathology.

174 A certain subordinate place allowed to the horror vacui.

175 i.e. the parts to which the veins convey blood after it leaves the liver—second stage of anadosis;
cf. p. 91, note 2; p. 13, note 5.

176 What we now call the pulmonary artery. Galen believed that the right ventricle existed for the
purpose of sending nutrient blood to the lungs.

177 Lit. owing to the ongrowth (epiphysis) of membranes; he means the tricuspid valve; cf. p. 314,
note 2; p. 321, note 4.

178 Horror vacui.

179 But Erasistratus had never upheld this in the case of urinary secretion, cf. p. 99.

180 This was the characteristically “anatomical” explanation of bile-secretion made by Erasistratus.
cf. p. 170, note 2. Why, then, says Galen, does not urine, rather than bile, enter the bile-ducts?

181 Urine, or, more exactly, blood-serum.

182 Or ducts, canals, conduits, i.e. morphological factors.

183 Or artistic skill, “artistry.” cf. Book I., chap. xii.

184 “Only”; cf. Introd., p. xxviii.

185 Note how Galen, although he has not yet clearly differentiated physiological from physical
processes (both are “natural”) yet separates them definitely from the psychical. cf. p. 2, footnote. A
psychical function or activity is, in Latin, actio animalis (from anima = psyche).

186 The stage of organogenesis or diaplasis; cf. p. 25, note 4.

187 The spermatozoon now becomes an “organism” proper.

188 Galen attributed to the sperma or semen what we should to the fertilized ovum: to him the
maternal contribution is purely passive—mere food for the sperm. The epoch-making Ovum Theory
was not developed till the seventeenth century. cf. p. 19, note 3.

189 i.e. we should be talking psychology, not biology; cf. stomach, p. 307, note 3.

190 Attraction now described not merely as qualitative but also as quantitative. cf. p. 85, note 3.

191 He still tends either to biologize physics, or to physicize biology—whichever way we prefer to
look at it. cf. Book I., chap. xiv.

192 Aristotelian and Stoic duality of an active and a passive principle.

193 Note that early embryonic development is described as a process of nutrition. cf. p. 130, note 2.

194 On the alterative and shaping faculties cf. p. 18, note 1.

195 pp. 27-29.

196 cf. Introduction, p. xxvi.

197 cf. p. 15.

198 For definitions of alteration and mingling (crasis, “temperament”) cf. Book I., chaps. ii. and iii.

199 i.e. are associated with oxidation? cf. p. 41, note 3.

200 “Useless” organs; cf. p. 56, note 2. For fallacy of Erasistratus’s view on the spleen v. p. 205.

201 The Stoics.

202 The Peripatetics (Aristotelians).

203 Aristotle regarded the qualitative differences apprehended by our senses (the cold, the warm, the
moist, and the dry) as fundamental, while the Stoics held the four corporeal elements (earth, air, fire,
and water) to be still more fundamental. cf. p. 8, note 3.

204 Lit. bile-receiving (choledochous).

205 Jecoris portae, the transverse fissure, by which the portal vein enters the liver.

206 Lit. “anastomosing.”

207 More literally, “synapse.”

208 The portal vein.

209 The hepatic vein or veins.

210 The portal vein.

211 cf. p. 120, note 1.

212 cf. p. 272, note 1.

213 i.e. one might assume an attraction.

214 i.e. visible to the mind’s eye as distinguished from the bodily eye. cf. p. 21, note 4. Theoreton
without qualification means merely visible, not theoretic. cf. p. 205, note 1.

215 According to the Pneumatist school, certain of whose ideas were accepted by Erasistratus, the
air, breath, pneuma, or spirit was brought by inspiration into the left side of the heart, where it was
converted into natural, vital, and psychic pneuma; the latter then went to the brain, whence it was
distributed through the nervous system; practically this teaching involved the idea of a psyche, or
conscious vital principle. “Psychic pneuma” is in Latin spiritus animalis (anima = psyche); cf. p. 126,
note 4. Introduction, p. xxxiv.

216 Observe that Erasistratus’s “simple nerve” may be almost looked on as an anticipation of the
cell. The question Galen now asks is whether this vessel is a “unit mass of living matter,” or merely
an agglomeration of atoms subject to mechanical law. cf. Galen’s “fibres,” p. 329.

217 cf. Book I., chap. xii.

218 i.e. in biology we must begin with living substance—with something which is specifically alive
—here with the “unit mass of living matter.” cf. p. 73, note 3.

219 “Ad elementa quae nec coalescere possunt nec in partes dividi” (Linacre). On the two contrasted
schools cf. p. 45.

220 cf. loc. cit.

221 “Auxetic.” cf. p. 26, note 1.

222 “At corporum quae nec una committi nec dividi possunt nullum in se formatricem, auctricem,
nutricem, aut in summa artificem facultatem habet; quippe quod impatibile esse immutibileque
praesumitur” (Linacre).

223 Book I., chaps. v.-xi.

224 cf. p. 153.

225 On account of his idea of a simple tissue not susceptible of further analysis.

226 Or “cell”; cf. p. 153, note 2.

227 The horror vacui.

228 Prosthesis of nutriment; cf. p. 39, note 6.

229 Anadosis, “absorption”; cf. p. 13, note 5.

230 Lit. diadosis.

231 i.e. let him explain the diadosis.

232 “Spiritus animalis”; cf. p. 152, note 1. The nutriment was for the walls of the vessels, not for
their cavities. cf. p. 319, note 3.

233 Specific attraction; cf. Book I., chap. xiv.

234 cf. p. 100, note 2.

235 In Book II., chap. i.

236 Prevention better than cure.

237 e.g. Anaxagoras; cf. p. 7, note 5; p. 20, note 3.

238 Lit. haematosis.

239 cf. p. 174, note 4.

240 Erasistratus held the spleen to be useless, cf. p. 143.

241 Induration: Gk. skirros, Lat. scirrhus. The condition is now commonly known by Laënnec’s term
cirrhosis, from Gk. kirros, meaning yellow or tawny. Here again we have an example of
Erasistratus’s bias towards anatomical or structural rather than functional explanations of disease, cf.
p. 124, note 1.

242 On the risks which were supposed to attend the checking of habitual bleeding from piles cf.
Celsus (De Re Med. VI. xviii. 9), “Atque in quibusdam parum tuto supprimitur, qui sanguinis
profluvio imbecilliores non fiunt; habent enim purgationem hanc, non morbum.” (i.e. the habit was to
be looked on as a periodical cleansing, not as a disease.)

243 Lit. catharsis.

244 Apparently some form of anaemia.

245 Philistion of Locri, a contemporary of Plato, was one of the chief representatives of the Sicilian
school of medicine. For Diocles and Praxagoras see p. 51, note 1.

246 cf. Book I., chap. iii.

247 Gk. pepsis; otherwise rendered coction.

248 cf. p. 13, note 5.

249 e.g. Asclepiades.

250 Lit. chylosis; cf. p. 238, note 2.

251 That is to say, the haematopoietic function deserves consideration as much as the digestive
processes which precede it.

252 i.e. Erasistratus could obviously say nothing about any of the humours or their origins, since he
had not postulated the four qualities (particularly the Warm—that is, innate heat).

253 i.e. bile.

254 i.e. deprived of its bile.

255 Here it is rather the living organism we consider than the particular food that is put into it.

256 Supreme importance of the “soil.” cf. Introduction, pp. xii. and xxxi.

257 Aristotle, Hist. Animal., iii. xix.; Plato, Timaeus, 80 E.

258 Philotimus succeeded Diocles and Praxagoras, who were successive leaders of the Hippocratic
school. cf. p. 51, note 1.

259 Lit. phenomena.

260 i.e. living organisms; cf. p. 47, note 1.

261 Erasistratus rejected the idea of innate heat; he held that the heat of the body was introduced
from outside.

262 As a bubo is a swelling in the groin, we must suppose that the wound referred to would be in the
leg or lower abdomen.

263 i.e. fever as a cause of disease.

264 As we should say, “circulatory” changes.

265 This is the “vital spirit” or pneuma which, according to Erasistratus and the Pneumatist school,
was elaborated in the left ventricle, and thereafter carried by the arteries all over the body, there to
subserve circulatory processes. It has some analogy with oxygen, but this is also the case with the
“natural spirit” or pneuma, whose seat was the liver and which was distributed by the veins through
the body; it presided over the more vegetative processes. cf. p. 152, note 1; Introduction, p. xxxiv.

266 Even leaving the pneuma out of account, Galen claims that he can still prove his thesis.

267 In other words: if dyscrasia is a first principle in pathology, then eucrasia must be a first
principle in physiology.

268 The above is a good instance of Galen’s “logical” method as applied to medical questions; an
appeal to those who are capable of following “logical sequence.” cf. p. 209, note 1.

269 The aim of dietetics always being the production of moderate heat—i.e. blood.

270 Note contrasted methods of Rationalists and Empiricists.

271 Lit. anaesthesia. Linacre renders it indocilitas.

272 p. 15.

273 Iatros: lit. “healer.”

274 Lit. “physicist” or “physiologist,” the student of the physis. cf. p. 70, note 2.

275 That is, a blending of the four principles in their natural proportion; Lat. temperies. Dyscrasia =
intemperies, “distemper.”

276 This is the orthodox Hippocratic treatment, that of opposites by opposites. Contrast the
homoeopathic principle which is the basis of our modern methods of immunisation (similia similibus
curentur, Hahnemann).

277 Lit. aseptic.

278 Prodicus of Ceos, a Sophist, contemporary of Socrates.

279 Plato, Timaeus, 83-86, passim.

280 cf. the term blennorrhoea, which is still used.

281 cf. the Scotch term “colded” for “affected with a cold”; Germ. erkältet.

282 The word theôria used here is not the same as our theory. It is rather a “contemplation,” the
process by which a theory is arrived at. cf. p. 226, note 2.

283 Erasistratus on the uselessness of the spleen. cf. p. 143.

284 The Empirical school, cf. p. 193.

285 Enlargement and suppuration (?) of spleen associated with toxaemia or “cacochymy.”

286 Lit. “melancholic.”

287 i.e. the combination of sensible qualities which we call black bile. cf. p. 8, note 3.

288 Thus Galen has demonstrated the functions of the spleen both deductively and inductively. For
another example of the combined method cf. Book III., chaps, i. and ii.; cf. also Introd. p. xxxii.

289 i.e. its innate heat.

290 Lit. lecithoid.

291 Note that there can be “normal” black bile.

292 The term food here means the food as introduced into the stomach; the term nutriment (trophé)
means the same food in the digested condition, as it is conveyed to the tissues. cf. pp. 41-43. Note
idea of imperfectly oxidized material being absorbed by the spleen. cf. p. 214, note 1.

293 Lit. choledochous, bile-receiving.

294 Thus over-roasting—shall we say excessive oxidation?—produces the abnormal forms of both
black and yellow bile.

295 cf. p. 277, note 2.

296 Timaeus, 82 C-D.

297 cf. p. 90, note 1. The term “catarrh” refers to this “running down,” which was supposed to take
place through the pores of the cribriform plate of the ethmoid into the nose.

298 Now lost.

BOOK III

I
It has been made clear in the preceding discussion that nutrition occurs by
an alteration or assimilation of that which nourishes to that which receives
nourishment,299 and that there exists in every part of the animal a faculty
which in view of its activity we call, in general terms, alterative, or, more
specifically, assimilative and nutritive. It was also shown that a sufficient
supply of the matter which the part being nourished makes into nutriment
for itself is ensured by virtue of another faculty which naturally attracts its
proper juice [humour] that that juice is proper to each part which is adapted
for assimilation, and that the faculty which attracts the juice is called, by
reason of its activity, attractive or epispastic.300 It has also been shown that
assimilation is preceded by adhesion, and this, again, by presentation,301
the latter stage being, as one might say, the end or goal of the activity
corresponding to the attractive faculty. For the actual bringing up of
nutriment from the veins into each of the parts takes place through the
activation of the attractive faculty,302 whilst to have been finally brought up

and presented to the part is the actual end for which we desired such an
activity; it is attracted in order that it may be presented. After this,
considerable time is needed for the nutrition of the animal; whilst a thing
may be even rapidly attracted, on the other hand to become adherent,
altered, and entirely assimilated to the part which is being nourished and to
become a part of it, cannot take place suddenly, but requires a considerable
amount of time. But if the nutritive juice, so presented, does not remain in
the part, but withdraws to another one, and keeps flowing away, and
constantly changing and shifting its position, neither adhesion nor complete
assimilation will take place in any of them. Here too, then, the [animal’s]
nature has need of some other faculty for ensuring a prolonged stay of the
presented juice at the part, and this not a faculty which comes in from
somewhere outside but one which is resident in the part which is to be
nourished. This faculty, again, in view of its activity our predecessors were
obliged to call retentive.

Thus our argument has clearly shown303 the necessity for the genesis of
such a faculty, and whoever has an appreciation of logical sequence must be
firmly persuaded from what we have said that, if it be laid down and proved
by previous demonstration that Nature is artistic and solicitous for the
animal’s welfare, it necessarily follows that she must also possess a faculty
of this kind.

II
Since, however, it is not our habit to employ this kind of demonstration304
alone, but to add thereto cogent and compelling proofs drawn from obvious
facts, we will also proceed to the latter kind in the present instance: we will
demonstrate that in certain parts of the body the retentive faculty is so
obvious that its operation can be actually recognised by the senses, whilst in
other parts it is less obvious to the senses, but is capable even here of being
detected by the argument.305
Let us begin our exposition, then, by first dealing systematically for a while
with certain definite parts of the body, in reference to which we may
accurately test and enquire what sort of thing the retentive faculty is.

Now, could one begin the enquiry in any better way than with the largest
and hollowest organs? Personally I do not think one could. It is to be
expected that in these, owing to their size, the activities will show quite
clearly, whereas with respect to the small organs, even if they possess a
strong faculty of this kind, its activation will not at once be recognisable to
sense.
Now those parts of the animal which are especially hollow and large are the
stomach and the organ which is called the womb or uterus.306 What
prevents us, then, from taking up these first and considering their activities,
conducting the enquiry on our own persons in regard to those activities
which are obvious without dissection, and, in the case of those which are
more obscure, dissecting animals which are near to man;307 not that even
animals unlike him will not show, in a general way, the faculty in question,
but because in this manner we may find out at once what is common to all
and what is peculiar to ourselves, and so may become more resourceful in
the diagnosis and treatment of disease.
Now it is impossible to speak of both organs at once, so we shall deal with
each in turn, beginning with the one which is capable of demonstrating the
retentive faculty most plainly. For the stomach retains the food until it has
quite digested it, and the uterus retains the embryo until it brings it to
completion, but the time taken for the completion of the embryo is many
times more than that for the digestion of food.

III
We may expect, then, to detect the retentive faculty in the uterus more
clearly in proportion to the longer duration of its activity as compared with
that of the stomach. For, as we know, it takes nine months in most women
for the foetus to attain maturity in the womb, this organ having its neck
quite closed, and entirely surrounding the embryo together with the
chorion. Further, it is the utility of the function which determines the
closure of the os and the stay of the foetus in the uterus. For it is not
casually nor without reason that Nature has made the uterus capable of
contracting upon, and of retaining the embryo, but in order that the latter
may arrive at a proper size. When, therefore, the object for which the uterus

brought its retentive faculty into play has been fulfilled, it then stops this
faculty and brings it back to a state of rest, and employs instead of it
another faculty hitherto quiescent—the propulsive faculty. In this case again
the quiescent and active states are both determined by utility; when this
calls, there is activity; when it does not, there is rest.
Here, then, once more, we must observe well the Art [artistic tendency] of
Nature—how she has not merely placed in each organ the capabilities of
useful activities, but has also fore-ordained the times both of rest and
movement. For when everything connected with the pregnancy proceeds
properly, the eliminative faculty remains quiescent as though it did not
exist, but if anything goes wrong in connection either with the chorion or
any of the other membranes or with the foetus itself, and its completion is
entirely despaired of, then the uterus no longer awaits the nine-months
period, but the retentive faculty forthwith ceases and allows the heretofore
inoperative faculty to come into action. Now it is that something is done—
in fact, useful work effected—by the eliminative or propulsive faculty (for
so it, too, has been called, receiving, like the rest, its names from the
corresponding activities).
Further, our theory can, I think, demonstrate both together; for seeing that
they succeed each other, and that the one keeps giving place to the other
according as utility demands, it seems not unreasonable to accept a
common demonstration also for both. Thus it is the work of the retentive
faculty to make the uterus contract upon the foetus at every point, so that,
naturally enough, when the midwives palpate it, the os is found to be
closed, whilst the pregnant women themselves, during the first days—and
particularly on that on which conception takes place—experience a
sensation as if the uterus were moving and contracting upon itself. Now, if
both of these things occur—if the os closes apart from inflammation or any
other disease, and if this is accompanied by a feeling of movement in the
uterus—then the women believe that they have received the semen which
comes from the male, and that they are retaining it.
Now we are not inventing this for ourselves: one may say the statement is
based on prolonged experience of those who occupy themselves with such
matters. Thus Herophilus308 does not hesitate to state in his writings that up
to the time of labour the os uteri will not admit so much as the tip of a

probe, that it no longer opens to the slightest degree if pregnancy has begun
—that, in fact, it dilates more widely at the times of the menstrual flow.
With him are in agreement all the others who have applied themselves to
this subject; and particularly Hippocrates, who was the first of all
physicians and philosophers to declare that the os uteri closes during
pregnancy and inflammation, albeit in pregnancy it does not depart from its
own nature, whilst in inflammation it becomes hard.
In the case of the opposite (the eliminative) faculty, the os opens, whilst the
whole fundus approaches as near as possible to the os, expelling the embryo
as it does so; and along with the fundus the contiguous parts—which form
as it were a girdle round the whole organ—co-operate in the work; they
squeeze upon the embryo and propel it bodily outwards. And, in many
women who exercise such a faculty immoderately, violent pains cause
forcible prolapse of the whole womb; here almost the same thing happens
as frequently occurs in wrestling-bouts and struggles, when in our eagerness
to overturn and throw others we are ourselves upset along with them; for
similarly when the uterus is forcing the embryo forward it sometimes
becomes entirely prolapsed, and particularly when the ligaments connecting
it with the spine happen to be naturally lax.309
A wonderful device of Nature’s also is this—that, when the foetus is alive,
the os uteri is closed with perfect accuracy, but if it dies, the os at once
opens up to the extent which is necessary for the foetus to make its exit. The
midwife, however, does not make the parturient woman get up at once and
sit down on the [obstetric] chair, but she begins by palpating the os as it
gradually dilates, and the first thing she says is that it has dilated “enough to
admit the little finger,” then that “it is bigger now,” and as we make
enquiries from time to time, she answers that the size of the dilatation is
increasing. And when it is sufficient to allow of the transit of the foetus,310
she then makes the patient get up from her bed and sit on the chair, and bids
her make every effort to expel the child. Now, this additional work which
the patient does of herself is no longer the work of the uterus but of the
epigastric muscles, which also help us in defaecation and micturition.

IV

Thus the two faculties are clearly to be seen in the case of the uterus; in the
case of the stomach they appear as follows:—Firstly in the condition of
gurgling, which physicians are persuaded, and with reason, to be a
symptom of weakness of the stomach; for sometimes when the very
smallest quantity of food has been ingested this does not occur, owing to the
fact that the stomach is contracting accurately upon the food and
constricting it at every point; sometimes when the stomach is full the
gurglings yet make themselves heard as though it were empty. For if it be in
a natural condition, employing its contractile faculty in the ordinary way,
then, even if its contents be very small, it grasps the whole of them and does
not leave any empty space. When it is weak, however, being unable to lay
hold of its contents accurately, it produces a certain amount of vacant space,
and allows the liquid contents to flow about in different directions in
accordance with its changes of shape, and so to produce gurglings.
Thus those who are troubled with this symptom expect, with good reason,
that they will also be unable to digest adequately; proper digestion cannot
take place in a weak stomach. In such people also, the mass of food may be
plainly seen to remain an abnormally long time in the stomach, as would be
natural if their digestion were slow. Indeed, the chief way in which these
people will surprise one is in the length of time that not food alone but even
fluids will remain in their stomachs. Now, the actual cause of this is not, as
one would imagine, that the lower outlet of the stomach,311 being fairly
narrow, will allow nothing to pass before being reduced to a fine state of
division. There are a great many people who frequently swallow large
quantities of big fruit-stones; one person, who was holding a gold ring in
his mouth, inadvertently swallowed it; another swallowed a coin, and
various people have swallowed various hard and indigestible objects; yet all
these people easily passed by the bowel what they had swallowed, without
there being any subsequent symptoms. Now surely if narrowness of the
gastric outlet were the cause of untriturated food remaining for an
abnormally long time, none of these articles I have mentioned would ever
have escaped. Furthermore, the fact that it is liquids which remain longest
in these people’s stomachs is sufficient to put the idea of narrowness of the
outlet out of court. For, supposing a rapid descent were dependent upon
emulsification,312 then soups, milk, and barley-emulsion313 would at once
pass along in every case. But as a matter of fact this is not so. For in people

who are extremely asthenic it is just these fluids which remain undigested,
which accumulate and produce gurglings, and which oppress and overload
the stomach, whereas in strong persons not merely do none of these things
happen, but even a large quantity of bread or meat passes rapidly down.
And it is not only because the stomach is distended and loaded and because
the fluid runs from one part of it to another accompanied by gurglings—it is
not only for these reasons that one would judge that there was an unduly
long continuance of the food in it, in those people who are so disposed, but
also from the vomiting. Thus, there are some who vomit up every particle of
what they have eaten, not after three or four hours, but actually in the
middle of the night, a lengthy period having elapsed since their meal.
Suppose you fill any animal whatsoever with liquid food—an experiment I
have often carried out in pigs, to whom I give a sort of mess of wheaten
flour and water, thereafter cutting them open after three or four hours; if
you will do this yourself, you will find the food still in the stomach. For it is
not chylification314 which determines the length of its stay here—since this
can also be effected outside the stomach; the determining factor is
digestion315 which is a different thing from chylification, as are blood-
production and nutrition. For, just as it has been shown316 that these two
processes depend upon a change of qualities, similarly also the digestion of
food in the stomach involves a transmutation of it into the quality proper to
that which is receiving nourishment.317 Then, when it is completely
digested, the lower outlet opens and the food is quickly ejected through it,
even if there should be amongst it abundance of stones, bones, grape-pips,
or other things which cannot be reduced to chyle. And you may observe this
yourself in an animal, if you will try to hit upon the time at which the
descent of food from the stomach takes place. But even if you should fail to
discover the time, and nothing was yet passing down, and the food was still
undergoing digestion in the stomach, still even then you would find
dissection not without its uses. You will observe, as we have just said, that
the pylorus is accurately closed, and that the whole stomach is in a state of
contraction upon the food very much as the womb contacts upon the foetus.
For it is never possible to find a vacant space in the uterus, the stomach, or
in either of the two bladders—that is, either in that called bile-receiving318
or in the other; whether their contents be abundant or scanty, their cavities

are seen to be replete and full, owing to the fact that their coats contract
constantly upon the contents—so long, at least, as the animal is in a natural
condition.

Now Erasistratus for some reason declares that it is the contractions319 of
the stomach which are the cause of everything—that is to say, of the
softening of the food,320 the removal of waste matter, and the absorption of
the food when chylified [emulsified].
Now I have personally, on countless occasions, divided the peritoneum of a
still living animal and have always found all the intestines contracting
peristaltically321 upon their contents. The condition of the stomach,
however, is found less simple; as regards the substances freshly swallowed,
it had grasped these accurately both above and below, in fact at every point,
and was as devoid of movement as though it had grown round and become
united with the food.322 At the same time I found the pylorus persistently
closed and accurately shut, like the os uteri on the foetus.
In the cases, however, where digestion had been completed the pylorus had
opened, and the stomach was undergoing peristaltic movements, similar to
those of the intestines.

V
Thus all these facts agree that the stomach, uterus, and bladders possess
certain inborn faculties which are retentive of their own proper qualities and
eliminative of those that are foreign. For it has been already shown323 that
the bladder by the liver draws bile into itself, while it is also quite obvious
that it eliminates this daily into the stomach. Now, of course, if the
eliminative were to succeed the attractive faculty and there were not a
retentive faculty between the two, there would be found, on every occasion
that animals were dissected, an equal quantity of bile in the gall-bladder.
This however, we do not find. For the bladder is sometimes observed to be
very full, sometimes quite empty, while at other times you find in it various
intermediate degrees of fulness, just as is the case with the other bladder—
that which receives the urine; for even without resorting to anatomy we
may observe that the urinary bladder continues to collect urine up to the

time that it becomes uncomfortable through the increasing quantity of urine
or the irritation caused by its acidity—the presumption thus being that here,
too, there is a retentive faculty.
Similarly, too, the stomach, when, as often happens, it is irritated by acidity,
gets rid of the food, although still undigested, earlier than proper; or again,
when oppressed by the quantity of its contents, or disordered from the co-
existence of both conditions, it is seized with diarrhoea. Vomiting also is an
affection of the upper [part of the] stomach analogous to diarrhoea, and it
occurs when the stomach is overloaded or is unable to stand the quality of
the food or surplus substances which it contains. Thus, when such a
condition develops in the lower parts of the stomach, while the parts about
the inlet are normal, it ends in diarrhoea, whereas if this condition is in the
upper stomach, the lower parts being normal, it ends in vomiting.

VI
This may often be clearly observed in those who are disinclined for food;
when obliged to eat, they have not the strength to swallow, and, even if they
force themselves to do so, they cannot retain the food, but at once vomit it
up. And those especially who have a dislike to some particular kind of food,
sometimes take it under compulsion, and then promptly bring it up; or, if
they force themselves to keep it down, they are nauseated and feel their
stomach turned up, and endeavouring to relieve itself of its discomfort.
Thus, as was said at the beginning, all the observed facts testify that there
must exist in almost all parts of the animal a certain inclination towards, or,
so to speak; an appetite for their own special quality, and an aversion to, or,
as it were, a hatred324 of the foreign quality. And it is natural that when they
feel an inclination they should attract, and that when they feel aversion they
should expel.
From these facts, then, again, both the attractive and the propulsive faculties
have been demonstrated to exist in everything.325
But if there be an inclination or attraction, there will also be some benefit
derived; for no existing thing attracts anything else for the mere sake of
attracting, but in order to benefit by what is acquired by the attraction. And

of course it cannot benefit by it if it cannot retain it. Herein, then, again, the
retentive faculty is shown to have its necessary origin: for the stomach
obviously inclines towards its own proper qualities and turns away from
those that are foreign to it.326
But if it aims at and attracts its food and benefits by it while retaining and
contracting upon it, we may also expect that there will be some termination
to the benefit received, and that thereafter will come the time for the
exercise of the eliminative faculty.

VII
But if the stomach both retains and benefits by its food, then it employs it
for the end for which it [the stomach] naturally exists. And it exists to
partake of that which is of a quality befitting and proper to it. Thus it
attracts all the most useful parts of the food in a vaporous327 and finely
divided condition, storing this up in its own coats, and applying328 it to
them. And when it is sufficiently full it puts away from it, as one might
something troublesome, the rest of the food, this having itself meanwhile
obtained some profit from its association with the stomach. For it is
impossible for two bodies which are adapted for acting and being acted
upon to come together without either both acting or being acted upon, or
else one acting and the other being acted upon. For if their forces are equal
they will act and be acted upon equally, and if the one be much superior in
strength, it will exert its activity upon its passive neighbour; thus, while
producing a great and appreciable effect, it will itself be acted upon either
little or not at all. But it is herein also that the main difference lies between
nourishing food and a deleterious drug; the latter masters the forces of the
body, whereas the former is mastered by them.329
There cannot, then, be food which is suited for the animal which is not also
correspondingly subdued by the qualities existing in the animal. And to be
subdued means to undergo alteration.330 Now, some parts are stronger in
power and others weaker; therefore, while all will subdue the nutriment
which is proper to the animal, they will not all do so equally. Thus the
stomach will subdue and alter its food, but not to the same extent as will the
liver, veins, arteries, and heart.

We must therefore observe to what extent it does alter it. The alteration is
more than that which occurs in the mouth, but less than that in the liver and
veins. For the latter alteration changes the nutriment into the substance of
blood, whereas that in the mouth obviously changes it into a new form, but
certainly does not completely transmute it. This you may discover in the
food which is left in the intervals between the teeth, and which remains
there all night; the bread is not exactly bread, nor the meat, for they have a
smell similar to that of the animal’s mouth, and have been disintegrated and
dissolved, and have had the qualities of the animal’s flesh impressed upon
them. And you may observe the extent of the alteration which occurs to
food in the mouth if you will chew some corn and then apply it to an unripe
[undigested] boil: you will see it rapidly transmuting—in fact entirely
digesting—the boil, though it cannot do anything of the kind if you mix it
with water. And do not let this surprise you; this phlegm [saliva] in the
mouth is also a cure for lichens331; it even rapidly destroys scorpions;
while, as regards the animals which emit venom, some it kills at once, and
others after an interval; to all of them in any case it does great damage.
Now, the masticated food is all, firstly, soaked in and mixed up with this
phlegm; and secondly, it is brought into contact with the actual skin of the
mouth; thus it undergoes more change than the food which is wedged into
the vacant spaces between the teeth.
But just as masticated food is more altered than the latter kind, so is food
which has been swallowed more altered than that which has been merely
masticated. Indeed, there is no comparison between these two processes; we
have only to consider what the stomach contains—phlegm, bile, pneuma,
[innate] heat,332 and, indeed the whole substance of the stomach. And if one
considers along with this the adjacent viscera, like a lot of burning hearths
around a great cauldron—to the right the liver, to the left the spleen, the
heart above, and along with it the diaphragm (suspended and in a state of
constant movement), and the omentum sheltering them all—you may
believe what an extraordinary alteration it is which occurs in the food taken
into the stomach.
How could it easily become blood if it were not previously prepared by
means of a change of this kind? It has already been shown333 that nothing is
altered all at once from one quality to its opposite. How then could bread,

beef, beans, or any other food turn into blood if they had not previously
undergone some other alteration? And how could the faeces be generated
right away in the small intestine?334 For what is there in this organ more
potent in producing alteration than the factors in the stomach? Is it the
number of the coats, or the way it is surrounded by neighbouring viscera, or
the time that the food remains in it, or some kind of innate heat which it
contains? Most assuredly the intestines have the advantage of the stomach
in none of these respects. For what possible reason, then, will objectors
have it that bread may often remain a whole night in the stomach and still
preserve its original qualities, whereas when once it is projected into the
intestines, it straightway becomes ordure? For, if such a long period of time
is incapable of altering it, neither will the short period be sufficient, or, if
the latter is enough, surely the longer time will be much more so! Well,
then, can it be that, while the nutriment does undergo an alteration in the
stomach, this is a different kind of alteration and one which is not
dependent on the nature of the organ which alters it? Or if it be an alteration
of this latter kind, yet one perhaps which is not proper to the body of the
animal? This is still more impossible. Digestion was shown to be nothing
else than an alteration to the quality proper to that which is receiving
nourishment.335 Since, then, this is what digestion means and since the
nutriment has been shown to take on in the stomach a quality appropriate to
the animal which is about to be nourished by it, it has been demonstrated
adequately that nutriment does undergo digestion in the stomach.
And Asclepiades is absurd when he states that the quality of the digested
food never shows itself either in eructations or in the vomited matter, or on
dissection.336 For of course the mere fact that the food smells of the body
shows that it has undergone gastric digestion. But this man is so foolish
that, when he hears the Ancients saying that the food is converted in the
stomach into something “good,” he thinks it proper to look out not for what
is good in its possible effects, but for what is good to the taste: this is like
saying that apples (for so one has to argue with him) become more apple-
like [in flavour] in the stomach, or honey more honey-like!
Erasistratus, however, is still more foolish and absurd, either through not
perceiving in what sense the Ancients said that digestion is similar to the
process of boiling, or because he purposely confused himself with

sophistries. It is, he says, inconceivable that digestion, involving as it does
such trifling warmth, should be related to the boiling process. This is as if
we were to suppose that it was necessary to put the fires of Etna under the
stomach before it could manage to alter the food; or else that, while it was
capable of altering the food, it did not do this by virtue of its innate heat,
which of course was moist, so that the word boil was used instead of bake.
What he ought to have done, if it was facts that he wished to dispute about,
was to have tried to show, first and foremost, that the food is not transmuted
or altered in quality by the stomach at all, and secondly, if he could not be
confident of this, he ought to have tried to show that this alteration was not
of any advantage to the animal.337 If, again, he were unable even to make
this misrepresentation, he ought to have attempted to confute the postulate
concerning the active principles—to show, in fact, that the functions taking
place in the various parts do not depend on the way in which the Warm,
Cold, Dry, and Moist are mixed, but on some other factor. And if he had not
the audacity to misrepresent facts even so far as this, still he should have
tried at least to show that the Warm is not the most active of all the
principles which play a part in things governed by Nature. But if he was
unable to demonstrate this any more than any of the previous propositions,
then he ought not to have made himself ridiculous by quarrelling uselessly
with a mere name—as though Aristotle had not clearly stated in the fourth
book of his “Meteorology,” as well as in many other passages, in what way
digestion can be said to be allied to boiling, and also that the latter
expression is not used in its primitive or strict sense.

But, as has been frequently said already,338 the one starting-point of all this
is a thoroughgoing enquiry into the question of the Warm, Cold, Dry and
Moist; this Aristotle carried out in the second of his books “On Genesis and
Destruction,” where he shows that all the transmutations and alterations
throughout the body take place as a result of these principles. Erasistratus,
however, advanced nothing against these or anything else that has been said
above, but occupied himself merely with the word “boiling.”

VIII

Thus, as regards digestion, even though he neglected everything else, he did
at least attempt to prove his point—namely, that digestion in animals differs
from boiling carried on outside; in regard to the question of deglutition,
however, he did not go even so far as this. What are his words?

“The stomach does not appear to exercise any traction.”339
Now the fact is that the stomach possesses two coats, which certainly exist
for some purpose; they extend as far as the mouth, the internal one
remaining throughout similar to what it is in the stomach, and the other one
tending to become of a more fleshy nature in the gullet. Now simple
observation will testify that these coats have their fibres inserted in contrary
directions.340 And, although Erasistratus did not attempt to say for what
reason they are like this, I am going to do so.
The inner coat has its fibres straight, since it exists for the purpose of
traction. The outer coat has its fibres transverse, for the purpose of
peristalsis.341 In fact, the movements of each of the mobile organs of the
body depend on the setting of the fibres. Now please test this assertion first
in the muscles themselves; in these the fibres are most distinct, and their
movements visible owing to their vigour. And after the muscles, pass to the
physical organs,342 and you will see that they all move in correspondence
with their fibres. This is why the fibres throughout the intestines are circular
in both coats—they only contract peristaltically, they do not exercise
traction. The stomach, again, has some of its fibres longitudinal for the
purpose of traction and the others transverse for the purpose of
peristalsis.342 For just as the movements in the muscles343 take place when
each of the fibres becomes tightened and drawn towards its origin, such also
is what happens in the stomach; when the transverse fibres tighten, the
breadth of the cavity contained by them becomes less; and when the
longitudinal fibres contract and draw in upon themselves, the length must
necessarily be curtailed. This curtailment of length, indeed, is well seen in
the act of swallowing: the larynx is seen to rise upwards to exactly the same
degree that the gullet is drawn downwards; while, after the process of
swallowing has been completed and the gullet is released from tension, the
larynx can be clearly seen to sink down again. This is because the inner coat
of the stomach, which has the longitudinal fibres and which also lines the

gullet and the mouth, extends to the interior of the larynx, and it is thus
impossible for it to be drawn down by the stomach without the larynx being
involved in the traction.
Further, it will be found acknowledged in Erasistratus’s own writings that
the circular fibres (by which the stomach as well as other parts performs its
contractions) do not curtail its length, but contract and lessen its breadth.
For he says that the stomach contracts peristaltically round the food during
the whole period of digestion. But if it contracts, without in any way being
diminished in length, this is because downward traction of the gullet is not a
property of the movement of circular peristalsis. For what alone happens, as
Erasistratus himself said, is that when the upper parts contract the lower
ones dilate.344 And everyone knows that this can be plainly seen happening
even in a dead man, if water be poured down his throat; this symptom345
results from the passage of matter through a narrow channel; it would be
extraordinary it the channel did not dilate when a mass was passing through
it.346 Obviously then the dilatation of the lower parts along with the
contraction of the upper is common both to dead bodies, when anything
whatsoever is passing through them, and to living ones, whether they
contract peristaltically round their contents or attract them.347
Curtailment of length, on the other hand, is peculiar to organs which
possess longitudinal fibres for the purpose of attraction. But the gullet was
shown to be pulled down; for otherwise it would not have drawn upon the
larynx. It is therefore clear that the stomach attracts food by the gullet.
Further, in vomiting, the mere passive conveyance of rejected matter up to
the mouth will certainly itself suffice to keep open those parts of the
oesophagus which are distended by the returned food; as it occupies each
part in front [above], it first dilates this, and of course leaves the part behind
[below] contracted. Thus, in this respect at least, the condition of the gullet
is precisely similar to what it is in the act of swallowing.348 But there being
no traction, the whole length remains equal in such cases.
And for this reason it is easier to swallow than to vomit, for deglutition
results from both coats of the stomach being brought into action, the inner
one exerting a pull and the outer one helping by peristalsis and propulsion,
whereas emesis occurs from the outer coat alone functioning, without there

being any kind of pull towards the mouth. For, although the swallowing of
food is ordinarily preceded by a feeling of desire on the part of the stomach,
there is in the case of vomiting no corresponding desire from the mouth-
parts for the experience; the two are opposite dispositions of the stomach
itself; it yearns after and tends towards what is advantageous and proper to
it, it loathes and rids itself of what is foreign. Thus the actual process of
swallowing occurs very quickly in those who have a good appetite for such
foods as are proper to the stomach; this organ obviously draws them in and
down before they are masticated; whereas in the case of those who are
forced to take a medicinal draught or who take food as medicine, the
swallowing of these articles is accomplished with distress and difficulty.
From what has been said, then, it is clear that the inner coat of the stomach
(that containing longitudinal fibres) exists for the purpose of exerting a pull
from mouth to stomach, and that it is only in deglutition that it is active,
whereas the external coat, which contains transverse fibres, has been so
constituted in order that it may contract upon its contents and propel them
forward; this coat furthermore, functions in vomiting no less than in
swallowing. The truth of my statement is also borne out by what happens in
the case of the channae and synodonts349; the stomachs of these animals are
sometimes found in their mouths, as also Aristotle writes in his History of
Animals; he also adds the cause of this: he says that it is owing to their
voracity.
The facts are as follows. In all animals, when the appetite is very intense,
the stomach rises up, so that some people who have a clear perception of
this condition say that their stomach “creeps out” of them; in others, who
are still masticating their food and have not yet worked it up properly in the
mouth, the stomach obviously snatches away the food from them against
their will. In those animals, therefore, which are naturally voracious, in
whom the mouth cavity is of generous proportions, and the stomach
situated close to it (as in the case of the synodont and channa), it is in no
way surprising that, when they are sufficiently hungry and are pursuing one
of the smaller animals, and are just on the point of catching it, the stomach
should, under the impulse of desire, spring into the mouth. And this cannot
possibly take place in any other way than by the stomach drawing the food
to itself by means of the gullet, as though by a hand. In fact, just as we
ourselves, in our eagerness to grasp more quickly something lying before

us, sometimes stretch out our whole bodies along with our hands, so also
the stomach stretches itself forward along with the gullet, which is, as it
were, its hand. And thus, in these animals in whom those three factors co-
exist—an excessive propensity for food, a small gullet, and ample mouth
proportions—in these, any slight tendency to movement forwards brings the
whole stomach into the mouth.
Now the constitution of the organs might itself suffice to give a naturalist an
indication of their functions. For Nature would never have purposelessly
constructed the oesophagus of two coats with contrary dispositions; they
must also have each been meant to have a different action. The Erasistratean
school, however, are capable of anything rather than of recognizing the
effects of Nature. Come, therefore, let us demonstrate to them by animal
dissection as well that each of the two coats does exercise the activity which
I have stated. Take an animal, then; lay bare the structures surrounding the
gullet, without severing any of the nerves,350 arteries, or veins which are
there situated; next divide with vertical incisions, from the lower jaw to the
thorax, the outer coat of the oesophagus (that containing transverse fibres);
then give the animal food and you will see that it still swallows although the
peristaltic function has been abolished. If, again, in another animal, you cut
through both coats351 with transverse incisions, you will observe that this
animal also swallows although the inner coat is no longer functioning. From
this it is clear that the animal can also swallow by either of the two coats,
although not so well as by both. For the following also, in addition to other
points, may be distinctly observed in the dissection which I have described
—that during deglutition the gullet becomes slightly filled with air which is
swallowed along with the food, and that, when the outer coat is contracting,
this air is easily forced with the food into the stomach, but that, when there
only exists an inner coat, the air impedes the conveyance of food, by
distending this coat and hindering its action.
But Erasistratus said nothing about this, nor did he point out that the
oblique situation of the gullet clearly confutes the teaching of those who
hold that it is simply by virtue of the impulse from above that food which is
swallowed reaches the stomach. The only correct thing he said was that
many of the long-necked animals bend down to swallow. Hence, clearly, the
observed fact does not show how we swallow but how we do not swallow.

For from this observation it is clear that swallowing is not due merely to the
impulse from above; it is yet, however, not clear whether it results from the
food being attracted by the stomach, or conducted by the gullet. For our
part, however, having enumerated all the different considerations—those
based on the constitution of the organs, as well as those based on the other
symptoms which, as just mentioned, occur both before and after the gullet
has been exposed—we have thus sufficiently proved that the inner coat
exists for the purpose of attraction and the outer for the purpose of
propulsion.
Now the original task we set before ourselves was to demonstrate that the
retentive faculty exists in every one of the organs, just as in the previous
book we proved the existence of the attractive, and, over and above this, the
alterative faculty. Thus, in the natural course of our argument, we have
demonstrated these four faculties existing in the stomach—the attractive
faculty in connection with swallowing, the retentive with digestion, the
expulsive with vomiting and with the descent of digested food into the
small intestine—and digestion itself we have shown to be a process of
alteration.

IX
Concerning the spleen, also, we shall therefore have no further doubts352 as
to whether it attracts what is proper to it, rejects what is foreign, and has a
natural power of altering and retaining all that it attracts; nor shall we be in
any doubt as to the liver, veins, arteries, heart, or any other organ. For these
four faculties have been shown to be necessary for every part which is to be
nourished; this is why we have called these faculties the handmaids of
nutrition. For just as human faeces are most pleasing to dogs, so the
residual matters from the liver are, some of them, proper to the spleen,353
others to the gall-bladder, and others to the kidneys.

X
I should not have cared to say anything further as to the origin of these
[surplus substances] after Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Diocles, Praxagoras,

and Philotimus, nor indeed should I even have said anything about the
faculties, if any of our predecessors had worked out this subject thoroughly.
While, however, the statements which the Ancients made on these points
were correct, they yet omitted to defend their arguments with logical proofs;
of course they never suspected that there could be sophists so shameless as
to try to contradict obvious facts. More recent physicians, again, have been
partly conquered by the sophistries of these fellows and have given
credence to them; whilst others who attempted to argue with them appear to
me to lack to a great extent the power of the Ancients. For this reason I have
attempted to put together my arguments in the way in which it seems to me
the Ancients, had any of them been still alive, would have done, in
opposition to those who would overturn the finest doctrines of our art.
I am not, however, unaware that I shall achieve either nothing at all or else
very little. For I find that a great many things which have been conclusively
demonstrated by the Ancients are unintelligible to the bulk of the Moderns
owing to their ignorance—nay, that, by reason of their laziness, they will
not even make an attempt to comprehend them; and even if any of them
have understood them, they have not given them impartial examination.
The fact is that he whose purpose is to know anything better than the
multitude do must far surpass all others both as regards his nature and his
early training. And when he reaches early adolescence he must become
possessed with an ardent love for truth, like one inspired; neither day nor
night may he cease to urge and strain himself in order to learn thoroughly
all that has been said by the most illustrious of the Ancients. And when he
has learnt this, then for a prolonged period he must test and prove it,
observing what part of it is in agreement, and what in disagreement with
obvious fact; thus he will choose this and turn away from that. To such an
one my hope has been that my treatise would prove of the very greatest
assistance.... Still, such people may be expected to be quite few in number,
while, as for the others, this book will be as superfluous to them as a tale
told to an ass.

XI

For the sake, then, of those who are aiming at truth, we must complete this
treatise by adding what is still wanting in it. Now, in people who are very
hungry, the stomach obviously attracts or draws down the food before it has
been thoroughly softened in the mouth, whilst in those who have no
appetite or who are being forced to eat, the stomach is displeased and
rejects the food.354 And in a similar way each of the other organs possesses
both faculties—that of attracting what is proper to it, and that of rejecting
what is foreign. Thus, even if there be any organ which consists of only one
coat (such as the two bladders,355 the uterus, and the veins), it yet possesses
both kinds of fibres, the longitudinal and the transverse.
But further, there are fibres of a third kind—the oblique—which are much
fewer in number than the two kinds already spoken of. In the organs
consisting of two coats this kind of fibre is found in the one coat only,
mixed with the longitudinal fibres; but in the organs composed of one coat
it is found along with the other two kinds. Now, these are of the greatest
help to the action of the faculty which we have named retentive. For during
this period the part needs to be tightly contracted and stretched over its
contents at every point—the stomach during the whole period of
digestion,356 and the uterus during that of gestation.
Thus too, the coat of a vein, being single, consists of various kinds of fibres;
whilst the outer coat of an artery consists of circular fibres, and its inner
coat mostly of longitudinal fibres, but with a few oblique ones also amongst
them. Veins thus resemble the uterus or the bladder as regards the
arrangement of their fibres, even though they are deficient in thickness;
similarly arteries resemble the stomach. Alone of all organs the intestines
consist of two coats of which both have their fibres transverse.357 Now the
proof that it was for the best that all the organs should be naturally such as
they are (that, for instance, the intestines should be composed of two coats)
belongs to the subject of the use of parts358; thus we must not now desire to
hear about matters of this kind nor why the anatomists are at variance
regarding the number of coats in each organ. For these questions have been
sufficiently discussed in the treatise “On Disagreement in Anatomy.” And
the problem as to why each organ has such and such a character will be
discussed in the treatise “On the Use of Parts.”

XII
It is not, however, our business to discuss either of these questions here, but
to consider duly the natural faculties, which, to the number of four, exist in
each organ. Returning then, to this point, let us recall what has already been
said, and set a crown to the whole subject by adding what is still wanting.
For when every part of the animal has been shewn to draw into itself the
juice which is proper to it (this being practically the first of the natural
faculties), the next point to realise is that the part does not get rid either of
this attracted nutriment as a whole, or even of any superfluous portion of it,
until either the organ itself, or the major part of its contents also have their
condition reversed. Thus, when the stomach is sufficiently filled with the
food and has absorbed and stored away the most useful part of it in its own
coats, it then rejects the rest like an alien burden. The same happens to the
bladders, when the matter attracted into them begins to give trouble either
because it distends them through its quantity or irritates them by its quality.
And this also happens in the case of the uterus; for it is either because it can
no longer bear to be stretched that it strives to relieve itself of its
annoyance, or else because it is irritated by the quality of the fluids poured
out into it. Now both of these conditions sometimes occur with actual
violence, and then miscarriage takes place. But for the most part they
happen in a normal way, this being then called not miscarriage but delivery
or parturition. Now abortifacient drugs or certain other conditions which
destroy the embryo or rupture certain of its membranes are followed by
abortion, and similarly also when the uterus is in pain from being in a bad
state of tension; and, as has been well said by Hippocrates, excessive
movement on the part of the embryo itself brings on labour. Now pain is
common to all these conditions, and of this there are three possible causes
—either excessive bulk, or weight, or irritation; bulk when the uterus can
no longer support the stretching, weight when the contents surpass its
strength, and irritation when the fluids which had previously been pent up
in the membranes, flow out, on the rapture of these, into the uterus itself, or
else when the whole foetus perishes, putrefies, and is resolved into
pernicious ichors, and so irritates and bites the coat of the uterus.
In all organs, then, both their natural effects and their disorders and
maladies plainly take place on analogous lines,359 some so clearly and

manifestly as to need no demonstration, and others less plainly, although
not entirely unrecognizable to those who are willing to pay attention.
Thus, to take the case of the stomach: the irritation is evident here because
this organ possesses most sensibility, and among its other affections those
producing nausea and the so-called heartburn clearly demonstrate the
eliminative faculty which expels foreign matter. So also in the case of the
uterus and the urinary bladder; this latter also may be plainly observed to
receive and accumulate fluid until it is so stretched by the amount of this as
to be incapable of enduring the pain; or it may be the quality of the urine
which irritates it; for every superfluous substance which lingers in the body
must obviously putrefy, some in a shorter, and some in a longer time, and
thus it becomes pungent, acrid, and burdensome to the organ which
contains it. This does not apply, however, in the case of the bladder
alongside the liver, whence it is clear that it possesses fewer nerves than do
the other organs. Here too, however, at least the physiologist360 must
discover an analogy. For since it was shown that the gall-bladder attracts its
own special juice, so as to be often found full, and that it discharges it soon
after, this desire to discharge must be either due to the fact that it is
burdened by the quantity or that the bile has changed in quality to pungent
and acrid. For while food does not change its original quality so fast that it
is already ordure as soon as it falls into the small intestine, on the other
hand the bile even more readily than the urine becomes altered in quality as
soon as ever it leaves the veins, and rapidly undergoes change and
putrefaction. Now, if there be clear evidence in relation to the uterus,
stomach, and intestines, as well as to the urinary bladder, that there is either
some distention, irritation, or burden inciting each of these organs to
elimination, there is no difficulty in imagining this in the case of the gall-
bladder also, as well as in the other organs,—to which obviously the arteries
and veins also belong.

XIII
Nor is there any further difficulty in ascertaining that it is through the same
channel that both attraction and discharge take place at different times. For
obviously the inlet to the stomach does not merely conduct food and drink
into this organ, but in the condition of nausea it performs the opposite

service. Further, the neck of the bladder which is beside the liver, albeit
single, both fills and empties the bladder. Similarly the canal of the uterus
affords an entrance to the semen and an exit to the foetus.
But in this latter case, again, whilst the eliminative faculty is evident, the
attractive faculty is not so obvious to most people. It is, however, the cervix
which Hippocrates blames for inertia of the uterus when he says:—“Its
orifice has no power of attracting semen.”361
Erasistratus, however, and Asclepiades reached such heights of wisdom that
they deprived not merely the stomach and the womb of this faculty but also
the bladder by the liver, and the kidneys as well. I have, however, pointed
out in the first book that it is impossible to assign any other cause for the
secretion of urine or bile.362
Now, when we find that the uterus, the stomach and the bladder by the liver
carry out attraction and expulsion through one and the same duct, we need
no longer feel surprised that Nature should also frequently discharge waste-
substances into the stomach through the veins. Still less need we be
astonished if a certain amount of the food should, during long fasts, be
drawn back from the liver into the stomach through the same veins363 by
which it was yielded up to the liver during absorption of nutriment.364 To
disbelieve such things would of course be like refusing to believe that
purgative drugs draw their appropriate humours from all over the body by
the same stomata through which absorption previously takes place, and to
look for separate stomata for absorption and purgation respectively. As a
matter of fact one and the same stoma subserves two distinct faculties, and
these exercise their pull at different times in opposite directions—first it
subserves the pull of the liver and, during catharsis, that of the drug. What
is there surprising, then, in the fact that the veins situated between the liver
and the region of the stomach365 fulfil a double service or purpose? Thus,
when there is abundance of nutriment contained in the food-canal, it is
carried up to the liver by the veins mentioned; and when the canal is empty
and in need of nutriment, this is again attracted from the liver by the same
veins.
For everything appears to attract from and to go shares with everything else,
and, as the most divine Hippocrates has said, there would seem to be a

consensus in the movements of fluids and vapours.366 Thus the stronger
draws and the weaker is evacuated.
Now, one part is weaker or stronger than another either absolutely, by
nature, and in all cases, or else it becomes so in such and such a particular
instance. Thus, by nature and in all men alike, the heart is stronger than the
liver at attracting what is serviceable to it and rejecting what is not so;
similarly the liver is stronger than the intestines and stomach, and the
arteries than the veins. In each of us personally, however, the liver has
stronger drawing power at one time, and the stomach at another. For when
there is much nutriment contained in the alimentary canal and the appetite
and craving of the liver is violent, then the viscus367 exerts far the strongest
traction. Again, when the liver is full and distended and the stomach empty
and in need, then the force of the traction shifts to the latter.
Suppose we had some food in our hands and were snatching it from one
another; if we were equally in want, the stronger would be likely to prevail,
but if he had satisfied his appetite, and was holding what was over
carelessly, or was anxious to share it with somebody, and if the weaker was
excessively desirous of it, there would be nothing to prevent the latter from
getting it all. In a similar manner the stomach easily attracts nutriment from
the liver when it [the stomach] has a sufficiently strong craving for it, and
the appetite of the viscus is satisfied. And sometimes the surplusage of
nutriment in the liver is a reason why the animal is not hungry; for when the
stomach has better and more available food it requires nothing from
extraneous sources, but if ever it is in need and is at a loss how to supply
the need, it becomes filled with waste-matters; these are certain biliary,
phlegmatic [mucous] and serous fluids, and are the only substances that the
liver yields in response to the traction of the stomach, on the occasions
when the latter too is in want of nutriment.
Now, just as the parts draw food from each other, so also they sometimes
deposit their excess substances in each other, and just as the stronger
prevailed when the two were exercising traction, so it is also when they are
depositing; this is the cause of the so-called fluxions,368 for every part has a
definite inborn tension, by virtue of which it expels its superfluities, and,
therefore, when one of these parts,—owing, of course, to some special
condition—becomes weaker, there will necessarily be a confluence into it

of the superfluities from all the other parts. The strongest part deposits its
surplus matter in all the parts near it; these again in other parts which are
weaker; these next into yet others; and this goes on for a long time, until the
superfluity, being driven from one part into another, comes to rest in one of
the weakest of all; it cannot flow from this into another part, because none
of the stronger ones will receive it, while the affected part is unable to drive
it away. When, however, we come to deal again with the origin and cure of
disease, it will be possible to find there also abundant proofs of all that we
have correctly indicated in this book. For the present, however, let us
resume again the task that lay before us, i.e. to show that there is nothing
surprising in nutriment coming from the liver to the intestines and stomach
by way of the very veins through which it had previously been yielded up
from these organs into the liver. And in many people who have suddenly
and completely given up active exercise, or who have had a limb cut off,
there occurs at certain periods an evacuation of blood by way of the
intestines—as Hippocrates has also pointed out somewhere. This causes no
further trouble but sharply purges the whole body and evacuates the
plethoras; the passage of the superfluities is effected, of course, through the
same veins by which absorption took place.
Frequently also in disease Nature purges the animal through these same
veins—although in this case the discharge is not sanguineous, but
corresponds to the humour which is at fault. Thus in cholera the entire body
is evacuated by way of the veins leading to the intestines and stomach.
To imagine that matter of different kinds is carried in one direction only
would characterise a man who was entirely ignorant of all the natural
faculties, and particularly of the eliminative faculty, which is the opposite of
the attractive. For opposite movements of matter, active and passive, must
necessarily follow opposite faculties; that is to say, every part, after it has
attracted its special nutrient juice and has retained and taken the benefit of it
hastens to get rid of all the surplusage as quickly and effectively as possible,
and this it does in accordance with the mechanical tendency of this surplus
matter.369
Hence the stomach clears away by vomiting those superfluities which come
to the surface of its contents,370 whilst the sediment it clears away by
diarrhœa. And when the animal becomes sick, this means that the stomach

is striving to be evacuated by vomiting. And the expulsive faculty has in it
so violent and forcible an element that in cases of ileus [volvulus], when the
lower exit is completely closed, vomiting of faeces occurs; yet such surplus
matter could not be emitted from the mouth without having first traversed
the whole of the small intestine, the jejunum, the pylorus, the stomach, and
the oesophagus. What is there to wonder at, then, if something should also
be transferred from the extreme skin-surface and so reach the intestines and
stomach? This also was pointed out to us by Hippocrates, who maintained
that not merely pneuma or excess-matter, but actual nutriment is brought
down from the outer surface to the original place from which it was taken
up. For the slightest mechanical movements371 determine this expulsive
faculty, which apparently acts through the transverse fibres, and which is
very rapidly transmitted from the source of motion to the opposite
extremities. It is, therefore, neither unlikely nor impossible that, when the
part adjoining the skin becomes suddenly oppressed by an unwonted cold, it
should at once be weakened and should find that the liquid previously
deposited beside it without discomfort had now become more of a burden
than a source of nutrition, and should therefore strive to put it away. Finally,
seeing that the passage outwards was shut off by the condensation [of
tissue], it would turn to the remaining exit and would thus forcibly expel all
the waste-matter at once into the adjacent part; this would do the same to
the part following it; and the process would not cease until the transference
finally terminated at the inner ends of the veins.372
Now, movements like these come to an end fairly soon, but those resulting
from internal irritants (e.g., in the administration of purgative drugs or in
cholera) become much stronger and more lasting; they persist as long as the
condition of things373 about the mouths of the veins continues, that is, so
long as these continue to attract what is adjacent. For this condition374
causes evacuation of the contiguous part, and that again of the part next to
it, and this never stops until the extreme surface is reached; thus, as each
part keeps passing on matter to its neighbour, the original affection375 very
quickly arrives at the extreme termination. Now this is also the case in
ileus; the inflamed intestine is unable to support either the weight or the
acridity of the waste substances and so does its best to excrete them, in fact
to drive them as far away as possible. And, being prevented from effecting
an expulsion downwards when the severest part of the inflammation is

there, it expels the matter into the adjoining part of the intestines situated
above. Thus the tendency of the eliminative faculty is step by step upwards,
until the superfluities reach the mouth.
Now this will be also spoken of at greater length in my treatise on disease.
For the present, however, I think I have shewn clearly that there is a
universal conveyance or transference from one thing into another, and that,
as Hippocrates used to say, there exists in everything a consensus in the
movement of air and fluids. And I do not think that anyone, however slow
his intellect, will now be at a loss to understand any of these points,—how,
for instance, the stomach or intestines get nourished, or in what manner
anything makes its way inwards from the outer surface of the body. Seeing
that all parts have the faculty of attracting what is suitable or well-disposed
and of eliminating what is troublesome or irritating, it is not surprising that
opposite movements should occur in them consecutively—as may be
clearly seen in the case of the heart, in the various arteries, in the thorax,
and lungs. In all these376 the active movements of the organs and therewith
the passive movements of [their contained] matters may be seen taking
place almost every second in opposite directions. Now, you are not
astonished when the trachea-artery377 alternately draws air into the lungs
and gives it out, and when the nostrils and the whole mouth act similarly;
nor do you think it strange or paradoxical that the air is dismissed through
the very channel by which it was admitted just before. Do you, then, feel a
difficulty in the case of the veins which pass down from the liver into the
stomach and intestines, and do you think it strange that nutriment should at
once be yielded up to the liver and drawn back from it into the stomach by
the same veins? You must define what you mean by this expression “at
once.” If you mean “at the same time” this is not what we ourselves say; for
just as we take in a breath at one moment and give it out again at another, so
at one time the liver draws nutriment from the stomach, and at another the
stomach from the liver. But if your expression “at once” means that in one
and the same animal a single organ subserves the transport of matter in
opposite directions, and if it is this which disturbs you, consider inspiration
and expiration. For of course these also take place through the same organs,
albeit they differ in their manner of movement, and in the way in which the
matter is conveyed through them.

Now the lungs, the thorax, the arteries rough and smooth, the heart, the
mouth, and the nostrils reverse their movements at very short intervals and
change the direction of the matters they contain. On the other hand, the
veins which pass down from the liver to the intestines and stomach reverse
the direction of their movements not at such short intervals, but sometimes
once in many days.
The whole matter, in fact, is as follows:—Each of the organs draws into
itself the nutriment alongside it, and devours all the useful fluid in it, until it
is thoroughly satisfied; this nutriment, as I have already shown, it stores up
in itself, afterwards making it adhere and then assimilating it—that is, it
becomes nourished by it. For it has been demonstrated with sufficient
clearness already378 that there is something which necessarily precedes
actual nutrition, namely adhesion, and that before this again comes
presentation. Thus as in the case of the animals themselves the end of
eating is that the stomach should be filled, similarly in the case of each of
the parts, the end of presentation is the filling of this part with its
appropriate liquid. Since, therefore, every part has, like the stomach, a
craving379 to be nourished, it too envelops its nutriment and clasps it all
round as the stomach does. And this [action of the stomach], as has been
already said, is necessarily followed by the digestion of the food, although
it is not to make it suitable for the other parts that the stomach contracts
upon it; if it did so, it would no longer be a physiological organ,380 but an
animal possessing reason and intelligence, with the power of choosing the
better [of two alternatives].
But while the stomach contracts for the reason that the whole body
possesses a power of attracting and of utilising appropriate qualities, as has
already been explained, it also happens that, in this process, the food
undergoes alteration; further, when filled and saturated with the fluid
pabulum from the food, it thereafter looks on the food as a burden; thus it at
once gets rid of the excess—that is to say, drives it downwards—itself
turning to another task, namely that of causing adhesion. And during this
time, while the nutriment is passing along the whole length of the intestine,
it is caught up by the vessels which pass into the intestine; as we shall
shortly demonstrate,381 most of it is seized by the veins, but a little also by

the arteries; at this stage also it becomes presented to the coats of the
intestines.
Now imagine the whole economy of nutrition divided into three periods.
Suppose that in the first period the nutriment remains in the stomach and is
digested and presented to the stomach until satiety is reached, also that
some of it is taken up from the stomach to the liver.382
During the second period it passes along the intestines and becomes
presented both to them and to the liver—again until the stage of satiety—
while a small part of it is carried all over the body.382 During this period,
also imagine that what was presented to the stomach in the first period
becomes now adherent to it.
During the third period the stomach has reached the stage of receiving
nourishment; it now entirely assimilates everything that had become
adherent to it: at the same time in the intestines and liver there takes place
adhesion of what had been before presented, while dispersal [anadosis] is
taking place to all parts of the body,383 as also presentation. Now, if the
animal takes food immediately after these [three stages] then, during the
time that the stomach is again digesting and getting the benefit of this by
presenting all the useful part of it to its own coats, the intestines will be
engaged in final assimilation of the juices which have adhered to them, and
so also will the liver: while in the various parts of the body there will be
taking place adhesion of the portions of nutriment presented. And if the
stomach is forced to remain without food during this time, it will draw its
nutriment from the veins in the mesentery and liver; for it will not do so
from the actual body of the liver (by body of the liver I mean first and
foremost its flesh proper, and after this all the vessels contained in it), for it
is irrational to suppose that one part would draw away from another part the
juice already contained in it, especially when adhesion and final
assimilation of that juice were already taking place; the juice, however, that
is in the cavity of the veins will be abstracted by the part which is stronger
and more in need.
It is in this way, therefore, that the stomach, when it is in need of
nourishment and the animal has nothing to eat, seizes it from the veins in
the liver. Also in the case of the spleen we have shown in a former

passage384 how it draws all material from the liver that tends to be thick,
and by working it up converts it into more useful matter. There is nothing
surprising, therefore, if, in the present instance also, some of this should be
drawn from the spleen into such organs as communicate with it by veins,
e.g. the omentum, mesentery, small intestine, colon, and the stomach itself.
Nor is it surprising that the spleen should disgorge its surplus matters into
the stomach at one time, while at another time it should draw some of its
appropriate nutriment from the stomach.
For, as has already been said, speaking generally, everything has the power
at different times of attracting from and of adding to everything else. What
happens is just as if you might imagine a number of animals helping
themselves at will to a plentiful common stock of food; some will naturally
be eating when others have stopped, some will be on the point of stopping
when others are beginning, some eating together, and others in succession.
Yes, by Zeus! and one will often be plundering another, if he be in need
while the other has an abundant supply ready to hand. Thus it is in no way
surprising that matter should make its way back from the outer surface of
the body to the interior, or should be carried from the liver and spleen into
the stomach by the same vessels by which it was carried in the reverse
direction.

In the case of the arteries385 this is clear enough, as also in the case of heart,
thorax, and lungs; for, since all of these dilate and contract alternately, it
must needs be that matter is subsequently discharged back into the parts
from which it was previously drawn. Now Nature foresaw this necessity,386
and provided the cardiac openings of the vessels with membranous
attachments,387 to prevent their contents from being carried backwards.
How and in what manner this takes place will be stated in my work “On the
Use of Parts,” where among other things I show that it is impossible for the
openings of the vessels to be closed so accurately that nothing at all can run
back. Thus it is inevitable that the reflux into the venous artery388 (as will
also be made clear in the work mentioned) should be much greater than
through the other openings. But what it is important for our present purpose
to recognise is that every thing possessing a large and appreciable cavity
must, when it dilates, abstract matter from all its neighbours, and, when it
contracts, must squeeze matter back into them. This should all be clear from

what has already been said in this treatise and from what Erasistratus and I
myself have demonstrated elsewhere respecting the tendency of a vacuum
to become refilled.389

XIV
And further, it has been shown in other treatises that all the arteries possess
a power which derives from the heart, and by virtue of which they dilate
and contract.
Put together, therefore, the two facts—that the arteries have this motion,
and that everything, when it dilates, draws neighbouring matter into itself—
and you will find nothing strange in the fact that those arteries which reach
the skin draw in the outer air when they dilate, while those which
anastomose at any point with the veins attract the thinnest and most
vaporous part of the blood which these contain, and as for those arteries
which are near the heart, it is on the heart itself that they exert their traction.
For, by virtue of the tendency by which a vacuum becomes refilled, the
lightest and thinnest part obeys the tendency before that which is heavier
and thicker. Now the lightest and thinnest of anything in the body is firstly
pneuma, secondly vapour, and in the third place that part of the blood which
has been accurately elaborated and refined.
These, then, are what the arteries draw into themselves on every side; those
arteries which reach the skin draw in the outer air390 (this being near them
and one of the lightest of things); as to the other arteries, those which pass
up from the heart into the neck, and that which lies along the spine, as also
such arteries as are near these—draw mostly from the heart itself; and those
which are further from the heart and skin necessarily draw the lightest part
of the blood out of the veins. So also the traction exercised by the diastole
of the arteries which go to the stomach and intestines takes place at the
expense of the heart itself and the numerous veins in its neighbourhood; for
these arteries cannot get anything worth speaking of from the thick heavy
nutriment contained in the intestines and stomach,391 since they first
become filled with lighter elements. For if you let down a tube into a vessel
full of water and sand, and suck the air out of the tube with your mouth, the
sand cannot come up to you before the water, for in accordance with the

principle of the refilling of a vacuum the lighter matter is always the first to
succeed to the evacuation.

XV
It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that only a very little [nutrient matter]
such, namely, as has been accurately elaborated—gets from the stomach
into the arteries, since these first become filled with lighter matter. We must
understand that there are two kinds of attraction, that by which a vacuum
becomes refilled and that caused by appropriateness of quality;392 air is
drawn into bellows in one way, and iron by the lodestone in another. And
we must also understand that the traction which results from evacuation acts
primarily on what is light, whilst that from appropriateness of quality acts
frequently, it may be, on what is heavier (if this should be naturally more
nearly related393). Therefore, in the case of the heart and the arteries, it is in
so far as they are hollow organs, capable of diastole, that they always attract
the lighter matter first, while, in so far as they require nourishment, it is
actually into their coats (which are the real bodies of these organs) that the
appropriate matter is drawn.394 Of the blood, then, which is taken into their
cavities when they dilate, that part which is most proper to them and most
able to afford nourishment is attracted by their actual coats.

Now, apart from what has been said,395 the following is sufficient proof that
something is taken over from the veins into the arteries. If you will kill an
animal by cutting through a number of its large arteries, you will find the
veins becoming empty along with the arteries: now, this could never occur
if there were not anastomoses between them. Similarly, also, in the heart
itself, the thinnest portion of the blood is drawn from the right ventricle into
the left, owing to there being perforations in the septum between them:
these can be seen for a great part [of their length]; they are like a kind of
fossae [pits] with wide mouths, and they get constantly narrower; it is not
possible, however, actually to observe their extreme terminations, owing
both to the smallness of these and to the fact that when the animal is dead
all the parts are chilled and shrunken.396 Here, too, however, our
argument,397 starting from the principle that nothing is done by Nature in
vain, discovers these anastomoses between the ventricles of the heart; for it

could not be at random and by chance that there occurred fossae ending
thus in narrow terminations.
And secondly [the presence of these anastomoses has been assumed] from
the fact that, of the two orifices in the right ventricle, the one conducting
blood in and the other out, the former398 is much the larger. For, the fact
that the insertion of the vena cava into the heart399 is larger than the vein
which is inserted into the lungs400 suggests that not all the blood which the
vena cava gives to the heart is driven away again from the heart to the
lungs. Nor can it be said that any of the blood is expended in the
nourishment of the actual body of the heart, since there is another vein401
which breaks up in it and which does not take its origin nor get its share of
blood from the heart itself. And even if a certain amount is so expended,
still the vein leading to the lungs is not to such a slight extent smaller than
that inserted into the heart as to make it likely that the blood is used as
nutriment for the heart: the disparity is much too great for such an
explanation. It is, therefore, clear that something is taken over into the left
ventricle.402
Moreover, of the two vessels connected with it, that which brings pneuma
into it from the lungs403 is much smaller than the great outgrowing artery404
from which the arteries all over the body originate; this would suggest that
it not merely gets pneuma from the lungs, but that it also gets blood from
the right ventricle through the anastomoses mentioned.
Now it belongs to the treatise “On the Use of Parts” to show that it was best
that some parts of the body should be nourished by pure, thin, and vaporous
blood, and others by thick, turbid blood, and that in this matter also Nature
has overlooked nothing. Thus it is not desirable that these matters should be
further discussed. Having mentioned, however, that there are two kinds of
attraction, certain bodies exerting attraction along wide channels during
diastole (by virtue of the principle by which a vacuum becomes refilled)
and others exerting it by virtue of their appropriateness of quality, we must
next remark that the former bodies can attract even from a distance, while
the latter can only do so from among things which are quite close to them;
the very longest tube let down into water can easily draw up the liquid into
the mouth, but if you withdraw iron to a distance from the lodestone or corn

from the jar (an instance of this kind has in fact been already given405) no
further attraction can take place.
This you can observe most clearly in connection with garden conduits. For
a certain amount of moisture is distributed from these into every part lying
close at hand but it cannot reach those lying further off: therefore one has to
arrange the flow of water into all parts of the garden by cutting a number of
small channels leading from the large one. The intervening spaces between
these small channels are made of such a size as will, presumably, best allow
them [the spaces] to satisfy their needs by drawing from the liquid which
flows to them from every side. So also is it in the bodies of animals.
Numerous conduits distributed through the various limbs bring them pure
blood, much like the garden water-supply, and, further, the intervals
between these conduits have been wonderfully arranged by Nature from the
outset so that the intervening parts should be plentifully provided for when
absorbing blood, and that they should never be deluged by a quantity of
superfluous fluid running in at unsuitable times.
For the way in which they obtain nourishment is somewhat as follows. In
the body406 which is continuous throughout, such as Erasistratus supposes
his simple vessel to be, it is the superficial parts which are the first to make
use of the nutriment with which they are brought into contact; then the parts
coming next draw their share from these by virtue of their contiguity; and
again others from these; and this does not stop until the quality of the
nutrient substance has been distributed among all parts of the corpuscle in
question. And for such parts as need the humour which is destined to
nourish them to be altered still further, Nature has provided a kind of
storehouse, either in the form of a central cavity or else as separate
caverns,407 or something analogous to caverns. Thus the flesh of the viscera
and of the muscles is nourished from the blood directly, this having
undergone merely a slight alteration; the bones, however, in order to be
nourished, require very great change, and what blood is to flesh marrow is
to bone; in the case of the small bones, which do not possess central
cavities, this marrow is distributed in their caverns, whereas in the larger
bones which do contain central cavities the marrow is all concentrated in
these.

For, as was pointed out in the first book,408 things having a similar
substance can easily change into one another, whereas it is impossible for
those which are very different to be assimilated to one another without
intermediate stages. Such a one in respect to cartilage is the myxoid
substance which surrounds it, and in respect to ligaments, membranes, and
nerves the viscous liquid dispersed inside them; for each of these consists of
numerous fibres, which are homogeneous409—in fact, actual sensible
elements; and in the intervals between these fibres is dispersed the humour
most suited for nutrition; this they have drawn from the blood in the veins,
choosing the most appropriate possible, and now they are assimilating it
step by step and changing it into their own substance.
All these considerations, then, agree with one another, and bear sufficient
witness to the truth of what has been already demonstrated; there is thus no
need to prolong the discussion further. For, from what has been said,
anyone can readily discover in what way all the particular [vital activities]
come about. For instance, we could in this way ascertain why it is that in
the case of many people who are partaking freely of wine, the fluid which
they have drunk is rapidly absorbed410 through the body and almost the
whole of it is passed by the kidneys within a very short time. For here, too,
the rapidity with which the fluid is absorbed depends on appropriateness of
quality, on the thinness of the fluid, on the width of the vessels and their
mouths, and on the efficiency of the attractive faculty. The parts situated
near the alimentary canal, by virtue of their appropriateness of quality, draw
in the imbibed food for their own purposes, then the parts next to them in
their turn snatch it away, then those next again take it from these, until it
reaches the vena cava, whence finally the kidneys attract that part of it
which is proper to them. Thus it is in no way surprising that wine is taken
up more rapidly than water, owing to its appropriateness of quality, and,
further, that the white clear kind of wine is absorbed more rapidly owing to
its thinness, while black turbid wine, is checked on the way and retarded
because of its thickness.
These facts, also, will afford abundant proof of what has already been said
about the arteries; everywhere, in fact, such blood as is both specifically
appropriate and at the same time thin in consistency answers more readily
to their traction than does blood which is not so; this is why the arteries

which, in their diastole, absorb vapour, pneuma, and thin blood attract either
none at all or very little of the juices contained in the stomach and
intestines.

299 “Of food to feeder,” i.e. of the environment to the organism. cf. p. 39, chap. xi.

300 “Drawing”; cf. p. 116, note 2.

301 For these terms (prosthesis and prosphysis in Greek) cf. p. 39, notes 5 and 6.

302 Lit. “through the energizing (or functioning) of the attractive faculty”; the faculty (δύναμις) in
operation is an activity (ἐνέργεια). cf. p. 3, note 2.

303 This chapter is an excellent example of Galen’s method of reasoning a priori. The
complementary inductive method, however, is employed in the next chapter. cf. p. 209, note 1.

304 The deductive.

305 The logos is the argument or “theory” arrived at by the process of λογικὴ θεωρία or “theorizing”;
cf. p. 151, note 3; p. 205, note 1.

306 The Greek words for the uterus (mêtrae and hysterae) probably owe their plural form to the
belief that the organ was bicornuate in the human, as it is in some of the lower species.

307 Note this expression. For Galen’s views on the origin of species, cf. Introduction, p. xxxi.,
footnote.

308 Herophilus of Chalcedon (circa 300 B.C.) was, like Erasistratus, a representative of the
anatomical school of Alexandria. His book on Midwifery was known for centuries. cf. Introduction,
p. xii.

309 Relaxation of utero-sacral ligaments as an important predisposing cause of prolapsus uteri.

310 That is, at the end of the first stage of labour.

311 The pylorus.

312 “Chylosis,” chylification. cf. p. 240, note 1.

313 Lit. barley-“chyle,” i.e. barley-water.

314 i.e. not the mere mechanical breaking down of food, but a distinctively vital action of
“alteration.”

315 Pepsis.

316 Book I., chaps. x., xi.

317 cf. p. 222, note 1.

318 Choledochous.

319 More exactly peristolé; cf. p. 97, note 1.

320 Neuburger says of Erasistratus that “dissection had taught him to think in terms of anatomy.” It
was chiefly the gross movements or structure of organs with which he concerned himself. Where an
organ had no obvious function, he dubbed it “useless”; e.g. the spleen (cf. p. 143).

321 i.e. contracting and dilating; no longitudinal movements involved; cf. p. 263, note 2.

322 cf. p. 282, note 1.

323 Book II., chaps. ii. and viii.

324 Note use of psychological terms in biology. cf. also p. 133, note 3.

325 “In everything.” cf. p. 66, note 3.

326 Galen confuses the nutrition of organs with that of the ultimate living elements or cells; the
stomach does not, of course, feed itself in the way a cell does. cf. Introduction, p. xxxii.

327 cf. Asclepiades’s theory regarding the urine, p. 51.

328 The process of application or prosthesis. cf. p. 223, note 3.

329 Mutual influence of organism and environment.

330 Qualitative change. cf. Book I., chap. ii.

331 Apparently skin-diseases in which a superficial crust (resembling the lichen on a tree-trunk)
forms—e.g. psoriasis.

332 Note especially pneuma and innate heat, which practically stand for oxygen and the heat
generated in oxidation. cf. p. 41, note 3.

333 Book I., chap. x.

334 That is to say, faeces are obviously altered food. This alteration cannot have taken place entirely
in the small intestine: therefore alteration of food must take place in the stomach.

335 cf. p. 39.

336 Asclepiades held that there was no such thing as real qualitative change; the food was merely
broken up into its constituent molecules, and absorbed unaltered. cf. p. 49, note 5.

337 i.e. denial of forethought in the Physis.

338 v. p. 9, et passim.

339 cf. p. 97.

340 It appears to me, from comparison between this and other passages in Galen’s writings (notably
Use of Parts, iv., 8), that he means by the “two coats” simply the mucous and the muscular coats. In

this case the “straight” or “longitudinal” fibres of the inner coat would be the rugae; the “circular”
fibres of the inner intestinal coat would be the valvulae conniventes.

341 The term here rendered peristalsis is peristolé in Greek; it is applied only to the intermittent
movements of muscles placed circularly round a lumen or cavity, and comprehends systolé or
contraction and diastolé or dilatation. In its modern significance, peristalsis, however, also includes
the movements of longitudinal fibres. cf. p. 97, note 1.

342 i.e. those containing non-striped or “involuntary” muscle fibres; organs governed by the
“natural” pneuma; cf. p. 186, note 3.

343 By this term is meant only what we should call the “voluntary” muscles.

344 cf. p. 97.

345 For “symptom,” cf. p. 13, and p. 12, note 3. “Transitum namque materiae per angustum corpus id
accidens consequitur” (Linacre). Less a “result” or “consequence” than an “accompaniment.”

346 i.e. this is a purely mechanical process.

347 i.e.. this phenomenon is a proof neither of peristolé nor of attraction. cf. p. 97, note 2.

348 Contraction and dilatation of course being reversed.

349 The channa is a kind of sea-perch; “a species of Serranus, either S. scriba or S. cabrilla”
(D’Arcy W. Thompson). cf. Aristotle’s Nat. Hist. (D’Arcy Thompson’s edition, Oxford, 1910), IV.,
xi., 538 A, 20. The synodont “is not to be identified with certainty, but is supposed to be Dentex
vulgaris,” that is, an edible Mediterranean perch. “It is not the stomach,” adds Prof. Thompson, “but
the air-bladder that gets everted and hangs out of the mouth in fishes, especially when they are hauled
in from a considerable depth.” cf. H. A., VIII., ii., 591 B, 5.

350 Under the term “neura,” tendons were often included as well as nerves. Similarly in modern
Dutch the word zenuw (“sinew”) means both a tendon and a nerve; zenuwachtig = “nervous.”

351 Rather than the alternative reading, τὸν ἔσωθεν χιτῶνα. Galen apparently supposes that the outer
coat will not be damaged, as the cuts will pass between its fibres. These cuts would be, presumably,
short ones, at various levels, no single one of them involving the whole circumference of the gullet.

352 cf. p. 205.

353 Thus Galen elsewhere calls the spleen a mere emunctory (ἐκμαγεῖον) of the liver. cf. p. 214,
note 1.

354 cf. p. 269.

355 The urinary bladders of pigs (such as Galen dissected) are thin, and appear to have only one coat.

356 cf. p. 243.

357 My suggestion is that Galen refers to (1) the mucous coat, with its valvulae conniventes, and (2)
the muscular coat, of which the chief layer is made up of circular fibres. cf. p. 262, note 1.

358 Or utility.

359 Relationship between physiology and pathology again emphasized. cf. p. 188, note 2.

360 Or physicist—the investigator of the Physis or Nature. cf. p. 196, note 2. Note here the use of
analogical reasoning. cf. p. 113, note 2.

361 cf. p. 95.

362 I. xiii.; II. ii.

363 Galen’s idea is that if reversal of the direction of flow can occur in the primae viae (in vomiting),
it may also be expected to occur in the secundae viae or absorptive channels.

364 For this “delivery,” “up-yield,” or anadosis, v. p. 13, note 5.

365 The mesenteric veins.

366 Linacre renders: “Una omnium confluxio ac conspiratio”; and he adds the marginal note “Totum
corpus nostrum est conspirabile et confluxile per meatus communes.” cf. p. 48.

367 The alimentary canal, as not being edible, is not considered a splanchnon or viscus.

368 Lit. rheums; hence our term rheumatism.

369 Here Galen apparently indicates that vital functions are at least partly explicable in terms of
mechanical law. cf. Introduction, p. xxviii.

370 cf. pp. 211, 247.

371 See p. 298, note 1.

372 The ends of the veins in the alimentary canal from which absorption or anadosis had originally
taken place.

373 Diathesis.

374 Diathesis.

375 Pathos.

376 He means, not only under the stress of special circumstances, but also normally.

377 Lit. “rough artery.” The air-passages as well as the arteries proper were supposed by the Greeks
to carry air (pneuma); diastole of arteries was, like expansion of the chest, a movement for drawing
in air. cf. p. 317, note 1.

378 cf. p. 39, chap. xi.

379 Lit. orexis.

380 Lit. a “physical” organ; that is, a mere instrument or organon of the Physis,—not one of the
Psyche or conscious personality. cf. semen, p. 132, note 1.

381 cf. p. 317, note 2; p. 319, chap. xv.

382 Note that absorption takes place from the stomach as well as the intestines. cf. p. 118, note 1.

383 That is, among the ultimate tissues or cells.

384 Pp. 205-9.

385 By this term, of course, the air-passages are also meant; cf. p. 305.

386 cf. p. 34, note 1.

387 cf. p. 121, note 4.

388 Pulmonary vein, or rather, left auricle. Galen means a reflux through the mitral orifice; the left
auricle was looked on rather as the termination of the pulmonary veins than as a part of the heart. cf.
p. 323, note 4. He speaks here of a kind of “physiological” mitral incompetence.

389 Horror vacui.

390 cf. p. 305, note 2.

391 cf. p. 308, note 1.

392 The “mechanical” principle of horror vacui contrasted with the “physical” or semi-physiological
principle of specific attraction. Appropriateness here might almost be rendered affinity or kinship. cf.
note 2, infra.

393 “Related,” “akin.” cf. p. 36, note 2.

394 The coats exercise the vital traction, the cavities the merely mechanical. cf. p. 165, note 2.

395 Chap. xiv.

396 These fossae were probably the recesses between the columnae carnae.

397 On logos cf. p. 226, note 2.

398 He means the tricuspid orifice. cf. p. 121, note 4.

399 The right auricle was looked on less as a part of the heart than as an expansion or “insertion” of
the vena cava.

400 This “vein” (really the pulmonary artery) was supposed to be the channel by which the lungs
received nutriment from the right heart. cf. p. 121, note 3.

401 The coronary vein.

402 Galen’s conclusion, of course, is, so far, correct, but he has substituted an imaginary direct
communication between the ventricles for the actual and more roundabout pulmonary circulation, of
whose existence he apparently had no idea. His views were eventually corrected by the Renascence
anatomists. cf. Introduction, pp. xxii.-xxiii.

403 He means the left auricle, considered as the termination of the pulmonary “arteries”; cf. p. 314,
note 3.

404 The aorta, its orifice being circular, appears bigger than the slit-like mitral orifice.

405 p. 87.

406 Or we may render it “corpuscle”; Galen practically means the cell. cf. p. 153, note 2.

407 cf. the term “cavernous tissue.”

408 I. x.

409 Lit. homoeomerous, i.e. “the same all through,” of similar structure throughout, the elements of
living matter, cf. p. 20, note 3, and cf. also the “cell” of Erasistratus, p. 153.

410 “Delivered,” “dispersed”; cf. p. 13, note 5.

ΓΑΛΗΝΟΥ
ΠΕΡΙ ΦΥΣΙΚΩΝ ΔΥΝΑΜΕΩΝ

Α

I
K II.

p. 1 Ἐπειδὴ τὸ μὲν αἰσθάνεσθαί τε καὶ κινεῖσθαι κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἴδια τῶν
ζῴων ἐστί, τὸ δ' αὐξάνεσθαί τε καὶ τρέφεσθαι κοινὰ καὶ τοῖς φυτοῖς, εἴη ἂν
τὰ μὲν πρότερα τῆς ψυχῆς, τὰ δὲ δεύτερα τῆς φύσεως ἔργα. εἰ δέ τις καὶ
τοῖς φυτοῖς ψυχῆς μεταδίδωσι καὶ διαιρούμενος αὐτὰς ὀνομάζει φυτικὴν
μὲν ταύτην, αἰσθητικὴν δὲ τὴν ἑτέραν, λέγει μὲν οὐδ' οὗτος ἄλλα, τῇ λέξει
δ' οὐ πάνυ τῇ συνήθει κέχρηται. ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς γε μεγίστην λέξεως ἀρετὴν
σαφήνειαν εἶναι πεπεισμένοι καὶ ταύτην εἰδότες || 2 ὑπ' οὐδενὸς οὕτως ὡς
ὑπὸ τῶν ἀσυνήθων ὀνομάτων διαφθειρομένην, ὡς τοῖς πολλοῖς ἔθος, οὕτως
ὀνομάζοντες ὑπὸ μὲν ψυχῆς θ' ἅμα καὶ φύσεως τὰ ζῷα διοικεῖσθαί φαμεν,
ὑπὸ δὲ φύσεως μόνης τὰ φυτὰ καὶ τό γ' αὐξάνεσθαί τε καὶ τρέφεσθαι
φύσεως ἔργα φαμέν, οὐ ψυχῆς.

II
Καὶ ζητήσομεν κατὰ τόνδε τὸν λόγον, ὑπὸ τίνων γίγνεται δυνάμεων αὐτὰ
δὴ ταῦτα καὶ εἰ δή τι ἄλλο φύσεως ἔργον ἐστίν.
Ἀλλὰ πρότερόν γε διελέσθαι τε χρὴ καὶ μηνῦσαι σαφῶς ἕκαστον τῶν
ὀνομάτων, οἷς χρησόμεθα κατὰ τόνδε τὸν λόγον, καὶ ἐφ' ὅ τι φέρομεν
πρᾶγμα. γενήσεται δὲ τοῦτ' ἐυθὺς ἔργων φυσικῶν διδασκαλία σὺν ταῖς τῶν
ὸνομάτων ἐξηγήσεσιν.
Ὅταν οὖν τι σῶμα κατὰ μηδὲν ἐξαλλάττηται τῶν προϋπαρχόντων,
ἡσυχάζειν αὐτό φαμεν· εἰ δ' ἐξίσταιτό πῃ, κατ' ἐκεῖνο κινεῖσθαι. καὶ τοίνυν

ἐπεὶ πολυειδῶς ἐξίσταται, πολυειδῶς καὶ κινηθήσεται. καὶ γὰρ εἰ λευκὸν
ὑπάρχον μελαίνοιτο καὶ εἰ μέλαν λευκαίνοιτο, κινεῖται κατὰ χρόαν, καὶ εἰ
γλυκὺ τέως ὑπάρχον αὖθις || 3 αὐστηρὸν ἢ ἔμπαλιν ἐξ αὐστηροῦ γλυκὺ
γένοιτο, καὶ τοῦτ' ἂν κινεῖσθαι λέγοιτο κατὰ τὸν χυμόν. ἄμφω δε ταῦτά τε
καὶ τὰ προειρημένα κατὰ τὴν ποιότητα κινεῖσθαι λεχθήσεται καὶ οὐ μόνον
γε τὰ κατὰ τὴν χρόαν ἢ τὸν χυμὸν ἐξαλλαττόμενα κινεῖσθαί φαμεν, ἀλλὰ
καὶ τὸ θερμότερον ἐκ ψυχροτέρου γενόμενον ἢ ψυχρότερον ἐκ θερμοτέρου
κινεῖσθαι καὶ τοῦτο λέγομεν, ὥσπερ γε καὶ εἴ τι ξηρὸν ἐξ ὑγροῦ ἢ ὑγρὸν ἐκ
ξηροῦ γίγνοιτο. κοινὸν δὲ κατὰ τούτων ἁπάντων ὄνομα φέρομεν τὴν
ἀλλοίωσιν.
Ἕν τι τοῦτο γένος κινήσεως. ἕτερον δὲ γένος ἐπὶ τοῖς τὰς χώρας ἀμείβουσι
σώμασι καὶ τόπον ἐκ τόπου μεταλλάττειν λεγομένοις, ὄνομα δὲ καὶ τούτῳ
φορά.
Αὗται μὲν οὖν αἱ δύο κινήσεις ἁπλαῖ καὶ πρῶται, σύνθετοι δ' ἐξ αὐτῶν
αὔξησίς τε καὶ φθίσις, ὅταν ἐξ ἐλάττονός τι μεῖζον ἢ ἐκ μείζονος ἔλαττον
γένηται φυλάττον τὸ οἰκεῖον εἶδος. ἕτεραι δὲ δύο κινήσεις γένεσις καὶ
φθορά, γένεσις μὲν ἡ εἰς οὐσίαν ἀγωγή, φθορὰ δ' ἡ ἐναντία.

Πάσαις δὲ ταῖς κινήσεσι κοινὸν ἐξάλλαξις τοῦ || 4 προϋπάρχοντος, ὥσπερ
οὖν καὶ ταῖς ἡσυχίαις ἡ φυλακὴ τῶν προϋπαρχόντων. ἀλλ' ὅτι μὲν
ἐξαλλάττεται καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν καὶ πρὸς τὴν γεῦσιν καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἁφὴν
αἷμα γιγνόμενα τὰ σιτία, συγχωροῦσιν· ὅτι δὲ καὶ κατ' ἀλήθειαν, οὐκέτι
τοῦθ' ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ σοφισταί. οἱ μὲν γάρ τινες αὐτῶν ἅπαντα τὰ τοιαῦτα
τῶν ἡμετέρων αἰσθήσεων ἀπάτας τινὰς καὶ παραγωγὰς νομίζουσιν ἄλλοτ'
ἄλλως πασχουσῶν, τῆς ὑποκειμένης οὐσίας μηδὲν τούτων, οἷς
ἐπονομάζεται, δεχομένης· οἱ δέ τινες εἶναι μὲν ἐν αὐτῇ βούλονται τὰς
ποιότητας, ἀμεταβλήτους δὲ καὶ ἀτρέπτους ἐξ αἰῶνος εἰς αἰῶνα καὶ τὰς
φαινομένας ταύτας ἀλλοιώσεις τῇ διακρίσει τε καὶ συγκρίσει γίγνεσθαί
φασιν ὡς Ἀναξαγόρας.
Εἰ δὴ τούτους ἐκτραπόμενος ἐξελέγχοιμι, μεῖζον ἄν μοι τὸ πάρεργον τοῦ
ἔργου γένοιτο. εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἴσασιν, ὅσα περὶ τῆς καθ' ὅλην τὴν οὐσίαν
ἀλλοιώσεως Ἀριστοτέλει τε καὶ μετ' αὐτὸν Χρυσίππῳ γέγραπται,
παρακαλέσαι χρὴ τοῖς ἐκείνων αὐτοὺς ὁμιλῆσαι γράμμασιν· εἰ δὲ
γιγνώσκοντες ἔπειθ' ἑκόντες τὰ χείρω πρὸ τῶν βελτιόνων || 5 αἱροῦνται,
μάταια δήπου καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερα νομιοῦσιν. ὅτι δὲ καὶ Ἱπποκράτης οὕτως

ἐγίγνωσκεν Ἀριστοτέλους ἔτι πρότερος ὤν, ἐν ἑτέροις ἡμῖν ἀποδέδεικται.
πρῶτος γὰρ οὗτος ἁπάντων ὧν ἴσμεν ἰατρῶν τε καὶ φιλοσόφων
ἀποδεικνύειν ἐπεχείρησε τέτταρας εἶναι τὰς πάσας δραστικὰς εἰς ἀλλήλας
ποιότητας, ὑφ' ὧν γίγνεταί τε καὶ φθείρεται πάνθ', ὅσα γένεσίν τε καὶ
φθορὰν ἐπιδέχεται. καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὸ κεράννυσθαι δι' ἀλλήλων αὐτὰς ὅλας
δι' ὅλων Ἱπποκράτης ἁπάντων πρῶτος ἔγνω· καὶ τὰς ἀρχάς γε τῶν
ἀποδείξεων, ὧν ὕστερον Ἀριστοτέλης μετεχειρίσατο, παρ' ἐκείνῳ πρώτῳ
γεγραμμένας ἔστιν εὑρεῖν.
Εἰ δ' ὥσπερ τὰς ποιότητας οὕτω καὶ τὰς οὐσίας δι' ὅλων κεράννυσθαι χρὴ
νομίζειν, ὡς ὕστερον ἀπεφήνατο Ζήνων ὁ Κιττιεύς, οὐχ ἡγοῦμαι δεῖν ἔτι
περὶ τούτου κατὰ τόνδε τὸν λόγον ἐπεξιέναι. μόνην γὰρ εἰς τὰ παρόντα
δέομαι γιγνώσκεσθαι τὴν δι' ὅλης τῆς οὐσίας ἀλλοίωσιν, ἵνα μή τις ὀστοῦ
καὶ σαρκὸς καὶ νεύρου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστου μορίων οἱονεὶ μισγάγκειάν
τινα τῷ ἄρτῳ νομίσῃ περιέχεσθαι κἄπειτ' ἐν || 6 τῷ σώματι διακρινόμενον
ὡς τὸ ὁμόφυλον ἕκαστον ἰέναι. καίτοι πρό γε τῆς διακρίσεως αἷμα φαίνεται
γιγνόμενος ὁ πᾶς ἄρτος. εἰ γοῦν παμπόλλῳ τις χρόνῳ μηδὲν ἄλλ' εἴη σιτίον
προσφερόμενος, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶν αἷμα περιεχόμενον ἕξει. καὶ
φανερῶς τοῦτο τὴν τῶν ἀμετάβλητα τὰ στοιχεῖα τιθεμένων ἐξελέγχει
δόξαν, ὥσπερ οἶμαι καὶ τοὔλαιον εἰς τὴν τοῦ λύχνου φλόγα
καταναλισκόμενον ἅπαν καὶ τὰ ξύλα πῦρ μικρὸν ὕστερον γιγνόμενα.
Καίτοι τό γ' ἀντιλέγειν αὐτοῖς ἠρνησάμην, ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ τῆς ἰατρικῆς ὕλης ἦν τὸ
παράδειγμα καὶ χρῄζω πρὸς τὸν παρόντα λόγον αὐτοῦ, διὰ τοῦτ'
ἐμνημόνευσα. καταλιπόντες οὖν, ὡς ἔφην, τὴν πρὸς τούτους ἀντιλογίαν,
<ἐνὸν> τοῖς βουλομένοις τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν ἐκμανθάνειν κἀξ ὧν ἡμεῖς ἰδίᾳ
περὶ αὐτῶν ἐπεσκέμμεθα.
Τὸν ἐφεξῆς λόγον ἅπαντα ποιησόμεθα ζητοῦντες ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐξ ἀρχῆς
προὐθέμεθα, πόσαι τε καὶ τίνες εἰσὶν αἱ τῆς φύσεως δυνάμεις καὶ τί ποιεῖν
ἔργον ἑκάστη πέφυκεν. ἔργον δὲ δηλονότι καλῶ τὸ γεγονὸς ἤδη καὶ
συμπεπλη||7ρωμένον ὑπὸ τῆς ἐνεργείας αὐτῶν, οἷον τὸ αἷμα, τὴν σάρκα, τὸ
νεῦρον· ἐνέργειαν δὲ τὴν δραστικὴν ὀνομάζω κίνησιν καὶ τὴν ταύτης αἰτίαν
δύναμιν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ τὸ σιτίον αἷμα γίγνεσθαι παθητικὴ μὲν ἡ τοῦ σιτίου,
δραστικὴ δ' ἡ τῆς φλεβὸς γίγνεται κίνησις, ὡσαύτως δὲ κἀν τῷ μεταφέρειν
τὰ κῶλα κινεῖ μὲν ὁ μῦς, κινεῖται δὲ τὰ ὀστᾶ, τὴν μὲν τῆς φλεβὸς καὶ τῶν
μυῶν κίνησιν ἐνέργειαν εἶναί φημι, τὴν δὲ τῶν σιτίων τε καὶ τῶν ὀστῶν
σύμπτωμά τε καὶ πάθημα· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀλλοιοῦται, τὰ δὲ φέρεται. τὴν μὲν

οὖν ἐνέργειαν ἐγχωρεῖ καλεῖν καὶ ἔργον τῆς φύσεως, οἷον τὴν πέψιν, τὴν
ἀνάδοσιν, τὴν αἱμάτωσιν, οὐ μὴν τὸ γ' ἔργον ἐξ ἅπαντος ἐνέργειαν· ἡ γάρ
τοι σὰρξ ἔργον μέν ἐστι τῆς φύσεως, οὐ μὴν ἐνέργειά γε. δῆλον οὖν, ὡς
θάτερον μὲν τῶν ὀνομάτων διχῶς λέγεται, θάτερον δ' οὔ.

III
Ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ φλὲψ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἕκαστον διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῶν
τεττάρων ποιὰν κρᾶσιν ὡδί πως ἐνεργεῖν δοκεῖ. εἰσὶ δέ γε μὴν οὐκ ὀλίγοι
τινὲς ἄνδρες || 8 οὐδ' ἄδοξοι, φιλόσοφοί τε καὶ ἰατροί, τῷ μὲν θερμῷ καὶ τῷ
ψυχρῷ τὸ δρᾶν ἀναφέροντες, ὑποβάλλοντες δ' αὐτοῖς παθητικὰ τὸ ξηρόν τε
καὶ τὸ ὑγρόν. καὶ πρῶτός γ' Ἀριστοτέλης τὰς τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁπάντων
αἰτίας εἰς ταύτας ἀνάγειν πειρᾶται τὰς ἀρχάς, ἠκολούθησε δ' ὕστερον αὐτῷ
καὶ ὁ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς χορός. καίτοι τούτοις μὲν, ὡς ἂν καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν
στοιχείων τὴν εἰς ἄλληλα μεταβολὴν χύσεσί τέ τισι καὶ πιλήσεσιν
ἀναφέρουσιν, εὔλογον ἦν ἀρχὰς δραστικὰς ποιήσασθαι τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ
ψυχρόν, Ἀριστοτέλει δ' οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ ταῖς τέτταρσι ποιότησιν εἰς τὴν
τῶν στοιχείων γένεσιν χρωμένῳ βέλτιον ἦν καὶ τὰς τῶν κατὰ μέρος αἰτίας
ἁπάσας εἰς ταύτας ἀνάγειν. τί δήποτ' οὖν ἐν μὲν τοῖς περὶ γενέσεως καὶ
φθορᾶς ταῖς τέτταρσι χρῆται, ἐν δὲ τοῖς μετεωρολογικοῖς καὶ τοῖς
προβλήμασι καὶ ἄλλοθι πολλαχόθι ταῖς δύο μόναις; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὡς ἐν τοῖς
ζῴοις τε καὶ τοῖς φυτοῖς μᾶλλον μὲν δρᾷ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρόν, ἧττον δὲ
τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ τὸ ὑγρὸν ἀποφαίνοιτό τις, ἴσως ἂν ἔχοι καὶ τὸν Ἱπποκράτην
σύμψηφον· εἰ δ' ὡσαύτως ἐν || 9 ἅπασιν, οὐκέτ' οἶμαι συγχωρήσειν τοῦτο μὴ
ὅτι τὸν Ἱπποκράτην ἀλλὰ μηδ' αὐτὸν τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην μεμνῆσθαί γε
βουλόμενον ὧν ἐν τοῖς περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἀλλὰ μετ'
ἀποδείξεως αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξεν. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων κἀν τοῖς περὶ
κράσεων, εἰς ὅσον ἰατρῷ χρήσιμον, ἐπεσκεψάμεθα.

IV
Ἡ δ' οὖν δύναμις ἡ ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶν ἡ αἱματοποιητικὴ προσαγορευομένη καὶ
πᾶσα δ' ἄλλη δύναμις ἐν τῷ πρός τι νενόηται· πρώτως μὲν γὰρ τῆς
ἐνεργείας αἰτία, ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἔργου κατὰ συμβεβηκός. ἀλλ' εἴπερ ἡ αἰτία
πρός τι, τοῦ γὰρ ὑπ' αὐτῆς γενομένου μόνου, τῶν δ' ἄλλων οὐδενός,
εὔδηλον, ὅτι καὶ ἡ δύναμις ἐν τῷ πρός τι. καὶ μέχρι γ' ἂν ἀγνοῶμεν τὴν

οὐσίαν τῆς ἐνεργούσης αἰτίας, δύναμιν αὐτὴν ὀνομάζομεν, εἶναί τινα
λέγοντες ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶν αἱματοποιητικήν, ὡσαύτως δὲ κἀν τῇ κοιλίᾳ
πεπτικὴν κἀν τῇ καρδίᾳ σφυγμικὴν καὶ καθ' ἕκαστον τῶν ἄλλων ἰδίαν τινὰ
τῆς || 10 κατὰ τὸ μόριον ἐνεργείας. εἴπερ οὖν μεθόδῳ μέλλοιμεν ἐξευρήσειν,
ὁπόσαι τε καὶ ὁποῖαί τινες αἱ δυνάμεις εἰσίν, ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῶν
ἀρκτέον· ἕκαστον γὰρ αὐτῶν ὑπό τινος ἐνεργείας γίγνεται καὶ τούτων
ἑκάστης προηγεῖταί τις αἰτία.

V
Ἔργα τοίνυν τῆς φύσεως ἔτι μὲν κυουμένου τε καὶ διαπλαττομένου τοῦ
ζῴου τὰ σύμπαντ' ἐστὶ τοῦ σώματος μόρια, γεννηθέντος δὲ κοινὸν ἐφ'
ἅπασιν ἔργον ἡ εἰς τὸ τέλειον ἑκάστῳ μέγεθος ἀγωγὴ καὶ μετὰ ταῦθ' ἡ
μέχρι τοῦ δυνατοῦ διαμονή.
Ἐνέργειαι δ' ἐπὶ τρισὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἔργοις τρεῖς ἐξ ἀνάγκης, ἐφ' ἑκάστῳ
μία, γένεσίς τε καὶ αὔξησις καὶ θρέψις. ἀλλ' ἡ μὲν γένεσις οὐχ ἁπλῆ τις
ἐνέργεια τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλ' ἐξ ἀλλοιώσεώς τε καὶ διαπλάσεώς ἐστι σύνθετος.
ἵνα μὲν γὰρ ὀστοῦν γένηται καὶ νεῦρον καὶ φλὲψ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον,
ἀλλοιοῦσθαι χρὴ τὴν ὑποβεβλημένην οὐσίαν, ἐξ ἧς γίγνεται τὸ ζῷον· ἵνα δὲ
καὶ σχῆμα τὸ δέον καὶ θέσιν καὶ κοιλότητάς τινας καὶ ἀποφύσεις καὶ
συμφύσεις καὶ τἆλλα || 11 τὰ τοιαῦτα κτήσηται, διαπλάττεσθαι χρὴ τὴν
ἀλλοιουμένην οὐσίαν, ἣν δὴ καὶ ὕλην τοῦ ζῴου καλῶν, ὡς τῆς νεὼς τὰ
ξύλα καὶ τῆς εἰκόνος τὸν κηρόν, οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοις.
Ἡ δ' αὔξησις ἐπίδοσίς ἐστι καὶ διάστασις κατὰ μῆκος καὶ πλάτος καὶ βάθος
τῶν στερεῶν τοῦ ζῴου μορίων, ὧνπερ καὶ ἡ διάπλασις ἦν, ἡ δὲ θρέψις
πρόσθεσις τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἄνευ διαστάσεως.

VI
Περὶ πρώτης οὖν τῆς γενέσεως εἴπωμεν, ἣν ἐξ ἀλλοιώσεώς θ' ἅμα καὶ
διαπλάσεως ἐλέγομεν γίγνεσθαι.
Καταβληθέντος δὴ τοῦ σπέρματος εἰς τὴν μήτραν ἢ εἰς τὴν γῆν, οὐδὲν γὰρ
διαφέρει, χρόνοις τισὶν ὡρισμένοις πάμπολλα συνίσταται μόρια τῆς
γεννωμένης οὐσίας ὑγρότητι καὶ ξηρότητι καὶ ψυχρότητι καὶ θερμότητι καὶ

τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν, ὅσα τούτοις ἕπεται, διαφέροντα. τὰ δ' ἑπόμενα
γιγνώσκεις, εἴπερ ὅλως ἐφιλοσόφησάς τι περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς· αἱ
λοιπαὶ γὰρ τῶν ἁπτῶν ὀνομαζομένων διαφορῶν ταῖς εἰρημέναις ἕπονται
πρῶται καὶ μάλιστα, μετὰ δὲ ταύ||12 τας αἱ γευσταί τε καὶ ὀσφρηταὶ καὶ
ὁραταί. σκληρότης μὲν οὖν καὶ μαλακότης καὶ γλισχρότης καὶ κραυρότης
καὶ κουφότης καὶ βαρύτης καὶ πυκνότης καὶ ἀραιότης καὶ λειότης καὶ
τραχύτης καὶ παχύτης καὶ λεπτότης ἁπταὶ διαφοραὶ καὶ εἴρηται περὶ πασῶν
Ἀριστοτέλει καλῶς. οἶσθα δὲ δήπου καὶ τὰς γευστάς τε καὶ ὀσφρητὰς καὶ
ὁρατὰς διαφοράς. ὥστ', εἰ μὲν τὰς πρώτας τε καὶ στοιχειώδεις ἀλλοιωτικὰς
δυνάμεις ζητοίης, ὑγρότης ἐστί καὶ ξηρότης καὶ ψυχρότης καὶ θερμότης· εἰ
δὲ τὰς ἐκ τῆς τούτων κράσεως γενομένας, τοσαῦται καθ' ἕκαστον ἔσονται
ζῷον, ὅσαπερ ἂν αὐτοῦ τὰ αἰσθητὰ στοιχεῖα ὑπάρχῃ· καλεῖται δ' αἰσθητὰ
στοιχεῖα τὰ ὁμοιομερῆ πάντα τοῦ σώματος μόρια· καὶ ταῦτ' οὐκ ἐκ μεθόδου
τινὸς ἀλλ' αὐτόπτην γενόμενον ἐκμαθεῖν χρὴ διὰ τῶν ἀνατομῶν.
Ὀστοῦν δὴ καὶ χόνδρον καὶ νεῦρον καὶ ὑμένα καὶ σύνδεσμον καὶ φλέβα καὶ
πάνθ' ὅσα τοιαῦτα κατὰ τὴν πρώτην τοῦ ζῴου γένεσιν ἡ φύσις ἀπεργάζεται
δυνάμει χρωμένη καθόλου μὲν εἰπεῖν τῇ γεννητικῇ τε καὶ ἀλλοιω||13 τικῇ,
κατὰ μέρος δὲ θερμαντικῇ τε καὶ ψυκτικῇ καὶ ξηραντικῇ καὶ ὑγραντικῇ καὶ
ταῖς ἐκ τῆς τούτων κράσεως γενομέναις, οἷον ὀστοποιητικῇ τε καὶ
νευροποιητικῇ καὶ χονδροποιητικῇ· σαφηνείας γὰρ ἕνεκα καὶ τούτοις τοῖς
ὀνόμασι χρηστέον.
Ἔστι γοῦν καὶ ἡ ἰδία σὰρξ τοῦ ἥπατος ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γένους καὶ ἡ τοῦ
σπληνὸς καὶ ἡ τῶν νεφρῶν καὶ ἡ τοῦ πνεύμονος καὶ ἡ τῆς καρδίας οὕτω δὲ
καὶ τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα καὶ τῆς γαστρὸς καὶ τοῦ στομάχου καὶ
τῶν ἐντέρων καὶ τῶν ὑστερῶν αἰσθητὸν στοιχεῖόν ἐστιν ὁμοιομερές τε καὶ
ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἀσύνθετον· ἐὰν γὰρ ἐξέλῃς ἑκάστου τῶν εἰρημένων τὰς
ἀρτηρίας τε καὶ τὰς φλέβας καὶ τὰ νεῦρα, τὸ ὑπόλοιπον σῶμα τὸ καθ'
ἕκαστον ὄργανον ἁπλοῦν ἐστι καὶ στοιχειῶδες ὡς πρὸς αἴσθησιν. ὅσα δὲ
τῶν τοιούτων ὀργάνων ἐκ δυοῖν σύγκειται χιτώνων οὐχ ὁμοίων μὲν
ἀλλήλοις, ἁπλοῦ δ' ἑκατέρου, τούτων οἱ χιτῶνές εἰσι τὰ στοιχεῖα καθάπερ
τῆς τε γαστρὸς καὶ τοῦ στομάχου καὶ τῶν ἐντέρων καὶ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν, καὶ
καθ' ἑκάτερόν γε τῶν χιτώνων ἴδιος ἡ ἀλλοιωτικὴ δύναμις ἡ ἐκ τοῦ παρὰ
τῆς || 14 μητρὸς ἐπιμηνίου γεννήσασα τὸ μόριον, ὥστε τὰς κατὰ μέρος
ἀλλοιωτικὰς δυνάμεις τοσαύτας εἶναι καθ' ἕκαστον ζῷον, ὅσαπερ ἂν ἔχῃ τὰ
στοιχειώδη μόρια. καὶ μέν γε καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας ἰδίας ἑκάστῳ τῶν κατὰ

μέρος ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν ὥσπερ καὶ τὰς χρείας, οἷον καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν
νεφρῶν εἰς τὴν κύστιν διηκόντων πόρων, οἳ δὴ καὶ οὐρητῆρες καλοῦνται.
οὗτοι γὰρ οὔτ' ἀρτηρίαι εἰσίν, ὅτι μήτε σφύζουσι μήτ' ἐκ δυοῖν χιτώνων
συνεστήκασιν, οὔτε φλέβες, ὅτι μήθ' αἵμα περιέχουσι μήτ' ἔοικεν αὐτῶν ὁ
χιτὼν κατά τι τῷ τῆς φλεβός· ἀλλὰ καὶ νεύρων ἐπὶ πλέον ἀφεστήκασιν ἢ
τῶν εἰρημένων.
Τί ποτ' οὖν εἰσιν; ἐρωτᾷ τις, ὥσπερ ἀναγκαῖον ὂν ἅπαν μόριον ἢ ἀρτηρίαν ἢ
φλέβα ἢ νεῦρον ὑπάρχειν ἢ ἐκ τούτων πεπλέχθαι καὶ μὴ τοῦτ' αὐτὸ τὸ νῦν
λεγόμενον, ὡς ἴδιος ἑκάστῳ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ὀργάνων ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία. καὶ
γὰρ καὶ αἱ κύστεις ἑκάτεραι ἥ τε τὸ οὖρον ὑποδεχομένη καὶ ἡ τὴν ξανθὴν
χολὴν οὐ μόνον τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀλλήλων διαφέρουσι καὶ οἱ
εἰς τὸ ἧπαρ ἀποφυόμενοι || 15 πόροι, καθάπερ στόμαχοί τινες ἀπὸ τῆς
χοληδόχου κύστεως, οὐδὲν οὔτ' ἀρτηρίαις οὔτε φλεψὶν οὔτε νεύροις
ἐοίκασιν. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἐπὶ πλέον ἐν ἄλλοις τέ τισι κἀν τοῖς περὶ
τῆς Ἱπποκράτους ἀνατομῆς εἴρηται.
Αἱ δὲ κατὰ μέρος ἅπασαι δυνάμεις τῆς φύσεως αἱ ἀλλοιωτικαὶ αὐτὴν μὲν
τὴν οὐσίαν τῶν χιτώνων τῆς κοιλίας καὶ τῶν ἐντέρων καὶ τῶν ὑστερῶν
ἀπετέλεσαν, οἵαπέρ ἐστι· τὴν δὲ σύνθεσιν αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐμφυομένων
πλοκὴν καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸ ἔντερον ἔκφυσιν καὶ τὴν τῆς ἔνδον κοιλότητος ἰδέαν
καὶ τἆλλ' ὅσα τοιαῦτα δύναμίς τις ἑτέρα διέπλασεν, ἣν διαπλαστικὴν
ὀνομάζομεν, ἣν δὴ καὶ τεχνικὴν εἶναι λέγομεν, μᾶλλον δ' ἀρίστην καὶ
ἄκραν τέχνην καὶ πάντα τινὸς ἕνεκα ποιοῦσαν, ὡς μηδὲν ἀργὸν εἶναι μηδὲ
περιττὸν μηδ' ὅλως οὕτως ἔχον, ὡς δύνασθαι βέλτιον ἑτέρως ἔχειν. ἀλλὰ
τοῦτο μὲν ἐν τοῖς περὶ χρείας μορίων ἀποδείξομεν. ||

VII
16 Ἐπὶ δὲ τὴν αὐξητικὴν ἤδη μεταβάντες δύναμιν αὐτὸ τοῦθ' ὑπομνήσωμεν
πρῶτον, ὡς ὑπάρχει μὲν καὶ αὐτὴ τοῖς κυουμένοις ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ θρεπτική·
ἀλλ' οἷον ὑπηρέτιδές τινές εἰσι τηνικαῦτα τῶν προειρημένων δυνάμεων,
οὐκ ἐν αὑταῖς ἔχουσαι τὸ πᾶν κῦρος. ἐπειδὰν δὲ τὸ τέλειον ἀπολάβῃ
μέγεθος τὸ ζῷον, ἐν τῷ μετὰ τὴν ἀποκύησιν χρόνῳ παντὶ μέχρι τῆς ἀκμῆς ἡ
μὲν αὐξητικὴ τηνικαῦτα κρατεῖ· βοηθοὶ δ' αὐτῆς καὶ οἷον ὑπηρέτιδες ἥ τ'
ἀλλοιωτικὴ δύναμίς ἐστι καὶ ἡ θρεπτική. τί οὖν τὸ ἴδιόν ἐστι τῆς αὐξητικῆς
δυνάμεως; εἰς πᾶν μέρος ἐκτεῖναι τὰ πεφυκότα. καλεῖται δ' οὕτω τὰ στερεὰ

μόρια τοῦ σώματος, ἀρτηρίαι καὶ φλέβες καὶ νεῦρα καὶ ὀστᾶ καὶ χόνδροι
καὶ ὑμένες καὶ σύνδεσμοι καὶ οἱ χιτῶνες ἅπαντες, οὓς στοιχειώδεις τε καὶ
ὁμοιομερεῖς καὶ ἁπλοῦς ὀλίγον ἔμπροσθεν ἐκαλοῦμεν. ὅτῳ δὲ τρόπῳ τὴν
εἰς πᾶν μέρος ἔκτασιν ἴσχουσιν, ἐγὼ φράσω παράδειγμά τι πρότερον εἰπὼν
ἕνεκα τοῦ σαφοῦς. ||
17 Τὰς κύστεις τῶν ὑῶν λαβόντες οἱ παῖδες πληροῦσί τε πνεύματος καὶ
τρίβουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς τέφρας πλησίον τοῦ πυρός, ὡς ἀλεαίνεσθαι μέν,
βλάπτεσθαι δὲ μηδέν· καὶ πολλή γ' αὕτη ἡ παιδιὰ περί τε τὴν Ἰωνίαν καὶ ἐν
ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν οὐκ ὀλίγοις ἐστίν. ἐπιλέγουσι δὲ δὴ καί τιν' ἔπη τρίβοντες ἐν
μέτρῳ τέ τινι καὶ μέλει καὶ ῥυθμῷ καὶ ἔστι πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα
παρακέλευσις τῇ κύστει πρὸς τὴν αὔξησιν. ἐπειδὰν δ' ἱκανῶς αὐτοῖς
διατετάσθαι δοκῇ, πάλιν ἐμφυσῶσί τε καὶ ἐπιδιατείνουσι καὶ αὖθις τρίβουσι
καὶ τοῦτο πλεονάκις ποιοῦσιν, ἄχρις ἂν αὐτοῖς ἡ κύστις ἱκανῶς ἔχειν δοκῇ
τῆς αὐξήσεως. ἀλλ' ἐν τούτοις γε τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν παίδων ἐναργῶς, ὅσον εἰς
μέγεθος ἐπιδίδωσιν ἡ ἐντὸς εὐρυχωρία τῆς κύστεως, τοσοῦτον ἀναγκαῖον
εἰς λεπτότητα καθαιρεῖσθαι τὸ σῶμα καὶ εἴ γε τὴν λεπτότητα ταύτην
ἀνατρέφειν οἷοί τ' ἦσαν οἱ παῖδες, ὁμοίως ἂν τῇ φύσει τὴν κύστιν ἐκ μικρᾶς
μεγάλην ἀπειργάζοντο. νυνὶ δὲ τοῦτ' αὐτοῖς ἐνδεῖ τὸ ἔργον οὐδὲ καθ' ἕνα
τρόπον εἰς μίμησιν ἐνδεχόμενον ἀχθῆναι μὴ ὅτι τοῖς || 18 παισὶν ἀλλ' οὐδ'
ἄλλῳ τινί· μόνης γὰρ τῆς φύσεως ἴδιόν ἐστιν.
Ὥστ' ἤδη σοι δῆλον, ὡς ἀναγκαία τοῖς αὐξανομένοις ἡ θρέψις. εἰ γὰρ
διατείνοιτο μέν, ἀνατρέφοιτο δὲ μή, φαντασίαν ψευδῆ μᾶλλον, οὐκ αὔξησιν
ἀληθῆ τὰ τοιαῦτα σώματα κτήσεται. καίτοι καὶ τὸ διατείνεσθαι πάντη
μόνοις τοῖς ὑπὸ φύσεως αὐξανομένοις ὑπάρχει. τὰ γὰρ ὑφ' ἡμῶν
διατεινόμενα σώματα κατὰ μίαν τινὰ διάστασιν τοῦτο πάσχοντα μειοῦται
ταῖς λοιπαῖς, οὐδ' ἔστιν εὑρεῖν οὐδέν, ὃ συνεχὲς ἔτι μένον καὶ ἀδιάσπαστον
εἰς τὰς τρεῖς διαστάσεις ἐπεκτεῖναι δυνάμεθα. μόνης οὖν τῆς φύσεως τὸ
πάντη διιστάναι συνεχὲς ἑαυτῷ μένον ἔτι καὶ τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἅπασαν ἰδέαν
φυλάττον τὸ σῶμα.
Καὶ τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἡ αὔξησις ἄνευ τῆς ἐπιρρεούσης τε καὶ προσπλαττομένης
τροφῆς μὴ δυναμένη γενέσθαι.

VIII

Καὶ τοίνυν ὁ λόγος ἥκειν ἔοικεν ὁ περὶ τῆς θρέψεως, ὃς δὴ λοιπός ἐστι καὶ
τρίτος ὧν ἐξ ἀρχῆς προὐθέμεθα. τοῦ γὰρ ἐπιρρέοντος ἐν εἴδει τροφῆς παντὶ
|| 19 μορίῳ τοῦ τρεφομένου σώματος προσπλαττομένου θρέψις μὲν ἡ
ἐνέργεια, θρεπτικὴ δὲ δύναμις ἡ αἰτία. ἀλλοίωσις μὲν δὴ κἀνταῦθα τὸ γένος
τῆς ἐνεργείας, ἀλλ' οὐχ οἵαπερ ἡ ἐν τῇ γενέσει. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὂν
πρότερον ὕστερον ἐγένετο, κατὰ δὲ τὴν θρέψιν τῷ ἤδη γεγονότι
συνεξομοιοῦται τὸ ἐπιρρέον καὶ διὰ τοῦτ' εὐλόγως ἐκείνην μὲν τὴν
ἀλλοίωσιν γένεσιν, ταύτην δ' ἐξομοίωσιν ὠνόμασαν.

IX
Ἐπειδὴ δὲ περὶ τῶν τριῶν δυνάμεων τῆς φύσεως αὐτάρκως εἴρηται καὶ
φαίνεται μηδεμιᾶς ἄλλης προσδεῖσθαι τὸ ζῷον, ἔχον γε καὶ ὅπως αὐξηθῇ
καὶ ὅπως τελειωθῇ καὶ ὅπως ἕως πλείστου διαφυλαχθῇ, δόξειε μὲν ἂν ἴσως
ἱκανῶς ἔχειν ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἤδη καὶ πάσας ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰς τῆς φύσεως
δυνάμεις. ἀλλ' εἴ τις πάλιν ἐννοήσειεν, ὡς οὐδενὸς οὐδέπω τῶν τοῦ ζῴου
μορίων ἐφήψατο, κοιλίας λέγω καὶ ἐντέρων καὶ ἥπατος καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων,
οὐδ' ἐξηγήσατο τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς δυνάμεις, αὖθις δόξειεν ἂν οἷον προοίμιόν τι
μόνον εἰρῆσθαι τῆς χρησίμου διδασκαλίας. || 20 τὸ γὰρ σύμπαν ὧδ' ἔχει.
γένεσις καὶ αὔξησις καὶ θρέψις τὰ πρῶτα καὶ οἷον κεφάλαια τῶν ἔργων ἐστὶ
τῆς φύσεως· ὥστε καὶ αἱ τούτων ἐργαστικαὶ δυνάμεις αἱ πρῶται τρεῖς εἰσι
καὶ κυριώταται· δέονται δ' εἰς ὑπηρεσίαν, ὡς ἤδη δέδεικται, καὶ ἀλλήλων
καὶ ἄλλων. τίνων μὲν οὖν ἡ γεννητική τε καὶ αὐξητικὴ δέονται, εἴρηται,
τίνων δ' ἡ θρεπτική, νῦν εἰρήσεται.

X
Δοκῶ γάρ μοι δείξειν τὰ περὶ τὴν τῆς τροφῆς οἰκονομίαν ὄργανά τε καὶ τὰς
δυνάμεις αὐτῶν διὰ ταύτην γεγονότα. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἡ ἐνέργεια ταύτης τῆς
δυνάμεως ἐξομοίωσίς ἐστιν, ὁμοιοῦσθαι δὲ καὶ μεταβάλλειν εἰς ἄλληλα
πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἀδύνατον, εἰ μή τινα ἔχοι κοινωνίαν ἤδη καὶ συγγένειαν ἐν
ταῖς ποιότησι, διὰ τοῦτο πρῶτον μὲν οὐκ ἐκ πάντων ἐδεσμάτων πᾶν ζῷον
τρέφεσθαι πέφυκεν, ἔπειτα δ' οὐδ' ἐξ ὧν οἷόν τ' ἐστὶν οὐδ' ἐκ τούτων
παραχρῆμα, καὶ διὰ ταύτην τὴν ἀνάγκην πλειόνων ὀργάνων ἀλλοιωτικῶν
τῆς τροφῆς ἕκαστον || 21 τῶν ζῴων χρῄζει. ἵνα μὲν γὰρ τὸ ξανθὸν ἐρυθρὸν

γένηται καὶ τὸ ἐρυθρὸν ξανθόν, ἁπλῆς καὶ μιᾶς δεῖται τῆς ἀλλοιώσεως· ἵνα
δὲ τὸ λευκὸν μέλαν καὶ τὸ μέλαν λευκόν, ἁπασῶν τῶν μεταξύ. καὶ τοίνυν
καὶ τὸ μαλακώτατον οὐκ ἂν ἀθρόως σκληρότατον καὶ τὸ σκληρότατον οὐκ
ἂν ἀθρόως μαλακώτατον γένοιτο, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ δυσωδέστατον
εὐωδέστατον οὐδ' ἔμπαλιν τὸ εὐωδέστατον δυσωδέστατον ἐξαίφνης γένοιτ'
ἄν.
Πῶς οὖν ἐξ αἵματος ὀστοῦν ἄν ποτε γένοιτο μὴ παχυνθέντος γε πρότερον
ἐπὶ πλεῖστον αὐτοῦ καὶ λευκανθέντος ἢ πῶς ἐξ ἄρτου τὸ αἵμα μὴ κατὰ
βραχὺ μὲν ἀποθεμένου τὴν λευκότητα, κατὰ βραχὺ δὲ λαμβάνοντος τὴν
ἐρυθρότητα; σάρκα μὲν γὰρ ἐξ αἵματος γενέσθαι ῥᾷστον· εἰ γὰρ εἰς
τοσοῦτον αὐτὸ παχύνειεν ἡ φύσις, ὡς σύστασίν τινα σχεῖν καὶ μηκέτ' εἶναι
ῥυτόν, ἡ πρώτη καὶ νεοπαγὴς οὕτως ἂν εἴη σάρξ· ὀστοῦν δ' ἵνα γένηται,
πολλοῦ μὲν δεῖται χρόνου, πολλῆς δ' ἐργασίας καὶ μεταβολῆς τῷ αἵματι. ὅτι
δὲ καὶ τῷ ἄρτῳ καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον θριδα||22 κίνῃ καὶ τεύτλῳ καὶ τοῖς ὁμοίοις
παμπόλλης δεῖται τῆς ἀλλοιώσεως εἰς αἵματος γένεσιν, οὐδὲ τοῦτ' ἄδηλον.
Ἓν μὲν δὴ τοῦτ' αἴτιον τοῦ πολλὰ γενέσθαι τὰ περὶ τὴν τῆς τροφῆς
ἀλλοίωσιν ὄργανα. δεύτερον δ' ἡ τῶν περιττωμάτων φύσις. ὡς γὰρ ὑπὸ
βοτανῶν οὐδ' ὅλως δυνάμεθα τρέφεσθαι, καίτοι τῶν βοσκημάτων
τρεφομένων, οὕτως ὑπὸ ῥαφανίδος τρεφόμεθα μέν, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ὑπὸ τῶν
κρεῶν. τούτων μὲν γὰρ ὀλίγου δεῖν ὅλων ἡ φύσις ἡμῶν κρατεῖ καὶ
μεταβάλλει καὶ ἀλλοιοῖ καὶ χρηστὸν ἐξ αὐτῶν αἵμα συνίστησιν· ἐν δὲ τῇ
ῥαφανίδι τὸ μὲν οἰκεῖόν τε καὶ μεταβληθῆναι δυνάμενον, μόγις καὶ τοῦτο
καὶ σὺν πολλῇ τῇ κατεργασίᾳ, παντάπασιν ἐλάχιστον· ὅλη δ' ὀλίγου δεῖν
ἐστι περιττωματικὴ καὶ διεξέρχεται τὰ τῆς πέψεως ὄργανα, βραχέος ἐξ
αὐτῆς εἰς τὰς φλέβας ἀναληφθέντος αἵματος καὶ οὐδὲ τούτου τελέως
χρηστοῦ. δευτέρας οὖν αὖθις ἐδέησε διακρίσεως τῇ φύσει τῶν ἐν ταῖς
φλεψὶ περιττωμάτων. καὶ χρεία καὶ τούτοις ὁδῶν τέ τινων ἑτέρων ἐπὶ τὰς
ἐκ||23κρίσεις αὐτὰ παραγουσῶν, ὡς μὴ λυμαίνοιτο τοῖς χρηστοῖς, ὑποδοχῶν
τέ τινων οἷον δεξαμενῶν, ἐν αἷς ὅταν εἰς ἱκανὸν πλῆθος ἀφίκηται, τηνικαῦτ'
ἐκκριθήσεται.
Δεύτερον δή σοι καὶ τοῦτο τὸ γένος τῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι μορίων ἐξεύρηται
τοῖς περιττώμασι τῆς τροφῆς ἀνακείμενον. ἄλλο δὲ τρίτον ὑπὲρ τοῦ πάντη
φέρεσθαι, καθάπερ τινὲς ὁδοὶ πολλαὶ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ὅλου
κατατετμημέναι.

Μία μὲν γὰρ εἴσοδος ἡ διὰ τοῦ στόματος ἅπασι τοῖς σιτίοις, οὐχ ἓν δὲ τὸ
τρεφόμενον ἀλλὰ πάμπολλά τε καὶ πάμπολυ διεστῶτα. μὴ τοίνυν θαύμαζε
τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ὀργάνων, ὅσα θρέψεως ἕνεκεν ἡ φύσις ἐδημιούργησε. τὰ
μὲν γὰρ ἀλλοιοῦντα προπαρασκευάζει τὴν ἐπιτήδειον ἑκάστῳ μορίῳ
τροφήν, τὰ δὲ διακρίνει τὰ περιττώματα, τὰ δὲ παραπέμπει, τὰ δ'
ὑποδέχεται, τὰ δ' ἐκκρίνει, τὰ δ' ὁδοὶ τῆς πάντη φορᾶς εἰσι τῶν χρηστῶν
χυμῶν, ὥστ', εἴπερ βούλει τὰς δυνάμεις τῆς φύσεως ἁπάσας ἐκμαθεῖν, ὑπὲρ
ἑκάστου τούτων ἂν εἴη σοι τῶν ὀργάνων ἐπισκεπτέον.

Ἀρχὴ δ' αὐτῶν τῆς διδασκαλίας, ὅσα || 24 τοῦ τέλους ἐγγὺς ἔργα τε τῆς
φύσεώς ἐστι καὶ μόρια καὶ δυνάμεις αὐτῶν.

XI
Αὐτοῦ δὲ δὴ πάλιν ἀναμνηστέον ἡμῖν τοῦ τέλους, οὗπερ ἕνεκα τοσαῦτά τε
καὶ τοιαῦτα τῇ φύσει δεδημιούργηται μόρια. τὸ μὲν οὖν ὄνομα τοῦ
πράγματος, ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον εἴρηται, θρέψις· ὁ δὲ κατὰ τοὔνομα λόγος
ὁμοίωσις τοῦ τρέφοντος τῷ τρεφομένῳ. ἵνα δ' αὕτη γένηται, προηγήσασθαι
χρὴ πρόσφυσιν, ἵνα δ' ἐκείνη, πρόσθεσιν. ἐπειδὰν γὰρ ἐκπέσῃ τῶν ἀγγείων
ὁ μέλλων θρέψειν ὁτιοῦν τῶν τοῦ ζῴου μορίων χυμός, εἰς ἅπαν αὐτὸ
διασπείρεται πρῶτον, ἔπειτα προστίθεται κἄπειτα προσφύεται καὶ τελέως
ὁμοιοῦται.
Δηλοῦσι δ' αἱ καλούμεναι λεῦκαι τὴν διαφορὰν ὁμοιώσεώς τε καὶ
προσφύσεως, ὥσπερ τὸ γένος ἐκεῖνο τῶν ὑδέρων, ὅ τινες ὀνομάζουσιν ἀνὰ
σάρκα, διορίζει σαφῶς πρόσθεσιν προσφύσεως. οὐ γὰρ ἐνδείᾳ δήπου τῆς
ἐπιρρεοῦσης ὑγρότητος, ὡς ἔνιαι τῶν ἀτροφιῶν τε καὶ φθίσεων, ἡ τοῦ
τοιούτου γένεσις ὑδέρου || 25 συντελεῖται. φαίνεται γὰρ ἱκανῶς ἥ τε σὰρξ
ὑγρὰ καὶ διάβροχος ἕκαστόν τε τῶν στερεῶν τοῦ σώματος μορίων ὡσαύτως
διακείμενον. ἀλλὰ πρόσθεσις μέν τις γίγνεται τῆς ἐπιφερομένης τροφῆς, ἅτε
δ' ὑδατωδεστέρας οὔσης ἔτι καὶ μὴ πάνυ τι κεχυμωμένης μηδὲ τὸ γλίσχρον
ἐκεῖνο καὶ κολλῶδες, ὃ δὴ τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας οἰκονομίᾳ προσγίγνεται,
κεκτημένης ἡ πρόσφυσις ἀδύνατός ἐστιν ἐπιτελεῖσθαι πλήθει λεπτῆς
ὑγρότητος ἀπέπτου διαρρεούσης τε καὶ ῥᾳδίως ὀλισθαινούσης ἀπὸ τῶν
στερεῶν τοῦ σώματος μορίων τῆς τροφῆς. ἐν δὲ ταῖς λεύκαις πρόσφυσις
μέν τις γίγνεται τῆς τροφῆς, οὐ μὴν ἐξομοίωσίς γε. καὶ δῆλον ἐν τῷδε τὸ

μικρῷ πρόσθεν ῥηθὲν ὡς ὀρθῶς ἐλέγετο τὸ δεῖν πρόσθεσιν μὲν πρῶτον,
ἐφεξῆς δὲ πρόσφυσιν, ἔπειτ' ἐξομοίωσιν γενέσθαι τῷ μέλλοντι τρέφεσθαι.
Κυρίως μὲν οὖν τὸ τρέφον ἤδη τροφή, τὸ δ' οἷον μὲν τροφή, οὔπω δὲ
τρέφον, ὁποῖόν ἐστι τὸ προσφυόμενον ἢ προστιθέμενον, τροφὴ μὲν οὐ
κυρίως, ὁμωνύμως δὲ τροφή· τὸ δ' ἐν ταῖς φλεψὶν ἔτι περιεχόμενον || 26 καὶ
τούτου μᾶλλον ἔτι τὸ κατὰ τὴν γαστέρα τῷ μέλλειν ποτὲ θρέψειν, εἰ καλῶς
κατεργασθείη, κέκληται τροφή. κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐδεσμάτων ἕκαστον
τροφὴν ὀνομάζομεν οὔτε τῷ τρέφειν ἤδη τὸ ζῷον οὔτε τῷ τοιοῦτον
ὑπάρχειν οἷον τὸ τρέφον, ἀλλὰ τῷ δύνασθαί τε καὶ μέλλειν τρέφειν, εἰ
καλῶς κατεργασθείη.
Τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν καὶ τὸ πρὸς Ἱπποκράτους λεγόμενον· “Τροφὴ δὲ τὸ τρέφον,
τροφὴ καὶ τὸ οἷον τροφὴ καὶ τὸ μέλλον.” τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὁμοιούμενον ἤδη
τροφὴν ὠνόμασε, τὸ δ' οἷον μὲν ἐκεῖνο προστιθέμενον ἢ προσφυόμενον
οἷον τροφήν· τὸ δ' ἄλλο πᾶν, ὅσον ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ καὶ ταῖς φλεψὶ περιέχεται,
μέλλον.

XII
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαῖον ὁμοίωσίν τιν' 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 μήθ' ὅλως τινὰς οἰκείας ἔχειν δυνάμεις,
αἷς χρωμένη τὰ μὲν ἀλλοιοῖ, τὰ δ' ἕλκει, || 27 τὰ δ' ἐκκρίνει.

Καὶ αὗται δύο γεγόνασιν αἱρέσεις κατὰ γένος ἐν ἰατρικῇ τε καὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ
τῶν ἀποφηναμένων τι περὶ φύσεως ἀνδρῶν, ὅσοι γ' αὐτῶν γιγνώσκουσιν, ὅ
τι λέγουσι, καὶ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ὧν ὑπέθεντο θεωροῦσι θ' ἅμα καὶ
διαφυλάττουσιν. ὅσοι δὲ μηδ' αὐτὸ τοῦτο συνιᾶσιν, ἀλλ' 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
θ' 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, || 28 ἀλλ' 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 θ'
ἅμα καὶ ὁμοιωτικὰς τῶν οἰκείων, τὰς δ' 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 δ' αὖ τοὺς ἑτέρους
οὔτε τούτων οὐδὲν ὑπάρχει ταῖς φύσεσιν οὔτ' ἔννοιά τίς ἐστι τῇ ψυχῇ
σύμφυτος ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὐκ ἀκολουθίας οὐ μάχης, οὐ διαιρέσεως οὐ
συνθέσεως, οὐ δικαίων οὐκ ἀδίκων, οὐ καλῶν οὐκ αἰσχρῶν, ἀλλ' ἐξ
αἰσθήσεώς τε καὶ δι' αἰσθήσεως ἅπαντα τὰ τοιαῦθ' ἡμῖν ἐγγίγνεσθαί φασι
καὶ φαντασίαις τισὶ καὶ μνήμαις οἰακίζεσθαι τὰ ζῷα.
Ἔνιοι || 29 δ' αὐτῶν καὶ ῥητῶς ἀπεφήναντο μηδεμίαν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς
δύναμιν, ᾗ λογιζόμεθα, ἀλλ' ὑπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἄγεσθαι παθῶν ἡμᾶς
καθάπερ βοσκήματα πρὸς μηδὲν ἀνανεῦσαι μηδ' ἀντειπεῖν δυναμένους.
καθ' οὓς δηλονότι καὶ ἀνδρεία καὶ φρόνησις καὶ σωφροσύνη καὶ ἐγκράτεια
λῆρός ἐστι μακρὸς καὶ φιλοῦμεν οὔτ' 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
δι' ἑτέρων γραμμάτων ἐπὶ πλέον ἐσκεψάμεθα περὶ τῶν Ἀσκληπιάδου τοῦ
ἰατροῦ σκοπούμενοι δογμάτων. ἔνεστι δὲ τοῖς βουλομένοις κἀκείνοις μὲν
ὁμιλῆσαι τοῖς λόγοις καὶ νῦν δ' ἤδη σκοπεῖν, ὥσπερ τινῶν δυοῖν ὁδῶν ἡμῖν
προκειμένων, ὁποτέραν βέλτιόν ἐστι τρέπεσθαι. Ἱπποκράτης μὲν γὰρ τὴν
προτέραν ῥηθεῖσαν ἐτράπετο, καθ' 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, καθ' ἃς ἕκαστον τῶν μορίων ἕλκει
μὲν || 30 ἐφ' 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 δι' ἑτέρας αὖ τινος ἐκκριτικῆς δυνάμεως ἀποτρίβεται.

XIII
Μαθεῖν δ' 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 τ' 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 || 31 μάγειροι σχεδὸν ἅπαντες ἴσασιν, ὁσημέραι
θεώμενοι τήν τε θέσιν αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν ἀφ' 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 δ' ἐξουρῶσιν,
νεφριτικοὺς ὀνομάζουσι σφᾶς αὐτούς.
Ἀσκληπιάδην δ' οἶμαι μηδὲ λίθον οὐρηθέντα ποτὲ θεάσασθαι πρὸς τῶν
οὕτω πασχόντων μηδ' ὡς προηγήσατο κατὰ τὴν μεταξὺ τῶν νεφρῶν καὶ τῆς
κύστεως χώραν ὀδύνη τις ὀξεῖα διερχομένου τοῦ λίθου τὸν οὐρητῆρα μηδ'
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, ὃς καταλιπὼν οὕτως εὐρείας
ὁδοὺς ἐναργῶς φαινομένας ἀφανεῖς καὶ στενὰς καὶ παντάπασιν
ἀναισθήτους || 32 ὑπέθετο. βούλεται γὰρ εἰς ἀτμοὺς ἀναλυόμενον τὸ
πινόμενον ὑγρὸν εἰς τὴν κύστιν διαδίδοσθαι κἄπειτ' 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, ἀλλ' οὐ σώματος ἀκριβῶς πυκνοῦ καὶ στεγανοῦ
δύο χιτῶνας ἰσχυροτάτους κεκτημένου, δι' ὧν εἴπερ διέρχεσθαι φήσομεν
τοὺς ἀτμούς, τί δήποτ' οὐχὶ διὰ τοῦ περιτοναίου καὶ τῶν φρενῶν διελθόντες

ἐνέπλησαν ὕδατος τό τ' ἐπιγάστριον ἅπαν καὶ τὸν θώρακα; ἀλλὰ παχύτερος,
φησίν, ἐστὶ δηλαδὴ καὶ στεγανώτερος ὁ περιτόναιος χιτὼν τῆς κύστεως καὶ
διὰ τοῦτ' ἐκεῖνος μὲν ἀποστέγει τοὺς ἀτμούς, ἡ δὲ κύστις παραδέχεται. ἀλλ'
εἴπερ ἀνατετμήκει ποτέ, τάχ' ἂν ἠπίστατο τὸν μὲν ἔξωθεν χιτῶνα τῆς
κύστεως ἀπὸ τοῦ περιτοναίου πεφυκότα τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκείνῳ φύσιν ἔχειν, τὸν
δ' ἔνδοθεν τὸν αὐτῆς τῆς κύστεως ἴδιον πλέον ἢ διπλάσιον ἐκείνου τὸ πάχος
ὑπάρχειν.
Ἀλλ' ἴσως οὔτε τὸ || 33 πάχος οὔθ' ἡ λεπτότης τῶν χιτώνων, ἀλλ' ἡ θέσις τῆς
κύστεως αἰτία τοῦ φέρεσθαι τοὺς ἀτμοὺς εἰς αὐτήν. καὶ μὴν εἰ καὶ διὰ
τἆλλα πάντα πιθανὸν ἦν αὐτούς ἐνταυθοῖ συναθροίζεσθαι, τό γε τῆς θέσεως
μόνης αὔταρκες κωλῦσαι. κάτω μὲν γὰρ ἡ κύστις κεῖται, τοῖς δ' 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
μηδέποθ' ἵστασθαι. ἀλλ' 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 || 34 συναθροισθεῖεν.

Ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ταῦτ' ἀντιλέγειν οἱ νῦν Ἀσκληπιάδειοι πειρῶνται, καίτοι
πρὸς ἁπάντων ἀεὶ τῶν παρατυγχανόντων αὐτοῖς, ὅταν περὶ τούτων ἐρίζωσι,
καταγελώμενοι. οὕτως ἄρα δυσαπότριπτόν τι κακόν ἐστιν ἡ περὶ τὰς
αἱρέσεις φιλοτιμία καὶ δυσέκνιπτον ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα καὶ ψώρας ἁπάσης
δυσιατότερον.
Τῶν γοῦν καθ' ἡμᾶς τις σοφιστῶν τά τ' ἄλλα καὶ περὶ τοὺς ἐριστικοὺς
λόγους ἱκανῶς συγκεκροτημένος καὶ δεινὸς εἰπεῖν, εἴπερ τις ἄλλος,
ἀφικόμενος ἐμοί ποθ' 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, ἀλλ' ἀκριβῶς ἅπαν ἐντὸς ἑαυτῶν στεγούσας. καίτοι γ'
εἴπερ ἦσάν τινες ἐκ τῶν νεφρῶν εἰς αὐτὰς ἥκοντες αἰσθητοὶ καὶ μεγάλοι
πόροι, πάντως ἄν, ἔφη, δι' ἐκείνων, ὥσπερ εἰσῄει τὸ || 35 ὑγρὸν εἰς αὐτάς,
οὕτω καὶ θλιβόντων ἐξεκρίνετο. ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτ' 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 δουλεύοντες, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ
μαθεῖν ὑπομένουσι. δέον γὰρ ἀκοῦσαι τὴν αἰτίαν, δι' ἣν εἰσιέναι μὲν
δύναται διὰ τῶν οὐρητήρων εἰς τὴν κύστιν τὸ ὑγρόν, ἐξιέναι δ' αὖθις ὀπίσω
τὴν αὐτὴν ὁδὸν οὐκέθ' οἷόν τε, καὶ θαυμάσαι τὴν τέχνην τῆς φύσεως, οὔτε
μαθεῖν ἐθέλουσι καὶ λοιδοροῦνται προσέτι μάτην ὑπ' αὐτῆς ἄλλα τε πολλὰ
καὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς γεγονέναι φάσκοντες. εἰσὶ δ' 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 δ',
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 || 36 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 τοῦτ'
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. 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 κἄπειτ' ἐπιδήσαντας ἐᾶσαι τὸ
ζῷον· οὐ γὰρ ἂν οὐρήσειεν ἔτι. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα λύειν μὲν τοὺς ἔξωθεν
δεσμούς, δεικνύναι δὲ κενὴν μὲν τὴν κύστιν, μεστοὺς δ' ἱκανῶς καὶ
διατεταμένους τοὺς οὐρητῆρας καὶ κινδυνεύοντας ῥαγῆναι κἄπειτα τοὺς
βρόχους αὐτῶν ἀφελόντας ἐναργῶς ὁρᾶν ἤδη πληρουμένην οὔρου τὴν
κύστιν.

Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτῳ || 37 φανέντι, πρὶν οὐρήσαι 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, εἶτ' 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 δ' ἕτερος ὁ
λελυμένος αὐτὸς μὲν χαλαρός ἐστι, πεπλήρωκε δ' οὔρου τὴν κύστιν. εἶτ'
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 κἄπειτ' ἐπιδῆσαι τὸ ζῷον ἔξωθεν, ἀμφοτέρων
διῃρημενων, || 38 εἶθ' ὅταν ἱκανῶς ἔχειν δοκῇ, λῦσαι τὸν δεσμόν.
εὑρεθήσεται γὰρ ἡ μὲν κύστις κενή, πλῆρες δ' οὔρου τὸ μεταξὺ τῶν
ἐντέρων τε καὶ τοῦ περιτοναίου χωρίον ἅπαν, ὡς ἂν εἰ καὶ ὑδερικὸν ἦν τὸ
ζῷον. ταῦτ' οὖν εἴ τις αὐτὸς καθ' ἑαυτὸν βουληθείη βασανίζειν ἐπὶ ζῴου,
μεγάλως μοι δοκεῖ καταγνώσεσθαι τῆς Ἀσκληπιάδου προπετείας. εἰ δὲ δὴ
καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν μάθοι, δι' 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
δ' οὖσαν αὐτὴν εὐθέως καὶ δυνάμεις ὑπέλαβεν ἔχειν ἑλκτικὴν μὲν τῶν
οἰκείων, ἀποκριτικὴν δὲ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων καὶ τρέφειν τε καὶ αὔξειν αὐ||τὴν 39
τὰ ζῷα καὶ κρίνειν τὰ νοσήματα· καὶ διὰ τοῦτ' 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 ἑυρὼν 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· τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν δηλαδὴ μέγα καὶ σεμνὸν
ἀπιστήσαντα τοῖς φαινομένοις πιστεῦσαι τοῖς ἀδήλοις.
Ἐπὶ || 40 δὲ τῆς ξανθῆς χολῆς ἔτι μεῖζον αὐτῷ καὶ νεανικώτερόν ἐστι τὸ
τόλμημα· γεννάσθαι γὰρ αὐτὴν ἐν τοῖς χοληδόχοις ἀγγείοις, οὐ
διακρίνεσθαι λέγει.
Πῶς οὖν τοῖς ἰκτερικοῖς ἅμ' ἄμφω συμπίπτει, τὰ μὲν διαχωρήματα μηδὲν
ὅλως ἐν αὑτοῖς ἔχοντα χολῆς, ἀνάπλεων δ' αὐτοῖς γιγνόμενον ὅλον τὸ
σῶμα; ληρεῖν πάλιν ἐνταῦθ' ἀναγκάζεται τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν οὔρων εἰρημένοις
παραπλησίως. ληρεῖ δ' οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ περὶ τῆς μελαίνης χολῆς καὶ τοῦ
σπληνὸς οὔτε τί ποθ' ὑφ' Ἱπποκράτους εἴρηται συνιεὶς ἀντιλέγειν τ'
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 μήτ' 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
περίττωμα, μηδὲ περὶ τούτων συγχωρεῖν, ἀλλ' ὑπ' αὐτῶν τῶν φαρμάκων
γίγνεσθαι λέγειν τοιοῦτον ἕκαστον τῶν κενουμένων, ὥσπερ ὑπὸ τῶν
χολη||41δόχων πόρων τὴν χολήν· 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.
Ἆρ' 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 δ' οὐδ' εἰ τῶν ὑδραγωγῶν τι· χολαγωγῷ δὲ φαρμάκῳ πλεῖστον μὲν
ἐκκενοῦται χολῆς, αὐτίκα δὲ καθαρὸς τοῖς οὕτω καθαρθεῖσιν ὁ χρὼς
γίγνεται. πολλοὺς γοῦν ἡμεῖς μετὰ τὸ θεραπεῦσαι τὴν ἐν τῷ ἥπατι διάθεσιν
ἅπαξ καθήραντες ἀπηλλάξαμεν τοῦ παθήματος. οὐ μὴν οὐδ' εἰ φλέγματος
ἀγωγῷ καθαίροις φαρμάκῳ, πλέον ἄν τι διαπράξαιο.

Καὶ ταῦτ' οὐχ Ἱπποκράτης μὲν οὕτως οἶδε γιγνόμενα, τοῖς δ' ἀπὸ τῆς
ἐμπειρίας μόνης ὁρμωμένοις ἑτέρως ἔγνωσται, ἀλλὰ κἀκεί||42νοις 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
ἀλλ' αὐτὸ γεννᾷ, τῷ νοσήματι προστιμωρεῖται. καὶ μέν γε καὶ ἡ σκαμμωνία
πρὸς τῷ μὴ κενοῦν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τῶν ἰκτερικῶν τὴν χολὴν ἔτι καὶ τὸ
χρηστὸν αἷμα χολὴν ἐργαζομένη || 43 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, ἀλλ'
αὐτῷ μόνῳ τῷ λόγῳ τῆς κενώσεως. καὶ μὴν εἰ φλέγματος ἀγωγὸν αὐτοῖς
δοίης φάρμακον, οὐκ ὀνήσονται. καὶ τοῦθ' οὕτως ἐναργές ἐστιν, ὥστε καὶ οἱ
ἀπὸ μόνης τῆς ἐμπειρίας ὁρμώμενοι γιγνώσκουσιν αὐτό. καίτοι τούτοις γε
τοῖς ἀνδράσιν αὐτὸ δὴ τοῦτ' ἐστί φιλοσόφημα, τὸ μηδενὶ λόγῳ πιστεύειν
ἀλλὰ μόνοις τοῖς ἐναργῶς φαινομένοις. ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν σωφρονοῦσιν·
Ἀσκληπιάδης δὲ παραπαίει ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἡμᾶς ἀπιστεῖν κελεύων, ἔνθα
τὸ φαινόμενον ἀνατρέπει σαφῶς αὐτοῦ τὰς ὑποθέσεις. καίτοι μακρῷ γ' ἦν
ἄμεινον οὐχ ὁμόσε χωρεῖν τοῖς φαινομένοις ἀλλ' ἐκείνοις ἀναθέσθαι τὸ πᾶν.
Ἆρ' 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 || 44 γὰρ ἕκαστον ἕλκειν τὴν οὖσαν, οὐκ
αὐτὸ γεννᾶν τὴν οὐκ οὖσαν. εἰ γοῦν ἐθελήσαις νεανίσκῳ τινὶ τῶν ἰσχνῶν
καὶ θερμῶν ὥρᾳ θέρους μήτ' ἀργῶς βεβιωκότι μήτ' ἐν πλησμονῇ φλέγματος
ἀγωγὸν δοῦναι φάρμακον, ὀλίγιστον μὲν καὶ μετὰ βίας πολλῆς ἐκκενώσεις

τοῦ χυμοῦ, βλάψεις δ' ἐσχάτως τὸν ἄνθρωπον· ἔμπαλιν δ' εἰ χολαγωγὸν
δοίης, καὶ πάμπολυ κενώσεις καὶ βλάψεις οὐδέν.
Ἆρ' ἀπιστοῦμεν ἔτι τῷ μὴ οὐχ ἕκαστον τῶν φαρμάκων ἐπάγεσθαι τὸν
οἰκεῖον ἑαυτῷ χυμόν; ἴσως φήσουσιν οἱ ἀπ' Ἀσκληπιάδου, μᾶλλον δ' οὐκ
ἴσως, ἀλλὰ πάντως ἀπιστεῖν ἐροῦσιν, ἵνα μὴ προδῶσι τὰ φίλτατα.

XIV
Πάλιν οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐφ' 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.
Τίς οὖν ἡ ἀδολεσχία; ἡ ἔνδοξος αὕτη καὶ πολυθρύλητος λίθος ἡ τὸν
σίδηρον || 45 ἐπισπωμένη. τάχα γὰρ ἂν αὕτη ποτὲ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν
ἐπισπάσαιτο πιστεύειν εἶναί τινας ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν σωμάτων ἑλκτικάς τῶν
οἰκείων ποιοτήτων δυνάμεις.
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 κἄπειτ' εἰς τὸ μέσον
ἀποπαλλομένας οὕτως ἀλλήλαις τε περιπλέκεσθαι καὶ συνεπισπᾶσθαι τὸν
σίδηρον. τὸ μὲν οὖν τῶν ὑποθέσεων εἰς τὴν αἰτιολογίαν ἀπίθανον ἄντικρυς
δῆλον, ὅμως δ' οὖν ὁμολογεῖ τὴν ὁλκήν. καὶ οὕτω γε καὶ κατὰ τὰ σώματα
τῶν ζῴων φησὶ γίγνεσθαι τάς τ' ἀναδόσεις καὶ τὰς διακρίσεις τῶν
περιττωμάτων καὶ τὰς τῶν καθαιρόντων φαρμάκων ἐνεργείας.
Ἀσκληπιάδης δὴ τό τε τῆς ἐιρημένης αἰτίας ἀπίθανον || 46 ὑπιδόμενος καὶ
μηδεμίαν ἄλλην ἐφ' οἷς ὑπέθετο στοιχείοις ἐξευρίσκων πιθανὴν ἐπὶ τὸ μηδ'
ὅλως ἕλκεσθαι λέγειν ὑπὸ μηδενὸς μηδὲν ἀναισχυντήσας ἐτράπετο, δέον, εἰ
μήθ' οἷς Ἐπίκουρος εἶπεν ἠρέσκετο μήτ' 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 ἑαυτὴς
μορίων εἰς ἄλληλα δρώντων τε καὶ πασχόντων. εἰ γὰρ ταῦθ' ὑπέθετο,
χαλεπὸν οὐδὲν ἦν τὴν τεχνικὴν ἐκείνην φύσιν ὁμολογῆσαι δύναμεις ἔχειν
ἐπισπαστικὴν μὲν τῶν οἰκείων, ἀποκριτικὴν δὲ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων. οὐ γὰρ δι'
ἄλλο τί γ' ἦν αὐτῇ τὸ τεχνικῇ τ' εἶναι καὶ τοῦ ζῴου διασωστικῇ καὶ τῶν
νοσημάτων κριτικῇ παρὰ τὸ προσίεσθαι μὲν καὶ φυλάττειν τὸ οἰκεῖον,
ἀποκρίνειν δὲ τὸ ἀλλότριον.
Ἀλλ' Ἀσκληπιάδης κἀνταῦθα τὸ μὲν ἀκόλουθον ταῖς ἀρχαῖς αἷς ὑπέθετο
συνεῖδεν, οὐ μὴν τήν γε πρὸς τὸ φαινόμενον ἐναργῶς ᾐδέσθη μάχην, ἀλλ'
ὁμόσε || 47 χωρεῖ καὶ περὶ τούτου πᾶσιν οὐκ ἰατροῖς μόνον ἀλλ' ἤδη καὶ τοῖς
ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις οὔτε κρίσιν εἶναί τινα λέγων οὔθ' ἡμέραν κρίσιμον οὔθ'
ὅλως οὐδὲν ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τοῦ ζῴου πραγματεύσασθαι τὴν φύσιν. ἀεὶ γὰρ τὸ
μὲν ἀκόλουθον φυλάττειν βούλεται, τὸ δ' 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 οἶδ' ὅπως ἄν τις πεισθείη. καὶ γὰρ εἰ τοῦτο συγχωρήσομεν, τό γε τῷ
σιδήρῳ πάλιν ἕτερον προστεθέν τι συνάπτεσθαι τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν οὐκέτι
προσίεται.
Τί γὰρ ἐροῦμεν; ἢ δηλαδὴ τῶν ἀπορρεόντων τῆς λίθου μορίων ἔνια μὲν
προσκρούσαντα τῷ σιδήρῳ πάλιν ἀποπάλλεσθαι καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἶναι, δι' ὧν
κρεμάννυσθαι συμβαίνει τὸν σίδηρον, τὰ δ' εἰς αὐτὸν εἰσδυόμενα διὰ τῶν ||
48 κενῶν πόρων διεξέρχεσθαι τάχιστα κἄπειτα τῷ παρακειμένῳ σιδήρῳ
προσκρούοντα μήτ' ἐκεῖνον διαδῦναι δύνασθαι, καίτοι τόν γε πρῶτον
διαδύντα, παλινδρομοῦντα δ' αὖθις ἐπὶ τὸν πρότερον ἑτέρας αὖθις
ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς προτέραις ὁμοίας περιπλοκάς;
Ἐναργῶς γὰρ ἐνταῦθα τὸ ληρῶδες τῆς αἰτίας ἐλέγχεται. γραφεῖα γοῦν οἶδα
ποτε σιδηρᾶ πέντε κατὰ τὸ συνεχὲς ἀλλήλοις συναφθέντα, τοῦ πρώτου μὲν
μόνου τῆς λίθου ψαύσαντος, ἐξ ἐκείνου δ' 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 δ' 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, εἶτ' ἐν
κύκλῳ ψαύοντα πάμπολλα σιδήρια κἀκείνων πάλιν ἑτέρα κἀκείνων ἄλλα
καὶ τοῦτ' ἄχρι πλείονος, ἅπαντα || 49 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 παρακέοιτ'
αὐτῷ σιδήριον, εἰς τὸν ἀέρα σκεδάννυται, μάλιστ' εἰ καὶ θερμὸς ὑπάρχοι.
Ναί, φησί, σμικρὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ χρὴ πάνυ νοεῖν, ὥστε τῶν ἐμφερομένων τῷ
ἀέρι ψηγμάτων τούτων δὴ τῶν σμικροτάτων ἐκείνων ἔνια μυριοστὸν εἶναι
μέρος. εἶτ' 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.
Εἶτα μικρὸν μικρῷ, κινούμενον κινουμένῳ περιπλακὲν οὐκ εὐθὺς
ἀποπάλλεται. καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ ἄλλ' ἄττα πάντως αὐτοῖς, τὰ μὲν ἄνωθεν, τὰ δὲ
κάτωθεν, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἔμπροσθεν, τὰ δ' ὄπισθεν, τὰ δ' ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν, τὰ δ' ἐκ
τῶν ἀριστερῶν || 50 ἐκρηγνύμενα σείει τε καὶ βράττει καὶ μένειν οὐκ ἐᾷ. καὶ
μέντοι καὶ πολλὰ χρὴ νοεῖν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕκαστον ἐκείνων τῶν σμικρῶν
σωμάτων ἔχειν ἀγκιστρώδη πέρατα. δι' ἑνὸς μὲν γὰρ ἀλλήλοις συνάπτεται,
δι' ἑτέρου δ' ἑνὸς τοῦ μὲν ὑπερκειμένου τῇ λίθῳ, τοῦ δ' ὑποκειμένου τῷ
σιδήρῳ. εἰ γὰρ ἄνω μὲν ἐξαφθείη τῆς λίθου, κάτω δὲ τῷ σιδήρῳ μὴ
συμπλακείη, πλέον οὐδέν. ὥστε τοῦ μὲν ὑπερκειμένου τὸ ἄνω μέρος
ἐκκρέμασθαι χρὴ τῆς λίθου, τοῦ δ' ὑποκειμένου τῷ κάτω πέρατι συνῆφθαι
τὸν σίδηρον. ἐπεὶ δὲ κἀκ τῶν πλαγίων ἀλλήλοις περιπλέκεται, πάντως που
κἀνταῦθα ἔχει τὰ ἄγκιστρα. καὶ μέμνησό μοι πρὸ πάντων, ὅπως ὄντα
σμικρὰ τὰς τοιαύτας καὶ τοσαύτας ἀποφύσεις ἔχει. καὶ τούτου μᾶλλον ἔτι,
πῶς, ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον σιδήριον συναφθῇ τῷ πρώτῳ καὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ τὸ
τρίτον κἀκείνῳ τὸ τέταρτον, ἅμα μὲν διεξέρχεσθαι χρὴ τοὺς πόρους ταυτὶ
τὰ σμικρὰ καὶ ληρώδη ψήγματα, ἅμα δ' ἀποπάλλεσθαι τοῦ μετ' αὐτὸ || 51
τεταγμένου, καίτοι κατὰ πᾶν ὁμοίου τὴν φύσιν ὑπάρχοντος.
Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ τοιαύτη πάλιν ὑπόθεσις ἄτολμος, ἀλλ', εἰ χρὴ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν,
μακρῷ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν ἀναισχυντοτέρα, πέντε σιδηρίων ὁμοίων ἀλλήλοις
ἐφεξῆς τεταγμένων διὰ τοῦ πρώτου διαδυόμενα ῥᾳδίως τῆς λίθου τὰ μόρια

κατὰ τὸ δεύτερον ἀποπάλλεσθαι καὶ μὴ διὰ τούτου κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον
ἑτοίμως διεξέρχεσθαι. καὶ μὴν ἑκατέρως ἄτοπον. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀποπάλλεται,
πῶς εἰς τὸ τρίτον ὠκέως διεξέρχεται; εἰ δ' οὐκ ἀποπάλλεται, πῶς
κρεμάννυται τὸ δεύτερον ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου; τὴν γὰρ ἀπόπαλσιν αὐτὸς ὑπέθετο
δημιουργὸν τῆς ὁλκῆς.
Ἀλλ', ὅπερ ἔφην, εἰς ἀδολεσχίαν ἀναγκαῖον ἐμπίπτειν, ἐπειδάν τις τοιούτοις
ἀνδράσι διαλέγηται. σύντομον οὖν τινα καὶ κεφαλαιώδη λόγον εἰπὼν
ἀπαλλάττεσθαι βούλομαι. τοῖς Ἀσκληπιάδου γράμμασιν εἴ τις ἐπιμελῶς
ὁμιλήσειε, τήν τε πρὸς τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀκολουθίαν τῶν τοιούτων δογμάτων
ἀκριβῶς ἂν ἐκμάθοι καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὰ φαινόμενα μάχην. ὁ μὲν οὖν
Ἐπίκουρος τὰ φαινόμενα φυλάττειν βουλόμενος ἀσχημονεῖ || 52
φιλοτιμούμενος ἐπιδεικνύειν αὐτὰ ταῖς ἀρχαῖς ὁμολογοῦντα· ὁ δ'
Ἀσκληπιάδης τὸ μὲν ἀκόλουθον ταῖς ἀρχαῖς φυλάττει, τοῦ φαινομένου δ'
οὐδὲν αὐτῷ μέλει. ὅστις οὖν βούλεται τὴν ἀτοπίαν ἐξελέγχειν τῶν
ὑποθέσεων, εἰ μὲν πρὸς Ἀσκληπιάδην ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ γίγνοιτο, τῆς πρὸς τὸ
φαινόμενον ὑπομιμνησκέτω μάχης· εἰ δὲ πρὸς Ἐπίκουρον, τῆς πρὸς τὰς
ἀρχὰς διαφωνίας. αἱ δ' ἄλλαι σχεδὸν αἱρέσεις αἱ τῶν ὁμοίων ἀρχῶν
ἐχόμεναι τελέως ἀπέσβησαν, αὗται δ' ἔτι μόναι διαρκοῦσιν οὐκ ἀγεννῶς.
καίτοι τὰ μὲν Ἀσκληπιάδου Μηνόδοτος ὁ ἐμπειρικὸς ἀφύκτως ἐξελέγχει,
τήν τε πρὸς τὰ φαινόμενα μάχην ὑπομιμνήσκων αὐτὸν καὶ τὴν πρὸς
ἄλληλα· τὰ δ' Ἐπικούρου πάλιν ὁ Ἀσκληπιάδης ἐχόμενος ἀεὶ τῆς
ἀκολουθίας, ἧς ἐκεῖνος οὐ πάνυ τι φαίνεται φροντίζων.
Ἀλλ' οἱ νῦν ἄνθρωποι, πρὶν καὶ ταύτας ἐκμαθεῖν τὰς αἱρέσεις καὶ τὰς ἄλλας
τὰς βελτίους κἄπειτα χρόνῳ πολλῷ κρῖναί τε καὶ βασανίσαι τὸ καθ'
ἑκάστην αὐτῶν ἀληθές τε καὶ ψεῦδος, οἱ μὲν ἰατροὺς ἑαυτούς, οἱ δὲ
φιλοσόφους ὀνομάζουσι μηδὲν εἰδότες. || 53 οὐδὲν οὖν θαυμαστὸν ἐπίσης
τοῖς ἀληθέσι τὰ ψευδῆ τετιμῆσθαι. ὅτῳ γὰρ ἂν ἕκαστος πρώτῳ περιτύχῃ
διδασκάλῳ, τοιοῦτος ἐγένετο, μὴ περιμείνας μηδὲν ἔτι παρ' ἄλλου μαθεῖν.
ἔνιοι δ' αὐτῶν, εἰ καὶ πλείοσιν ἐντύχοιεν, ἀλλ' οὕτω γ' εἰσὶν ἀσύνετοί τε καὶ
βραδεῖς τὴν διάνοιαν, ὥστε καὶ γεγηρακότες οὔπω συνιᾶσιν ἀκολουθίαν
λόγου. πάλαι δὲ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐπὶ τὰς βαναύσους ἀπέλυον τέχνας. ἀλλὰ
ταῦτα μὲν ἐς ὅ τι τελευτήσει θεὸς οἶδεν.
Ἡμεῖς δ' ἐπειδή, καίτοι φεύγοντες ἀντιλέγειν τοῖς ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς ἀρχαῖς
εὐθὺς ἐσφαλμένοις, ὅμως ἠναγκάσθημεν ὑπ' αὐτῆς τῶν πραγμάτων τῆς
ἀκολουθίας εἰπεῖν τινα καὶ διαλεχθῆναι πρὸς αὐτούς, ἔτι καὶ τοῦτο

προσθήσομεν τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ὡς οὐ μόνον τὰ καθαίροντα φάρμακα
πέφυκεν ἐπισπᾶσθαι τὰς οἰκείας ποιότητας ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ τοὺς σκόλοπας
ἀνάγοντα καὶ τὰς τῶν βελῶν ἀκίδας εἰς πολὺ βάθος σαρκὸς ἐμπεπαρμένας
ἐνίοτε. καὶ μέντοι καὶ ὅσα τοὺς ἰοὺς τῶν θηρίων ἢ τοὺς ἐμπεφαρμαγμένους
τοῖς βέλεσιν ἀνέλκει, καὶ ταῦτα τὴν αὐτὴν ταῖς ἡρακλείαις λίθοις ἐπὶ||54
δείκνυται δύναμιν. ἔγωγ' οὖν οἶδά ποτε καταπεπαρμένον ἐν ποδὶ νεανίσκου
σκόλοπα τοῖς μὲν δακτύλοις ἕλκουσιν ἡμῖν βιαίως οὐκ ἀκολουθήσαντα,
φαρμάκου δ' ἐπιτεθέντος ἀλύπως τε καὶ διὰ ταχέων ἀνελθόντα. καίτοι καὶ
πρὸς τοῦτό τινες ἀντιλέγουσι φάσκοντες, ὅταν ἡ φλεγμονὴ λυθῇ τοῦ
μέρους, αὐτόματον ἐξιέναι τὸν σκόλοπα πρὸς οὐδενὸς ἀνελκόμενον. ἀλλ'
οὗτοί γε πρῶτον μὲν ἀγνοεῖν ἐοίκασιν, ὡς ἄλλα μέν ἐστι φλεγμονῆς, ἄλλα
δὲ τῶν οὕτω καταπεπαρμένων ἑλκτικὰ φάρμακα· καίτοι γ' εἴπερ
ἀφλεγμάντων γενομένων ἐξεκρίνετο τὰ παρὰ φύσιν, ὅσα φλεγμονῆς ἐστι
λυτικά, ταῦτ' εὐθὺς ἂν ἦν κἀκείνων ἑλκτικά.
Δεύτερον δ', ὃ καὶ μᾶλλον ἄν τις θαυμάσειεν, ὡς οὐ μόνον ἄλλα μὲν τοὺς
σκόλοπας, ἄλλα δὲ τοὺς ἰοὺς ἐξάγει φάρμακα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν τοὺς
ἰοὺς ἑλκόντων τὰ μὲν τὸν τῆς ἐχίδνης, τὰ δὲ τὸν τῆς τρυγόνος, τὰ δ' ἄλλου
τινὸς ἐπισπᾶται καὶ σαφῶς ἔστιν ἰδεῖν τοῖς φαρμάκοις ἐπικειμένους αὐτούς.
ἐνταῦθ' οὖν Ἐπίκουρον μὲν ἐπαινεῖν χρὴ τῆς πρὸς || 55 τὸ φαινόμενον
αἰδοῦς, μέμφεσθαι δὲ τὸν λόγον τῆς αἰτίας. ὃν γὰρ ἡμεῖς ἕλκοντες τοῖς
δακτύλοις οὐκ ἀνηγάγομεν σκόλοπα, τοῦτον ὑπὸ τῶν σμικρῶν ἐκείνων
ἀνέλκεσθαι ψηγμάτων, πῶς οὐ παντάπασιν ἄτοπον εἶναι χρὴ νομίζειν;
Ἆρ' οὖν ἤδη πεπείσμεθα τῶν ὄντων ἑκάστῳ δύναμίν τιν' ὑπάρχειν, ᾗ τὴν
οἰκείαν ἕλκει ποιότητα, τὸ μὲν μᾶλλον, τὸ δ' ἧττον;
Ἢ καὶ τὸ τῶν πυρῶν ἔτι παράδειγμα προχειρισόμεθα τῷ λόγῳ; φανήσονται
γὰρ οἶμαι καὶ τῶν γεωργῶν αὐτῶν ἀμαθέστεροι περὶ τὴν φύσιν οἱ μηδὲν
ὅλως ὑπὸ μηδενὸς ἕλκεσθαι συγχωροῦντες· ὡς ἔγωγε πρῶτον μὲν ἀκούσας
τὸ γιγνόμενον ἐθαύμασα καὶ αὐτὸς ἠβουλήθην αὐτόπτης αὐτοῦ
καταστῆναι. μετὰ ταῦτα δέ, ὡς καὶ τὰ τῆς πείρας ὡμολόγει, τὴν αἰτίαν
σκοπούμενος ἐν παμπόλλῳ χρόνῳ κατὰ πάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις οὐδεμίαν ἄλλην
εὑρεῖν οἷός τ' ἦν οὐδ' ἄχρι τοῦ πιθανοῦ προϊοῦσαν ἀλλὰ καταγελάστους τε
καὶ σαφῶς ἐξελεγχομένας τὰς ἄλλας ἁπάσας πλὴν τῆς τὴν ὁλκὴν
πρεσβευούσης.

Ἔστι δὲ τὸ γιγνόμενον τοιόνδε. κατακομίζοντες οἱ παρ' ἡμῖν γεωργοὶ τοὺς ||
56 ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν πυροὺς εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἐν ἁμάξαις τισίν, ὅταν ὑφελέσθαι
βουληθῶσιν, ὥστε μὴ φωραθῆναι, κεράμι' ἄττα πληρώσαντες ὕδατος
μέσοις αὐτοῖς ἐνιστᾶσιν. ἕλκοντες οὖν ἐκεῖνοι διὰ τοῦ κεραμίου τὸ ὑγρὸν
εἰς αὑτοὺς ὄγκον μὲν καὶ βάρος προσκτῶνται, κατάδηλοι δ' οὐ πάνυ
γίγνονται τοῖς ὁρῶσιν, εἰ μή τις προπεπυσμένος ἤδη περιεργότερον
ἐπισκοποῖτο. καίτοι γ' εἰ βουληθείης ἐν ἡλίῳ καταθεῖναι πάνυ θερμῷ ταὐτὸν
ἀγγεῖον, ἐλάχιστον παντελῶς εὑρήσεις τὸ δαπανώμενον ἐφ' ἑκάστης
ἡμέρας. οὕτως ἄρα καὶ τῆς ἡλιακῆς θερμασίας τῆς σφοδρᾶς ἰσχυροτέραν οἱ
πυροὶ δύναμιν ἔχουσιν ἕλκειν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς τὴν πλησιάζουσαν ὑγρότητα.
λῆρος οὖν ἐνταῦθα μακρὸς ἡ πρὸς τὸ λεπτομερὲς φορὰ τοῦ περιέχοντος
ἡμᾶς ἀέρος καὶ μάλισθ' ὅταν ἱκανῶς ᾖ θερμός, πολὺ μὲν ὑπάρχοντος ἢ κατὰ
τοὺς πυροὺς λεπτομερεστέρου, δεχομένου δ' οὐδὲ τὸ δέκατον μέρος τῆς εἰς
ἐκείνους μεταλαμβανομένης ὑγρότητος.

XV
Ἐπεὶ δ' ἱκανῶς ἠδολεσχήσαμεν οὐχ ἑκόντες, ἀλλ', ὡς ἡ παροιμία φησί,
μαινομένοις ἀναγκασθέντες συμ||57μανῆναι, πάλιν ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν οὔρων
ἐπανέλθωμεν διάκρισιν, ἐν ᾗ τῶν μὲν Ἀσκληπιάδου λήρων ἐπιλαθώμεθα,
μετὰ δὲ τῶν πεπεισμένων διηθεῖσθαι τὰ οὖρα διὰ τῶν νεφρῶν, τίς ὁ τρόπος
τῆς ἐνεργείας ἐστίν, ἐπισκεψώμεθα· πάντως γὰρ ἢ ἐξ αὑτῶν ἐπὶ τοὺς
νεφροὺς φέρεται τὰ οὖρα τοῦτο βέλτιον εἶναι νομίζοντα, καθάπερ ἡμεῖς,
ὁπόταν εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἀπίωμεν· ἤ, εἰ τοῦτ' ἀδύνατον, ἕτερόν τι χρὴ τῆς
φορᾶς αὐτῶν ἐξευρεῖν αἴτιον. τί δὴ τοῦτ' ἔστιν; εἰ γὰρ μὴ τοῖς νεφροῖς
δώσομέν τινα δύναμιν ἑλκτικὴν τῆς τοιαύτης ποιότητος, ὡς Ἱπποκράτης
ἐνόμιζεν, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἐξευρήσομεν. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἤτοι τούτους ἕλκειν αὐτὸ
προσῆκεν ἢ τὰς φλέβας πέμπειν, εἴπερ γε μὴ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ φέρεται, παντί που
δῆλον. ἀλλ' εἰ μὲν αἱ φλέβες περιστελλόμεναι προωθοῖεν, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο
μόνον, ἀλλὰ σὺν αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ πᾶν αἷμα τὸ περιεχόμενον ἐν ἑαυταῖς εἰς τοὺς
νεφροὺς ἐκθλίψουσιν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτ' ἀδύνατον, ὡς δείξομεν, λείπεται τοὺς
νεφροὺς ἕλκειν.
Πῶς οὖν ἀδύνατον τοῦτο; τῶν νεφρῶν ἡ θέσις ἀντιβαίνει. οὐ γὰρ δὴ οὕτω
γ' ὑπόκεινται τῇ κοίλῃ φλεβὶ || 58 καθάπερ τοῖς ἐξ ἐγκεφάλου περιττώμασιν
ἔν τε τῇ ῥινὶ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὑπερῴαν οἱ τοῖς ἠθμοῖς ὅμοιοι πόροι, ἀλλ'

ἑκατέρωθεν αὐτῇ παράκεινται. καὶ μήν, εἴπερ ὁμοίως τοῖς ἠθμοῖς ὅσον ἂν ᾖ
λεπτότερον καὶ τελέως ὀρρῶδες, τοῦτο μὲν ἑτοίμως διαπέμπουσι, τὸ δὲ
παχύτερον ἀποστέγουσιν, ἅπαν ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ἰέναι χρὴ τὸ αἷμα τὸ
περιεχόμενον ἐν τῇ κοίλῃ φλεβί, καθάπερ εἰς τοὺς τρυγητοὺς ὁ πᾶς οἶνος
ἐμβάλλεται. καὶ μέν γε καὶ τὸ τοῦ γάλακτος τοῦ τυρουμένου παράδειγμα
σαφῶς ἄν, ὃ βούλομαι λέγειν, ἐνδείξαιτο. καὶ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο πᾶν ἐμβληθὲν
εἰς τοὺς ταλάρους οὐ πᾶν διηθεῖται, ἀλλ' ὅσον μὲν ἂν ᾖ λεπτότερον τῆς
εὐρύτητος τῶν πλοκάμων, εἰς τὸ κατάντες φέρεται καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ὀρρὸς
ἐπονομάζεται· τὸ λοιπὸν δὲ τὸ παχὺ τὸ μέλλον ἔσεσθαι τυρός, ὡς ἂν οὐ
παραδεχομένων αὐτὸ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ταλάροις πόρων, οὐ διεκπίπτει κάτω. καὶ
τοίνυν, εἴπερ οὕτω μέλλει διηθεῖσθαι τῶν νεφρῶν ὁ τοῦ αἵματος ὀρρός,
ἅπαν ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ἥκειν χρὴ τὸ αἷμα καὶ μὴ τὸ μὲν ναί, τὸ δ' οὔ. || 59

Πῶς οὖν ἔχει τὸ φαινόμενον ἐκ τῆς ἀνατομῆς;
Τὸ μὲν ἕτερον μέρος τῆς κοίλης ἄνω πρὸς τὴν καρδίαν ἀναφέρεται, τὸ
λοιπὸν δ' ἐπιβαίνει τῇ ῥάχει καθ' ὅλης αὐτῆς ἐκτεινόμενον ἄχρι τῶν
σκελῶν, ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἕτερον οὐδ' ἐγγὺς ἀφικνεῖται τῶν νεφρῶν, τὸ λοιπὸν
δὲ πλησιάζει μέν, οὐ μὴν εἰς αὐτούς γε καταφύεται. ἐχρῆν δ', εἴπερ ἔμελλεν
ὡς δι' ἠθμῶν αὐτῶν καθαρθήσεσθαι τὸ αἷμα, πᾶν ἐμπίπτειν εἰς αὐτοὺς
κἄπειτα κάτω μὲν φέρεσθαι τὸ λεπτόν, ἴσχεσθαι δ' ἄνω τὸ παχύ. νυνὶ δ' οὐχ
οὕτως ἔχει· πλάγιοι γὰρ ἑκατέρωθεν τῆς κοίλης φλεβὸς οἱ νεφροὶ κεῖνται.
οὔκουν ὡς ἠθμοὶ διηθοῦσι, πεμπούσης μὲν ἐκείνης, αὐτοὶ δ' οὐδεμίαν
ἐισφερόμενοι δύναμιν, ἀλλ' ἕλκουσι δηλονότι· τοῦτο γὰρ ἔτι λείπεται.
Πῶς οὖν ἕλκουσιν; εἰ μέν, ὡς Ἐπίκουρος οἴεται τὰς ὁλκὰς ἁπάσας
γίγνεσθαι κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἀτόμων ἀποπάλσεις τε καὶ περιπλοκάς, ἄμεινον ἦν
ὄντως εἰπεῖν αὐτοὺς μηδ' ἕλκειν ὅλως· πολὺ γὰρ ἂν οὕτω γε τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς
ἡρακλείας λίθου μικρῷ πρόσθεν εἰρη||60μένων ὁ λόγος ἐξεταζόμενος
εὑρεθείη γελοιότερος· ἀλλ' ὡς Ἱπποκράτης ἠβούλετο. λεχθήσεται δὲ
σαφέστερον ἐπὶ προήκοντι τῷ λόγῳ. νυνὶ γὰρ οὐ τοῦτο πρόκειται
διδάσκειν, ἀλλ' ὡς οὔτ' ἄλλο τι δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν αἴτιον εἶναι τῆς τῶν οὔρων
διακρίσεως πλὴν τῆς ὁλκῆς τῶν νεφρῶν οὔθ' οὕτω γίγνεσθαι τὴν ὁλκήν, ὡς
οἱ μηδεμίαν οἰκείαν διδόντες τῇ φύσει δύναμιν οἴονται γίγνεσθαι.
Τούτου γὰρ ὁμολογηθέντος, ὡς ἔστιν ὅλως τις ἐν τοῖς ὑπὸ φύσεως
διοικουμένοις δύναμις ἑλκτική, ληρώδης νομίζοιτ' ἂν ὁ περὶ ἀναδόσεως
τροφῆς ἄλλο τι λέγειν ἐπιχειρῶν.

XVI
Ἐρασίστρατος δ' οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως ἑτέραις μέν τισι δόξαις εὐήθεσιν ἀντεῖπε διὰ
μακρῶν, ὑπερέβη δὲ τελέως τὴν Ἱπποκράτους, οὐδ' ἄχρι τοῦ μνημονεῦσαι
μόνον αὐτῆς, ὡς ἐν τοῖς περὶ καταπόσεως ἐποίησεν, ἀξιώσας. ἐν ἐκείνοις
μὲν γὰρ ἄχρι τοσούτου φαίνεται μνημονεύων, ὡς τοὔνομ' εἰπεῖν τῆς ὁλκῆς
μόνον ὥδέ πως γράφων·

“Ὁλκὴ μὲν οὖν τῆς κοιλίας οὐδεμία φαίνεται εἶναι”· περὶ δὲ τῆς || 61
ἀναδόσεως τὸν λόγον ποιούμενος οὐδ' ἄχρι συλλαβῆς μιᾶς ἐμνημόνευσε
τῆς Ἱπποκρατείου δόξης. καίτοι γ' ἐπήρκεσεν ἂν ἡμῖν, εἰ καὶ τοῦτ' ἔγραψε
μόνον, ὡς Ἱπποκράτης εἰπὼν “Σάρκες ὁλκοὶ καὶ ἐκ κοιλίης καὶ ἔξωθεν”
ψεύδεται· οὔτε γὰρ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας οὔτ' ἔξωθεν ἕλκειν δύνανται. εἰ δὲ καὶ ὅτι
μήτρας αἰτιώμενος ἄρρωστον αὐχένα κακῶς εἶπεν “Οὐ γὰρ δύναται αὐτέης
ὁ στόμαχος εἰρύσαι τὴν γονήν,” ἢ εἰ καί τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο γράφειν ὁ
Ἐρασίστρατος ἠξίωσε, τότ' ἂν καὶ ἡμεῖς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπολογούμενοι
εἴπομεν·
Ὦ γενναῖε, μὴ ῥητορικῶς ἡμῶν κατάτρεχε χωρὶς ἀποδείξεως, ἀλλ' εἰπέ τινα
κατηγορίαν τοῦ δόγματος, ἵν' ἢ πεισθῶμέν σοι ὡς καλῶς ἐξέλεγχοντι τὸν
παλαιὸν λόγον ἢ μεταπείσωμεν ὡς ἀγνοοῦντα. καίτοι τί λέγω ῥητορικῶς;
μὴ γάρ, ἐπειδή τινες τῶν ῥητόρων, ἃ μάλιστ' ἀδυνατοῦσι διαλύεσθαι, ταῦτα
διαγελάσαντες οὐδ' ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἀντιλέγειν, ἤδη που τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς
ἡγώμεθ' εἶναι τὸ ῥητορικῶς· τὸ γὰρ διὰ λόγου πιθανοῦ ἐστι τὸ || 62
ῥητορικῶς, τὸ δ' ἄνευ λόγου βωμολοχικόν, οὐ ῥητορικόν. οὔκουν οὔτε
ῥητορικῶς οὔτε διαλεκτικῶς ἀντεῖπεν ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς
καταπόσεως λόγῳ. τί γάρ φησιν; “Ὁλκὴ μὲν οὖν τῆς κοιλίας οὐδεμία
φαίνεται εἶναι.” πάλιν οὖν αὐτῷ παρ' ἡμῶν ἀντιμαρτυρῶν ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος
ἀντιπαραβαλλέσθω· περιστολὴ μὲν οὖν τοῦ στομάχου οὐδεμία φαίνεται
εἶναι. καὶ πῶς οὐ φαίνεται; τάχ' ἂν ἴσως εἴποι τις τῶν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ· τὸ γὰρ ἀεὶ
τῶν ἄνωθεν αὐτοῦ μερῶν συστελλομένων διαστέλλεσθαι τὰ κάτω πῶς οὐκ
ἔστι τῆς περιστολῆς ἐνδεικτικόν; αὖθις οὖν ἡμεῖς, καὶ πῶς οὐ φαίνεται,
φήσομεν, ἡ τῆς κοιλίας ὁλκή; τὸ γὰρ ἀεὶ τῶν κάτωθεν μερῶν τοῦ στομάχου
διαστελλομένων συστέλλεσθαι τὰ ἄνω πῶς οὐκ ἔστι τῆς ὁλκῆς ἐνδεικτικόν;
εἰ δὲ σωφρονήσειέ ποτε καὶ γνοίη τὸ φαινόμενον τοῦτο μηδὲν μᾶλλον τῆς
ἑτέρας τῶν δοξῶν ὑπάρχειν ἐνδεικτικὸν ἀλλ' ἀμφοτέρων εἶναι κοινόν,
οὕτως ἂν ἤδη δείξαιμεν αὐτῷ τὴν ὀρθὴν ὁδὸν τῆς τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἑυρέσεως.

Ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῆς κοιλίας αὖθις. ἡ δὲ τῆς τροφῆς ἀνάδοσις οὐδὲν δεῖται ||
63 τῆς πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίας ἅπαξ γε τῆς ἑλκτικῆς δυνάμεως ἐπὶ
τῶν νεφρῶν ὡμολογημένης, ἣν καίτοι πάνυ σαφῶς ἀληθῆ γιγνώσκων
ὑπάρχειν ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος οὔτ' ἐμνημόνευσεν οὔτ' ἀντεῖπεν οὔθ' ὅλως
ἀπεφήνατο, τίν' ἔχει δόξαν ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν οὔρων διακρίσεως.
Ἢ διὰ τί προειπὼν εὐθὺς κατ' ἀρχὰς τῶν καθ' ὅλου λόγων, ὡς ὑπὲρ τῶν
φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἐρεῖ, πρῶτον τίνες τ' εἰσὶ καὶ πῶς γίγνονται καὶ διὰ
τίνων τόπων, ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν οὔρων διακρίσεως, ὅτι μὲν διὰ νεφρῶν,
ἀπεφήνατο, τὸ δ' ὅπως γίγνεται παρέλιπε; μάτην οὖν ἡμᾶς καὶ περὶ τῆς
πέψεως ἐδίδαξεν, ὅπως γίγνεται, καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ χολώδους περιττώματος
διακρίσεως κατατρίβει. ἤρκει γὰρ εἰπεῖν κἀνταῦθα τὰ μόρια, δι' ὧν γίγνεται,
τὸ δ' ὅπως παραλιπεῖν. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν ἐκείνων εἶχε λέγειν, οὐ μόνον δι' ὧν
ὀργάνων ἀλλὰ καὶ καθ' ὅντινα γίγνεται τρόπον, ὥσπερ οἶμαι καὶ περὶ τῆς
ἀναδόσεως· οὐ γὰρ ἤρκεσεν εἰπεῖν αὐτῷ μόνον, ὅτι διὰ φλεβῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ
πῶς ἐπεξῆλθεν, ὅτι τῇ πρὸς || 64 τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίᾳ· περὶ δὲ τῶν
οὔρων τῆς διακρίσεως, ὅτι μὲν διὰ νεφρῶν γίγνεται, γράφει, τὸ δ' ὅπως
οὐκέτι προστίθησιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ οἶμαι τῇ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίᾳ ἦν
εἰπεῖν· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν οὐδεὶς ὑπ' ἰσχουρίας ἀπέθανεν οὐδέποτε μὴ δυναμένου
πλείονος ἐπιρρυῆναί ποτε παρὰ τὸ κενούμενον· ἄλλης γὰρ αἰτίας μηδεμιᾶς
προστεθείσης, ἀλλὰ μόνης τῆς πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίας
ποδηγούσης τὸ συνεχές, οὐκ ἐγχωρεῖ πλέον ἐπιρρυῆναί ποτε τοῦ
κενουμένου. ἀλλ' οὐδ' ἄλλην τινὰ προσθεῖναι πιθανὴν αἰτίαν εἶχεν, ὡς ἐπὶ
τῆς ἀναδόσεως τὴν ἔκθλιψιν τῆς γαστρός. ἀλλ' αὕτη γ' ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν
κοίλην αἵματος ἀπωλώλει τελέως, οὐ τῷ μήκει μόνον τῆς ἀποστάσεως
ἐκλυθεῖσα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ τὴν καρδίαν ὑπερκειμένην ἐξαρπάζειν αὐτῆς
σφοδρῶς καθ' ἑκάστην διαστολὴν οὐκ ὀλίγον αἷμα.
Μόνη δή τις ἔτι καὶ πάντων ἔρημος ἀπελείπετο τῶν σοφισμάτων ἐν τοῖς
κάτω τῆς κοίλης ἡ πρὸς ||65 τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθία, διά τε τοὺς ἐπὶ ταῖς
ἰσχουρίαις ἀποθνήσκοντας ἀπολωλεκυῖα τὴν πιθανότητα καὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν
νεφρῶν θέσιν οὐδὲν ἧττον, εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἅπαν ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ἐφέρετο τὸ αἷμα,
δεόντως ἄν τις ἅπαν ἔφασκεν αὐτὸ καθαίρεσθαι. νυνὶ δέ, οὐ γὰρ ὅλον ἀλλὰ
τοσοῦτον αὐτοῦ μέρος, ὅσον αἱ μέχρι νεφρῶν δέχονται φλέβες, ἐπ' αὐτοὺς
ἔρχεται, μόνον ἐκεῖνο καθαρθήσεται. καὶ τὸ μὲν ὀρρῶδες αὐτοῦ καὶ λεπτὸν
οἷον δι' ἠθμῶν τινων τῶν νεφρῶν διαδύσεται· τὸ δ' αἱματῶδές τε καὶ παχὺ
κατὰ τὰς φλέβας ὑπομένον ἐμποδὼν στήσεται τῷ κατόπιν ἐπιρρέοντι.

παλινδρομεῖν οὖν αὐτὸ πρότερον ἐπὶ τὴν κοίλην ἀναγκαῖον καὶ κενὰς οὕτως
ἐργάζεσθαι τὰς ἐπὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς ἰούσας φλέβας, αἳ δεύτερον οὐκέτι
παρακομιοῦσιν ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ἀκάθαρτον αἷμα· κατειληφότος γὰρ αὐτὰς τοῦ
προτέρου πάροδος οὐδεμία λέλειπται. τίς οὖν ἡμῖν ἡ δύναμις ἀπάξει πάλιν
ὀπίσω τῶν νεφρῶν τὸ καθαρὸν αἷμα; τίς δὲ τοῦτο μὲν διαδεξαμένη κελεύσει
πάλιν πρὸς τὸ κάτω μέρος ἰέναι τῆς κοίλης, ἑτέρῳ δ' ἄνωθεν ἐπιφερομένῳ
προστάξει, πρὶν || 66 ἐπὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς ἀπελθεῖν, μὴ φέρεσθαι κάτω;

Ταῦτ' οὖν ἅπαντα συνιδὼν ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ἀποριῶν μεστὰ καὶ μίαν μόνην
δόξαν εὔπορον εὑρὼν ἐν ἅπασι τὴν τῆς ὁλκῆς, οὔτ' ἀπορεῖσθαι βουλόμενος
οὔτε τὴν Ἱπποκράτους ἐθέλων λέγειν ἄμεινον ὑπέλαβε σιωπητέον εἶναι περὶ
τοῦ τρόπου τῆς διακρίσεως.
Ἀλλ' εἰ κἀκεῖνος ἐσίγησεν, ἡμεῖς οὐ σιωπήσομεν· ἴσμεν γάρ, ὡς οὐκ
ἐνδέχεται παρελθόντα τὴν Ἱπποκράτειον δόξαν, εἶθ' ἕτερόν τι περὶ νεφρῶν
ἐνεργείας εἰπόντα μὴ οὐ καταγέλαστον εἶναι παντάπασι. διὰ τοῦτ'
Ἐρασίστρατος μὲν ἐσιώπησεν, Ἀσκληπιάδης δ' ἐψεύσατο παραπλησίως
οἰκέταις λάλοις μὲν τὰ πρόσθεν τοῦ βίου καὶ πολλὰ πολλάκις ἐγκλήματα
διαλυσαμένοις ὑπὸ περιττῆς πανουργίας, ἐπ' αὐτοφώρῳ δέ ποτε
κατειλημμένοις, εἶτ' οὐδὲν ἐξευρίσκουσι σόφισμα κἄπειτ' ἐνταῦθα τοῦ μὲν
αἰδημονεστέρου σιωπῶντος, οἷον ἀποπληξίᾳ τινὶ κατειλημμένου, τοῦ δ'
ἀναισχυντοτέρου κρύπτοντος μὲν ἔθ' ὑπὸ μάλης τὸ ζητούμενον,
ἐξομνυμένου δὲ καὶ μηδ' ἑωρακέναι πώποτε φάσκοντος. οὕτω γάρ τοι καὶ ὁ
Ἀσκληπιάδης || 67 ἐπιλειπόντων αὐτὸν τῶν τῆς πανουργίας σοφισμάτων καὶ
μήτε τῆς πρὸς τὸ λεπτομερὲς φορᾶς ἐχούσης ἔτι χώραν ἐνταυθοῖ ληρεῖσθαι
μήθ' ὡς ὑπὸ τῶν νεφρῶν γεννᾶται τουτὶ τὸ περίττωμα, καθάπερ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν
ἥπατι πόρων ἡ χολή, δυνατὸν ὂν εἰπόντα μὴ οὐ μέγιστον ὀφλεῖν γέλωτα,
ἐξόμνυταί τε καὶ ψεύδεται φανερῶς, οὐ διήκειν λέγων ἐπὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς τὸ
οὖρον ἀλλ' ἀτμοειδῶς εὐθὺς ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὴν κοίλην μερῶν εἰς τὴν κύστιν
ἀθροίζεσθαι.
Οὗτοι μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἐπ' αὐτοφώρῳ κατειλημμένοις οἰκέταις ὁμοίως
ἐκπλαγέντες ὁ μὲν ἐσιώπησεν, ὁ δ' ἀναισχύντως ψεύδεται.

XVII

Τῶν δὲ νεωτέρων ὅσοι τοῖς τούτων ὀνόμασιν ἑαυτοὺς ἐσέμνυναν
Ἐρασιστρατείους τε καὶ Ἀσκληπιαδείους ἐπονομάσαντες, ὁμοίως τοῖς ὑπὸ
τοῦ βελτίστου Μενάνδρου κατὰ τὰς κωμῳδίας εἰσαγομένοις οἰκέταις, Δάοις
τέ τισι καὶ Γέταις, οὐδὲν ἡγουμένοις σφίσι πεπρᾶχθαι γενναῖον, εἰ μὴ τρὶς
ἐξαπατήσειαν τὸν δεσπότην, οὕτω καὶ αὐτοὶ κατὰ πολλὴν σχολὴν
ἀναίσχυντα σοφίσματα συνέθεσαν, οἱ μέν, ἵνα μηδ' ὅλως ἐξελεγχθείη ποτ' ||
68 Ἀσκληπιάδης ψευδόμενος, οἱ δ', ἵνα κακῶς εἴπωσιν, ἃ καλῶς ἐσιώπησεν
Ἐρασίστρατος.
Ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν Ἀσκληπιαδείων ἅλις. οἱ δ' Ἐρασιστράτειοι λέγειν
ἐπιχειροῦντες, ὅπως οἱ νεφροὶ διηθοῦσι τὸ οὖρον, ἅπαντα δρῶσί τε καὶ
πάσχουσι καὶ παντοῖοι γίγνονται πιθανὸν ἐξευρεῖν τι ζητοῦντες αἴτιον
ὁλκῆς μὴ δεόμενον.
Οἱ μὲν δὴ πλησίον Ἐρασιστράτου τοῖς χρόνοις γενόμενοι τὰ μὲν ἄνω τῶν
νεφρῶν μόρια καθαρὸν αἷμα λαμβάνειν φασί, τῷ δὲ βάρος ἔχειν τὸ
ὑδατῶδες περίττωμα βρίθειν τε καὶ ὑπορρεῖν κάτω· διηθούμενον δ' ἐνταῦθα
κατὰ τοὺς νεφροὺς αὐτοὺς χρηστὸν οὕτω γενόμενον ἅπασι τοῖς κάτω τῶν
νεφρῶν ἐπιπέμπεσθαι τὸ αἷμα.
Καὶ μέχρι γέ τινος εὐδοκίμησεν ἥδε ἡ δόξα καὶ ἤκμασε καὶ ἀληθὴς
ἐνομίσθη· χρόνῳ δ' ὕστερον καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς Ἐρασιστρατείοις ὕποπτος
ἐφάνη καὶ τελευτῶντες ἀπέστησαν αὐτῆς. αἰτεῖσθαι γὰρ ἐδόκουν δύο ταῦτα
μήτε συγχωρούμενα πρός τινος ἀλλ' οὐδ' ἀποδειχθῆναι δυνάμενα, πρῶτον
μὲν τὸ βάρος τῆς ὀρρώδους ὑγρότητος ἐν τῇ κοίλῃ ||69 φλεβὶ γεννώμενον,
ὥσπερ οὐκ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπάρχον, ὁπότ' ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας εἰς ἧπαρ ἀνεφέρετο. τί
δὴ οὖν οὐκ εὐθὺς ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς χωρίοις ὑπέρρει κάτω; πῶς δ' ἄν τῳ
δόξειεν εὐλόγως εἰρῆσθαι συντελεῖν εἰς τὴν ἀνάδοσιν ἡ ὑδατώδης ὑγρότης,
εἴπερ οὕτως ἐστὶ βαρεῖα;
Δεύτερον δ' ἄτοπον, ὅτι κἂν κάτω συγχωρηθῇ φέρεσθαι πᾶσα καὶ μὴ κατ'
ἄλλο χωρίον ἢ τὴν κοίλην φλέβα, τίνα τρόπον εἰς τοὺς νεφροὺς ἐμπεσεῖται,
χαλεπόν, μᾶλλον δ' ἀδύνατον εἰπεῖν, μήτ' ἐν τοῖς κάτω μέρεσι κειμένων
αὐτῶν τῆς φλεβὸς ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν πλαγίων μήτ' ἐμφυομένης εἰς αὐτοὺς τῆς
κοίλης ἀλλ' ἀπόφυσίν τινα μόνον εἰς ἑκάτερον πεμπούσης, ὥσπερ καὶ εἰς
τἆλλα πάντα μόρια.

Τίς οὖν ἡ διαδεξαμένη ταύτην δόξα καταγνωσθεῖσαν; ἐμοὶ μὲν ἠλιθιωτέρα
μακρῷ φαίνεται τῆς προτέρας. ἤκμασε δ' οὖν καὶ αὕτη ποτέ. φασὶ γάρ, εἰ
κατὰ τῆς γῆς ἐκχυθείη μεμιγμένον ἔλαιον ὕδατι, διάφορον ἑκάτερον ὁδὸν
βαδιεῖσθαι καὶ ῥυήσεσθαι τὸ μὲν τῇδε, τὸ δὲ τῇδε. θαυμαστὸν οὖν οὐδὲν
εἶναί φασιν, εἰ τὸ μὲν ὑδατῶδες ὑγρὸν εἰς τοὺς νε||70φροὺς ῥεῖ, τὸ δ' αἷμα
διὰ τῆς κοίλης φέρεται κάτω. κατέγνωσται οὖν ἤδη καὶ ἥδε ἡ δόξα. διὰ τί
γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς κοίλης μυρίων ἐκπεφυκυιῶν φλεβῶν αἷμα μὲν εἰς τὰς ἄλλας
ἁπάσας, ἡ δ' ὀρρώδης ὑγρότης εἰς τὰς ἐπὶ τοὺς νεφροὺς φερομένας
ἐκτρέπεται; τοῦτ' αὐτὸ τὸ ζητούμενον οὐκ εἰρήκασιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ γιγνόμενον
εἰπόντες μόνον οἴονται τὴν αἰτίαν ἀποδεδωκέναι.
Πάλιν οὖν, τὸ τρίτον τῷ σωτῆρι, τὴν χειρίστην ἁπασῶν δόξαν ἐξευρημένην
νῦν ὑπὸ Λύκου τοῦ Μακεδόνος, εὐδοκιμοῦσαν δὲ διὰ τὸ καινὸν ἤδη
λέγωμεν. ἀπεφήνατο γὰρ δὴ ὁ Λύκος οὗτος, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀδύτου τινὸς
χρησμὸν ἀποφθεγγόμενος, περίττωμα τῆς τῶν νεφρῶν θρέψεως εἶναι τὸ
οὖρον. ὅτι μὲν οὖν αὐτὸ τὸ πινόμενον ἅπαν οὖρον γίγνεται, πλὴν εἴ τι μετὰ
τῶν διαχωρημάτων ὑπῆλθεν ἢ εἰς ἱδρῶτας ἀπεχώρησεν ἢ εἰς τὴν ἄδηλον
διαπνοήν, ἐναργῶς ἐνδείκνυται τὸ πλῆθος τῶν καθ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν
οὐρουμένων. ἐν χειμῶνι δὲ μάλιστα μαθεῖν ἔστιν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀργούντων μέν,
κωθωνιζομένων δέ, καὶ μάλιστ' εἰ λεπτὸς ὁ οἶνος εἴη καὶ πόριμος. οὐροῦσι ||
71 γὰρ οὗτοι διὰ ταχέων ὀλίγου δεῖν, ὅσονπερ καὶ πίνουσιν. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ὁ
Ἐρασίστρατος οὕτως ἐγίγνωσκεν, οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀνεγνωκότες αὐτοῦ
σύγγραμμα τῶν καθόλου λόγων ἐπίστανται. ὥσθ' ὁ Λύκος οὔτ' ἀληθῆ
φαίνεται λέγων οὔτ' Ἐρασιστράτεια, δῆλον δ' ὡς οὐδ' Ἀσκληπιάδεια, πολὺ
δὲ μᾶλλον οὐδ' Ἱπποκράτεια. λευκῷ τοίνυν κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν ἔοικε
κόρακι μήτ' αὐτοῖς τοῖς κόραξιν ἀναμιχθῆναι δυναμένῳ διὰ τὴν χρόαν μήτε
ταῖς περιστεραῖς διὰ τὸ μέγεθος, ἀλλ' οὔτι που τούτου γ' ἕνεκα παροπτέος·
ἴσως γάρ τι λέγει θαυμαστόν, ὃ μηδεὶς τῶν ἔμπροσθεν ἔγνω.
Τὸ μὲν οὖν ἅπαντα τὰ τρεφόμενα μόρια ποιεῖν τι περίττωμα
συγχωρούμενον, τὸ δὲ τοὺς νεφροὺς μόνους, οὕτω σμικρὰ σώματα, χόας
ὅλους τέτταρας ἢ καὶ πλείους ἴσχειν ἐνίοτε περιττώματος οὔθ'
ὁμολογούμενον οὔτε λόγον ἔχον· τὸ γὰρ ἑκάστου τῶν μειζόνων σπλάγχνων
περίττωμα πλεῖον ἀναγκαῖον ὑπάρχειν. οἷον αὐτίκα τὸ τοῦ πνεύμονος, εἴπερ
ἀνάλογον τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ σπλάγχνου γίγνοιτο, πολλαπλα||72σιον ἔσται
δήπου τοῦ κατὰ τοὺς νεφρούς, ὥσθ' ὅλος μὲν ὁ θώραξ ἐμπλησθήσεται,
πνιγήσεται δ' αὐτίκα τὸ ζῷον. ἀλλ' εἰ ἴσον φήσει τις γίγνεσθαι τὸ καθ'

ἕκαστον τῶν ἄλλων μορίων περίττωμα, διὰ ποίων κύστεων ἐκκρίνεται; εἰ
γὰρ οἱ νεφροὶ τοῖς κωθωνιζομένοις τρεῖς ἢ τέτταρας ἐνίοτε χόας ποιοῦσι
περιττώματος, ἑκάστου τῶν ἄλλων σπλάγχνων πολλῷ πλείους ἔσονται καὶ
πίθου τινὸς οὕτω μεγίστου δεήσει τοῦ δεξομένου τὰ πάντων περιττώματα.
καίτοι πολλάκις, ὅσον ἔπιέ τις, ὀλίγου δεῖν οὔρησεν ἅπαν, ὡς ἂν ἐπὶ τοὺς
νεφροὺς φερομένου τοῦ πόματος ἅπαντος.
Ἔοικεν οὖν ὁ τὸ τρίτον ἐξαπατῶν οὗτος οὐδὲν ἀνύειν ἀλλ' εὐθὺς γεγονέναι
κατάφωρος καὶ μένειν ἔτι τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄπορον Ἐρασιστράτῳ τε καὶ τοῖς
ἄλλοις ἅπασι πλὴν Ἱπποκράτους. διατρίβω δ' ἑκὼν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ σαφῶς
εἰδώς, ὅτι μηδὲν εἰπεῖν ἔχει μηδεὶς ἄλλος περὶ τῆς τῶν νεφρῶν ἐνεργείας,
ἀλλ' ἀναγκαῖον ἢ τῶν μαγείρων ἀμαθεστέρους φαίνεσθαι μηδ' ὅτι διηθεῖται
δι' αὐτῶν τὸ οὖρον ὁμολογοῦντας ἢ || 73 τοῦτο συγχωρήσαντας μηδὲν ἔτ'
ἔχειν εἰπεῖν ἕτερον αἴτιον τῆς διακρίσεως πλὴν τῆς ὁλκης.
Ἀλλ' εἰ μὴ τῶν οὔρων ἡ φορὰ τῇ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίᾳ γίγνεται,
δῆλον, ὡς οὐδ' ἡ τοῦ αἵματος οὐδ' ἡ τῆς χολῆς ἢ εἴπερ ἐκείνων καὶ τούτου·
πάντα γὰρ ὡσαύτως ἀναγκαῖον ἐπιτελεῖσθαι καὶ κατ' αὐτὸν τὸν
Ἐρασίστρατον.
Εἰρήσεται δ' ἐπὶ πλέον ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα γράμματι.

Β

I
74 Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν οὐκ Ἐρασιστράτῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς
ἄλλοις ἅπασιν, ὅσοι μέλλουσι περὶ διακρίσεως οὔρων ἐρεῖν τι χρηστόν,
ὁμολογῆσαι δύναμίν τιν' ὑπάρχειν τοῖς νεφροῖς ἕλκουσαν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς
ποιότητα τοιαύτην, οἵα ἐν τοῖς οὔροις ἐστί, διὰ τοῦ πρόσθεν ἐπιδέδεικται
γράμματος, ἀναμιμνησκόντων ἅμ' αὐτῷ καὶ τοῦθ' ἡμῶν, ὡς οὐκ ἄλλως μὲν
εἰς τὴν κύστιν φέρεται τὰ οὖρα διὰ τῶν νεφρῶν, ἄλλως δ' εἰς ἅπαντα τοῦ
ζῴου τὰ μόρια τὸ αἷμα, κατ' ἄλλον δέ τινα τρόπον ἡ ξανθὴ χολὴ
διακρίνεται. δειχθείσης γὰρ ἐναργῶς ἐφ' ἑνὸς || 75 οὑτινοσοῦν ὀργάνου τῆς

ἑλκτικῆς τε καὶ ἐπισπαστικῆς ὀνομαζομένης δυνάμεως οὐδὲν ἔτι χαλεπὸν
ἐπὶ τὰ λοιπὰ μεταφέρειν αὐτήν· οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῖς μὲν νεφροῖς ἡ φύσις ἔδωκέ
τινα τοιαύτην δύναμιν, οὐχὶ δέ γε καὶ τοῖς τὸ χολῶδες ὑγρὸν ἕλκουσιν
ἀγγείοις οὐδὲ τούτοις μέν, οὐκέτι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μορίων ἑκάστῳ. καὶ
μὴν εἰ τοῦτ' ἀληθές ἐστι, θαυμάζειν χρὴ τοῦ Ἐρασιστράτου ψευδεῖς οὕτω
λόγους ὑπὲρ ἀναδόσεως τροφῆς εἰπόντος, ὡς μηδ' Ἀσκληπιάδην λαθεῖν.
καίτοι γ' οἴεται παντὸς μᾶλλον ἀληθὲς ὑπάρχειν, ὡς, εἴπερ ἐκ τῶν φλεβῶν
ἀπορρέοι τι, δυοῖν θάτερον ἢ κενὸς ἔσται τόπος ἀθρόως ἢ τὸ συνεχὲς
ἐπιρρυήσεται τὴν βάσιν ἀναπληροῦν τοῦ κενουμένου. ἀλλ' ὅ γ'
Ἀσκληπιάδης οὐ δυοῖν θάτερόν φησιν, ἀλλὰ τριῶν ἕν τι χρῆναι λέγειν ἐπὶ
τοῖς κενουμένοις ἀγγείοις ἕπεσθαι ἢ κενὸν ἀθρόως τόπον ἢ τὸ συνεχὲς
ἀκολουθήσειν ἢ συσταλήσεσθαι τὸ ἀγγεῖον. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν καλάμων καὶ
τῶν αὐλίσκων τῶν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ καθιεμένων ἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, ὅτι κενουμένου
τοῦ περιεχομένου κατὰ τὴν || 76 εὐρυχωρίαν αὐτῶν ἀέρος ἢ κενὸς ἀθρόως
ἔσται τόπος ἢ ἀκολουθήσει τὸ συνεχές· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν φλεβῶν οὐκέτ' ἐγχωρεῖ,
δυναμένου δὴ τοῦ χιτῶνος αὐτῶν εἰς ἑαυτὸν συνιζάνειν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο
καταπίπτειν εἰς τὴν ἐντὸς εὐρυχωρίαν. οὕτω μὲν δὴ ψευδὴς ἡ περὶ τῆς πρὸς
τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίας οὐκ ἀπόδειξις μὰ Δί' εἴποιμ' ἂν ἀλλ' ὑπόθεσις
Ἐρασιστράτειος.
Καθ' ἕτερον δ' αὖ τρόπον, εἰ καὶ ἀληθὴς εἴη, περιττή, τῆς μὲν κοιλίας
ἐνθλίβειν ταῖς φλεψὶ δυναμένης, ὡς αὐτὸς ὑπέθετο, τῶν φλεβῶν δ' αὖ
περιστέλλεσθαι τῷ ἐνυπάρχοντι καὶ προωθεῖν αὐτό. τά τε γὰρ ἄλλα καὶ
πλῆθος οὐκ ἂν ἐν τῷ σώματι γένοιτο, τῇ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίᾳ
μόνῃ τῆς ἀναδόσεως ἐπιτελουμένης. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡ τῆς γαστρὸς ἔνθλιψις
ἐκλύεται προϊοῦσα καὶ μέχρι παντὸς ἀδύνατός ἐστιν ἐξικνεῖσθαι καὶ διὰ
τοῦτ' ἄλλης τινὸς δεῖ μηχανῆς εἰς τὴν πάντη φορὰν τοῦ αἵματος, ἀναγκαία
μὲν ἡ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθία προσεξεύρηται· πλῆθος δ' ἐν οὐδενὶ
τῶν μεθ' ἧπαρ ἔσται || 77 μορίων, ἤ, εἴπερ ἄρα, περὶ τὴν καρδίαν τε καὶ τὸν
πνεύμονα. μόνη γὰρ αὕτη τῶν μεθ' ἧπαρ εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν αὑτῆς κοιλίαν ἕλκει
τὴν τροφήν, εἶτα διὰ τῆς φλεβός τῆς ἀρτηριώδους ἐκπέμπει τῷ πνεύμονι·
τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων οὐδὲν οὐδ' αὐτὸς ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ἐκ καρδίας βούλεται
τρέφεσθαι διὰ τὴν τῶν ὑμένων ἐπίφυσιν. εἰ δέ γ', ἵνα πλῆθος γένηται,
φυλάξομεν ἄχρι παντὸς τὴν ῥώμην τῆς κατὰ τὴν κοιλίαν ἐνθλίψεως, οὐδὲν
ἔτι δεόμεθα τῆς πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίας, μάλιστ' εἰ καὶ τὴν τῶν
φλεβῶν συνυποθοίμεθα περιστολήν, ὡς αὖ καὶ τοῦτ' αὐτῷ πάλιν ἀρέσκει τῷ
Ἐρασιστράτῳ.

II
Ἀναμνηστέον οὖν αὖθις αὐτόν, κἂν μὴ βούληται, τῶν νεφρῶν καὶ λεκτέον,
ὡς ἔλεγχος οὗτοι φανερώτατος ἁπάντων τῶν ἀποχωρούντων τῆς ὁλκῆς·
οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὐδὲν οὔτ' εἶπε πιθανόν, ἀλλ' οὐδ' ἐξευρεῖν εἶχε κατ' οὐδένα
τρόπον, ὡς ἔμπροσθεν ἐδείκνυμεν, ἕτερον αἴτιον οὔρων διακρίσεως, ἀλλ'
ἀναγκαῖον ἢ μαίνεσθαι δοκεῖν, εἰ φήσαιμεν ἀτμοει||78δῶς εἰς τὴν κύστιν
ἰέναι τὸ οὖρον ἢ ἀσχημονεῖν τῆς πρὸς τὸ κενουμένον ἀκολουθίας
μνημονεύοντας, ληρώδους μὲν οὔσης κἀπὶ τοῦ αἵματος, ἀδυνάτου δὲ καὶ
ἠλιθίου παντάπασιν ἐπὶ τῶν οὔρων.
Ἓν μὲν δὴ τοῦτο σφάλμα τῶν ἀποστάντων τῆς ὁλκῆς· ἕτερον δὲ τὸ περὶ τῆς
κατὰ τὴν ξανθὴν χολὴν διακρίσεως. οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδ' ἐκεῖ παραρρέοντος τοῦ
αἵματος τὰ στόματα τῶν χοληδόχων ἀγγείων ἀκριβῶς διακριθήσεται τὸ
χολῶδες περίττωμα. καὶ μὴ διακρινέσθω, φασιν, ἄλλα συναναφερέσθω τῷ
αἵματι πάντη τοῦ σώματος. ἀλλ', ὦ σοφώτατοι, προνοητικὴν τοῦ ζώου καὶ
τεχνικὴν αὐτὸς ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ὑπέθετο τὴν φύσιν. ἄλλα καὶ τὸ χολῶδες
ὑγρόν ἄχρηστον εἶναι παντάπασι τοῖς ζώοις ἔφασκεν. οὐ συμβαίνει δ'
ἀλλήλοις ἄμφω ταῦτα. πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἔτι προνοεῖσθαι τοῦ ζώου δόξειεν
ἐπιτρέπουσα συναναφέρεσθαι τῷ αἵματι μοχθηρὸν οὕτω χυμόν;
Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν σμικρά· τὸ δὲ μέγιστον καὶ σαφέστατον πάλιν ἐνταῦθ'
ἁμάρτημα καὶ δὴ φράσω. εἴπερ γὰρ δι' οὐδὲν ἄλλ' ἢ ὅτι παχύτερον μέν ἐστι
τὸ αἷμα, λεπτοτέρα δ' ἡ || 79 ξανθὴ χολὴ καὶ τὰ μὲν τῶν φλεβῶν εὐρύτερα
στόματα, τὰ δὲ τῶν χοληδόχων ἀγγείων στενότερα, διὰ τοῦθ' ἡ μὲν χολὴ
τοῖς στενοτέροις ἀγγείοις τε καὶ στόμασιν ἐναρμόττει, τὸ δ' αἷμα τοῖς
εὐρυτέροις, δῆλον, ὡς καὶ τὸ ὑδατῶδες τοῦτο καὶ ὀρρῶδες περίττωμα
τοσούτῳ πρότερον εἰσρυήσεται τοῖς χοληδόχοις ἀγγείοις, ὅσῳ λεπτότερόν
ἐστι τῆς χολῆς. πῶς οὖν οὐκ εἰσρεῖ; ὅτι παχύτερόν ἐστι νὴ Δία τὸ οὖρον τῆς
χολῆς· τοῦτο γὰρ ἐτόλμησέ τις εἰπεῖν τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς Ἐρασιστρατείων
ἀποστὰς δηλονότι τῶν αἰσθήσεων, αἷς ἐπίστευσεν ἐπί τε τῆς χολῆς καὶ τοῦ
αἵματος. εἴτε γὰρ ὅτι μᾶλλον ἡ χολὴ τοῦ αἵματος ῥεῖ, διὰ τοῦτο λεπτοτέραν
αὐτὴν ἡμῖν ἐστι νομιστέον, εἴθ' ὅτι δι' ὀθόνης ἢ ῥάκους ἤ τινος ἠθμοῦ ῥᾷον
διεξέρχεται καὶ ταύτης τὸ ὀρρῶδες περίττωμα, κατὰ ταῦτα τὰ γνωρίσματα
παχυτέρα τῆς ὑδατώδους ὑγρότητος καὶ αὕτη γενήσεται. πάλιν γὰρ οὐδ'
ἐνταῦθα λόγος οὐδείς ἐστιν, ὃς ἀποδείξει λεπτοτέραν τὴν χολὴν τῶν
ὀρρωδῶν περιττωμάτων.

Ἀλλ' ὅταν τις ἀναισχυντῇ περιπλέκων τε καὶ μήπω καταπεπτωκέναι
συγχωρῶν, || 80 ὅμοιος ἔσται τοῖς ἰδιώταις τῶν παλαιστῶν, οἳ
καταβληθέντες ὑπὸ τῶν παλαιστρικῶν καὶ κατὰ τῆς γῆς ὕπτιοι κείμενοι
τοσούτου δέουσι τὸ πτῶμα γνωρίζειν, ὥστε καὶ κρατοῦσι τῶν αὐχένων
αὐτοὺς τοὺς καταβαλόντας οὐκ ἐῶντες ἀπαλλάττεσθαι, κἀν τούτῳ νικᾶν
ὑπολαμβάνουσι.

III
Λῆρος οὖν μακρὸς ἅπασα πόρων ὑπόθεσις εἰς φυσικὴν ἐνέργειαν. εἰ μὴ γὰρ
δύναμίς τις σύμφυτος ἑκάστῳ τῶν ὀργάνων ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς
δοθείη, διαρκεῖν οὐ δυνήσεται τὰ ζῷα, μὴ ὅτι τοσοῦτον ἀριθμὸν ἐτῶν ἀλλ'
οὐδ' ἡμερῶν ὀλιγίστων· ἀνεπιτρόπευτα γὰρ ἐάσαντες αὐτὰ καὶ τέχνης καὶ
προνοίας ἔρημα μόναις ταῖς τῶν ὑλῶν οἰακιζόμενα ῥοπαῖς, οὐδαμοῦ
δυνάμεως οὐδεμιᾶς τῆς μὲν ἑλκούσης τὸ προσῆκον ἑαυτῇ, τῆς δ'
ἀπωθούσης τὸ ἀλλότριον, τῆς δ' ἀλλοιούσης τε καὶ προσφυούσης τὸ
θρέψον, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως οὐκ ἂν εἴημεν καταγέλαστοι περί τε τῶν φυσικῶν
ἐνεργειῶν διαλεγόμενοι καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον ἔτι περὶ τῶν ψυχικῶν καὶ || 81
συμπάσης γε τῆς ζωῆς.
Οὐδὲ γὰρ ζῆν οὐδὲ διαμένειν οὐδενὶ τῶν ζῴων οὐδ' εἰς ἐλάχιστον χρόνον
ἔσται δυνατόν, εἰ τοσαῦτα κεκτημένον ἐν ἑαυτῷ μόρια καὶ οὕτω
διαφέροντα μήθ' ἑλκτικῇ τῶν οἰκείων χρήσεται δυνάμει μήτ' ἀποκριτικῇ
τῶν ἀλλοτρίων μήτ' ἀλλοιωτικῇ τῶν θρεψόντων. καὶ μὴν εἰ ταύτας ἔχοιμεν,
οὐδὲν ἔτι πόρων μικρῶν ἢ μεγάλων ἐξ ὑποθέσεως ἀναποδείκτου
λαμβανομένων εἰς οὔρου καὶ χολῆς διάκρισιν δεόμεθα καί τινος ἐπικαίρου
θέσεως, ἐν ᾧ μόνῳ σωφρονεῖν ἔοικεν ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος ἅπαντα καλῶς
τεθῆναί τε καὶ διαπλασθῆναι τὰ μόρια τοῦ σώματος ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως
οἰόμενος.
Ἀλλ' εἰ παρακολουθήσειεν ἑαυτῷ φύσιν ὀνομάζοντι τεχνικήν, εὐθὺς μὲν ἐξ
ἀρχῆς ἅπαντα καλῶς διαπλάσασάν τε καὶ διαθεῖσαν τοῦ ζῴου τὰ μόρια,
μετὰ δὲ τὴν τοιαύτην ἐνέργειαν, ὡς οὐδὲν ἔλειπεν, ἔτι προαγαγοῦσαν εἰς
φῶς αὐτὸ σύν τισι δυνάμεσιν, ὧν ἄνευ ζῆν οὐκ ἠδύνατο, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα
κατὰ βραχὺ προσαυξήσασαν ἄχρι τοῦ πρέποντος μεγέθους, οὐκ οἶδα πῶς
ὑπομένει πόρων σμικρότησιν || 82 ἢ μεγέθεσιν ἢ τισὶν ἄλλαις οὕτω

ληρώδεσιν ὑποθέσεσι φυσικὰς ἐνεργείας ἐπιτρέπειν. ἡ γὰρ διαπλάττουσα
τὰ μόρια φύσις ἐκείνη καὶ κατὰ βραχὺ προσαύξουσα πάντως δήπου δι'
ὅλων αὐτῶν ἐκτέταται· καὶ γὰρ ὅλα δι' ὅλων οὐκ ἔξωθεν μόνον αὐτὰ
διαπλάττει τε καὶ τρέφει καὶ προσαύξει. Πραξιτέλης μὲν γὰρ ἢ Φειδίας ἢ τις
ἄλλος ἀγαλματοποιὸς ἔξωθεν μόνον ἐκόσμουν τὰς ὕλας, καθὰ καὶ ψαύειν
αὐτῶν ἠδύναντο, τὸ βάθος δ' ἀκόσμητον καὶ ἀργὸν καὶ ἄτεχνον καὶ
ἀπρονόητον ἀπέλιπον, ὡς ἂν μὴ δυνάμενοι κατελθεῖν εἰς αὐτὸ καὶ
καταδῦναι καὶ θιγεῖν ἁπάντων τῆς ὕλης τῶν μερῶν. ἡ φύσις δ' οὐχ οὕτως,
ἄλλα τὸ μὲν ὀστοῦ μέρος ἅπαν ὀστοῦν ἀποτελεῖ, τὸ δὲ σαρκὸς σάρκα, τὸ δὲ
πιμελῆς πιμελὴν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐστιν ἄψαυστον αὐτῇ
μέρος οὐδ' ἀνεξέργαστον οὐδ' ἀκόσμητον. ἄλλα τὸν μὲν κηρὸν ὁ Φειδίας
οὐκ ἠδύνατο ποιεῖν ἐλέφαντα καὶ χρυσόν, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τὸν χρυσὸν κηρόν·
ἕκαστον γὰρ αὐτῶν μένον, οἷον ἦν ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἔξωθεν μόνον ἠμφιεσμένον
εἶδός τι καὶ σχῆμα τεχνικόν, ἄγαλμα τέλειον || 83 γέγονεν. ἡ φύσις δ'
οὐδεμιᾶς ἔτι φυλάττει τῶν ὑλῶν τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἰδέαν· αἷμα γὰρ ἂν ἦν οὕτως
ἅπαντα τοῦ ζῴου τὰ μόρια, τὸ παρὰ τῆς κυούσης ἐπιρρέον τῷ σπέρματι,
δίκην κηροῦ τινος ὕλη μία καὶ μονοειδὴς ὑποβεβλημένη τῷ τεχνίτῃ.
γίγνεται δ' ἐξ αὐτῆς οὐδὲν τῶν τοῦ ζῴου μορίων οὔτ' ἐρυθρὸν οὕτως οὔθ'
ὑγρόν. ὀστοῦν γὰρ καὶ ἀρτηρία καὶ φλὲψ καὶ νεῦρον καὶ χόνδρος καὶ
πιμελὴ καὶ ἀδὴν καὶ ὑμὴν καὶ μυελὸς ἄναιμα μέν, ἐξ αἵματος δὲ γέγονε.
Τίνος ἀλλοιώσαντος καὶ τίνος πήξαντος καὶ τίνος διαπλάσαντος ἐδεόμην ἄν
μοι τὸν Ἐρασίστρατον αὐτὸν ἀποκρίνασθαι. πάντως γὰρ ἂν εἶπεν ἤτοι τὴν
φύσιν ἢ τὸ σπέρμα, ταὐτὸν μὲν λέγων καθ' ἑκάτερον, διαφόροις δ' ἐπινοίαις
ἑρμηνεύων· ὃ γὰρ ἦν πρότερον σπέρμα, τοῦθ', ὅταν ἄρξηται φύειν τε καὶ
διαπλάττειν τὸ ζῷον, φύσις τις γίγνεται. καθάπερ γὰρ ὁ Φειδίας εἶχε μὲν τὰς
δυνάμεις τῆς τέχνης καὶ πρὶν ψαύειν τῆς ὕλης, ἐνήργει δ' αὐταῖς περὶ τὴν
ὕλην—ἅπασα γὰρ δύναμις ἀργεῖ ἀποροῦσα τῆς οἰκείας ὕλης—, οὕτω καὶ τὸ
σπέρμα τὰς μὲν || 84 δυνάμεις οἴκοθεν ἐκέκτητο, τὰς δ' ἐνεργείας οὐκ ἐκ τῆς
ὕλης ἔλαβεν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν ὕλην ἐπεδείξατο.
Καὶ μὴν εἰ πολλῷ μὲν ἐπικλύζοιτο τῷ αἵματι τὸ σπέρμα, διαφθείροιτ' ἄν· εἰ
δ' ὅλως ἀποροίη παντάπασιν ἀργοῦν, οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο φύσις. ἵν' οὖν μήτε
φθείρηται καὶ γίγνηται φύσις ἀντὶ σπέρματος, ὀλίγον ἐπιρρεῖν ἀναγκαῖον
αὐτῷ τοῦ αἵματος, μᾶλλον δ' οὐκ ὀλίγον λέγειν χρή, ἀλλὰ σύμμετρον τῷ
πλήθει τοῦ σπέρματος. τίς οὖν ὁ μετρῶν αὐτοῦ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς ἐπιρροῆς; τίς ὁ
κωλύων ἰέναι πλέον; τίς ὁ προτρέπων, ἵν' ἐνδεέστερον μὴ ἴῃ; τίνα

ζητήσομεν ἐνταῦθα τρίτον ἐπιστάτην τοῦ ζῴου τῆς γενέσεως, ὃς χορηγήσει
τῷ σπέρματι τὸ σύμμετρον αἷμα; τί ἂν εἶπεν Ἐρασίστρατος, εἰ ζῶν ταῦτ'
ἠρωτήθη; τὸ σπέρμα αὐτὸ δηλονότι· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ὁ τεχνίτης ὁ
ἀναλογῶν τῷ Φειδίᾳ, τὸ δ' αἷμα τῷ κηρῷ προσέοικεν.
Οὔκουν πρέπει τὸν κηρὸν αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ τὸ μέτρον ἐξευρίσκειν, ἀλλὰ τὸν
Φείδιαν. ἕλξει δὴ τοσοῦτον αἵματος ὁ τεχνίτης εἰς ἑαυτόν, ὁπόσου δεῖται.
ἀλλ' ἐν||85ταῦθα χρὴ προσέχειν ἤδη τὸν νοῦν καὶ σκοπεῖν, μή πως λάθωμεν
τῷ σπέρματι λογισμόν τινα καὶ νοῦν χαρισάμενοι· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν οὔτε
σπέρμα ποιήσαιμεν οὔτε φύσιν ἀλλ' ἤδη ζῷον αὐτό. καὶ μὴν εἰ φυλάξομεν
ἀμφότερα, τήν θ' ὁλκὴν τοῦ συμμέτρου καὶ τὸ χωρὶς λογισμοῦ, δύναμίν
τινα, καθάπερ ἡ λίθος ἑλκτικὴν εἶχε τοῦ σιδήρου, καὶ τῷ σπέρματι φήσομεν
ὑπάρχειν αἵματος ἐπισπαστικήν. ἠναγκάσθημεν οὖν πάλιν κἀνταῦθα,
καθάπερ ἤδη πολλάκις ἔμπροσθεν, ἑλκτικήν τινα δύναμιν ὁμολογῆσαι κατὰ
τὸ σπέρμα.
Τί δ' ἦν τὸ σπέρμα; ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ ζῴου δηλονότι ἡ δραστική· ἡ γὰρ ὑλικὴ τὸ
καταμήνιόν ἐστιν. εἶτ' αὐτῆς τῆς ἀρχῆς πρώτῃ ταύτῃ τῇ δυνάμει χρωμένης,
ἵνα γένηται τῶν ὑπ' αὐτῆς τι δεδημιουργημένων, ἄμοιρον εἶναι τῆς οἰκείας
δυνάμεως οὐκ ἐνδέχεται. πῶς οὖν Ἐρασίστρατος αὐτὴν οὐκ οἶδεν, εἰ δὴ
πρώτη μὲν αὕτη τοῦ σπέρματος ἐνέργεια τὸ σύμμετρον αἵματος ἐπισπᾶσθαι
πρὸς ἑαυτό; σύμμετρον δ' ἂν εἴη τὸ λεπτὸν οὕτω καὶ ἀτμῶδες, ὥστ' εὐθὺς
εἰς πᾶν μόριον ἑλκόμενον τοῦ σπέρματος δροσοειδῶς μηδαμοῦ τὴν || 86
ἑαυτοῦ παρεμφαίνειν ἰδέαν. οὕτω γὰρ αὐτοῦ καὶ κρατήσει ῥᾳδίως τὸ
σπέρμα καὶ ταχέως ἐξομοιώσει καὶ τροφὴν ἑαυτῷ ποιήσεται κἄπειτ' οἶμαι
δεύτερον ἐπισπάσεται καὶ τρίτον, ὡς ὄγκον ἑαυτῷ καὶ πλῆθος ἀξιόλογον
ἐργάσασθαι τραφέντι. καὶ μὴν ἤδη καὶ ἡ ἀλλοιωτικὴ δύναμις ἐξεύρηται
μηδ' αὐτὴ πρὸς Ἐρασιστράτου γεγραμμένη. τρίτη δ' ἂν ἡ διαπλαστικὴ
φανείη, καθ' ἣν πρῶτον μὲν οἷον ἐπίπαγόν τινα λεπτὸν ὑμένα περιτίθησιν
ἑαυτῷ τὸ σπέρμα, τὸν ὑφ' Ἱπποκράτους ἐπὶ τῆς ἑκταίας γονῆς, ἣν ἐκπεσεῖν
ἔλεγε τῆς μουσουργοῦ, τῷ τῶν ὠῶν εἰκασθέντα χιτῶνι· μετὰ δὲ τούτον ἤδη
καὶ τἆλλ', ὅσα πρὸς ἐκείνου λέγεται διὰ τοῦ περὶ φύσιος παιδίου
συγγράμματος.
Ἀλλ' εἰ τῶν διαπλασθέντων ἕκαστον οὕτω μείνειε σμικρόν, ὡς ἐξ ἀρχῆς
ἐγένετο, τί ἂν εἴη πλέον; αὐξάνεσθαι τοίνυν αὐτὰ χρή. πῶς οὖν
αὐξηθήσεται; πάντη διατεινόμενα θ' ἅμα καὶ τρεφόμενα. καί μοι τῶν

ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένων ἐπὶ τῆς κύστεως, ἣν οἱ παῖδες ἐμφυσῶντες ἔτριβον,
ἀναμνησθεὶς μαθήσῃ μᾶλλον || 87 κἀκ τῶν νῦν ῥηθησομένων.

Ἐννόησον γὰρ δὴ τὴν καρδίαν οὕτω μὲν μικρὰν εἶναι κατ' ἀρχάς, ὡς
κέγχρου μηδὲν διαφέρειν ἢ, εἰ βούλει, κυάμου, καὶ ζήτησον, ὅπως ἂν ἄλλως
αὕτη γένοιτο μεγάλη χωρὶς τοῦ πάντη διατεινομένην τρέφεσθαι δι' ὅλης
ἑαυτὴς, ὡς ὀλίγῳ πρόσθεν ἐδείκνυτο τὸ σπέρμα τρεφόμενον. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ
τοῦτ' Ἐρασίστρατος οἶδεν ὁ τὴν τέχνην τῆς φύσεως ὑμνῶν, ἀλλ' οὕτως
αὐξάνεσθαι τὰ ζῷα νομίζει καθάπερ τινὰ κρησέραν ἢ σειρὰν ἢ σάκκον ἢ
τάλαρον, ὧν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὸ πέρας ἐπιπλεκομένων ὁμοίων ἑτέρων τοῖς ἐξ
ἀρχῆς αὐτὰ συντιθεῖσιν ἡ πρόσθεσις γίγνεται.
Ἀλλὰ τοῦτό γ' οὐκ αὔξησίς ἐστιν ἀλλὰ γένεσις, ὦ σοφώτατε· γίγνεται γὰρ ὁ
θύλακος ἔτι καὶ ὁ σάκκος καὶ θοἰμάτιον καὶ ἡ οἰκία καὶ τὸ πλοῖον καὶ τῶν
ἄλλων ἕκαστον, ὅταν μηδέπω τὸ προσῆκον εἶδος, οὗ χάριν ὑπὸ τοῦ
τεχνίτου δημιουργεῖται, συμπεπληρωμένον ᾖ. πότ' οὖν αὐξάνεται; ὅταν ἤδη
τέλειος ὢν ὁ τάλαρος, ὡς ἔχειν πυθμένα τέ τινα καὶ στόμα καὶ οἷον γαστέρα
καὶ τὰ τούτων μεταξύ, μείζων ἅπασι τούτοις γένηται. καὶ πῶς || 88 ἔσται
τοῦτο; φήσει τις. πῶς δ' ἄλλως ἢ εἰ ζῷον ἐξαίφνης ἢ φυτὸν ὁ τάλαρος ἡμῖν
γένοιτο; μόνων γὰρ τῶν ζώντων ἡ αὔξησις. σὺ δ' ἴσως οἴει τὴν οἰκίαν
οἰκοδομουμένην αὐξάνεσθαι καὶ τὸν τάλαρον πλεκόμενον καὶ θοἰμάτιον
ὑφαινόμενον. ἀλλ' οὐχ ὧδ' ἔχει· τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ἤδη σύμπεπληρωμένου κατὰ
τὸ εἶδος ἡ αὔξησις, τοῦ δ' ἔτι γιγνομένου ἡ εἰς τὸ εἶδος ὁδὸς οὐκ αὔξησις
ἀλλὰ γένεσις ὀνομάζεται· αὐξάνεται μὲν γὰρ τὸ ὄν, γίγνεται δὲ τὸ οὐκ ὄν.

IV
Καὶ ταῦτ' Ἐρασίστρατος οὐκ οἶδεν, ὃν οὐδὲν λανθάνει, εἴπερ ὅλως
ἀληθεύουσιν οἱ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ φάσκοντες ὡμιληκέναι τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου
φιλοσόφοις αὐτόν. ἄχρι μὲν οὖν τοῦ τὴν φύσιν ὑμνεῖν ὡς τεχνικὴν κἀγὼ
γνωρίζω τὰ τοῦ περιπάτου δόγματα, τῶν δ' ἄλλων οὐδὲν οὐδ' ἐγγύς. εἰ γάρ
τις ὁμιλήσειε τοῖς Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ Θεοφράστου γράμμασι, τῆς
Ἱπποκράτους ἂν αὐτὰ δόξειε φυσιολογίας ὑπομνήματα συγκεῖσθαι, τὸ
θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν || 89 καὶ τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ τὸ ὑγρὸν εἰς ἄλληλα δρῶντα
καὶ πάσχοντα καὶ τούτων αὐτῶν δραστικώτατον μὲν τὸ θερμόν, δεύτερον δὲ
τῇ δυνάμει τὸ ψυχρὸν Ἱπποκράτους ταῦτα σύμπαντα πρώτου, δευτέρου δ'
Ἀριστοτέλους εἰπόντος. τρέφεσθαι δὲ δι' ὅλων αὑτῶν τὰ τρεφόμενα καὶ
κεράννυσθαι δι' ὅλων τὰ κεραννύμενα καὶ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι δι' ὅλων τὰ
ἀλλοιούμενα, καὶ ταῦθ' Ἱπποκράτειά θ' ἅμα καὶ Ἀριστοτέλεια. καὶ τὴν
πέψιν ἀλλοίωσίν τιν' ὑπάρχειν καὶ μεταβολὴν τοῦ τρέφοντος εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν
τοῦ τρεφομένου ποιότητα, τὴν δ' ἐξαιμάτωσιν ἀλλοίωσιν εἶναι καὶ τὴν
θρέψιν ὡσαύτως καὶ τὴν αὔξησιν ἐκ τῆς πάντη διατάσεως καὶ θρέψεως
γίγνεσθαι, τὴν δ' ἀλλοίωσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ θερμοῦ μάλιστα συντελεῖσθαι καὶ διὰ
τοῦτο καὶ τὴν πέψιν καὶ τὴν θρέψιν καὶ τὴν τῶν χυμῶν ἁπάντων γένεσιν,
ἤδη δὲ καὶ τοῖς περιττώμασι τὰς ποιότητας ὑπὸ τῆς ἐμφύτου θερμασίας
ἐγγίγνεσθαί, ταῦτα σύμπαντα καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἑτέρα πολλὰ τὰ τε τῶν
προειρημένων δυνάμεων καὶ τὰ || 90 τῶν νοσημάτων τῆς γενέσεως καὶ τὰ
τῶν ἰαμάτων τῆς εὑρέσεως Ἱπποκράτης μὲν πρῶτος ἁπάντων ὧν ἴσμεν
ὀρθῶς εἶπεν, Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ δεύτερος ὀρθῶς ἐξηγήσατο. καὶ μὴν εἰ ταῦτα
σύμπαντα τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου δοκεῖ, καθάπερ οὖν δοκεῖ, μηδὲν δ' αὐτῶν
ἀρέσκει τῷ Ἐρασιστράτῳ, τί ποτε βούλεται τοῖς Ἐρασιστρατείοις ἡ πρὸς
τοὺς φιλοσόφους ἐκείνους τοῦ τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν ἡγεμόνος ὁμιλία;
θαυμάζουσι μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν ὡς θεὸν καὶ πάντ' ἀληθεύειν νομίζουσιν. εἰ δ'
οὕτως ἔχει ταῦτα, πάμπολυ δήπου τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσφάλθαι χρὴ νομίζειν τοὺς
ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου φιλοσόφους, οἷς μηδὲν ὧν Ἐρασίστρατος ὑπελάμβανεν
ἀρέσκει. καὶ μὴν ὥσπερ τιν' εὐγένειαν αὐτῷ τῆς φυσιολογίας τὴν πρὸς τοὺς
ἄνδρας ἐκείνους συνουσίαν ἐκπορίζουσι.
Πάλιν οὖν ἀναστρέψωμεν τὸν λόγον ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς ὀλίγῳ πρόσθεν ἐτύχομεν
εἰπόντες. εἴπερ γὰρ οἱ ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου καλῶς ἐφυσιολόγησαν, οὐδὲν ἂν

εἴη ληρωδέστερον Ἐρασιστράτου καὶ δίδωμι τοῖς Ἐρασιστρατείοις αὐτοῖς
τὴν αἵρεσιν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν πρότερον λόγον ἢ τοῦτον || 91 προσήσονται. λέγει δ'
ὁ μὲν πρότερος οὐδὲν ὀρθῶς ἐγνωκέναι περὶ φύσεως τοὺς περιπατητικούς,
ὁ δὲ δεύτερος Ἐρασίστρατον. ἐμὸν μὲν οὖν ὑπομνῆσαι τῶν δογμάτων τὴν
μάχην, ἐκείνων δ' ἡ αἵρεσις.
Ἀλλ' οὐκ ἂν ἀποσταῖεν τοῦ θαυμάζειν Ἐρασίστρατον· οὐκοῦν σιωπάτωσαν
περὶ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου φιλοσόφων. παμπόλλων γὰρ ὄντων δογμάτων
φυσικῶν περί τε γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν τῶν ζῴων καὶ ὑγίειαν καὶ νόσους καὶ
τὰς θεραπείας αὐτῶν ἓν μόνον εὑρεθήσεται ταὐτὸν Ἐρασιστράτῳ κἀκείνοις
τοῖς ἀνδράσι, τό τινος ἕνεκα πάντα ποιεῖν τὴν φύσιν καὶ μάτην μηδέν.
Ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο μέχρι λόγου κοινόν, ἔργῳ δὲ μυριάκις Ἐρασίστρατος
αὐτὸ διαφθείρει· μάτην μὲν γὰρ ὁ σπλὴν ἐγένετο, μάτην δὲ τὸ ἐπίπλοον,
μάτην δ' αἱ εἰς τοὺς νεφροὺς ἀρτηρίαι καταφυόμεναι, σχεδὸν ἁπασῶν τῶν
ἀπὸ τῆς μεγάλης ἀρτηρίας ἀποβλαστανουσῶν οὖσαι μέγισται, μάτην δ'
ἄλλα μυρία κατά γε τὸν Ἐρασιστράτειον λόγον· ἅπερ εἰ μὲν οὐδ' ὅλως
γιγνώσκει, βραχεῖ μαγείρου σοφώτερός ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς ἀνατομαῖς, εἰ δ' εἰδὼς
οὐ λέγει τὴν χρείαν αὐτῶν, οἴεται || 92 δηλονότι παραπλησίως τῷ σπληνὶ
μάτην αὐτὰ γεγονέναι. καίτοι τί ταῦτ' ἐπεξέρχομαι τῆς περὶ χρείας μορίων
πραγματείας ὄντα μελλούσης ἡμῖν ἰδίᾳ περαίνεσθαι;
Πάλιν οὖν ἀναλάβωμεν τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον εἰπόντες τέ τι βραχὺ πρὸς τοὺς
Ἐρασιστρατείους ἔτι τῶν ἐφεξῆς ἐχώμεθα. δοκοῦσι γάρ μοι μηδὲν
ἀνεγνωκέναι τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους οὗτοι συγγραμμάτων, ἀλλ' ἄλλων
ἀκούοντες, ὡς δεινὸς ἦν περὶ φύσιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὡς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς
κατ' ἴχνη τῆς ἐκείνου φυσιολογίας βαδίζουσιν, εἶθ' εὑρόντες ἕν τι τῶν
περιφερομένων δογμάτων κοινὸν αὐτῷ πρὸς Ἐρασίστρατον ἀναπλάσαι τινὰ
συνουσίαν αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἐκείνους τοὺς ἄνδρας. ἀλλ' ὅτι μὲν τῆς
Ἀριστοτέλους φυσιολογίας οὐδὲν Ἐρασιστράτῳ μέτεστιν, ὁ κατάλογος τῶν
προειρημένων ἐνδείκνυται δογμάτων, ἃ πρώτου μὲν Ἱπποκράτους ἦν,
δευτέρου δ' Ἀριστοτέλους, τρίτων δὲ τῶν Στωϊκῶν, ἑνὸς μόνου
μετατιθεμένου τοῦ τὰς ποιότητας εἶναι σώματα.
Τάχα δ' ἂν τῆς λογικῆς ἕνεκα θεωρίας ὡμιληκέναι φαῖεν τὸν Ἐρασίστρατον
τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου φιλοσόφοις, οὐκ εἰδότες, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι μὲν ψευ||93δεῖς
καὶ ἀπεράντους οὐκ ἔγραψαν λόγους, τὰ δ' Ἐρασιστράτεια βιβλία
παμπόλλους ἔχει τοὺς τοιούτους.

Τάχ' ἂν οὖν ἤδη τις θαυμάζοι καὶ διαποροίη, τί παθὼν ὁ Ἐρασίστρατος εἰς
τοσοῦτον τῶν Ἱπποκράτους δογμάτων ἀπετράπετο καὶ διὰ τί τῶν ἐν ἥπατι
πόρων τῶν χοληδόχων, ἅλις γὰρ ἤδη νεφρῶν, ἀφελόμενος τὴν ἑλκτικὴν
δύναμιν ἐπίκαιρον αἰτιᾶται θέσιν καὶ στομάτων στενότητα καὶ χώραν τινὰ
κοινήν, εἰς ἣν παράγουσι μὲν αἱ ἀπὸ τῶν πυλῶν τὸ ἀκάθαρτον αἷμα,
μεταλαμβάνουσι δὲ πρότεροι μὲν οἱ πόροι τὴν χολήν, δεύτεραι δ' αἱ ἀπὸ τῆς
κοίλης φλεβὸς τὸ καθαρὸν αἷμα. πρὸς γὰρ τῷ μηδὲν ἂν βλαβῆναι τὴν ὁλκὴν
εἰπὼν ἄλλων μυρίων ἔμελλεν ἀμφισβητουμένων ἀπαλλάξεσθαι λόγων.

V
Ὡς νῦν γε πόλεμος οὐ σμικρός ἐστι τοῖς Ἐρασιστρατείοις οὐ πρὸς τοὺς
ἄλλους μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους, οὐκ ἔχουσιν, ὅπως ἐξηγήσωνται
τὴν ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν καθόλου λόγων λέξιν, ἐν ᾗ φησιν· “Εἰς τὸ || 94 αὐτὸ
δ' ἀνεστομωμένων ἑτέρων δύο ἀγγείων τῶν τ' ἐπὶ τὴν χοληδόχον τεινόντων
καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ τὴν κοίλην φλέβα συμβαίνει τῆς ἀναφερομένης ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας
τροφῆς τὰ ἐναρμόζοντα ἑκατέροις τῶν στομάτων εἰς ἑκάτερα τῶν ἀγγείων
μεταλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν χοληδόχον φέρεσθαι, τὰ δ' ἐπὶ τὴν
κοίλην φλέβα περαιοῦσθαι.” τὸ γὰρ “εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ ἀνεστομωμένων,” ὃ κατ'
ἀρχὰς τῆς λέξεως γέγραπται, τί ποτε χρὴ νοῆσαι, χαλεπὸν εἰπεῖν. ἤτοι γὰρ
οὕτως εἰς ταὐτόν, ὥστε τῷ τῆς ἐν τοῖς σιμοῖς φλεβὸς πέρατι συνάπτειν δύο
ἕτερα πέρατα, τό τ' ἐν τοῖς κυρτοῖς καὶ τὸ τοῦ χοληδόχου πόρου, ἤ, εἰ μὴ
οὕτω, χώραν τινὰ κοινὴν ἐπινοῆσαι χρὴ τῶν τριῶν ἀγγείων οἷον δεξαμενήν
τινα, πληρουμένην μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς κάτω φλεβός, ἐκκενουμένην δ' εἴς τε τοὺς
χοληδόχους πόρους καὶ τὰς τῆς κοίλης ἀποσχίδας· καθ' ἑκατέραν δὲ τῶν
ἐξηγήσεων ἄτοπα πολλά, περὶ ὧν εἰ πάντων λέγοιμι, λάθοιμ' ἂν ἐμαυτὸν
ἐξηγήσεις Ἐρασιστράτου γράφων, οὐχ, ὅπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς προὐθέμην,
περαίνων. κοινὸν δ' ἀμφοτέραις ταῖς ἐξηγήσεσιν ἄτοπον τὸ μὴ || 95
καθαίρεσθαι πᾶν τὸ αἷμα. χρὴ γὰρ ὡς εἰς ἠθμόν τινα τὸ χοληδόχον ἀγγεῖον
ἐμπίπτειν αὐτό, οὐ παρέρχεσθαι καὶ παραρρεῖν ὠκέως εἰς τὸ μεῖζον στόμα
τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς ἀναδόσεως φερόμενον.
Ἆρ' οὖν ἐν τούτοις μόνον ἀπορίαις ἀφύκτοις ὁ Ἐρασιστράτου λόγος
ἐνέχεται μὴ βουληθέντος χρήσασθαι ταῖς ἑλκτικαῖς δυνάμεσιν εἰς μηδέν, ἢ
σφοδρότατα μὲν ἐν τούτοις καὶ σαφῶς οὕτως, ὡς ἂν μηδὲ παῖδα λαθεῖν;

VI
Εἰ δ' ἐπισκοποῖτό τις ἐπιμελῶς, οὐδ' ὁ περὶ θρέψεως αὐτοῦ λόγος, ὃν ἐν τῷ
δευτέρῳ τῶν καθόλου λόγων διεξέρχεται, τὰς αὐτὰς ἀπορίας ἐκφεύγει. τῇ
γὰρ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθίᾳ συγχωρηθέντος ἑνὸς λήμματος, ὡς
πρόσθεν ἐδείκνυμεν, ἐπέραινέ τι περὶ φλεβῶν μόνων καὶ τοῦ κατ' αὐτὰς
αἵματος. ἐκρέοντος γάρ τινος κατὰ τὰ στόματ' αὐτῶν καὶ διαφορουμένου
καὶ μήτ' ἀθρόως τόπου κενοῦ δυναμένου γενέσθαι μήτε τῶν φλεβῶν
συμπεσεῖν, τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν τὸ παραλειπόμενον, ἀναγκαῖον ἦν ἕπεσθαι τὸ
συνεχὲς ἀναπληροῦν τοῦ κενου||96μένου τὴν βάσιν. αἱ μὲν δὴ φλέβες ἡμῖν
οὕτω θρέψονται τοῦ περιεχομένου κατ' αὐτὰς αἵματος ἀπολαύουσαι· τὰ δὲ
νεῦρα πῶς; οὐ γὰρ δὴ κἀν τούτοις ἐστὶν αἷμα. πρόχειρον μὲν γὰρ ἦν εἰπεῖν,
ἕλκοντα παρὰ τῶν φλεβῶν· ἀλλ' οὐ βούλεται. τί ποτ' οὖν κἀνταῦθα
ἐπιτεχνᾶται; φλέβας ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ἀρτηρίας τὸ νεῦρον ὥσπερ τινὰ
σειρὰν ἐκ τριῶν ἱμάντων διαφερόντων τῇ φύσει πεπλεγμένην. ᾠήθη γὰρ ἐκ
ταύτης τῆς ὑποθέσεως ἐκφεύξεσθαι τῷ λόγῳ τὴν ὁλκήν· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἔτι
δεήσεσθαι τὸ νεῦρον ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχον αἵματος ἀγγεῖον ἐπιρρύτου τινὸς
ἔξωθεν ἐκ τῆς παρακειμένης φλεβὸς τῆς ἀληθινῆς αἵματος ἑτέρου, ἀλλ'
ἱκανὸν αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν θρέψιν ἔσεσθαι τὸ κατεψευσμένον ἀγγεῖον ἐκεῖνο τὸ
λόγῳ θεωρητόν.
Ἀλλὰ κἀνταῦθα πάλιν αὐτὸν ὁμοία τις ἀπορία διεδέξατο. τουτὶ γὰρ τὸ
σμικρὸν ἀγγεῖον ἑαυτὸ μὲν θρέψει, τὸ παρακείμενον μέντοι νεῦρον ἐκεῖνο
τὸ ἁπλοῦν ἢ τὴν ἀρτηρίαν οὐχ οἷόν τ' ἔσται τρέφειν ἄνευ τοῦ σύμφυτόν τιν'
ὑπάρχειν αὐτοῖς ὁλκὴν τῆς τροφῆς. || 97 τῇ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον
ἀκολουθίᾳ πῶς ἂν ἔτι δύναιτο τὴν τροφὴν ἐπισπᾶσθαι τὸ ἁπλοῦν νεῦρον,
ὥσπερ αἱ φλέβες αἱ σύνθετοι; κοιλότης μὲν γάρ τίς ἐστιν ἐν αὐτῷ κατ'
αὐτόν, ἀλλ' οὐχ αἵματος αὕτη γ' ἀλλὰ πνεύματος ψυχικοῦ μεστή. δεόμεθα δ'
ἡμεῖς οὐκ εἰς τὴν κοιλότητα ταύτην εἰσάγειν τῷ λόγῳ τὴν τροφὴν ἀλλ' εἰς
τὸ περιέχον αὐτὴν ἀγγεῖον, εἴτ' οὖν τρέφεσθαι μόνον εἴτε καὶ αὔξεσθαι
δέοιτο. πῶς οὖν εἰσάξομεν; οὕτω γάρ ἐστι σμικρὸν ἐκεῖνο τὸ ἁπλοῦν
ἀγγεῖον καὶ μέντοι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάτερον, ὥστ', εἰ τῇ λεπτοτάτῃ βελόνῃ
νύξειάς τι μέρος, ἅμα διαιρήσεις τὰ τρία. τόπος οὖν αἰσθητὸς ἀθρόως κενὸς
οὐκ ἂν ποτ' ἐν αὐτῷ γένοιτο· λόγῳ δὲ θεωρητὸς τόπος κενούμενος οὐκ ἦν
ἀναγκαστικὸς τῆς τοῦ συνεχοῦς ἀκολουθίας.

Ἠβουλόμην δ' 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||98κειται. 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. ἀλλ' 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
δ' 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 τοῦθ' ἕπεται.
Διὸ δή μοι καὶ δοκοῦσιν ἀμαθῶς πάνυ τὴν εἰς τὰ τοιαῦτα στοιχεῖα τῶν
ἁπλῶν ἀγγείων εἰσάγειν διάλυσιν ἔνιοι τῶν Ἐρασιστρατείων. ἐμοὶ γοῦν
οὐδὲν διαφέρει. καθ' ἑκατέρους γὰρ ἄτοπος ὁ τῆς θρέψεως ἔσται λόγος,
ἐκείνοις τοῖς ἁπλοῖς ἀγγείοις τοῖς σμικροῖς τοῖς συντιθεῖσι τὰ μεγάλα || 99 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 δ' ἐκ περιουσίας εὐπορήσας ὀνομάτων ταὐτὸν δηλοῦν ἔν γε τῷ
νῦν προκειμένῳ λόγῳ δυναμένων καὶ τἆλλα προσέθηκα.

Κάλλιον οὖν μοι δοκεῖ καὶ || 100 ἡμᾶς τι συνεισενέγκασθαι τοῖς
Ἐρασιστρατείοις, ἐπειδὴ κατὰ τοῦτο γεγόναμεν, καὶ συμβουλεῦσαι τοῖς τὸ
πρῶτον ἐκεῖνο καὶ ἁπλοῦν ὑπ' Ἐρασιστράτου καλούμενον ἀγγεῖον εἰς ἕτερ'
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 θρέψεως ἀπορίαν ἡ ὑπόθεσις· ὅτι δ' οὐδ' Ἐρασιστράτῳ σύμφωνός
ἐστιν, ὃ ἐκεῖνος ἁπλοῦν καὶ πρῶτον ὀνομάζει, σύνθετον ἀποφαίνουσα, καὶ
τὴν τῆς φύσεως τέχνην ἀναιροῦσα, πρόδηλον καὶ τοῦτ' εἶναί μοι δοκεῖ. εἰ
μὴ γὰρ κἀν τοῖς ἁπλοῖς τούτοις ἕνωσίν τινα τῆς οὐσίας ἀπολείψομεν, ἀλλ'
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 || 101 καὶ
δημιουργεῖν οὐ τοῦ δευτέρου γεγονότος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ προϋπάρχοντός ἐστιν·
ὥστ' ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν εὐθὺς ἐκ σπερμάτων ὑποθέσθαι τὰς δυνάμεις τῆς
φύσεως, αἷς διαπλάττει τε καὶ αὐξάνει καὶ τρέφει τὸ ζῷον· ἀλλ' 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 δ' εἰρημένων οὐδὲν ἄνευ μεταβολῆς καὶ
ἀλλοιώσεως καὶ τῆς δι' 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
ταῦτα γ' οὐ παρ' ἡμῶν ἐχρῆν μανθάνειν τοὺς Ἐρασιστρατείους, ἀλλὰ παρ'
αὐτῶν τῶν φιλοσόφων, οἷς μάλιστα δοκεῖ πρῶτον ἐπισκοπεῖσθαι τὰ
στοιχεῖα τῶν ὄντων ἁπάντων.
Οὔκουν οὐδ' Ἐρασίστρατον ἄν τις ὀρθῶς ἄχρι τοσαύτης ἀμαθίας νομίζοι
προήκειν, ὡς μηδὲ ταύτην γνωρίσαι δυνηθῆναι τὴν ἀκολου||102θίαν, ἀλλ'
ἅμα μὲν ὑποθέσθαι τεχνικὴν τὴν φύσιν, ἅμα δ' εἰς ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἄναρμα καὶ
ἀμετάβλητα στοιχεῖα καταθραῦσαι τὴν οὐσίαν. καὶ μὴν εἰ δώσει τιν' ἐν τοῖς
στοιχείοις ἀλλοίωσίν τε καὶ μεταβολὴν καὶ ἕνωσιν καὶ συνέχειαν, ἓν
ἀσύνθετον αὐτῷ τὸ ἁπλοῦν ἀγγεῖον ἐκεῖνο, καθάπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ὀνομάζει,
γενήσεται. ἀλλ' ἡ μὲν ἁπλῆ φλὲψ ἐξ αὑτῆς τραφήσεται, τὸ νεῦρον δὲ καὶ ἡ
ἀρτηρία παρὰ τῆς πλεβός. πῶς καὶ τίνα τρόπον; ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ δὴ καὶ
πρόσθεν γενόμενοι τῷ λόγῳ τῆς τῶν Ἐρασιστρατείων διαφωνίας
ἐμνημονεύσαμεν, ἐπεδείξαμεν δὲ καὶ καθ' 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.

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.

Κάλλιον δ' ἄν μοι δοκῶ τὸ ζητού||103μενον 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, ἐφ'
οὗπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποιησάμην τὸν λόγον, ἰσχνὸν μὲν ἱκανῶς γέγονε, δεῖται δὲ
θρέψεως. ἔχει δ' ἐν ἑαυτῷ μέρη πάμπολλα μὲν ἐκεῖνα τὰ πρῶτα καὶ ἀόρατα
νεῦρα τὰ σμικρὰ καί τινας ἀρτηρίας ἁπλᾶς ὀλίγας καὶ φλέβας ὁμοίως.
ἅπαντ' οὖν αὐτοῦ τὰ νεῦρα τὰ στοιχειώδη καταλελέπτυνται δηλονότι καὶ
αὐτά, ἤ, εἰ μηδ' ἐκεῖνα, οὐδὲ τὸ ὅλον. καὶ τοίνυν καὶ θρέψεως οὐ τὸ μὲν
ὅλον δεῖται νεῦρον, ἕκαστον δ' ἐκείνων οὐ δεῖται. καὶ μὴν εἰ δεῖται μὲν
ἀναθρέψεως, οὐδὲν δ' 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.
Πῶς οὖν ἡ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον ἀκολουθία τρέφειν ἀδύνατός ἐστι τὸν οὕτω
διακείμενον; ὅτι τοσοῦτον ἀκολουθεῖν || 104 ἀναγκάζει τῶν συνεχῶν, ὅσον
ἀπορρεῖ. τοῦτο δ' ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν εὐεκτούντων ἱκανόν ἐστιν εἰς τὴν θρέψιν, ἴσα
γὰρ ἐπ' 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 οἶδ' ὅπως οὐκ αἰσθάνεται. διότι γάρ, φησί, πολλὴ πρόσθεσις εἰς
ἀνάθρεψιν γίγνεται τοῖς νενοσηκόσι, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ πρὸς ταύτην
ἀκολουθία πολλή. πῶς δ' ἂν πολλὴ πρόσθεσις γένοιτο μὴ προηγουμένης
ἀναδόσεως δαψιλοῦς; εἰ δὲ τὴν διὰ τῶν φλεβῶν φορὰν τῆς τροφῆς
ἀνάδοσιν καλεῖ, τὴν δ' εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν ἁπλῶν καὶ ἀοράτων ἐκείνων νεύρων
καὶ ἀρτηριῶν μετάληψιν οὐκ ἀνάδοσιν ἀλλὰ διάδοσιν, ὥς τινες ὀνομάζειν
ἠξίωσαν, εἶτα || 105 τὴν διὰ τῶν φλεβῶν μόνῃ τῇ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον
ἀκολουθίᾳ φησὶ γίγνεσθαι, τὴν εἰς τὰ λόγῳ θεωρητὰ μετάληψιν ἡμῖν
ἐξηγησάσθω. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ οὐκέτ' ἐπὶ τούτων ἡ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον
ἀκολουθία λέγεσθαι δύναται καὶ μάλιστ' ἐπὶ τῶν ἐσχάτως ἰσχνῶν,

ἀποδέδεικται. τί δέ φησιν ἐπ' αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ τῶν καθόλου λόγων ὁ
Ἐρασίστρατος, ἄξιον ἐπακοῦσαι τῆς λέξεως· “Τοῖς δ' 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 δ' ἀποδέχομαι τῶν ἐκ τῆς Ἐρασιστράτου
λέξεως ὀνομάτων τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐφεξῆς τῷ κατὰ τὰ πλάγια. || 106 τί γάρ
φησι; “Κατὰ τὰ πλάγια τῶν ἀγγείων ἑλκομένης τῆς τροφῆς.” ὅτι μὲν οὖν
ἕλκεται, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν, ὅτι δ' οὐ τῇ πρὸς τὸ κενούμενον
ἀκολουθίᾳ, δέδεικται πρόσθεν.

VII
Ἐξεύρωμεν οὖν κοινῇ, πῶς ἕλκεται. πῶς δ' ἄλλως ἢ ὡς ὁ σίδηρος ὑπὸ τῆς
ἡρακλείας λίθου δύναμιν ἐχούσης ἑλκτικὴν τοιαύτης ποιότητος; ἀλλ' 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 ἀλλ' ἐκ τριῶν ἐστι
κατά γε τὴν ἀλήθειαν διεζευγμένον. εἰ μὲν οὖν ὡς ἐκ δυοῖν αὐτῷ
χρη||107σαίμεθα, ψεῦδος ἔσται τι τῶν εἰς τὴν ἀπόδειξιν παρειλημμένων· εἰ
δ' ὡς ἐκ τριῶν, ἀπέραντος ὁ λόγος γενήσεται.

VIII
Καὶ ταῦτ' 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. εἶτ', ὦ πρὸς θεῶν, ὅπως μὲν τὰ σιτία κατὰ τὴν γαστέρα
πέττεται χρήσιμον ἐπίστασθαι, πῶς δ' 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 πράγματ' ἔχειν ἐκκενοῦντας. θαυμαστὸν δὲ
καὶ τὸ διαπορεῖν, εἴτ' ἐν τῷ σώματι τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῆς ὑποθετέον εἴτ' εὐθὺς
ἔξωθεν ἐν τοῖς σιτίοις περιέχεσθαι φατέον. εἰ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο καλῶς
ἠπόρηται, τί οὐχὶ καὶ περὶ τοῦ αἵματος ἐπισκεψόμεθα, πότερον ἐν τῷ
σώματι || 108 λαμβάνει τὴν γένεσιν ἢ τοῖς σιτίοις παρέσπαρται, καθάπερ οἱ
τὰς ὁμοιομερείας ὑποτιθέμενοί φασι; καὶ μὴν πολλῷ γ' 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 δ' ἀντιβαίνει καὶ μάχεται. τούτων μὲν γὰρ ἡ ἔκλεξις εἰς πέψιν μόνην,
ἐκείνων δ' εἰς αἵματος χρηστοῦ διαφέρει γένεσιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἴσον ἐστὶν ἢ μὴ
καλῶς ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ χυλωθῆναι τὴν τροφὴν ἢ μὴ χρηστὸν αἷμα γεννηθῆναι.
πῶς δ' οὐκ αἰδεῖται τὰς μὲν τῆς πέψεως ἀποτυχίας διαιρούμενος, ὡς πολλαί
τ' εἰσὶ καὶ κατὰ πολλὰς γίγνονται προφάσεις, ὑπὲρ δὲ τῶν τῆς αἱματώσεως
σφαλμάτων οὐδ' ἄχρι ῥήματος ἑνὸς οὐδ' 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 δ' ὅτι καὶ δυσῶδες οὐχ ἕνα τρόπον ἀλλ' ἐν πολλαῖς
πάνυ διαφοραῖς ἀρρήτοις μὲν λόγῳ, σα||109φεστάταις δ' αἰσθήσεσι φαίνεται
γιγνόμενον, εἰδείη τις, οὐκ ἂν οἶμαι μετρίως ἔτι καταγνώσεσθαι τῆς
Ἐρασιστράτου ῥᾳθυμίας αὐτὸν οὕτω γ' ἀναγκαίαν εἰς τὰ ἔργα τῆς τέχνης
θεωρίαν παραλιπόντος.
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 μηδέποτ' ἂν ἄλλως ὕδερον
δύνασθαι συστῆναι πῶς οὐκ ἐσχάτην ἐνδείκνυται ῥᾳθυμίαν; τό τε μὴ διὰ
τὸν σπλῆνα μηδὲ δι' ἄλλο τι μόριον, ἀλλ' 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 ἐφ' ἑκάστῳ μηνὶ
καθάρσεως ἀπώλεια παντελὴς καὶ ἄμετρος κένωσις, ὅταν αἱμορραγήσωσί

ποθ' αἱ μῆτραι σφοδρῶς, ἐπεκαλέσαντο πολ||110λάκις ὕδερον καί τισιν
αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ γυναικεῖος ὀνομαζόμενος ῥοῦς εἰς τοῦτ' 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, ἀλλ' 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 οὐδ' ἄλλο τι σπλάγχνον οὐδὲ τὸ ἧπαρ.
Ἀλλ' Ἐρασίστρατος ὁ σοφὸς ὑπεριδὼν καὶ καταφρονήσας, ὧν οὔθ'
Ἱπποκράτης οὔτε Διοκλῆς οὔτε Πραξαγόρας οὔτε Φιλιστίων ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τῶν
ἀρίστων φιλοσόφων οὐδεὶς κατεφρόνησεν οὔτε Πλάτων οὔτ' Ἀριστοτέλης
οὔτε Θεόφραστος, ὅλας ἐνεργείας ὑπερβαίνει καθάπερ τι σμικρὸν καὶ τὸ
τυχὸν τῆς τέχνης παραλιπὼν μέρος οὐδ' ἀντειπεῖν ἀξιώσας, εἴτ' ὀρθῶς εἴτε
καὶ μὴ || 111 σύμπαντες οὗτοι θερμῷ καὶ ψυχρῷ καὶ ξηρῷ καὶ ὑγρῷ, τοῖς μὲν
ὡς δρῶσι, τοῖς δ' ὡς πάσχουσι, τὰ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα τῶν ζῴων ἁπάντων
διοικεῖσθαί φασι καὶ ὡς τὸ θερμὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς εἴς τε τὰς ἄλλας ἐνεργείας καὶ
μάλιστ' 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 μήτ' ἀντιλογίας ἀξιῶσαι μήτε μνήμης οὕτως
ἔνδοξον δόγμα θαυμαστήν τινα τὴν ὑπεροψίαν ἐνδείκνυται.
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 δ' οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀτμοειδῶς εἰς τὴν κύστιν ἰέναι τὰ οὖρα νομίζουσιν
ἀντειπεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς εἰς || 112 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 οὔτ' ἀντειπεῖν τινι τῶν πρεσβυτέρων
ἠξίωσεν οὔτ' αὐτὸς εἰσηγήσασθαί τιν' ἑτέραν γνώμην ἐτόλμησεν, ὁ περὶ
πασῶν τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἐν ἀρχῇ τῶν καθόλου λόγων ὑποσχόμενος
ἐρεῖν, ὅπως τε γίγνονται καὶ δι' ὧντινων τοῦ ζῴου μορίων. ἢ τῆς μὲν πέττειν
τὰ σιτία πεφυκυίας δυνάμεως ἀρρωστούσης ἀπεπτήσει τὸ ζῷον, τῆς δ'

αἱματούσης τὰ πεφθέντα οὐδὲν ἔσται πάθημα τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλ' 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 δ' οὔτ' ἀντειπεῖν τοῖς πρόσθεν οὔτ' αὐτὸς εἰπεῖν τι καινὸν
ἐτόλμησε, τὸ σφάλμα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γνωρίζων αἱρέσεως.

Τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ λέγειν ἔσχεν ὑπὲρ αἵματος || 113 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 ὥδέ πως αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασι·
“Πότερον δ' 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;
Ὑποκείσθω γὰρ ἐν μὲν τοῖς σιτίοις περιέχεσθαι, μὴ διακρίνεσθαι δ' 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 || 114 ἥπατι καθαρθῆναι καλῶς
αἰτία καταστήσεται τῶν τ' 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 δ', ὡς τὸ μὲν τεῦτλον, εἰ τύχοι,
παμπόλλην, ὁ δ' ἄρτος ἐλαχίστην καὶ τὸ μὲν ἔλαιον πλείστην, ὁ δ' 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;
Τί δ' εἰ μὴ περιέχεται μὲν ἐν τοῖς σιτίοις ἡ χολή, γίγνεται δ' ἐν τοῖς τῶν
ζῴων σώμασιν; ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο χρήσιμον ἐπίστασθαι, τίνι μὲν
καταστάσει σώματος ἕπεται πλείων αὐτῆς ἡ γένεσις, τίνι δ' ἐλάττων;
ἀλλοιοῦν γὰρ δήπου καὶ μεταβάλλειν οἷοί τ' ἐσμὲν καὶ τρέπειν ἐπὶ τὸ
βέλτιον ἀεὶ τὰς μοχθηρὰς καταστάσεις τοῦ σώματος. ἀλλ' εἰ μὴ

γιγνώσκοιμεν, καθότι μοχθηραὶ καὶ ὅπῃ τῆς δεούσης ἐξίστανται, πῶς ἂν
αὐτὰς ἐπανάγειν οἷοί τ' εἴημεν ἐπὶ τὸ || 115 κρεῖττον;

Οὔκουν ἄχρηστόν ἐστιν εἰς τὰς ἰάσεις, ὡς Ἐρασίστρατός φησιν, ἐπίστασθαι
τἀληθὲς αὐτὸ περὶ γενέσεως χολῆς. οὐ μὴν οὐδ' ἀδύνατον οὐδ' ἀσαφὲς
ἐξευρεῖν, ὅτι μὴ τῷ πλείστην ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχειν τὸ μέλι τὴν ξανθὴν χολὴν
ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ σώματι μεταβαλλόμενον εἰς αὐτὴν ἀλλοιοῦταί τε καὶ τρέπεται.
πικρόν τε γὰρ ἂν ἦν γευομένοις, εἰ χολὴν ἔξωθεν εὐθὺς ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιεῖχεν
ἅπασί τ' ἂν ὡσαύτως τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἴσον αὐτῆς ἐγέννα τὸ πλῆθος. ἀλλ' οὐχ
ὧδ' ἔχει τἀληθές. ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖς ἀκμάζουσι καὶ μάλιστ' εἰ φύσει
θερμότεροι καὶ βίον εἶεν βιοῦντες ταλαίπωρον, ἅπαν εἰς ξανθὴν χολὴν
μεταβάλλει τὸ μέλι· τοῖς γέρουσι δ' ἱκανῶς ἐστιν ἐπιτήδειον, ὡς ἂν οὐκ εἰς
χολὴν ἀλλ' 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 || 116 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.
Ἡδέως δ' ἂν ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου γεγονὼς ἠρόμην τοὺς ὁμιλῆσαι φάσκοντας
αὐτὸν ἐπὶ πλεῖστον τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ περιπάτου φιλοσόφοις, εἰ γιγνώσκουσιν,
ὅσα περὶ τοῦ κεκρᾶσθαι τὰ σώμαθ' 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 δ' 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, || 117
οὐ τὰ καλῶς ἀποδεδειγμένα τοῖς παλαιοῖς λέγειν προὐθέμεθα, μήτε τῇ
γνώμῃ μήτε τῇ λέξει τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐκείνους ὑπερβαλέσθαι δυνάμενοι· τὰ δ'
ἤτοι χωρὶς ἀποδείξεως ὡς ἐναργῆ πρὸς αὐτῶν εἰρημένα διὰ τὸ μηδ'
ὑπονοῆσαι μοχθηροὺς οὕτως ἔσεσθαί τινας σοφιστάς, οἳ καταφρονήσουσι

τῆς ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀληθείας, ἢ καὶ παραλελειμμένα τελέως ὑπ' ἐκείνων ἀξιοῦμεν
εὑρίσκειν τε καὶ ἀποδεικνύναι.
Περὶ δὲ τῆς τῶν χυμῶν γενέσεως οὐκ οἶδ', 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 κατ' αὐτήν, οἱ δ' ἄλλοι χυμοὶ
διὰ τὰς ἀμετρίας γιγνόμενοι· καὶ τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ πάνθ' ὁμολογεῖ τὰ
φαινόμενα. καὶ γὰρ τῶν ἐδεσμάτων ὅσα μέν ἐστι θερμότερα φύσει,
χολωδέστερα, τὰ δὲ ψυχρότερα φλεγματικώτερα· καὶ τῶν ἡλικιῶν ὡσαύτως
χολωδέστε||118ραι μὲν αἱ θερμότεραι φύσει, φλεγματωδέστεραι δ' 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 δ' 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 δ' 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.
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 || 119 θερμασίας ἡ συμμετρία διέφθαρται, καθάπερ οἱ πρόσθεν
ὑπελάμβανον, ἀλλ' ὅτι περιστέλλεσθαι καὶ τρίβειν ἡ γαστὴρ οὐχ ὁμοίως
δύναται βεβλαμμένη τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ἐρέσθαι δίκαιον αὐτόν, ὑπὸ τίνος ἡ τῆς
γαστρὸς ἐνέργεια βέβλαπται.
Γενομένου γάρ, εἰ τύχοι, βουβῶνος ἐπὶ προσπταίσματι, πρὶν μὲν πυρέξαι
τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἂν χεῖρον ἡ γαστὴρ πέψειεν· οὐ γὰρ ἱκανὸν ἦν
οὐδέτερον αὐτῶν οὔθ' 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. ἀλλ' ὑπὸ τίνος ἐβλάβη, προσθεῖναι χρὴ τῷ λόγῳ. τὸ μὲν γὰρ
ἕλκος οὐχ οἷόν τ' ἦν αὐτὴν βλάπτειν, ὥσπερ οὐδ' 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. ἀλλ' ἡ μὲν τῆς κινήσεως ἀλλοίωσις οὐ μόνον οὐδὲν
βλάψει τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς γα||120στρός, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσωφελήσει κατ' 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 δ' ἔτι τὴν παρὰ φύσιν θερμασίαν ἀπεπτήσει. τὸ γὰρ καὶ τῷ
πνεύματι φάναι τιν' ὑπάρχειν ἰδιότητα, καθ' ἣν πέττει, κἄπειτα ταύτην
πυρεττόντων διαφθείρεσθαι καθ' ἕτερον τρόπον ἐστὶν ὁμολογῆσαι τὸ
ἄτοπον. ἐρωτηθέντες γὰρ αὖθις, ὑπὸ τίνος ἠλλοιώθη τὸ πνεῦμα, μόνην
ἕξουσιν ἀποκρίνεσθαι τὴν παρὰ φύσιν θερμασίαν καὶ μάλιστ' ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ
τὴν κοιλίαν· οὐδὲ γὰρ πλησιάζει κατ' οὐδὲν τοῦτο τῷ βουβῶνι.
Καίτοι τί τῶν ζῴων ἐκείνων, ἐν οἷς ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος ἰδιότης μέγα δύναται,
μνημονεύω, παρὸν ἐπ' ἀνθρώποις, ἐν οἷς ἢ οὐδὲν ἢ παντάπασιν
ἀμυ||121δρόν τι καὶ μικρὸν ὠφελεῖ, ποιεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον; ἀλλ' ὅτι μὲν ἐν τοῖς
πυρετοῖς οὗτοι κακῶς πέττουσιν, ὁμολογεῖ καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ τήν γ' αἰτίαν
προστιθεὶς βεβλάφθαι φησὶ τῆς γαστρὸς τὴν ἐνέργειαν. οὐ μὴν ἄλλην γέ
τινα πρόφασιν τῆς βλάβης εἰπεῖν ἔχει πλὴν τῆς παρὰ φύσιν θερμασίας. ἀλλ'
εἰ βλάπτει τὴν ἐνέργειαν ἡ παρὰ φύσιν θερμασία μὴ κατά τι συμβεβηκός,
ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν αὑτῆς οὐσίαν τε καὶ δύναμιν, ἐκ τῶν πρώτων ἂν εἴη
νοσημάτων· καὶ μὴν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τῶν πρώτων μὲν εἶναι νοσημάτων τὴν
ἀμετρίαν τῆς θερμασίας, τὴν δ' ἐνέργειαν ὑπὸ τῆς εὐκρασίας μὴ γίγνεσθαι.
οὐδὲ γὰρ δι' ἄλλο τι δυνατὸν γίγνεσθαι τὴν δυσκρασίαν αἰτίαν τῶν πρώτων
νοσημάτων ἀλλ' ἢ διὰ τὴν εὐκρασίαν διαφθειρομένην. τῷ γὰρ ὑπὸ ταύτης
γίγνεσθαι τὰς ἐνεργείας ἀνάγκη καὶ τὰς πρώτας αὐτῶν βλάβας
διαφθειρομένης γίγνεσθαι.
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ κατ' αὐτὸν τὸν Ἐρασίστρατον ἡ εὐκρασία τοῦ θερμοῦ τῶν
ἐνεργειῶν αἰτία, τοῖς θεωρεῖν τὸ ἀκόλουθον δυναμένοις ἱκανῶς
ἀποδεδεῖχθαι νομίζω. τούτου δ' ὑπάρχοντος ἡμῖν οὐδὲν ἔτι χαλεπὸν || 122 ἐφ'
ἑκάστης ἐνεργείας τῇ μὲν εὐκρασίᾳ τὸ βέλτιον ἕπεσθαι λέγειν, τῇ δὲ
δυσκρασίᾳ τὰ χείρω. καὶ τοίνυν εἴπερ ταῦθ' οὕτως ἔχει, τὸ μὲν αἷμα τῆς

συμμέτρου θερμασίας, τὴν δὲ ξανθὴν χολὴν τῆς ἀμέτρου νομιστέον
ὑπάρχειν ἔγγονον. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ἡμῖν ἔν τε ταῖς θερμαῖς ἡλικίαις καὶ τοῖς
θερμοῖς χωρίοις καὶ ταῖς ὥραις τοῦ ἔτους ταῖς θερμαῖς καὶ ταῖς θερμαῖς
καταστάσεσιν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ταῖς θερμαῖς κράσεσι τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ
τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασί τε καὶ τοῖς διαιτήμασι καὶ τοῖς νοσήμασι τοῖς θερμοῖς
εὐλόγως ἡ ξανθὴ χολὴ πλείστη φαίνεται γιγνομένη.
Τὸ δ' ἀπορεῖν, εἴτ' ἐν τοῖς σώμασι τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὁ χυμὸς οὗτος ἔχει τὴν
γένεσιν εἴτ' ἐν τοῖς σιτίοις περιέχεται, μηδ' ὅτι τοῖς ὑγιαίνουσιν ἀμέμπτως,
ὅταν ἀσιτήσωσι παρὰ τὸ ἔθος ὑπὸ τινος περιστάσεως πραγμάτων
ἀναγκασθέντες, πικρὸν μὲν τὸ στόμα γίγνεται, χολώδη δὲ τὰ οὖρα,
δάκνεται δ' ἡ γαστήρ, ἑωρακότος ἐστὶν ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἐξαίφνης νῦν εἰς τὸν
κόσμον ἐληλυθότος καὶ μήπω τὰ κατ' αὐτὸν φαινόμενα γιγνώσκοντος. ἐπεὶ
τίς οὐκ οἶδεν, ὡς ἕκαστον τῶν ἑψομένων ἐπὶ πλέον ἁλυκώτερον μὲν τὸ
πρῶτον, ὕστερον || 123 δὲ πικρότερον γίγνεται; κἂν εἰ τὸ μέλι βουληθείης
αὐτὸ τὸ πάντων γλυκύτατον ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἕψειν, ἀποδείξεις καὶ τοῦτο
πικρότατον· ὃ γὰρ τοῖς ἄλλοις, ὅσα μὴ φύσει θερμά, παρὰ τῆς ἑψήσεως
ἐγγίγνεται, τοῦτ' ἐκ φύσεως ὑπάρχει τῷ μέλιτι. διὰ τοῦτ' οὖν ἑψόμενον οὐ
γίγνεται γλυκύτερον· ὅσον γὰρ ἐχρῆν εἶναι θερμότητος εἰς γένεσιν
γλυκύτητος, ἀκριβῶς αὐτῷ τοῦτο πᾶν οἴκοθεν ὑπάρχει. ὃ τοίνυν ἔξωθεν
τοῖς ἐλλιπῶς θερμοῖς ἦν ὠφέλιμον, τοῦτ' ἐκείνῳ βλάβη τε καὶ ἀμετρία
γίγνεται καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θᾶττον τῶν ἄλλων ἑψόμενον ἀποδείκνυται πικρόν.
δι' αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς θερμοῖς φύσει καὶ τοῖς ἀκμάζουσιν εἰς χολὴν
ἑτοίμως μεταβάλλεται. θερμῷ γὰρ θερμὸν πλησιάζον εἰς ἀμετρίαν κράσεως
ἑτοίμως ἐξίσταται καὶ φθάνει χολὴ γιγνόμενον, οὐχ αἷμα. δεῖται τοίνυν
ψυχρᾶς μὲν κράσεως ἀνθρώπου, ψυχρᾶς δ' ἡλικίας, ἵν' εἰς αἵματος ἄγηται
φύσιν. οὔκουν ἄπο τρόπου συνεβούλευσεν Ἱπποκράτης τοῖς φύσει
πικροχόλοις μὴ προσφέρειν τὸ μέλι, ὡς ἂν θερμοτέρας || 124 δηλονότι
κράσεως ὑπάρχουσιν. οὕτω δὲ καὶ τοῖς νοσήμασι τοῖς πικροχόλοις πολέμιον
εἶναι τὸ μέλι καὶ τῇ τῶν γερόντων ἡλικίᾳ φίλιον οὐχ Ἱπποκράτης μόνον
ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες ἰατροὶ λέγουσιν, οἱ μὲν ἐκ τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν
ἐνδειξαμένης εὑρόντες, οἱ δ' ἐκ τῆς πείρας μόνης. οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ τοῖς ἀπὸ
τῆς ἐμπειρίας ἰατροῖς ἕτερόν τι παρὰ ταῦτα τετήρηται γιγνόμενον, ἀλλὰ
χρηστὸν μὲν γέροντι, νέῳ δ' οὐ χρηστόν, καὶ τῷ μὲν φύσει πικροχόλῳ
βλαβερόν, ὠφέλιμον δὲ τῷ φλεγματώδει· καὶ τῶν νοσημάτων ὡσαύτως τοῖς
μὲν πικροχόλοις ἐχθρόν, τοῖς δὲ φλεγματώδεσι φίλιον· ἑνὶ δὲ λόγῳ τοῖς μὲν

θερμοῖς σώμασιν ἢ διὰ φύσιν ἢ διὰ νόσον ἢ δι' ἡλικίαν ἢ δι' ὥραν ἢ διὰ
χώραν ἢ δι' ἐπιτήδευμα χολῆς γεννητικόν, αἵματος δὲ τοῖς ἐναντίοις.
Καὶ μὴν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται ταὐτὸν ἔδεσμα τοῖς μὲν χολὴν γεννᾶν, τοῖς δ' αἷμα
μὴ οὐκ ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς γενέσεως αὐτῶν ἐπιτελουμένης. εἰ γὰρ δὴ οἴκοθέν
γε καὶ παρ' ἑαυτοῦ τῶν ἐδεσμάτων ἕκαστον ἔχον καὶ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς τῶν ζῴων
σώμασι || 125 μεταβαλλόμενον ἐγέννα τὴν χολήν, ἐν ἅπασιν ἂν ὁμοίως
αὐτὴν τοῖς σώμασιν ἐγέννα καὶ τὸ μὲν πικρὸν ἔξω γευομένοις ἦν ἂν οἶμαι
χολῆς ποιητικόν, εἰ δέ τι γλυκὺ καὶ χρηστόν, οὐκ ἂν οὐδὲ τὸ βραχύτατον ἐξ
αὐτοῦ χολῆς ἐγεννᾶτο. καὶ μὴν οὐ τὸ μέλι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
ἕκαστον τῶν γλυκέων τοῖς προειρημένοις σώμασι τοῖς δι' ὁτιοῦν τῶν
εἰρημένων θερμοῖς οὖσιν εἰς χολὴν ἑτοίμως ἐξίσταται.
Καίτοι ταῦτ' οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως ἐξηνέχθην εἰπεῖν οὐ προελόμενος ἀλλ' ὑπ' αὐτῆς
τοῦ λόγου τῆς ἀκολουθίας ἀναγκασθείς. εἴρηται δ' ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν
Ἀριστοτέλει τε καὶ Πραξαγόρᾳ τὴν Ἱπποκράτους καὶ Πλάτωνος γνώμην
ὀρθῶς ἐξηγησαμένοις.

IX
Μὴ τοίνυν ὡς ἀποδείξεις ὑφ' ἡμῶν εἰρῆσθαι νομίζειν τὰ τοιαῦτα μᾶλλον ἢ
περὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλως γιγνωσκόντων ἀναισθησίας ἐνδείξεις, οἳ μηδὲ τὰ πρὸς
ἁπάντων ὁμολογούμενα καὶ καθ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν φαινόμενα
γιγνώσκουσιν· τὰς δ' ἀποδείξεις αὐτῶν τὰς κατ' ἐπιστήμην ἐξ ἐκείνων χρὴ
λαμβάνειν τῶν ἀρχῶν, ὧν ἤδη καὶ πρόσθεν || 126 εἴπομεν, ὡς τὸ δρᾶν καὶ
πάσχειν εἰς ἄλληλα τοῖς σώμασιν ὑπάρχει κατὰ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν καὶ
ξηρὸν καὶ ὑγρόν. καὶ εἴτε φλέβας εἴθ' ἧπαρ εἴτ' ἀρτηρίας εἴτε καρδίαν εἴτε
κοιλίαν εἴτ' ἄλλο τι μόριον ἐνεργεῖν τις φήσειεν ἡντινοῦν ἐνέργειαν,
ἀφύκτοις ἀνάγκαις ἀναγκασθήσεται διὰ τὴν ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων ποιὰν κρᾶσιν
ὁμολογῆσαι τὴν ἐνέργειαν ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ. διὰ τί γὰρ ἡ γαστὴρ
περιστέλλεται τοῖς σιτίοις, διὰ τί δ' αἱ φλέβες αἷμα γεννῶσι, παρὰ τῶν
Ἐρασιστρατείων ἐδεόμην ἀκοῦσαι. τὸ γὰρ ὅτι περιστέλλεται μόνον αὐτὸ
καθ' ἑαυτὸ γιγνώσκειν οὐδέπω χρηστόν, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν εἰδείημεν·
οὕτω γὰρ ἂν οἶμαι καὶ τὰ σφάλματα θεραπεύσαιμεν. οὐ μέλει, φασίν, ἡμῖν
οὐδὲ πολυπραγμονοῦμεν ἔτι τὰς τοιαύτας αἰτίας· ὑπὲρ ἰατρὸν γάρ εἰσι καὶ
τῷ φυσικῷ προσήκουσι. πότερον οὖν οὐδ' ἀντερεῖτε τῷ φάσκοντι τὴν μὲν
εὐκρασίαν τὴν κατὰ φύσιν αἰτίαν εἶναι τῆς ἐνεργείας ἑκάστῳ τῶν ὀργάνων,

τὴν δ' αὖ δυσκρασίαν νόσον τ ἤδη καλεῖσθαι καὶ πάντως ὑπ' αὐ||127τῆς
βλάπτεσθαι τὴν ἐνέργειαν; ἢ πεισθήσεσθε ταῖς τῶν παλαιῶν ἀποδείξεσιν; ἢ
τρίτον τι καὶ μέσον ἑκατέρου τούτων πράξετε μήθ' ὡς ἀληθέσι τοῖς λόγοις
ἐξ ἀνάγκης πειθόμενοι μήτ' ἀντιλέγοντες ὡς ψευδέσιν, ἀλλ' ἀπορητικοί
τινες ἐξαίφνης καὶ Πυρρώνειοι γενήσεσθε; καὶ μὴν εἰ τοῦτο δράσετε, τὴν
ἐμπειρίαν ἀναγκαῖον ὑμῖν προστήσασθαι. τῷ γὰρ ἂν ἔτι τρόπῳ καὶ τῶν
ἰαμάτων εὐποροίητε τὴν οὐσίαν ἑκάστου τῶν νοσημάτων ἀγνοοῦντες; τί
οὖν οὐκ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐμπειρικοὺς ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐκαλέσατε; τί δὲ πράγμαθ' ἡμῖν
παρέχετε φυσικὰς ἐνεργείας ἐπαγγελλόμενοι ζητεῖν ἰάσεως ἕνεκεν; εἰ γὰρ
ἀδύνατος ἡ γαστήρ ἐστί τινι περιστέλλεσθαι καὶ τρίβειν, πῶς αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ
κατὰ φύσιν ἐπανάξομεν ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς ἀδυναμίας; ἐγὼ μέν
φημι τὴν μὲν ὑπερτεθερμασμένην ἐμψυκτέον ἡμῖν εἶναι, τὴν δ' ἐψυγμένην
θερμαντέον· οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὴν ἐξηρασμένην ὑγραντέον, τὴν δ' ὑγρασμένην
ξηραντέον. ἀλλὰ καὶ || 128 κατὰ συζυγίαν, εἰ θερμοτέρα τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἅμα
καὶ ξηροτέρα τύχοι γεγενημένη, κεφάλαιον εἶναι τῆς ἰάσεως ἐμψύχειν θ'
ἅμα καὶ ὑγραίνειν· εἰ δ' αὖ ψυχροτέρα τε καὶ ὑγροτέρα, θερμαίνειν τε καὶ
ξηραίνειν κἀπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὡσαύτως· οἱ δ' ἀπ' Ἐρασιστράτου τί ποτε καὶ
πράξουσιν οὐδ' ὅλως ζητεῖν τῶν ἐνεργειῶν τὰς αἰτίας ὁμολογοῦντες; ὁ γάρ
τοι καρπὸς τῆς περὶ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ζητήσεως οὗτός ἐστι, τὸ τὰς αἰτίας τῶν
δυσκρασιῶν εἰδότα εἰς τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἐπανάγειν αὐτάς, ὡς αὐτό γε μόνον
τὸ γνῶναι τὴν ἑκάστου τῶν ὀργάνων ἐνέργειαν ἥτις ἐστὶν οὔπω χρηστὸν εἰς
τὰς ἰάσεις.
Ἐρασίστρατος δέ μοι δοκεῖ καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτ' ἀγνοεῖν, ὡς, ἥτις ἂν ἐν τῷ
σώματι διάθεσις βλάπτῃ τὴν ἐνέργειαν μὴ κατά τι συμβεβηκὸς ἀλλὰ
πρώτως τε καὶ καθ' ἑαυτήν, αὕτη τὸ νόσημά ἐστιν αὐτό. πῶς οὖν ἔτι
διαγνωστικός τε καὶ ἰατικὸς ἔσται τῶν νοσημάτων ἀγνοῶν ὅλως αὐτὰ τίνα
τ' ἐστὶ καὶ πόσα καὶ ποῖα; κατὰ μὲν δὴ τὴν γαστέρα τό γε τοσοῦτον
Ἐρασίστρατος ἠξίωσε ζητεῖσθαι τὸ πῶς πέττεται τὰ σιτία· || 129 τὸ δ' ἥτις
πρώτη τε καὶ ἀρχηγὸς αἰτία τούτου, πῶς οὐκ ἐπεσκέψατο; κατὰ δὲ τὰς
φλέβας καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πῶς παρέλιπεν.
Ἀλλ' οὔθ' Ἱπποκράτης οὔτ' ἄλλος τις ὧν ὀλίγῳ πρόσθεν ἐμνημόνευσα
φιλοσόφων ἢ ἰατρῶν ἄξιον ᾤετ' εἶναι παραλιπεῖν· ἀλλὰ τὴν κατὰ φύσιν ἐν
ἑκάστῳ ζῴῳ θερμασίαν εὔκρατόν τε καὶ μετρίως ὑγρὰν οὖσαν αἵματος
εἶναί φασι γεννητικὴν καὶ δι' αὐτό γε τοῦτο καὶ τὸ αἷμα θερμὸν καὶ ὑγρὸν
εἶναί φασι τῇ δυνάμει χυμόν, ὥσπερ τὴν ξανθὴν χολὴν θερμὴν καὶ ξηρὰν