| BOOK ONE
13. Now the extent of exactitude and truth in the doctrines of Hippocrates
may be gauged, not merely from the way in which his opponents are
at variance with obvious facts, but also from the various subjects
of natural research themselves- the functions of animals, and the
rest. For those people who do not believe that there exists in any
part of the animal a faculty for attracting its own special quality
are compelled repeatedly to deny obvious facts. For instance, Asclepiades,
the physician, did this in the case of the kidneys. That these are
organs for secreting [separating out] the urine, was the belief not
only of Hippocrates, Diocles, Erasistratus, Praxagoras, and all other
physicians of eminence, but practically every butcher is aware of
this, from the fact that he daily observes both the position of the
kidneys and the duct (termed the ureter) which runs from each kidney
into the bladder, and from this arrangement he infers their characteristic
use and faculty. But, even leaving the butchers aside, all people
who suffer either from frequent dysuria or from retention of urine
call themselves "nephritics," when they feel pain in the loins and
pass sandy matter in their water.
I do not suppose that Asclepiades ever saw a stone which had been
passed by one of these sufferers, or observed that this was preceded
by a sharp pain in the region between kidneys and bladder as the stone
traversed the ureter, or that, when the stone was passed, both the
pain and the retention at once ceased. It is worth while, then, learning
how his theory accounts for the presence of urine in the bladder,
and one is forced to marvel at the ingenuity of a man who puts aside
these broad, clearly visible routes, and postulates others which are
narrow, invisible- indeed, entirely imperceptible. His view, in fact,
is that the fluid which we drink passes into the bladder by being
resolved into vapours, and that, when these have been again condensed,
it thus regains its previous form, and turns from vapour into fluid.
He simply looks upon the bladder as a sponge or a piece of wool, and
not as the perfectly compact and impervious body that it is, with
two very strong coats. For if we say that the vapours pass through
these coats, why should they not pass through the peritoneum and the
diaphragm, thus filling the whole abdominal cavity and thorax with
water? "But," says he, "of course the peritoneal coat is more impervious
than the bladder, and this is why it keeps out the vapours, while
the bladder admits them." Yet if he had ever practised anatomy, he
might have known that the outer coat of the bladder springs from the
peritoneum and is essentially the same as it, and that the inner coat,
which is peculiar to the bladder, is more than twice as thick as the
former.
Perhaps, however, it is not the thickness or thinness of the coats,
but the situation of the bladder, which is the reason for the vapours
being carried into it? On the contrary, even if it were probable for
every other reason that the vapours accumulate there, yet the situation
of the bladder would be enough in itself to prevent this. For the
bladder is situated below, whereas vapours have a natural tendency
to rise upwards; thus they would fill all the region of the thorax
and lungs long before they came to the bladder.
But why do I mention the situation of the bladder, peritoneum, and
thorax? For surely, when the vapours have passed through the coats
of the stomach and intestines, it is in the space between these and
the peritoneum that they will collect and become liquefied (just as
in dropsical subjects it is in this region that most of the water
gathers). Otherwise the vapours must necessarily pass straight forward
through everything which in any way comes in contact with them, and
will never come to a standstill. But, if this be assumed, then they
will traverse not merely the peritoneum but also the epigastrium,
and will become dispersed into the surrounding air; otherwise they
will certainly collect under the skin.
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?" Having
abruptly made these and similar remarks in precise and clear tones,
he concluded by jumping up and departing- leaving me as though I were
quite incapable of finding any plausible answer!
The fact is that those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely
devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn!
Instead of listening, as they ought, to the reason why liquid can
enter the bladder through the ureters, but is unable to go back again
the same way,- instead of admiring Nature's artistic skill- they refuse
to learn; they even go so far as to scoff, and maintain that the kidneys,
as well as many other things, have been made by Nature for no purpose!
And some of them who had allowed themselves to be shown the ureters
coming from the kidneys and becoming implanted in the bladder, even
had the audacity to say that these also existed for no purpose; and
others said that they were spermatic ducts, and that this was why
they were inserted into the neck of the bladder and not into its cavity.
When, therefore, we had demonstrated to them the real spermatic ducts
entering the neck of the bladder lower down than the ureters, we supposed
that, if we had not done so before, we would now at least draw them
away from their false assumptions, and convert them forthwith to the
opposite view. But even this they presumed to dispute, and said that
it was not to be wondered at that the semen should remain longer in
these latter ducts, these being more constricted, and that it should
flow quickly down the ducts which came from the kidneys, seeing that
these were well dilated. We were, therefore, further compelled to
show them in a still living animal, the urine plainly running out
through the ureters into the bladder; even thus we hardly hoped to
check their nonsensical talk.
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 vene-section; and after this one
cuts through the other also, and both being thus divided, one bandages
up the animal externally. Then when enough time seems to have elapsed,
one takes off the bandages; the bladder will now be found empty, and
the whole region between the intestines and the peritoneum full of
urine, as if the animal were suffering from dropsy. Now, if anyone
will but test this for himself on an animal, I think he will strongly
condemn the rashness of Asclepiades, and if he also learns the reason
why nothing regurgitates from the bladder into the ureters, I think
he will be persuaded by this also of the forethought and art shown
by Nature in relation to animals.
Now Hippocrates, who was the first known to us of all those who have
been both physicians and philosophers in as much as he was the first
to recognize what Nature effects, expresses his admiration of her,
and is constantly singing her praises and calling her "just." Alone,
he says, she suffices for the animal in every respect, performing
of her own accord and without any teaching all that is required. Being
such, she has, as he supposes, certain faculties, one attractive of
what is appropriate, and another eliminative of what is foreign, and
she nourishes the animal, makes it grow, and expels its diseases by
crisis. Therefore he says that there is in our bodies a concordance
in the movements of air and fluid, and that everything is in sympathy.
According to Asclepiades, however, nothing is naturally in 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, and, being utterly
unable to find anything to say regarding the clearing-out of superfluities,
he did not hesitate to join issue with obvious facts, and, in this
matter of urinary secretion, to deprive both the kidneys and the ureters
of their activity, by assuming that there were certain invisible channels
opening into the bladder. It was, of course, a grand and impressive
thing to do, to mistrust the obvious, and to pin one's faith in things
which could not be seen!
Also, in the matter of the yellow bile, he makes an even grander and
more spirited venture; for he says this is actually generated in the
bile-ducts, not merely separated out.
How comes it, then, that in cases of jaundice two things happen at
the same time- that the dejections contain absolutely no bile, and
that the whole body becomes full of it? He is forced here again to
talk nonsense, just as he did in regard to the urine. He also talks
no less nonsense about the black bile and the spleen, not understanding
what was said by Hippocrates; and he attempts in stupid- I might say
insane- language, to contradict what he knows nothing about.
And what profit did he derive from these opinions from the point of
view of treatment? He neither was able to cure a kidney ailment, nor
jaundice, nor a disease of black bile, nor would he agree with the
view held not merely by Hippocrates but by all men regarding drugs-
that some of them purge away yellow bile, and others black, some again
phlegm, and others the thin and watery superfluity; he held that all
the substances evacuated were produced by the drugs themselves, just
as yellow bile is produced by the biliary passages! It matters nothing,
according to this extraordinary man, whether we give a hydragogue
or a cholagogue in a case of dropsy, for these all equally purge and
dissolve the body, and produce a solution having such and such an
appearance, which did not exist as such before!
Must we not, therefore, suppose he was either mad, or entirely unacquainted
with practical medicine? For who does not know that if a drug for
attracting phlegm be given in a case of jaundice it will not even
evacuate four cyathi of phlegm? Similarly also if one of the hydragogues
be given. A cholagogue, on the other hand, clears away a great quantity
of bile, and the skin of patients so treated at once becomes clear.
I myself have, in many cases, after treating the liver condition,
then removed the disease by means of a single purgation; whereas,
if one had employed a drug for removing phlegm one would have done
no good.
Nor is Hippocrates the only one who knows this to be so, whilst those
who take experience alone as their starting-point know otherwise;
they, as well as all physicians who are engaged in the practice of
medicine, are of this opinion. Asclepiades, however, is an exception;
he would hold it a betrayal of his assumed "elements" to confess the
truth about such matters. For if a single drug were to be discovered
which attracted such and such a humour only, there would obviously
be danger of the opinion gaining ground that there is in every body
a faculty which attracts its own particular quality. He therefore
says that safflower, the Cnidian berry, and Hippophaes, do not draw
phlegm from the body, but actually make it. Moreover, he holds that
the flower and scales of bronze, and burnt bronze itself, and germander,
and wild mastich dissolve the body into water, and that dropsical
patients derive benefit from these substances, not because they are
purged by them, but because they are rid of substances which actually
help to increase the disease; for, if the medicine does not evacuate
the dropsical fluid contained in the body, but generates it, it aggravates
the condition further. Moreover, scammony, according to the Asclepiadean
argument, not only fails to evacuate the bile from the bodies of jaundiced
subjects, but actually turns the useful blood into bile, and dissolves
the body; in fact it does all manner of evil and increases the disease.
And yet this drug may be clearly seen to do good to numbers of people!
"Yes," says he, "they derive benefit certainly, but merely in proportion
to the evacuation."... But if you give these cases a drug which draws
off phlegm they will not be benefited. This is so obvious that even
those who make experience alone their starting-point are aware of
it; and these people make it a cardinal point of their teaching to
trust to no arguments, but only to what can be clearly seen. In this,
then, they show good sense; whereas Asclepiades goes far astray in
bidding us distrust our senses where obvious facts plainly overturn
his hypotheses. Much better would it have been for him not to assail
obvious facts, but rather to devote himself entirely to these.
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? 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.
14. Let us pass on, then, again to another piece of nonsense; for
the sophists do not allow one to engage in enquiries that are of any
worth, albeit there are many such; they compel one to spend one's
time in dissipating the fallacious arguments which they bring forward.
What, then, is this piece of nonsense? It has to do with the famous
and far-renowned stone which draws iron [the lodestone]. It might
be thought that this would draw their minds to a belief that there
are in all bodies certain faculties by which they attract their own
proper qualities.
Now Epicurus, despite the fact that he employs in his "Physics" elements
similar to those of Asclepiades, yet allows that iron is attracted
by the lodestone, and chaff by amber. He even tries to give the cause
of the phenomenon. His view is that the atoms which flow from the
stone are related in shape to those flowing from the iron, and so
they become easily interlocked with one another; thus it is that,
after colliding with each of the two compact masses (the stone and
the iron) they then rebound into the middle and so become entangled
with each other, and draw the iron after them. So far, then, as his
hypotheses regarding causation go, he is perfectly unconvincing; nevertheless,
he does grant that there is an attraction. Further, he says that it
is on similar principles that there occur in the bodies of animals
the dispersal of nutriment and the discharge of waste matters, as
also the actions of cathartic drugs.
Asclepiades, however, who viewed with suspicion the incredible character
of the cause mentioned, and who saw no other credible cause on the
basis of his supposed elements, shamelessly had recourse to the statement
that nothing is in any way attracted by anything else. Now, if he
was dissatisfied with what Epicurus said, and had nothing better to
say himself, he ought to have refrained from making hypotheses, and
should have said that Nature is a constructive artist and that the
substance of things is always tending towards unity and also towards
alteration because its own parts act upon and are acted upon by one
another. For, if he had assumed this, it would not have been difficult
to allow that this constructive Nature has powers which attract appropriate
and expel alien matter. For in no other way could she be constructive,
preservative of the animal, and eliminative of its diseases, unless
it be allowed that she conserves what is appropriate and discharges
what is foreign.
But in this matter, too, Asclepiades realized the logical sequence
of the principles he had assumed; he showed no scruples, however,
in opposing plain fact; he joins issue in this matter also, not merely
with all physicians, but with everyone else, and maintains that there
is no such thing as a crisis, or critical day, and that Nature does
absolutely nothing for the preservation of the animal. For his constant
aim is to follow out logical consequences and to upset obvious fact,
in this respect being opposed to Epicurus; for the latter always stated
the observed fact, although he gives an ineffective explanation of
it. For, that these small corpuscles belonging to the lodestone rebound,
and become entangled with other similar particles of the iron, and
that then, by means of this entanglement (which cannot be seen anywhere)
such a heavy substance as iron is attracted- I fail to understand
how anybody could believe this. Even if we admit this, the same principle
will not explain the fact that, when the iron has another piece brought
in contact with it, this becomes attached to it.
For what are we to say? That, forsooth, some of the particles that
flow from the lodestone collide with the iron and then rebound back,
and that it is by these that the iron becomes suspended? that others
penetrate into it, and rapidly pass through it by way of its empty
channels? that these then collide with the second piece of iron and
are not able to penetrate it although they penetrated the first piece?
and that they then course back to the first piece, and produce entanglements
like the former ones?
The hypothesis here becomes clearly refuted by its absurdity. As a
matter of fact, I have seen five writing-stylets of iron attached
to one another in a line, only the first one being in contact with
the lodestone, and the power being transmitted through it to the others.
Moreover, it cannot be said that if you bring a second stylet into
contact with the lower end of the first, it becomes held, attached,
and suspended, whereas, if you apply it to any other part of the side
it does not become attached. For the power of the lodestone is distributed
in all directions; it merely needs to be in contact with the first
stylet at any point; from this stylet again the power flows, as quick
as a thought, all through the second, and from that again to the third.
Now, if you imagine a small lodestone hanging in a house, and in contact
with it all round a large number of pieces of iron, from them again
others, from these others, and so on,- all these pieces of iron must
surely become filled with the corpuscles which emanate from the stone;
therefore, this first little stone is likely to become dissipated
by disintegrating into these emanations. Further, even if there be
no iron in contact with it, it still disperses into the air, particularly
if this be also warm.
"Yes," says Epicurus, "but these corpuscles must be looked on as exceedingly
small, so that some of them are a ten-thousandth part of the size
of the very smallest particles carried in the air." Then do you venture
to say that so great a weight of iron can be suspended by such small
bodies? If each of them is a ten-thousandth part as large as the dust
particles which are borne in the atmosphere, how big must we suppose
the hook-like extremities by which they interlock with each other
to be? For of course this is quite the smallest portion of the whole
particle.
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. 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, 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.
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, and others
that of some other animal; we can, in fact, plainly observe these
poisons deposited on the medicaments. Here, then, we must praise Epicurus
for the respect he shows towards obvious facts, but find fault with
his views as to causation. For how can it be otherwise than extremely
foolish to suppose that a thorn which we failed to remove by digital
traction could be drawn out by these minute particles?
Have we now, therefore, convinced ourselves that everything which
exists 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? 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.
Thus the theory that the water is carried towards the rarefied part
of the air surrounding us (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.
15. 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!), 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, 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. 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; they
are situated on both sides of it. Besides, if the kidneys are like
sieves, and readily let the thinner serous [whey-like] portion through,
and keep out the thicker portion, then the whole of the blood contained
in the vena cava must go to them, just as the whole of the wine is
thrown into the filters. Further, the example of milk being made into
cheese will show clearly what I mean. For this, too, although it is
all thrown into the wicker strainers, does not all percolate through;
such part of it as is too fine in proportion to the width of the meshes
passes downwards, and this is called whey [serum]; the remaining thick
portion which is destined to become cheese cannot get down, since
the pores of the strainers will not admit it. Thus it is that, if
the blood-serum has similarly to percolate through the kidneys, the
whole of the blood must come to them, and not merely one part of it.
What, then, is the appearance as found on dissection?
One division of the vena cava is carried upwards 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 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, and that this
attraction does not take place in the way imagined by people who do
not allow Nature a faculty of her own.
For if it be granted that there is any attractive faculty at all in
those things which are governed by Nature, a person who attempted
to say anything else about the absorption of nutriment would be considered
a fool.
16. Now, while Erasistratus 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." But
when he is dealing with anadosis he does not mention the Hippocratic
view even to the extent of a single syllable. Yet we should have been
satisfied if he had even merely written this: "Hippocrates lies in
saying 'The flesh 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," or if
he [Erasistratus] had thought proper to write any other similar opinion,
then we in our turn would have defended ourselves in the following
terms:
"My good sir, do not run us down in this rhetorical fashion without
some proof; state some definite objection to our view, in order that
either you may convince us by a brilliant refutation of the ancient
doctrine, or that, on the other hand, we may convert you from your
ignorance." Yet why do I say "rhetorical"? For we too are not to suppose
that when certain rhetoricians pour ridicule upon that which they
are quite incapable of refuting, without any attempt at argument,
their words are really thereby constituted rhetoric. For rhetoric
proceeds by persuasive reasoning; words without reasoning are buffoonery
rather than rhetoric. Therefore, the reply of Erasistratus in his
treatise "On Deglutition" was neither rhetoric nor logic. For what
is it that he says? "Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise
any traction." Let us testify against him in return, and set our argument
beside his in the same form. Now, there appears to be no peristalsis
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, 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, 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; 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, for, if this were so, nobody would have ever died
of retention of urine, since no more can flow into a vacuum than has
run out. For, if no other factor comes into operation 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 of nutriment by the stomach which
occurs in the process of anadosis; this had been entirely disproved
in the case of blood in the vena cava; it is excluded, not merely
owing to the long distance, but also from the fact that the overlying
heart, at each diastole, robs the vena cava by violence of a considerable
quantity of blood.
In relation to the lower part of the vena cava 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;
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 fall 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]," 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, 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.
17. 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, still it is difficult, or, rather, impossible, to
say through what means it is going to fall into the kidneys, seeing
that these are not situated below, but on either side of the vena
cava, and that the vena cava is not inserted into them, but merely
sends a branch 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!), let us now speak
of the worst doctrine of all, lately invented by Lycus of Macedonia,
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! 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." 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, and sometimes even more, of residual matter. For this
surplus must necessarily be greater in quantity in each of the larger
viscera; thus, for example, that of the lung, if it corresponds in
amount to the size of the viscus, will obviously be many times more
than that in the kidneys, and thus the whole of the thorax will become
filled, and the animal will be at once suffocated. But if it be said
that the residual matter is equal in amount in each of the other parts,
where are the bladders, one may ask, through which it is excreted?
For, if the kidneys produce in drinkers three and sometimes four congii
of superfluous matter, that of each of the other viscera will be much
more, and thus an enormous barrel will be needed to contain the waste
products of them all. Yet one often urinates practically the same
quantity as one has drunk, which would show that the whole of what
one drinks goes to the kidneys.
Thus the author of this third piece of trickery would appear to have
achieved nothing, but to have been at once detected, and there still
remains the original difficulty which was insoluble by Erasistratus
and by all others except Hippocrates. I dwell purposely on this topic,
knowing well that nobody else has anything to say about the function
of the kidneys, but that either we must prove more foolish than the
very butchers 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, 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.
|