Chapter XIX: Book I: I (2)

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 _continuous_[72] 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 natures[75] [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.

XII

Hoti men oun anankaion homoiôsin tin' einai tou
trephontos tô trephomenô tên threpsin, antikrys dêlon.
ou mên hyparchousan ge tautên tên homoiôsin, alla
phainomenên monon einai phasin hoi mête technikên
oiomenoi tên physin einai mête pronoêtikên tou zôou
mêth' holôs tinas oikeias echein dynameis, hais chrômenê
ta men alloioi, ta d' helkei, || ta d' ekkrinei. 27

Kai hautai dyo gegonasin haireseis kata genos en iatrikê
te kai philosophia tôn apophênamenôn ti peri physeôs
andrôn, hosoi g' autôn gignôskousin, ho ti legousi, kai
tên akolouthian hôn hypethento theôrousi th' hama kai
diaphylattousin. hosoi de mêd' auto touto syniasin, all'
haplôs, ho ti an epi glôttan elthê, lêrousin, en
oudetera tôn haireseôn akribôs katamenontes, oude
memnêsthai tôn toioutôn prosêkei.

Tines oun hai dyo haireseis hautai kai tis hê tôn en
autais hypotheseôn akolouthia? tên hypobeblêmenên ousian
genesei kai phthora pasan hênômenên th' hama kai
alloiousthai dynamenên hypetheto thateron genos tês
haireseôs, ametablêton de kai analloiôton kai
katatetmêmenên eis lepta kai kenais tais metaxy chôrais
dieilêmmenên hê loipê.

Kai toinyn hosoi ge tês akolouthias tôn hypotheseôn
aisthanontai, kata men tên deuteran hairesin oute
physeôs oute psychês idian tina nomizousin ousian ê
dynamin hyparchein, || all' en tê poia synodô tôn prôtôn 28
ekeinôn sômatôn tôn apathôn apoteleisthai. kata de tên
proteran eirêmenên hairesin ouch hystera tôn sômatôn hê
physis, alla poly protera te kai presbytera. kai toinyn
kata men toutous hautê ta sômata tôn te phytôn kai tôn
zôôn synistêsi dynameis tinas echousa tas men helktikas
th' hama kai homoiôtikas tôn oikeiôn, tas d' apokritikas
tôn allotriôn, kai technikôs hapanta diaplattei te
gennôsa kai pronoeitai tôn gennômenôn heterais authis
tisi dynamesi, sterktikê men tini kai pronoêtikê tôn
engonôn, koinônikê de kai philikê tôn homogenôn. kata d'
au tous heterous oute toutôn ouden hyparchei tais
physesin out' ennoia tis esti tê psychê symphytos ex
archês ouk akolouthias ou machês, ou diaireseôs ou
syntheseôs, ou dikaiôn ouk adikôn, ou kalôn ouk
aischrôn, all' ex aisthêseôs te kai di' aisthêseôs
hapanta ta toiauth' hêmin engignesthai phasi kai
phantasiais tisi kai mnêmais oiakizesthai ta zôa.

Enioi || d' autôn kai rhêtôs apephênanto mêdemian einai 29
tês psychês dynamin, hê logizometha, all' hypo tôn
aisthêtôn agesthai pathôn hêmas kathaper boskêmata pros
mêden ananeusai mêd' anteipein dynamenous. kath' hous
dêlonoti kai andreia kai phronêsis kai sôphrosynê kai
enkrateia lêros esti makros kai philoumen out' allêlous
oute ta engona kai tois theois ouden hêmôn melei.
kataphronousi de kai tôn oneiratôn kai tôn oiônôn kai
tôn symbolôn kai pasês astrologias, hyper hôn hêmeis men
idia di' heterôn grammatôn epi pleon eskepsametha peri
tôn Asklêpiadou tou iatrou skopoumenoi dogmatôn. enesti
de tois boulomenois kakeinois men homilêsai tois logois
kai nyn d' êdê skopein, hôsper tinôn dyoin hodôn hêmin
prokeimenôn, hopoteran beltion esti trepesthai.
Hippokratês men gar tên proteran rhêtheisan etrapeto,
kath' hên hênôtai men hê ousia kai alloioutai kai
sympnoun holon esti kai syrrhoun to sôma kai hê physis
hapanta technikôs kai dikaiôs prattei dynameis echousa,
kath' has hekaston tôn moriôn helkei men || eph' heauto 30
ton oikeion heautô chymon, helxan de prosphyei te panti
merei tôn en hautô kai teleôs exomoioi, to de mê
kratêthen en toutô mêde tên pantelê dynêthen alloiôsin
te kai homoiotêta tou trephomenou katadexasthai di'
heteras au tinos ekkritikês dynameôs apotribetai.

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 quality_[80] 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 peritoneum[86] 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[87] 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 skill[90]--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 ducts[92] 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-out[97] 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[98]; he held that all the substances evacuated[99] 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[99] 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 _cyathi_[101] 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[102] 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 body[104] 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 mastich[109] 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[110] 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[110] 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[111] 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.

XIII

Mathein d' enestin ou monon ex hôn hoi tanantia
tithemenoi diapherontai tois enargôs phainomenois, eis
hoson orthotêtos te kai alêtheias hêkei ta Hippokratous
dogmata, alla kax autôn tôn kata meros en tê physikê
theôria zêtoumenôn tôn t' allôn hapantôn kai tôn en tois
zôois energeiôn. hosoi gar oudemian oudeni moriô
nomizousin hyparchein helktikên tês oikeias poiotêtos
dynamin, anankazontai pollakis enantia legein tois
enargôs phainomenois, hôsper kai Asklêpiadês ho iatros
epi tôn nephrôn epoiêsen, hous ou monon Hippokratês ê
Dioklês ê Erasistratos ê Praxagoras ê tis allos iatros
aristos organa diakritika tôn ourôn pepisteukasin
hyparchein, alla kai hoi || mageiroi schedon hapantes 31
isasin, hosêmerai theômenoi tên te thesin autôn kai ton
aph' hekaterou poron eis tên kystin emballonta, ton
ourêtêra kaloumenon, ex autês tês kataskeuês
analogizomenoi tên te chreian autôn kai tên dynamin. kai
pro ge tôn mageirôn hapantes anthrôpoi kai dysourountes
pollakis kai pantapasin ischourountes, hotan algôsi men
ta kata tas psoas, psammôdê d' exourôsin, nephritikous
onomazousi sphas autous.

Asklêpiadên d' oimai mêde lithon ourêthenta pote
theasasthai pros tôn houtô paschontôn mêd' hôs
proêgêsato kata tên metaxy tôn nephrôn kai tês kysteôs
chôran odynê tis oxeia dierchomenou tou lithou ton
ourêtêra mêd' hôs ourêthentos autou ta te tês odynês kai
ta tês ischourias epausato parachrêma. pôs oun eis tên
kystin tô logô paragei to ouron, axion akousai kai
thaumasai tandros tên sophian, hos katalipôn houtôs
eureias hodous enargôs phainomenas aphaneis kai stenas
kai pantapasin anaisthêtous || hypetheto. bouletai gar 32
eis atmous analyomenon to pinomenon hygron eis tên
kystin diadidosthai kapeit' ex ekeinôn authis allêlois
syniontôn houtôs apolambanein auto tên archaian idean
kai gignesthai palin hygron ex atmôn atechnôs hôs peri
spongias tinos ê eriou tês kysteôs dianooumenos, all' ou
sômatos akribôs pyknou kai steganou dyo chitônas
ischyrotatous kektêmenou, di' hôn eiper dierchesthai
phêsomen tous atmous, ti dêpot' ouchi dia tou
peritonaiou kai tôn phrenôn dielthontes eneplêsan
hydatos to t' epigastrion hapan kai ton thôraka? alla
pachyteros, phêsin, esti dêladê kai steganôteros ho
peritonaios chitôn tês kysteôs kai dia tout' ekeinos men
apostegei tous atmous, hê de kystis paradechetai. all'
eiper anatetmêkei pote, tach' an êpistato ton men
exôthen chitôna tês kysteôs apo tou peritonaiou
pephykota tên autên ekeinô physin echein, ton d'
endothen ton autês tês kysteôs idion pleon ê diplasion
ekeinou to pachos hyparchein.

All' isôs oute to || pachos outh' hê leptotês tôn 33
chitônôn, all' hê thesis tês kysteôs aitia tou
pheresthai tous atmous eis autên. kai mên ei kai dia
talla panta pithanon ên autous entauthoi
synathroizesthai, to ge tês theseôs monês autarkes
kôlysai. katô men gar hê kystis keitai, tois d' atmois
symphytos hê pros to meteôron phora, hôste poly proteron
an eplêsan hapanta ta kata ton thôraka te kai ton
pneumona, prin epi tên kystin aphikesthai.

Kaitoi ti theseôs kysteôs kai peritonaiou kai thôrakos
mnêmoneuô? diekpesontes gar dêpou tous te tês koilias
kai tôn enterôn chitônas hoi atmoi kata tên metaxy
chôran autôn te toutôn kai tou peritonaiou
synathroisthêsontai kai hygron entauthoi genêsontai,
hôsper kai tois hyderikois en toutô tô chôriô to
pleiston athroizetai tou hydatos, ê pantôs autous chrê
pheresthai prosô dia pantôn tôn hopôsoun homilountôn kai
mêdepoth' histasthai. all' ei kai touto tis hypothoito,
diekpesontes an houtôs ou to peritonaion monon alla kai
to epigastrion, eis to periechon skedastheien ê pantôs
an hypo tô dermati || synathroistheien. 34

Alla kai pros taut' antilegein hoi nyn Asklêpiadeioi
peirôntai, kaitoi pros hapantôn aei tôn paratynchanontôn
autois, hotan peri toutôn erizôsi, katagelômenoi. houtôs
ara dysapotripton ti kakon estin hê peri tas haireseis
philotimia kai dyseknipton en tois malista kai psôras
hapasês dysiatoteron.

Tôn goun kath' hêmas tis sophistôn ta t' alla kai peri
tous eristikous logous hikanôs synkekrotêmenos kai
deinos eipein, eiper tis allos, aphikomenos emoi poth'
hyper toutôn eis logous, tosouton apedei tou
dysôpeisthai pros tinos tôn eirêmenôn, hôste kai
thaumazein ephasken emou ta saphôs phainomena logois
lêrôdesin anatrepein epicheirountos. enargôs gar
hosêmerai theôreisthai tas kysteis hapasas, ei tis autas
emplêseien hydatos ê aeros, eita dêsas ton trachêlon
piezoi pantachothen, oudamothen methieisas ouden, all'
akribôs hapan entos heautôn stegousas. kaitoi g' eiper
êsan tines ek tôn nephrôn eis autas hêkontes aisthêtoi
kai megaloi poroi, pantôs an, ephê, di' ekeinôn, hôsper
eisêei to || hygron eis autas, houtô kai thlibontôn 35
exekrineto. tauta kai ta toiaut' eipôn exaiphnês
aptaistô kai saphei tô stomati teleutôn anapêdêsas apêei
katalipôn hêmas hôs oude pithanês tinos antilogias
euporêsai dynamenous.

Houtôs ou monon hygies ouden isasin hoi tais hairesesi
douleuontes, all' oude mathein hypomenousi. deon gar
akousai tên aitian, di' hên eisienai men dynatai dia tôn
ourêtêrôn eis tên kystin to hygron, exienai d' authis
opisô tên autên hodon ouketh' hoion te, kai thaumasai
tên technên tês physeôs, oute mathein ethelousi kai
loidorountai proseti matên hyp' autês alla te polla kai
tous nephrous gegonenai phaskontes. eisi d' hoi kai
deichthênai parontôn autôn tous apo tôn nephrôn eis tên
kystin emphyomenous ourêtêras hypomeinantes etolmêsan
eipein hoi men, hoti matên kai houtoi gegonasin, hoi d',
hoti spermatikoi tines eisi poroi kai dia touto kata ton
trachêlon autês, ouk eis to kytos emphyontai. deixantes
oun hêmeis autois tous hôs alêthôs spermatikous porous
katôterô tôn ourêtêrôn || emballontas eis ton trachêlon, 36
nyn goun, ei kai mê proteron, ôêthêmen apaxein te tôn
pseudôs hypeilêmmenôn epi te tanantia metastêsein
autika. hoi de kai pros tout' antilegein etolmôn ouden
einai thaumaston eipontes, en ekeinois men hôs an
steganôterois ousin epi pleon hypomenein to sperma, kata
de tous apo tôn nephrôn hôs an hikanôs aneurysmenous
ekrein dia tacheôn. hêmeis oun ênankasthêmen autois tou
loipou deiknyein eisreon tê kystei dia tôn ourêtêrôn to
ouron enargôs epi zôntos eti tou zôou, mogis an houtô
pote tên phlyarian autôn epischêsein elpizontes.

Ho de tropos tês deixeôs esti toiosde. dielein chrê to
pro tôn ourêtêrôn peritonaion, eita brochois autous
eklabein kapeit' epidêsantas easai to zôon; ou gar an
ourêseien eti. meta de tauta lyein men tous exôthen
desmous, deiknynai de kenên men tên kystin, mestous d'
hikanôs kai diatetamenous tous ourêtêras kai
kindyneuontas rhagênai kapeita tous brochous autôn
aphelontas enargôs horan êdê plêroumenên ourou tên
kystin.

Epi de toutô || phanenti, prin ourêsai to zôon, brochon 37
autou peribalein chrê tô aidoiô kapeita thlibein
pantachothen tên kystin. oude gar an ouden eti dia tôn
ourêtêrôn epanelthoi pros tous nephrous. kan toutô dêlon
gignetai to mê monon epi tethneôtos alla kai periontos
eti tou zôou kôlyesthai metalambanein authis ek tês
kysteôs tous ourêtêras to ouron. epi toutois ophtheisin
epitrepein êdê to zôon ourein lyontas autou ton epi tô
aidoiô brochon, eit' authis epibalein men thaterô tôn
ourêtêrôn, easai de ton heteron eis tên kystin syrrhein
kai tina dialipontas chronon epideiknyein êdê, pôs ho
men heteros autôn ho dedemenos mestos kai diatetamenos
kata ta pros tôn nephrôn merê phainetai, ho d' heteros
ho lelymenos autos men chalaros esti, peplêrôke d' ourou
tên kystin. eit' authis diatemein prôton men ton plêrê
kai deixai, pôs exakontizetai to ouron ex autou,
kathaper en tais phlebotomiais to haima, meta tauta de
kai ton heteron authis diatemein kapeit' epidêsai to
zôon exôthen, amphoterôn diêrêmenôn, || eith' hotan 38
hikanôs echein dokê, lysai ton desmon. heurethêsetai gar
hê men kystis kenê, plêres d' ourou to metaxy tôn
enterôn te kai tou peritonaiou chôrion hapan, hôs an ei
kai hyderikon ên to zôon. taut' oun ei tis autos kath'
heauton boulêtheiê basanizein epi zôou, megalôs moi
dokei katagnôsesthai tês Asklêpiadou propeteias. ei de
dê kai tên aitian mathoi, di' hên ouden ek tês kysteôs
eis tous ourêtêras antekrei, peisthênai an moi dokei kai
dia toude tên eis ta zôa pronoian te kai technên tês
physeôs.

Hippokratês men oun hôn ismen iatrôn te kai philosophôn
prôtos hapantôn, hôs an kai prôtos epignous ta tês
physeôs erga, thaumazei te kai dia pantos autên hymnei
dikaian onomazôn kai monên exarkein eis hapanta tois
zôois phêsin, autên ex hautês adidaktôs prattousan
hapanta ta deonta; toiautên d' ousan autên eutheôs kai
dynameis hypelaben echein helktikên men tôn oikeiôn,
apokritikên de tôn allotriôn kai trephein te kai auxein
au||tên ta zôa kai krinein ta nosêmata; kai dia tout' en 39
tois sômasin hêmôn sympnoian te mian einai phêsi kai
syrrhoian kai panta sympathea. kata de ton Asklêpiadên
ouden oudeni sympathes esti physei, diêrêmenês te kai
katatethrausmenês eis anarma stoicheia kai lêrôdeis
onkous hapasês tês ousias. ex anankês oun alla te myria
tois enargôs phainomenois enantiôs apephênato kai tês
physeôs êgnoêse tên te tôn oikeiôn epispastikên dynamin
kai tên tôn allotriôn apokritikên. epi men oun tês
exaimatôseôs te kai anadoseôs exeure tina psychran
adoleschian; eis de tên tôn perittômatôn katharsin ouden
holôs heurôn eipein ouk ôknêsen homose chôrêsai tois
phainomenois, epi men tês tôn ourôn diakriseôs
aposterêsas men tôn te nephrôn kai tôn ourêtêrôn tên
energeian, adêlous de tinas porous eis tên kystin
hypothemenos; touto gar ên dêladê mega kai semnon
apistêsanta tois phainomenois pisteusai tois adêlois.

Epi || de tês xanthês cholês eti meizon autô kai 40
neanikôteron esti to tolmêma; gennasthai gar autên en
tois cholêdochois angeiois, ou diakrinesthai legei.

Pôs oun tois ikterikois ham' amphô sympiptei, ta men
diachôrêmata mêden holôs en hautois echonta cholês,
anapleôn d' autois gignomenon holon to sôma? lêrein
palin entauth' anankazetai tois epi tôn ourôn eirêmenois
paraplêsiôs. lêrei d' ouden hêtton kai peri tês melainês
cholês kai tou splênos oute ti poth' hyph' Hippokratous
eirêtai synieis antilegein t' epicheirôn hois ouk oiden
emplêktô tini kai manikô stomati.

Ti dê to kerdos ek tôn toioutôn dogmatôn eis tas
therapeias ektêsato? mête nephritikon ti nosêma
dynasthai therapeusai mêt' ikterikon mête melancholikon,
alla kai peri tou pasin anthrôpois ouch Hippokratei
monon homologoumenou tou kathairein tôn pharmakôn enia
men tên xanthên cholên, enia de tên melainan, alla de
tina phlegma kai tina to lepton kai hydatôdes perittôma,
mêde peri toutôn synchôrein, all' hyp' autôn tôn
pharmakôn gignesthai legein toiouton hekaston tôn
kenoumenôn, hôsper hypo tôn cholê||dochôn porôn tên 41
cholên; kai mêden diapherein kata ton thaumaston
Asklêpiadên ê hydragôgon didonai tois hyderiôsin ê
cholagôgon pharmakon; hapanta gar homoiôs kenoun kai
syntêkein to sôma kai to syntêgma toionde ti phainesthai
poiein, mê proteron hyparchon toiouton.

Ar' oun ou mainesthai nomisteon auton ê pantapasin
apeiron einai tôn ergôn tês technês? tis gar ouk oiden,
hôs, ei men phlegmatos agôgon dotheiê pharmakon tois
ikteriôsin, ouk an oude tettaras kyathous kathartheien;
houtô d' oud' ei tôn hydragôgôn ti; cholagôgô de
pharmakô pleiston men ekkenoutai cholês, autika de
katharos tois houtô kathartheisin ho chrôs gignetai.
pollous goun hêmeis meta to therapeusai tên en tô hêpati
diathesin hapax kathêrantes apêllaxamen tou pathêmatos.
ou mên oud' ei phlegmatos agôgô kathairois pharmakô,
pleon an ti diapraxaio.

Kai taut' ouch Hippokratês men houtôs oide gignomena,
tois d' apo tês empeirias monês hormômenois heterôs
egnôstai, alla kakei||nois hôsautôs kai pasin iatrois, 42
hois melei tôn ergôn tês technês, houtô dokei plên
Asklêpiadou. prodosian gar einai nenomike tôn stoicheiôn
hôn hypetheto tên alêthê peri tôn toioutôn homologian.
ei gar holôs heuretheiê ti pharmakon helktikon toude
tinos tou chymou monou, kindynos kratein dêladê tô logô
to en hekastô tôn sômatôn einai tina dynamin
epispastikên tês oikeias poiotêtos. dia touto knêkon men
kai kokkon ton knidion kai hippophaes ouch helkein ek
tou sômatos alla poiein to phlegma phêsin; anthos de
chalkou kai lepida kai auton ton kekaumenon chalkon kai
chamaidryn kai chamaileonta eis hydôr analyein to sôma
kai tous hyderikous hypo toutôn ou kathairomenous
oninasthai alla kenoumenous synauxontôn dêladê to
pathos. ei gar ou kenoi to periechomenon en tois sômasin
hydatôdes hygron all' auto genna, tô nosêmati
prostimôreitai. kai men ge kai hê skammônia pros tô mê
kenoun ek tou sômatos tôn ikterikôn tên cholên eti kai
to chrêston haima cholên ergazomenê || kai syntêkousa to 43
sôma kai têlikauta kaka drôsa kai to pathos epauxousa
kata ge ton Asklêpiadou logon.

Homôs enargôs horatai pollous ôphelousa. nai, phêsin,
oninantai men, all' autô monô tô logô tês kenôseôs. kai
mên ei phlegmatos agôgon autois doiês pharmakon, ouk
onêsontai. kai touth' houtôs enarges estin, hôste kai
hoi apo monês tês empeirias hormômenoi gignôskousin
auto. kaitoi toutois ge tois andrasin auto dê tout' esti
philosophêma, to mêdeni logô pisteuein alla monois tois
enargôs phainomenois. ekeinoi men oun sôphronousin;
Asklêpiadês de parapaiei tais aisthêsesin hêmas apistein
keleuôn, entha to phainomenon anatrepei saphôs autou tas
hypotheseis. kaitoi makrô g' ên ameinon ouch homose
chôrein tois phainomenois all' ekeinois anathesthai to
pan.

Ar' oun tauta monon enargôs machetai tois Asklêpiadou
dogmasin ê kai to therous men pleiona kenousthai tên
xanthên cholên hypo tôn autôn pharmakôn, cheimônos de to
phlegma, kai neaniskô men pleiona tên cholên, presbytê
de to phlegma? phainetai || gar hekaston helkein tên 44
ousan, ouk auto gennan tên ouk ousan. ei goun ethelêsais
neaniskô tini tôn ischnôn kai thermôn hôra therous mêt'
argôs bebiôkoti mêt' en plêsmonê phlegmatos agôgon
dounai pharmakon, oligiston men kai meta bias pollês
ekkenôseis tou chymou, blapseis d' eschatôs ton
anthrôpon; empalin d' ei cholagôgon doiês, kai pampoly
kenôseis kai blapseis ouden.

Ar' apistoumen eti tô mê ouch hekaston tôn pharmakôn
epagesthai ton oikeion heautô chymon? isôs phêsousin hoi
ap' Asklêpiadou, mallon d' ouk isôs, alla pantôs
apistein erousin, hina mê prodôsi ta philtata.

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 draw[113] 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_[114] 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 causation[117] 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[118] 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 power[123] 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 other[125] 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 exists[130] 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 us[133] (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.

XIV

Palin oun kai hêmeis eph' heteran metabômen adoleschian;
ou gar epitrepousin hoi sophistai tôn axiôn ti zêtêmatôn
procheirizesthai kaitoi pampollôn hyparchontôn, alla
katatribein anankazousi ton chronon eis tên tôn
sophismatôn, hôn proballousi, lysin.

Tis oun hê adoleschia? hê endoxos hautê kai
polythrylêtos lithos hê ton sidêron || epispômenê. tacha 45
gar an hautê pote tên psychên autôn epispasaito
pisteuein einai tinas en hekastô tôn sômatôn helktikas
tôn oikeiôn poiotêtôn dynameis.

Epikouros men oun kaitoi paraplêsiois Asklêpiadê
stoicheiois pros tên physiologian chrômenos homôs
homologei, pros men tês hêrakleias lithou ton sidêron
helkesthai, pros de tôn êlektrôn ta kyrêbia kai peiratai
ge kai tên aitian apodidonai tou phainomenou. tas gar
aporrheousas atomous apo tês lithou tais aporrheousais
apo tou sidêrou tois schêmasin oikeias einai phêsin,
hôste periplekesthai rhadiôs. proskrouousas oun autas
tois synkrimasin hekaterois tês te lithou kai tou
sidêrou kapeit' eis to meson apopallomenas houtôs
allêlais te periplekesthai kai synepispasthai ton
sidêron. to men oun tôn hypotheseôn eis tên aitiologian
apithanon antikrys dêlon, homôs d' oun homologei tên
holkên. kai houtô ge kai kata ta sômata tôn zôôn phêsi
gignesthai tas t' anadoseis kai tas diakriseis tôn
perittômatôn kai tas tôn kathairontôn pharmakôn
energeias.

Asklêpiadês dê to te tês eirêmenês aitias apithanon || 46
hypidomenos kai mêdemian allên eph' hois hypetheto
stoicheiois exeuriskôn pithanên epi to mêd' holôs
helkesthai legein hypo mêdenos mêden anaischyntêsas
etrapeto, deon, ei mêth' hois Epikouros eipen êresketo
mêt' alla beltiô legein eichen, apostênai tôn
hypotheseôn kai tên te physin eipein technikên kai tên
ousian tôn ontôn henoumenên te pros heautên aei kai
alloioumenên hypo tôn heautês moriôn eis allêla drôntôn
te kai paschontôn. ei gar tauth' hypetheto, chalepon
ouden ên tên technikên ekeinên physin homologêsai
dynameis echein epispastikên men tôn oikeiôn,
apokritikên de tôn allotriôn. ou gar di' allo ti g' ên
autê to technikê t' einai kai tou zôou diasôstikê kai
tôn nosêmatôn kritikê para to prosiesthai men kai
phylattein to oikeion, apokrinein de to allotrion.

All' Asklêpiadês kantautha to men akolouthon tais
archais hais hypetheto syneiden, ou mên tên ge pros to
phainomenon enargôs êdesthê machên, all' homose || 47
chôrei kai peri toutou pasin ouk iatrois monon all' êdê
kai tois allois anthrôpois oute krisin einai tina legôn
outh' hêmeran krisimon outh' holôs ouden epi sôtêria tou
zôou pragmateusasthai tên physin. aei gar to men
akolouthon phylattein bouletai, to d' enargôs
phainomenon anatrepein empalin Epikourô. titheis gar
ekeinos aei to phainomenon aitian autou psychran
apodidôsi. ta gar apopallomena smikra sômata tês
hêrakleias lithou toioutois heterois periplekesthai
moriois tou sidêrou kapeita dia tês periplokês tautês
mêdamou phainomenês epispasthai bareian houtôs ousian
ouk oid' hopôs an tis peistheiê. kai gar ei touto
synchôrêsomen, to ge tô sidêrô palin heteron prostethen
ti synaptesthai tên autên aitian ouketi prosietai.