Chapter XXIII: Book II: B (1)

I

Hoti men oun anankaion estin ouk Erasistratô monon alla 74
kai tois allois hapasin, hosoi mellousi peri diakriseôs
ourôn erein ti chrêston, homologêsai dynamin tin'
hyparchein tois nephrois helkousan eis heautous poiotêta
toiautên, hoia en tois ourois esti, dia tou prosthen
epidedeiktai grammatos, anamimnêskontôn ham' autô kai
touth' hêmôn, hôs ouk allôs men eis tên kystin pheretai
ta oura dia tôn nephrôn, allôs d' eis hapanta tou zôou
ta moria to haima, kat' allon de tina tropon hê xanthê
cholê diakrinetai. deichtheisês gar enargôs eph' henos
|| houtinosoun organou tês helktikês te kai epispastikês 75
onomazomenês dynameôs ouden eti chalepon epi ta loipa
metapherein autên; ou gar dê tois men nephrois hê physis
edôke tina toiautên dynamin, ouchi de ge kai tois to
cholôdes hygron helkousin angeiois oude toutois men,
ouketi de kai tôn allôn moriôn hekastô. kai mên ei tout'
alêthes esti, thaumazein chrê tou Erasistratou pseudeis
houtô logous hyper anadoseôs trophês eipontos, hôs mêd'
Asklêpiadên lathein. kaitoi g' oietai pantos mallon
alêthes hyparchein, hôs, eiper ek tôn phlebôn aporrheoi
ti, dyoin thateron ê kenos estai topos athroôs ê to
syneches epirrhyêsetai tên basin anaplêroun tou
kenoumenou. all' ho g' Asklêpiadês ou dyoin thateron
phêsin, alla triôn hen ti chrênai legein epi tois
kenoumenois angeiois hepesthai ê kenon athroôs topon ê
to syneches akolouthêsein ê systalêsesthai to angeion.
epi men gar tôn kalamôn kai tôn auliskôn tôn eis to
hydôr kathiemenôn alêthes eipein, hoti kenoumenou tou
periechomenou kata tên || eurychôrian autôn aeros ê 76
kenos athroôs estai topos ê akolouthêsei to syneches;
epi de tôn phlebôn ouket' enchôrei, dynamenou dê tou
chitônos autôn eis heauton synizanein kai dia touto
katapiptein eis tên entos eurychôrian. houtô men dê
pseudês hê peri tês pros to kenoumenon akolouthias ouk
apodeixis ma Di' eipoim' an all' hypothesis
Erasistrateios.

Kath' heteron d' au tropon, ei kai alêthês eiê, perittê,
tês men koilias enthlibein tais phlepsi dynamenês, hôs
autos hypetheto, tôn phlebôn d' au peristellesthai tô
enyparchonti kai proôthein auto. ta te gar alla kai
plêthos ouk an en tô sômati genoito, tê pros to
kenoumenon akolouthia monê tês anadoseôs epiteloumenês.
ei men oun hê tês gastros enthlipsis eklyetai proïousa
kai mechri pantos adynatos estin exikneisthai kai dia
tout' allês tinos dei mêchanês eis tên pantê phoran tou
haimatos, anankaia men hê pros to kenoumenon akolouthia
prosexeurêtai; plêthos d' en oudeni tôn meth' hêpar
estai || moriôn, ê, eiper ara, peri tên kardian te kai 77
ton pneumona. monê gar hautê tôn meth' hêpar eis tên
dexian hautês koilian helkei tên trophên, eita dia tês
phlebos tês artêriôdous ekpempei tô pneumoni; tôn gar
allôn ouden oud' autos ho Erasistratos ek kardias
bouletai trephesthai dia tên tôn hymenôn epiphysin. ei
de g', hina plêthos genêtai, phylaxomen achri pantos tên
rhômên tês kata tên koilian enthlipseôs, ouden eti
deometha tês pros to kenoumenon akolouthias, malist' ei
kai tên tôn phlebôn synypothoimetha peristolên, hôs au
kai tout' autô palin areskei tô Erasistratô.

II

Let me draw his attention, then, once again, even if he does not wish it, to the kidneys, and let me state that these confute in the very clearest manner such people as object to the principle of _attraction_. Nobody has ever said anything plausible, nor, as we previously showed, has anyone been able to discover, by any means, any other cause for the secretion of urine; we necessarily appear mad if we maintain that the urine passes into the kidneys in the form of vapour, and we certainly cut a poor figure when we talk about the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled;[178] this idea is foolish in the case of blood, and impossible, nay, perfectly nonsensical, in the case of the urine.[179]

This, then, is one blunder made by those who dissociate themselves from the principle of attraction. Another is that which they make about the _secretion of yellow bile_. For in this case, too, it is not a fact that when the blood runs past the mouths [stomata] of the bile-ducts there will be a thorough separation out [secretion] of biliary waste-matter. "Well," say they, "let us suppose that it is not secreted but carried with the blood all over the body." But, you sapient folk, Erasistratus himself supposed that Nature took thought for the animals' future, and was workmanlike in her method; and at the same time he maintained that the biliary fluid was useless in every way for the animals. Now these two things are incompatible. For how could Nature be still looked on as exercising forethought for the animal when she allowed a noxious humour such as this to be carried off and distributed with the blood?...

This, however, is a small matter. I shall again point out here the greatest and most obvious error. For if the yellow bile adjusts itself to the narrower vessels and stomata, and the blood to the wider ones, for no other reason than that blood is thicker and bile thinner, and that the stomata of the veins are wider and those of the bile-ducts narrower,[180] then it is clear that this watery and serous superfluity,[181] too, will run out into the bile-ducts quicker than does the bile, exactly in proportion as it is thinner than the bile! How is it, then, that it does not run out? "Because," it may be said, "urine is thicker than bile!" This was what one of our Erasistrateans ventured to say, herein clearly disregarding the evidence of his senses, although he had trusted these in the case of the bile and blood. For, if it be that we are to look on bile as thinner than blood because it runs more, then, since the serous residue[181] passes through fine linen or lint or a sieve more easily even than does bile, by these tokens bile must also be thicker than the watery fluid. For here, again, there is no argument which will demonstrate that bile is thinner than the serous superfluities.

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

II

Anamnêsteon oun authis auton, kan mê boulêtai, tôn
nephrôn kai lekteon, hôs elenchos houtoi phanerôtatos
hapantôn tôn apochôrountôn tês holkês; oudeis gar ouden
out' eipe pithanon, all' oud' exeurein eiche kat' oudena
tropon, hôs emprosthen edeiknymen, heteron aition ourôn
diakriseôs, all' anankaion ê mainesthai dokein, ei
phêsaimen atmoei||dôs eis tên kystin ienai to ouron ê 78
aschêmonein tês pros to kenoumenon akolouthias
mnêmoneuontas, lêrôdous men ousês kapi tou haimatos,
adynatou de kai êlithiou pantapasin epi tôn ourôn.

Hen men dê touto sphalma tôn apostantôn tês holkês;
heteron de to peri tês kata tên xanthên cholên
diakriseôs. oude gar oud' ekei pararrheontos tou
haimatos ta stomata tôn cholêdochôn angeiôn akribôs
diakrithêsetai to cholôdes perittôma. kai mê
diakrinesthô, phasin, alla synanapheresthô tô haimati
pantê tou sômatos. all', ô sophôtatoi, pronoêtikên tou
zôou kai technikên autos ho Erasistratos hypetheto tên
physin. alla kai to cholôdes hygron achrêston einai
pantapasi tois zôois ephasken. ou symbainei d' allêlois
amphô tauta. pôs gar an eti pronoeisthai tou zôou
doxeien epitrepousa synanapheresthai tô haimati
mochthêron houtô chymon?

Alla tauta men smikra; to de megiston kai saphestaton
palin entauth' hamartêma kai dê phrasô. eiper gar di'
ouden all' ê hoti pachyteron men esti to haima,
leptotera d' hê || xanthê cholê kai ta men tôn phlebôn 79
eurytera stomata, ta de tôn cholêdochôn angeiôn
stenotera, dia touth' hê men cholê tois stenoterois
angeiois te kai stomasin enarmottei, to d' haima tois
euryterois, dêlon, hôs kai to hydatôdes touto kai
orrhôdes perittôma tosoutô proteron eisryêsetai tois
cholêdochois angeiois, hosô leptoteron esti tês cholês.
pôs oun ouk eisrei? hoti pachyteron esti nê Dia to ouron
tês cholês; touto gar etolmêse tis eipein tôn kath'
hêmas Erasistrateiôn apostas dêlonoti tôn aisthêseôn,
hais episteusen epi te tês cholês kai tou haimatos. eite
gar hoti mallon hê cholê tou haimatos rhei, dia touto
leptoteran autên hêmin esti nomisteon, eith' hoti di'
othonês ê rhakous ê tinos êthmou rhaon diexerchetai kai
tautês to orrhôdes perittôma, kata tauta ta gnôrismata
pachytera tês hydatôdous hygrotêtos kai hautê genêsetai.
palin gar oud' entautha logos oudeis estin, hos
apodeixei leptoteran tên cholên tôn orrhôdôn
perittômatôn.

All' hotan tis anaischyntê periplekôn te kai mêpô
katapeptôkenai synchôrôn, || homoios estai tois idiôtais 80
tôn palaistôn, hoi katablêthentes hypo tôn palaistrikôn
kai kata tês gês hyptioi keimenoi tosoutou deousi to
ptôma gnôrizein, hôste kai kratousi tôn auchenôn autous
tous katabalontas ouk eôntes apallattesthai, kan toutô
nikan hypolambanousi.

III

Thus, every hypothesis of _channels_[182] as an explanation of natural functioning is perfect nonsense. For, if there were not _an inborn faculty_ given by Nature to each one of the organs at the very beginning, then animals could not continue to live even for a few days, far less for the number of years which they actually do. For let us suppose they were under no guardianship, lacking in creative ingenuity[183] and forethought; let us suppose they were steered only by material forces,[184] and not by any special _faculties_ (the one attracting what is proper to it, another rejecting what is foreign, and yet another causing alteration and adhesion of the matter destined to nourish it); if we suppose this, I am sure it would be ridiculous for us to discuss natural, or, still more, psychical, activities--or, in fact, life as a whole.[185]

For there is not a single animal which could live or endure for the shortest time if, possessing within itself so many different parts, it did not employ faculties which were attractive of what is appropriate, eliminative of what is foreign, and alterative of what is destined for nutrition. On the other hand, if we have these faculties, we no longer need _channels_, little or big, resting on an unproven hypothesis, for explaining the secretion of urine and bile, and the conception of some _favourable situation_ (in which point alone Erasistratus shows some common sense, since he does regard all the parts of the body as having been well and truly placed and shaped by Nature).

But let us suppose he remained true to his own statement that Nature is "artistic"--this Nature which, at the beginning, well and truly shaped and disposed all the parts of the animal,[186] and, after carrying out this function (for she left nothing undone), brought it forward to the light of day, endowed with certain faculties necessary for its very existence, and, thereafter, gradually increased it until it reached its due size. If he argued consistently on this principle, I fail to see how he can continue to refer natural functions to the smallness or largeness of canals, or to any other similarly absurd hypothesis. For this Nature which shapes and gradually adds to the parts is most certainly extended throughout their whole substance. Yes indeed, she shapes and nourishes and increases them through and through, not on the outside only. For Praxiteles and Phidias and all the other statuaries used merely to decorate their material on the outside, in so far as they were able to touch it; but its inner parts they left unembellished, unwrought, unaffected by art or forethought, since they were unable to penetrate therein and to reach and handle all portions of the material. It is not so, however, with Nature. Every part of a bone she makes bone, every part of the flesh she makes flesh, and so with fat and all the rest; there is no part which she has not touched, elaborated, and embellished. Phidias, on the other hand, could not turn wax into ivory and gold, nor yet gold into wax: for each of these remains as it was at the commencement, and becomes a perfect statue simply by being clothed externally in a form and artificial shape. But Nature does not preserve the original character of any kind of matter; if she did so then all parts of the animal would be blood--that blood, namely, which flows to the semen from the impregnated female and which is, so to speak, like the statuary's wax, a single uniform matter, subjected to the artificer. From this blood there arises no part of the animal which is as red and moist [as blood is], for bone, artery, vein, nerve, cartilage, fat, gland, membrane, and marrow are not blood, though they arise from it.

I would then ask Erasistratus himself to inform me what the altering, coagulating, and shaping agent is. He would doubtless say, "Either Nature or the semen," meaning the same thing in both cases, but explaining it by different devices. For that which was previously semen, when it begins to procreate and to shape the animal, becomes, so to say, a special _nature_.[187] For in the same way that Phidias possessed the faculties of his art even before touching his material, and then activated these in connection with this material (for every faculty remains inoperative in the absence of its proper material), so it is with the semen: its faculties it possessed from the beginning,[188] while its activities it does not receive from its material, but it manifests them in connection therewith.

And, of course, if it were to be overwhelmed with a great quantity of blood, it would perish, while if it were to be entirely deprived of blood it would remain inoperative and would not turn into a _nature_. Therefore, in order that it may not perish, but may become a _nature_ in place of semen, there must be an afflux to it of a little blood--or, rather, one should not say a little, but a quantity commensurate with that of the semen. What is it then that measures the quantity of this afflux? What prevents more from coming? What ensures against a deficiency? What is this third overseer of animal generation that we are to look for, which will furnish the semen with a due amount of blood? What would Erasistratus have said if he had been alive, and had been asked this question? Obviously, the semen itself. This, in fact, is the artificer analogous with Phidias, whilst the blood corresponds to the statuary's wax.

Now, it is not for the wax to discover for itself how much of it is required; that is the business of Phidias. Accordingly the artificer will draw to itself as much blood as it needs. Here, however, we must pay attention and take care not unwittingly to credit the semen with reason and intelligence; if we were to do this, we would be making neither semen nor a nature, but an actual living animal.[189] And if we retain these two principles--that of proportionate attraction[190] and that of the non-participation of intelligence--we shall ascribe to the semen a faculty for attracting blood similar to that possessed by the lodestone for iron.[191] Here, then, again, in the case of the semen, as in so many previous instances, we have been compelled to acknowledge some kind of attractive faculty.

And what is the semen? Clearly the active principle of the animal, the material principle being the menstrual blood.[192] Next, seeing that the active principle employs this faculty primarily, therefore, in order that any one of the things fashioned by it may come into existence, it [the principle] must necessarily be possessed of its own faculty. How, then, was Erasistratus unaware of it, if the primary function of the semen be to draw to itself a due proportion of blood? Now, this fluid would be in due proportion if it were so thin and vaporous, that, as soon as it was drawn like dew into every part of the semen, it would everywhere cease to display its own particular character; for so the semen will easily dominate and quickly assimilate it--in fact, will use it as food. It will then, I imagine, draw to itself a second and a third quantum, and thus by feeding it acquires for itself considerable bulk and quantity.[193] In fact, _the alterative faculty_ has now been discovered as well, although about this also Erasistratus has not written a word. And, thirdly the _shaping_[194] faculty will become evident, by virtue of which the semen firstly surrounds itself with a thin membrane like a kind of superficial condensation; this is what was described by Hippocrates in the sixth-day birth, which, according to his statement, fell from the singing-girl and resembled the pellicle of an egg. And following this all the other stages will occur, such as are described by him in his work "On the Child's Nature."

But if each of the parts formed were to remain as small as when it first came into existence, of what use would that be? They have, then, to grow. Now, how will they grow? By becoming extended in all directions and at the same time receiving nourishment. And if you will recall what I previously said about the bladder which the children blew up and rubbed,[195] you will also understand my meaning better as expressed in what I am now about to say.

Imagine the heart to be, at the beginning, so small as to differ in no respect from a millet-seed, or, if you will, a bean; and consider how otherwise it is to become large than by being extended in all directions and acquiring nourishment throughout its whole substance, in the way that, as I showed a short while ago, the semen is nourished. But even this was unknown to Erasistratus--the man who sings the artistic skill of Nature! He imagines that animals grow like webs, ropes, sacks, or baskets, each of which has, woven on to its end or margin, other material similar to that of which it was originally composed.

But this, most sapient sir, is not growth, but genesis! For a bag, sack, garment, house, ship, or the like is said to be still coming into existence [undergoing genesis] so long as the appropriate form for the sake of which it is being constructed by the artificer is still incomplete. Then, when does it grow? Only when the basket, being complete, with a bottom, a mouth, and a belly, as it were, as well as the intermediate parts, now becomes larger in all these respects. "And how can this happen?" someone will ask. Only by our basket suddenly becoming an animal or a plant; for growth belongs to living things alone. Possibly you imagine that a house _grows_ when it is being built, or a basket when being plaited, or a garment when being woven? It is not so however. Growth belongs to that which has already been completed in respect to its form, whereas the process by which that which is still _becoming_ attains its form is termed not growth but genesis. That which _is_, grows, while that which _is not_, becomes.

III

Lêros oun makros hapasa porôn hypothesis eis physikên
energeian. ei mê gar dynamis tis symphytos hekastô tôn
organôn hypo tês physeôs euthys ex archês dotheiê,
diarkein ou dynêsetai ta zôa, mê hoti tosouton arithmon
etôn all' oud' hêmerôn oligistôn; anepitropeuta gar
easantes auta kai technês kai pronoias erêma monais tais
tôn hylôn oiakizomena rhopais, oudamou dynameôs oudemias
tês men helkousês to prosêkon heautê, tês d' apôthousês
to allotrion, tês d' alloiousês te kai prosphyousês to
threpson, ouk oid' hopôs ouk an eiêmen katagelastoi peri
te tôn physikôn energeiôn dialegomenoi kai poly mallon
eti peri tôn psychikôn kai || sympasês ge tês zôês. 81

Oude gar zên oude diamenein oudeni tôn zôôn oud' eis
elachiston chronon estai dynaton, ei tosauta kektêmenon
en heautô moria kai houtô diapheronta mêth' helktikê tôn
oikeiôn chrêsetai dynamei mêt' apokritikê tôn allotriôn
mêt' alloiôtikê tôn threpsontôn. kai mên ei tautas
echoimen, ouden eti porôn mikrôn ê megalôn ex
hypotheseôs anapodeiktou lambanomenôn eis ourou kai
cholês diakrisin deometha kai tinos epikairou theseôs,
en hô monô sôphronein eoiken ho Erasistratos hapanta
kalôs tethênai te kai diaplasthênai ta moria tou sômatos
hypo tês physeôs oiomenos.

All' ei parakolouthêseien heautô physin onomazonti
technikên, euthys men ex archês hapanta kalôs
diaplasasan te kai diatheisan tou zôou ta moria, meta de
tên toiautên energeian, hôs ouden eleipen, eti
proagagousan eis phôs auto syn tisi dynamesin, hôn aneu
zên ouk êdynato, kai meta tauta kata brachy
prosauxêsasan achri tou prepontos megethous, ouk oida
pôs hypomenei porôn smikrotêsin || ê megethesin ê tisin 82
allais houtô lêrôdesin hypothesesi physikas energeias
epitrepein. hê gar diaplattousa ta moria physis ekeinê
kai kata brachy prosauxousa pantôs dêpou di' holôn autôn
ektetatai; kai gar hola di' holôn ouk exôthen monon auta
diaplattei te kai trephei kai prosauxei. Praxitelês men
gar ê Pheidias ê tis allos agalmatopoios exôthen monon
ekosmoun tas hylas, katha kai psauein autôn êdynanto, to
bathos d' akosmêton kai argon kai atechnon kai
apronoêton apelipon, hôs an mê dynamenoi katelthein eis
auto kai katadynai kai thigein hapantôn tês hylês tôn
merôn. hê physis d' ouch houtôs, alla to men ostou meros
hapan ostoun apotelei, to de sarkos sarka, to de pimelês
pimelên kai tôn allôn hekaston; ouden gar estin
apsauston autê meros oud' anexergaston oud' akosmêton.
alla ton men kêron ho Pheidias ouk êdynato poiein
elephanta kai chryson, all' oude ton chryson kêron;
hekaston gar autôn menon, hoion ên ex archês, exôthen
monon êmphiesmenon eidos ti kai schêma technikon, agalma
teleion || gegonen. hê physis d' oudemias eti phylattei 83
tôn hylôn tên archaian idean; haima gar an ên houtôs
hapanta tou zôou ta moria, to para tês kyousês epirrheon
tô spermati, dikên kêrou tinos hylê mia kai monoeidês
hypobeblêmenê tô technitê. gignetai d' ex autês ouden
tôn tou zôou moriôn out' erythron houtôs outh' hygron.
ostoun gar kai artêria kai phleps kai neuron kai
chondros kai pimelê kai adên kai hymên kai myelos anaima
men, ex haimatos de gegone.

Tinos alloiôsantos kai tinos pêxantos kai tinos
diaplasantos edeomên an moi ton Erasistraton auton
apokrinasthai. pantôs gar an eipen êtoi tên physin ê to
sperma, tauton men legôn kath' hekateron, diaphorois d'
epinoiais hermêneuôn; ho gar ên proteron sperma, touth',
hotan arxêtai phyein te kai diaplattein to zôon, physis
tis gignetai. kathaper gar ho Pheidias eiche men tas
dynameis tês technês kai prin psauein tês hylês, enêrgei
d' autais peri tên hylên--hapasa gar dynamis argei
aporousa tês oikeias hylês--, houtô kai to sperma tas
men || dynameis oikothen ekektêto, tas d' energeias ouk 84
ek tês hylês elaben, alla peri tên hylên epedeixato.

Kai mên ei pollô men epiklyzoito tô haimati to sperma,
diaphtheiroit' an; ei d' holôs aporoiê pantapasin
argoun, ouk an genoito physis. hin' oun mête phtheirêtai
kai gignêtai physis anti spermatos, oligon epirrhein
anankaion autô tou haimatos, mallon d' ouk oligon legein
chrê, alla symmetron tô plêthei tou spermatos. tis oun
ho metrôn autou to poson tês epirrhoês? tis ho kôlyôn
ienai pleon? tis ho protrepôn, hin' endeesteron mê iê?
tina zêtêsomen entautha triton epistatên tou zôou tês
geneseôs, hos chorêgêsei tô spermati to symmetron haima?
ti an eipen Erasistratos, ei zôn taut' êrôtêthê? to
sperma auto dêlonoti; touto gar estin ho technitês ho
analogôn tô Pheidia, to d' haima tô kêrô proseoiken.

Oukoun prepei ton kêron auton heautô to metron
exeuriskein, alla ton Pheidian. helxei dê tosouton
haimatos ho technitês eis heauton, hoposou deitai. all'
en||tautha chrê prosechein êdê ton noun kai skopein, mê 85
pôs lathômen tô spermati logismon tina kai noun
charisamenoi; houtô gar an oute sperma poiêsaimen oute
physin all' êdê zôon auto. kai mên ei phylaxomen
amphotera, tên th' holkên tou symmetrou kai to chôris
logismou, dynamin tina, kathaper hê lithos helktikên
eiche tou sidêrou, kai tô spermati phêsomen hyparchein
haimatos epispastikên. ênankasthêmen oun palin
kantautha, kathaper êdê pollakis emprosthen, helktikên
tina dynamin homologêsai kata to sperma.

Ti d' ên to sperma? hê archê tou zôou dêlonoti hê
drastikê; hê gar hylikê to katamênion estin. eit' autês
tês archês prôtê tautê tê dynamei chrômenês, hina
genêtai tôn hyp' autês ti dedêmiourgêmenôn, amoiron
einai tês oikeias dynameôs ouk endechetai. pôs oun
Erasistratos autên ouk oiden, ei dê prôtê men hautê tou
spermatos energeia to symmetron haimatos epispasthai
pros heauto? symmetron d' an eiê to lepton houtô kai
atmôdes, hôst' euthys eis pan morion helkomenon tou
spermatos drosoeidôs mêdamou tên || heautou 86
paremphainein idean. houtô gar autou kai kratêsei
rhadiôs to sperma kai tacheôs exomoiôsei kai trophên
heautô poiêsetai kapeit' oimai deuteron epispasetai kai
triton, hôs onkon heautô kai plêthos axiologon
ergasasthai traphenti. kai mên êdê kai hê alloiôtikê
dynamis exeurêtai mêd' autê pros Erasistratou
gegrammenê. tritê d' an hê diaplastikê phaneiê, kath'
hên prôton men hoion epipagon tina lepton hymena
peritithêsin heautô to sperma, ton hyph' Hippokratous
epi tês hektaias gonês, hên ekpesein elege tês
mousourgou, tô tôn ôôn eikasthenta chitôni; meta de
touton êdê kai tall', hosa pros ekeinou legetai dia tou
peri physios paidiou syngrammatos.

All' ei tôn diaplasthentôn hekaston houtô meineie
smikron, hôs ex archês egeneto, ti an eiê pleon?
auxanesthai toinyn auta chrê. pôs oun auxêthêsetai?
pantê diateinomena th' hama kai trephomena. kai moi tôn
emprosthen eirêmenôn epi tês kysteôs, hên hoi paides
emphysôntes etribon, anamnêstheis mathêsê mallon || kak 87
tôn nyn rhêthêsomenôn.

Ennoêson gar dê tên kardian houtô men mikran einai kat'
archas, hôs kenchrou mêden diapherein ê, ei boulei,
kyamou, kai zêtêson, hopôs an allôs hautê genoito megalê
chôris tou pantê diateinomenên trephesthai di' holês
heautês, hôs oligô prosthen edeiknyto to sperma
trephomenon. all' oude tout' Erasistratos oiden ho tên
technên tês physeôs hymnôn, all' houtôs auxanesthai ta
zôa nomizei kathaper tina krêseran ê seiran ê sakkon ê
talaron, hôn hekastô kata to peras epiplekomenôn homoiôn
heterôn tois ex archês auta syntitheisin hê prosthesis
gignetai.

Alla touto g' ouk auxêsis estin alla genesis, ô
sophôtate; gignetai gar ho thylakos eti kai ho sakkos
kai thoimation kai hê oikia kai to ploion kai tôn allôn
hekaston, hotan mêdepô to prosêkon eidos, hou charin
hypo tou technitou dêmiourgeitai, sympeplêrômenon ê.
pot' oun auxanetai? hotan êdê teleios ôn ho talaros, hôs
echein pythmena te tina kai stoma kai hoion gastera kai
ta toutôn metaxy, meizôn hapasi toutois genêtai. kai pôs
|| estai touto? phêsei tis. pôs d' allôs ê ei zôon 88
exaiphnês ê phyton ho talaros hêmin genoito? monôn gar
tôn zôntôn hê auxêsis. sy d' isôs oiei tên oikian
oikodomoumenên auxanesthai kai ton talaron plekomenon
kai thoimation hyphainomenon. all' ouch hôd' echei; tou
men gar êdê sympeplêrômenou kata to eidos hê auxêsis,
tou d' eti gignomenou hê eis to eidos hodos ouk auxêsis
alla genesis onomazetai; auxanetai men gar to on,
gignetai de to ouk on.

IV

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

Now, let us reverse our argument and put it in a different way from that which we have just employed. For if the Peripatetics were correct in their teaching about Nature, there could be nothing more absurd than the contentions of Erasistratus. And, I will leave it to the Erasistrateans themselves to decide; they must either advance the one proposition or the other. According to the former one the Peripatetics had no accurate acquaintance with Nature, and according to the second, Erasistratus. It is my task, then, to point out the opposition between the two doctrines, and theirs to make the choice....

But they certainly will not abandon their reverence for Erasistratus. Very well, then; let them stop talking about the Peripatetic philosophers. For among the numerous physiological teachings regarding the genesis and destruction of animals, their health, their diseases, and the methods of treating these, there will be found one only which is common to Erasistratus and the Peripatetics--namely, the view that Nature does everything for some purpose, and nothing in vain.

But even as regards this doctrine their agreement is only verbal; in practice Erasistratus makes havoc of it a thousand times over. For, according to him, the spleen was made for no purpose, as also the omentum; similarly, too, the arteries which are inserted into kidneys[200]--although these are practically the largest of all those that spring from the great artery [aorta]! And to judge by the Erasistratean argument, there must be countless other useless structures; for, if he knows nothing at all about these structures, he has little more anatomical knowledge than a butcher, while, if he is acquainted with them and yet does not state their use, he clearly imagines that they were made for no purpose, like the spleen. Why, however, should I discuss these structures fully, belonging as they do to the treatise "On the Use of Parts," which I am personally about to complete?

Let us, then, sum up again this same argument, and, having said a few words more in answer to the Erasistrateans, proceed to our next topic. The fact is, these people seem to me to have read none of Aristotle's writings, but to have heard from others how great an authority he was on "Nature," and that those of the Porch[201] follow in the steps of his Nature-lore; apparently they then discovered a single one of the current ideas which is common to Aristotle and Erasistratus, and made up some story of a connection between Erasistratus and these people.[202] That Erasistratus, however, has no share in the Nature-lore of Aristotle is shown by an enumeration of the aforesaid doctrines, which emanated first from Hippocrates, secondly from Aristotle, thirdly from the Stoics (with a single modification, namely, that for them the _qualities_ are _bodies_).[203]

Perhaps, however, they will maintain that it was in the matter of _logic_ that Erasistratus associated himself with the Peripatetic philosophers? Here they show ignorance of the fact that these philosophers never brought forward false or inconclusive arguments, while the Erasistratean books are full of them.

So perhaps somebody may already be asking, in some surprise, what possessed Erasistratus that he turned so completely from the doctrines of Hippocrates, and why it is that he takes away the attractive faculty from the biliary[204] passages in the liver--for we have sufficiently discussed the kidneys--alleging [as the cause of bile-secretion] a favourable situation, the narrowness of vessels, and _a common space_ into which the veins from the gateway [of the liver][205] conduct the unpurified blood, and from which, in the first place, the [biliary] passages take over the bile, and secondly, the [branches] of the vena cava take over the purified blood. For it would not only have done him no harm to have mentioned the idea of _attraction_, but he would thereby have been able to get rid of countless other disputed questions.

IV

Kai taut' Erasistratos ouk oiden, hon ouden lanthanei,
eiper holôs alêtheuousin hoi ap' autou phaskontes
hômilêkenai tois ek tou peripatou philosophois auton.
achri men oun tou tên physin hymnein hôs technikên kagô
gnôrizô ta tou peripatou dogmata, tôn d' allôn ouden
oud' engys. ei gar tis homilêseie tois Aristotelous kai
Theophrastou grammasi, tês Hippokratous an auta doxeie
physiologias hypomnêmata synkeisthai, to thermon kai to
psychron || kai to xêron kai to hygron eis allêla drônta 89
kai paschonta kai toutôn autôn drastikôtaton men to
thermon, deuteron de tê dynamei to psychron Hippokratous
tauta sympanta prôtou, deuterou d' Aristotelous
eipontos. trephesthai de di' holôn hautôn ta trephomena
kai kerannysthai di' holôn ta kerannymena kai
alloiousthai di' holôn ta alloioumena, kai tauth'
Hippokrateia th' hama kai Aristoteleia. kai tên pepsin
alloiôsin tin' hyparchein kai metabolên tou trephontos
eis tên oikeian tou trephomenou poiotêta, tên d'
exaimatôsin alloiôsin einai kai tên threpsin hôsautôs
kai tên auxêsin ek tês pantê diataseôs kai threpseôs
gignesthai, tên d' alloiôsin hypo tou thermou malista
synteleisthai kai dia touto kai tên pepsin kai tên
threpsin kai tên tôn chymôn hapantôn genesin, êdê de kai
tois perittômasi tas poiotêtas hypo tês emphytou
thermasias engignesthai, tauta sympanta kai pros toutois
hetera polla ta te tôn proeirêmenôn dynameôn kai ta || 90
tôn nosêmatôn tês geneseôs kai ta tôn iamatôn tês
heureseôs Hippokratês men prôtos hapantôn hôn ismen
orthôs eipen, Aristotelês de deuteros orthôs exêgêsato.
kai mên ei tauta sympanta tois ek tou peripatou dokei,
kathaper oun dokei, mêden d' autôn areskei tô
Erasistratô, ti pote bouletai tois Erasistrateiois hê
pros tous philosophous ekeinous tou tês haireseôs autôn
hêgemonos homilia? thaumazousi men gar auton hôs theon
kai pant' alêtheuein nomizousin. ei d' houtôs echei
tauta, pampoly dêpou tês alêtheias esphalthai chrê
nomizein tous ek tou peripatou philosophous, hois mêden
hôn Erasistratos hypelambanen areskei. kai mên hôsper
tin' eugeneian autô tês physiologias tên pros tous
andras ekeinous synousian ekporizousi.

Palin oun anastrepsômen ton logon heterôs ê hôs oligô
prosthen etychomen eipontes. eiper gar hoi ek tou
peripatou kalôs ephysiologêsan, ouden an eiê
lêrôdesteron Erasistratou kai didômi tois
Erasistrateiois autois tên hairesin; ê gar ton proteron
logon ê touton || prosêsontai. legei d' ho men proteros 91
ouden orthôs egnôkenai peri physeôs tous peripatêtikous,
ho de deuteros Erasistraton. emon men oun hypomnêsai tôn
dogmatôn tên machên, ekeinôn d' hê hairesis.

All' ouk an apostaien tou thaumazein Erasistraton;
oukoun siôpatôsan peri tôn ek tou peripatou philosophôn.
pampollôn gar ontôn dogmatôn physikôn peri te genesin
kai phthoran tôn zôôn kai hygieian kai nosous kai tas
therapeias autôn hen monon heurethêsetai tauton
Erasistratô kakeinois tois andrasi, to tinos heneka
panta poiein tên physin kai matên mêden.

Alla kai auto touto mechri logou koinon, ergô de
myriakis Erasistratos auto diaphtheirei; matên men gar
ho splên egeneto, matên de to epiploon, matên d' hai eis
tous nephrous artêriai kataphyomenai, schedon hapasôn
tôn apo tês megalês artêrias apoblastanousôn ousai
megistai, matên d' alla myria kata ge ton Erasistrateion
logon; haper ei men oud' holôs gignôskei, brachei
mageirou sophôteros estin en tais anatomais, ei d' eidôs
ou legei tên chreian autôn, oietai || dêlonoti 92
paraplêsiôs tô splêni matên auta gegonenai. kaitoi ti
taut' epexerchomai tês peri chreias moriôn pragmateias
onta mellousês hêmin idia perainesthai?

Palin oun analabômen ton auton logon eipontes te ti
brachy pros tous Erasistrateious eti tôn ephexês
echômetha. dokousi gar moi mêden anegnôkenai tôn
Aristotelous houtoi syngrammatôn, all' allôn akouontes,
hôs deinos ên peri physin ho anthrôpos kai hôs hoi apo
tês stoas kat' ichnê tês ekeinou physiologias
badizousin, eith' heurontes hen ti tôn peripheromenôn
dogmatôn koinon autô pros Erasistraton anaplasai tina
synousian autou pros ekeinous tous andras. all' hoti men
tês Aristotelous physiologias ouden Erasistratô
metestin, ho katalogos tôn proeirêmenôn endeiknytai
dogmatôn, ha prôtou men Hippokratous ên, deuterou d'
Aristotelous, tritôn de tôn Stôïkôn, henos monou
metatithemenou tou tas poiotêtas einai sômata.

Tacha d' an tês logikês heneka theôrias hômilêkenai
phaien ton Erasistraton tois ek tou peripatou
philosophois, ouk eidotes, hôs ekeinoi men pseu||deis 93
kai aperantous ouk egrapsan logous, ta d' Erasistrateia
biblia pampollous echei tous toioutous.

Tach' an oun êdê tis thaumazoi kai diaporoiê, ti pathôn
ho Erasistratos eis tosouton tôn Hippokratous dogmatôn
apetrapeto kai dia ti tôn en hêpati porôn tôn
cholêdochôn, halis gar êdê nephrôn, aphelomenos tên
helktikên dynamin epikairon aitiatai thesin kai stomatôn
stenotêta kai chôran tina koinên, eis hên paragousi men
hai apo tôn pylôn to akatharton haima, metalambanousi de
proteroi men hoi poroi tên cholên, deuterai d' hai apo
tês koilês phlebos to katharon haima. pros gar tô mêden
an blabênai tên holkên eipôn allôn myriôn emellen
amphisbêtoumenôn apallaxesthai logôn.

V

At the actual moment, however, the Erasistrateans are engaged in a considerable battle, not only with others but also amongst themselves, and so they cannot explain the passage from the first book of the "General Principles," in which Erasistratus says, "Since there are two kinds of vessels opening[206] at the same place, the one kind extending to the gall-bladder and the other to the vena cava, the result is that, of the nutriment carried up from the alimentary canal, that part which fits both kinds of stomata is received into both kinds of vessels, some being carried into the gall-bladder, and the rest passing over into the vena cava." For it is difficult to say what we are to understand by the words "opening at the same place" which are written at the beginning of this passage. Either they mean there is a _junction_[207] between the termination of the vein which is on the concave surface of the liver[208] and two other vascular terminations (that of the vessel on the convex surface of the liver[209] and that of the bile-duct), or, if not, then we must suppose that there is, as it were, a common space for all three vessels, which becomes filled from the lower vein,[210] and empties itself both into the bile-duct and into the branches of the vena cava. Now, there are many difficulties in both of these explanations, but if I were to state them all, I should find myself inadvertently writing an exposition of the teaching of Erasistratus, instead of carrying out my original undertaking. There is, however, one difficulty common to both these explanations, namely, that the whole of the blood does not become purified. For it ought to fall into the bile-duct as into a kind of sieve, instead of going (running, in fact, rapidly) past it, into the larger stoma, by virtue of the impulse of _anadosis_.

Are these, then, the only inevitable difficulties in which the argument of Erasistratus becomes involved through his disinclination to make any use of the attractive faculty, or is it that the difficulty is greatest here, and also so obvious that even a child could not avoid seeing it?

V

Hôs nyn ge polemos ou smikros esti tois Erasistrateiois
ou pros tous allous monon alla kai pros allêlous, ouk
echousin, hopôs exêgêsôntai tên ek tou prôtou tôn
katholou logôn lexin, en hê phêsin; "Eis to || auto d' 94
anestomômenôn heterôn anestomômenôn heterôn dyo angeiôn
tôn t' epi tên cholêdochon teinontôn kai tôn epi tên
koilên phleba symbainei tês anapheromenês ek tês koilias
trophês ta enarmozonta hekaterois tôn stomatôn eis
hekatera tôn angeiôn metalambanesthai kai ta men epi tên
cholêdochon pheresthai, ta d' epi tên koilên phleba
peraiousthai." to gar "eis to auto anestomômenôn," ho
kat' archas tês lexeôs gegraptai, ti pote chrê noêsai,
chalepon eipein. êtoi gar houtôs eis tauton, hôste tô
tês en tois simois phlebos perati synaptein dyo hetera
perata, to t' en tois kyrtois kai to tou cholêdochou
porou, ê, ei mê houtô, chôran tina koinên epinoêsai chrê
tôn triôn angeiôn hoion dexamenên tina, plêroumenên men
hypo tês katô phlebos, ekkenoumenên d' eis te tous
cholêdochous porous kai tas tês koilês aposchidas; kath'
hekateran de tôn exêgêseôn atopa polla, peri hôn ei
pantôn legoimi, lathoim' an emauton exêgêseis
Erasistratou graphôn, ouch, hoper ex archês prouthemên,
perainôn. koinon d' amphoterais tais exêgêsesin atopon
to mê || kathairesthai pan to haima. chrê gar hôs eis 95
êthmon tina to cholêdochon angeion empiptein auto, ou
parerchesthai kai pararrhein ôkeôs eis to meizon stoma
tê rhymê tês anadoseôs pheromenon.

Ar' oun en toutois monon aporiais aphyktois ho
Erasistratou logos enechetai mê boulêthentos chrêsasthai
tais helktikais dynamesin eis mêden, ê sphodrotata men
en toutois kai saphôs houtôs, hôs an mêde paida lathein?

VI

And if one looks carefully into the matter one will find that even Erasistratus's reasoning on the subject of _nutrition_, which he takes up in the second book of his "General Principles," fails to escape this same difficulty. For, having conceded one premise to the principle that matter tends to fill a vacuum, as we previously showed, he was only able to draw a conclusion in the case of the veins and their contained blood.[211] That is to say, when blood is running away through the stomata of the veins, and is being dispersed, then, since an absolutely empty space cannot result, and the veins cannot collapse (for this was what he overlooked), it was therefore shown to be necessary that the adjoining quantum of fluid should flow in and fill the place of the fluid evacuated. It is in this way that we may suppose the veins to be nourished; they get the benefit of the blood which they contain. But how about the nerves?[212] For they do not also contain blood. One might obviously say that they draw their supply from the veins.[213] But Erasistratus will not have it so. What further contrivance, then, does he suppose? He says that a nerve has within itself veins and arteries, like a rope woven by Nature out of three different strands. By means of this hypothesis he imagined that his theory would escape from the idea of _attraction_. For if the nerve contain within itself a blood-vessel it will no longer need the adventitious flow of other blood from the real vein lying adjacent; this fictitious vessel, perceptible only in theory,[214] will suffice it for nourishment.

But this, again, is succeeded by another similar difficulty. For this small vessel will nourish itself, but it will not be able to nourish this adjacent simple nerve or artery, unless these possess some innate proclivity for attracting nutriment. For how could the _nerve_, being simple, attract its nourishment, as do the composite veins, by virtue of the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled? For, although according to Erasistratus, it contains within itself a cavity of sorts, this is not occupied with blood, but with _psychic pneuma_,[215] and we are required to imagine the nutriment introduced, not into this cavity, but into the vessel containing it, whether it needs merely to be nourished, or to grow as well. How, then, are we to imagine it introduced? For this simple vessel [_i.e._ nerve] is so small--as are also the other two--that if you prick it at any part with the finest needle you will tear the whole three of them at once. Thus there could never be in it a perceptible space entirely empty. And an emptied space which merely existed in theory could not compel the adjacent fluid to come and fill it.

At this point, again, I should like Erasistratus himself to answer regarding this small elementary nerve, whether it is actually one and definitely continuous, or whether it consists of many small bodies, such as those assumed by Epicurus, Leucippus, and Democritus.[216] For I see that the Erasistrateans are at variance on this subject. Some of them consider it one and continuous, for otherwise, as they say, he would not have called it _simple_; and some venture to resolve it into yet other elementary bodies. But if it be one and continuous, then what is evacuated from it in the so-called _insensible transpiration_ of the physicians will leave no empty space in it; otherwise it would not be one body but many, separated by empty spaces. But if it consists of many bodies, then we have "escaped by the back door," as the saying is, to Asclepiades, seeing that we have postulated certain _inharmonious elements_. Once again, then, we must call Nature "inartistic"; for this necessarily follows the assumption of such elements.

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

Thus it seems to me better that we also should help the Erasistrateans with some contribution, since we are on the subject, and should advise those who reduce the vessel called _primary_ and _simple_ by Erasistratus into other elementary bodies to give up their opinion; for not only do they gain nothing by it, but they are also at variance with Erasistratus in this matter. That they gain nothing by it has been clearly demonstrated; for this hypothesis could not escape the difficulty regarding _nutrition_. And it also seems perfectly evident to me that this hypothesis is not in consonance with the view of Erasistratus, when it declares that what he calls simple and primary is composite, and when it destroys the principle of Nature's artistic skill.[217] For, if we do not grant a certain _unity of substance_[218] to these simple structures as well, and if we arrive eventually at inharmonious and indivisible elements,[219] we shall most assuredly deprive Nature of her artistic skill, as do all the physicians and philosophers who start from this hypothesis. For, according to such a hypothesis, Nature does not precede, but is secondary to the _parts_ of the animal.[220] Now, it is not the province of what comes secondarily, but of what pre-exists, to shape and to construct. Thus we must necessarily suppose that the faculties of Nature, by which she shapes the animal, and makes it grow and receive nourishment, are present from the seed onwards; whereas none of these inharmonious and non-partite corpuscles contains within itself any formative, incremental,[221] nutritive, or, in a word, any artistic power; it is, by hypothesis, unimpressionable and untransformable,[222] whereas, as we have previously shown,[223] none of the processes mentioned takes place without transformation, alteration, and complete intermixture. And, owing to this necessity, those who belong to these sects are unable to follow out the consequences of their supposed elements, and they are all therefore forced to declare Nature devoid of art. It is not from us, however, that the Erasistrateans should have learnt this, but from those very philosophers who lay most stress on a preliminary investigation into the elements of all existing things.

Now, one can hardly be right in supposing that Erasistratus could reach such a pitch of foolishness as to be incapable of recognizing the logical consequences of this theory, and that, while assuming Nature to be artistically creative, he would at the same time break up substance into insensible, inharmonious, and untransformable elements. If, however, he will grant that there occurs in the elements a process of alteration and transformation, and that there exists in them unity and continuity, then that _simple vessel_ of his (as he himself names it) will turn out to be single and uncompounded. And the simple vein will receive nourishment from itself, and the nerve and artery from the vein. How, and in what way? For, when we were at this point before, we drew attention to the disagreement among the Erasistrateans,[224] and we showed that the nutrition of these simple vessels was impracticable according to the teachings of both parties, although we did not hesitate to adjudicate in their quarrel and to do Erasistratus the honour of placing him in the better sect.[225]

Let our argument, then, be transferred again to the doctrine which assumes this _elementary nerve_[226] to be a single, simple, and entirely unified structure, and let us consider how it is to be nourished; for what is discovered here will at once be found to be common also to the school of Hippocrates.

It seems to me that our enquiry can be most rigorously pursued in subjects who are suffering from illness and have become very emaciated, since in these people all parts of the body are obviously atrophied and thin, and in need of additional substance and feeding-up; for the same reason the ordinary _perceptible_ nerve, regarding which we originally began this discussion, has become thin, and requires nourishment. Now, this contains within itself various parts, namely, a great many of these primary, invisible, minute nerves, a few simple arteries, and similarly also veins. Thus, all its elementary nerves have themselves also obviously become emaciated; for, if they had not, neither would the nerve as a whole; and of course, in such a case, the whole nerve cannot require nourishment without each of these requiring it too. Now, if on the one hand they stand in need of feeding-up, and if on the other the principle of the refilling of a vacuum[227] can give them no help--both by reason of the difficulties previously mentioned and the actual thinness, as I shall show--we must then seek another cause for nutrition.