diff --git a/data/tlg0057/tlg010/tlg0057.tlg010.perseus-eng1.xml b/data/tlg0057/tlg010/tlg0057.tlg010.perseus-eng1.xml index bae7d9a3a..e9e082e47 100644 --- a/data/tlg0057/tlg010/tlg0057.tlg010.perseus-eng1.xml +++ b/data/tlg0057/tlg010/tlg0057.tlg010.perseus-eng1.xml @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ PART 10 -

For I believe that I shall prove that the organs which have to do with the disposal of the nutriment, as also their faculties, exist for the sake of this nutritive faculty. For since the action of this facultyThe activation or functioning of this faculty, the faculty in actual operation. cf. p. 3, note 2. is assimilation, and it is impossible for anything to be assimilated by, and to change into anything else unless they already possess a certain community and affinity in their qualities,"Un rapport commun et une affinitè" (Daremberg). "Societatem aliquam cognationemque in qualitatibus" (Linacre). cf. p. 36, note 2. therefore, in the first place, any animal cannot naturally derive nourishment from any kind of food, and secondly, even in the case of those from which it can do so, it cannot do this at once. Therefore, by reason of this law,Lit. "necessity" ; more restrictive, however, than our "law of Nature." cf. p. 314, note 1. every animal needs several organs for altering the nutriment. For in order that the yellow may become red, and the red yellow, one simple process of alteration is required, but in order that the white may become black, and the black white, all the intermediate stages are needed.His point is that no great change, in coours or in anything else, can take place at one step. So also, a thing which is very soft cannot all at once become very hard, nor vice versa; nor, similarly can anything which has a very bad smell suddenly become quite fragrant, nor again, can the converse happen.

+

For I believe that I shall prove that the organs which have to do with the disposal of the nutriment, as also their faculties, exist for the sake of this nutritive faculty. For since the action of this facultyThe activation or functioning of this faculty, the faculty in actual operation. cf. p. 3, note 2. is assimilation, and it is impossible for anything to be assimilated by, and to change into anything else unless they already possess a certain community and affinity in their qualities,"Un rapport commun et une affinitè" (Daremberg). "Societatem aliquam cognationemque in qualitatibus" (Linacre). cf. p. 36, note 2. therefore, in the first place, any animal cannot naturally derive nourishment from any kind of food, and secondly, even in the case of those from which it can do so, it cannot do this at once. Therefore, by reason of this law,Lit. "necessity" ; more restrictive, however, than our "law of Nature." cf. p. 314, note 1. every animal needs several organs for altering the nutriment. For in order that the yellow may become red, and the red yellow, one simple process of alteration is required, but in order that the white may become black, and the black white, all the intermediate stages are needed.His point is that no great change, in coours or in anything else, can take place at one step. So also, a thing which is very soft cannot all at once become very hard, nor vice versa; nor, similarly can anything which has a very bad smell suddenly become quite fragrant, nor again, can the converse happen.

How, then, could blood ever turn into bone, without having first become, as far as possible, thickened and white? And how could bread turn into blood without having gradually parted with its whiteness and gradually acquired redness? Thus it is quite easy for blood to become flesh; for, if Nature thicken it to such an extent that it acquires a certain consistency and ceases to be fluid, it thus becomes original newly-formed flesh; but in order that blood may turn into bone, much time is needed and much elaboration and transformation of the blood. Further, it is quite clear that bread, and, more particularly lettuce, beet, and the like, require a great deal of alteration, in order to become blood.

This, then, is one reason why there are so many organs concerned in the alteration of food. A second reason is the nature of the superfluities.Not quite our "waste products," since these are considered as being partly synthetic, whereas the Greek perittomata were simply superfluous substances which could not be used and were thrown aside. For, as we are unable to draw any nourishment from grass, although this is possible for cattle, similarly we can derive nourishment from radishes, albeit not to the same extent as from meat; for almost the whole of the latter is mastered by our naturesNote "our natures," cf. p. 12, note 4; p. 47, note 1.; it is transformed and altered and constituted useful blood; but, not withstanding, in the radish, what is appropriateTher term oi)kei=os, here rendered appropriate, is explained on p. 33. cf. also footnote on same page. Linacre often translated it conveniens, and it may usually be rendered proper, peculiar, own special, or own particular in English. Sometimes it is almost equal to akin, cognate, related: cf. p. 319, note 2. With Galen's oi)kei=os and a)llo/triov we may compare the German terms eigen and fremd used by Aberthalden in connection with his theory of defensive ferments in the blood-serum and capable of being altered (and that only with difficulty, and with much labour) is the very smallest part; almost the whole of it is surplus matter, and passes through the digestive organs, only a very little being taken up into the veins as blood- nor is this itself entirely utilisable blood. Nature, therefore, had need of a second process of separation for the superfluities in the veins. Moreover, these superfluities need, on the one hand, certain fresh routes to conduct them to the outlets, so that they may not spoil the useful substances, and they also need certain reservoirs, as it were, in which they are collected till they reach a sufficient quantity, and are then discharged.

Thus, then, you have discovered bodily parts of a second kind, consecrated in this case to the [removal of the] superfluities of the food. There is, however, also a third kind, for carrying the pabulum in every direction; these are like a number of roads intersecting the whole body.

@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@

Now, speaking generally, there have arisen the following two sects in medicine and philosophy among those who have made any definite pronouncement regarding Nature. I speak, of course, of such of them as know what they are talking about, and who realize the logical sequence of their hypotheses, and stand by them; as for those who cannot understand even this, but who simply talk any nonsense that comes to their tongues, and who do not remain definitely attached either to one sect or the other- such people are not even worth mentioning.

What, then, are these sects, and what are the logical consequences of their hypotheses?Here follows a contrast between the Vitalists and the Epicurean Atomists. cf. p. 153 et seq. The one class supposes that all substance which is subject to genesis and destruction is at once continuousA unity or continuum, an individuum. and susceptible of alteration. The other school assumes substance to be unchangeable, unalterable, and subdivided 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,Lit. to the physis or the psyche; that is, a denial of the autonomy of physiology and psychology. but that these result from the way in which the primary corpuscles,Lit. somata. 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, explusive 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 [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,A lost work. in which we discuss the views of Asclepiades the physician.For Asclepiades v. p. 49, note 5. 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 move-ments of air and fluid throughout the whole body;"Le corps tout entier a unité de souffle (perspiration et expiration) et unité de flux (courants, cirulation des liquides)" (Daremberg). "Conspirabile et confluxile corpus esse" (Linacre). Apparently Galen refers to the pneuma and the various humours. cf. p. 293, note 2. 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,i.e. "Appropriated"; very nearly "assimilated." 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. +

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,A lost work. in which we discuss the views of Asclepiades the physician.For Asclepiades v. p. 49, note 5. 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 move-ments of air and fluid throughout the whole body;"Le corps tout entier a unité de souffle (perspiration et expiration) et unité de flux (courants, cirulation des liquides)" (Daremberg). "Conspirabile et confluxile corpus esse" (Linacre). Apparently Galen refers to the pneuma and the various humours. cf. p. 293, note 2. 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,i.e. "Appropriated"; very nearly "assimilated." 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.

@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@

Now the method of demonstration is as follows. One has to divide the peritoneum in front of the ureters, then secure these with ligatures, and next, having bandaged up the animal, let him go (for he will not continue to urinate). After this one loosens the external bandages and shows the bladder empty and the ureters quite full and distended- in fact almost on the point of rupturing; on removing the ligature from them, one then plainly sees the bladder becoming filled with urine.

When this has been made quite clear, then, before the animal urinates, one has to tie a ligature round his penis and then to squeeze the bladder all over; still nothing goes back through the ureters to the kidneys. Here, then, it becomes obvious that not only in a dead animal, but in one which is still living, the ureters are prevented from receiving back the urine from the bladder. These observations having been made, one now loosens the ligature from the animal's penis and allows him to urinate, then again ligatures one of the ureters and leaves the other to discharge into the bladder. Allowing, then, some time to elapse, one now demonstrates that the ureter which was ligatured is obviously full and distended on the side next to the kidneys, while the other one- that from which the ligature had been taken- is itself flaccid, but has filled the bladder with urine. Then, again, one must divide the full ureter, and demonstrate how the urine spurts out of it, like blood in the operation of vene-section; and after this one cuts through the other also, and both being thus divided, one bandages up the animal externally. Then when enough time seems to have elapsed, one takes off the bandages; the bladder will now be found empty, and the whole region - between the intestines and the peritoneum full of urine, as if the animal were suffering from dropsy. Now, if anyone will but test this for himself on an animal, I think he will strongly condemn the rashness of Asclepiades, and if he also learns the reason why nothing regurgitates from the bladder into the ureters, I think he will be persuaded by this also of the forethought and art shown by Nature in relation to animals. "De l'habileté et de la prévoyance de la nature à l'égard des animaux" (Daremberg). cf. p. 56, note 1.

+ 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. "De l'habileté et de la prévoyance de la nature à l'égard des animaux" (Daremberg). cf. p. 56, note 1.

Now Hippocrates, who was the first known to us of all those who have been both physicians and philosophers in as much as he was the first to recognize what Nature effects, expresses his admiration of her, and is constantly singing her praises and calling her "just." Alone, he says, she suffices for the animal in every respect, performing of her own accord and without any teaching all that is required. Being such, she has, as he supposes, certain faculties, one attractive of what is appropriate,cf. p. 36, note 2. and another eliminative of what is foreign, and she nourishes the animal, makes it grow, and expels its diseases by crisis.The morbid material passed successively through the stages of "crudity," "coction" (pepsis) and "elimination" (crisis). For "critical days" cf. p. 74, note 1. 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 sy mpathy 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,This was the process by which nutriment was taken up from the alimentary canal; "absoprtion," "dispersal;" cf. p. 13, note 5. The subject is dealt with more fully in chap. xvi. and, being utterly unable to find anything to say regarding the clearing-outLit. catharsis. 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!

@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ PART 16

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

"Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any attraction."Erasistatus' view that the stomach exerts no holke/, or attraction, is dealt with more fully in Book III., chap. viii. But when he is dealing with anadosis he does not mention the Hippocratic view even to the extent of a single syllable. Yet we should have been satisfied if he had even merely written this: "Hippocrates lies in saying 'The fleshi.e. the tissues. attracts both from the stomach and from without,' for it cannot attract either from the stomach or from without." Or if he had thought it worth while to state that Hippocrates was wrong in criticizing the weakness of the neck of the uterus, "seeing that the orifice of the uterus has no power of attracting semen,"cf. p. 291. or if he [Erasistratus] had thought proper to write any other similar opinion, then we in our turn would have defended ourselves in the following terms:

-

"My good sir, do not run us down in this rhetorical fashion without some proof; state some definite objection to our view, in order that either you may convince us by a brilliant refutation of the ancient doctrine, or that, on the other hand, we may convert you from your ignorance." Yet why do I say "rhetorical"? For we too are not to suppose that when certain rhetoricians pour ridicule upon that which they are quite incapable of refuting, without any attempt at argument, their words are really thereby constituted rhetoric. For rhetoric proceeds by persuasive reasoning; words without reasoning are buffoonery rather than rhetoric. Therefore, the reply of Erasistratus in his treatise "On Deglutition" was neither rhetoric nor logic. For what is it that he says? "Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any traction." Let us testify against him in return, and set our argument beside his in the same form. Now, there appears to be no peristalsisPeristalsis may be used here to translate Gk. peristolé, meaning the contraction and dilation of muscle-fibres circularly round a lumen cf.p. 263, note 2. of the gullet. "And how does this appear?" one of his adherents may perchance ask. "For is it not indicative of peristalsis that always when the upper parts of the gullet contract the lower parts dilate?" Again, then, we say, "And in what way does the attraction of the stomach not appear? For is it not indicative of attraction that always when the lower parts of the gullet dilate the upper parts contract?" Now, if he would but be sensible and recognize that this phenomenon is not more indicative of the one than of the other view, but that it applies equally to both,For a demonstration that this phenomenon is a conclusive proof neither of peristolé nor of real vital attraction, but is found even in dead bodies v. p. 267. we should then show him without further delay the proper way to the discovery of truth.

+

"My good sir, do not run us down in this rhetorical fashion without some proof; state some definite objection to our view, in order that either you may convince us by a brilliant refutation of the ancient doctrine, or that, on the other hand, we may convert you from your ignorance." Yet why do I say "rhetorical"? For we too are not to suppose that when certain rhetoricians pour ridicule upon that which they are quite incapable of refuting, without any attempt at argument, their words are really thereby constituted rhetoric. For rhetoric proceeds by persuasive reasoning; words without reasoning are buffoonery rather than rhetoric. Therefore, the reply of Erasistratus in his treatise "On Deglutition" was neither rhetoric nor logic. For what is it that he says? "Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any traction." Let us testify against him in return, and set our argument beside his in the same form. Now, there appears to be no peristalsisPeristalsis may be used here to translate Gk. peristolé, meaning the contraction and dilation of muscle-fibres circularly round a lumen cf.p. 263, note 2. of the gullet. "And how does this appear?" one of his adherents may perchance ask. "For is it not indicative of peristalsis that always when the upper parts of the gullet contract the lower parts dilate?" Again, then, we say, "And in what way does the attraction of the stomach not appear? For is it not indicative of attraction that always when the lower parts of the gullet dilate the upper parts contract?" Now, if he would but be sensible and recognize that this phenomenon is not more indicative of the one than of the other view, but that it applies equally to both,For a demonstration that this phenomenon is a conclusive proof neither of peristolé nor of real vital attraction, but is found even in dead bodies v. p. 267. we should then show him without further delay the proper way to the discovery of truth.

We will, however, speak about the stomach again. And the dispersal of nutriment [anadosis] need not make us have recourse to the theory regarding the natural tendency of a vacuum to become refilled,This was Erasistratus's favourite principle, known in Latin as the "horror vacui" and in English as "Nature's abhorrence of a vacuum," although these terms are not an exact translation of the Greek. to\ kenou/menon probably means the vacuum, not the matter evacuated, although Galen elsewhere uses keno/w in the latter (non-classical) sense, e.g. pp. 67, 215. Akolouthia is a following-up, a sequence, almost a consequence. when once we have granted the attractive faculty of the kidneys. Now, although Erasistratus knew that this faculty most certainly existed, he neither mentioned it nor denied it, nor did he make any statement as to his views on the secretion of urine.

Why did he give notice at the very beginning of his "General Principles" that he was going to speak about natural activities- firstly what they are, how they take place, and in what situations- and then, in the case of urinary secretion, declared that this took place through the kidneys, but left out its method of occurrence? It must, then, have been for no purpose that he told us how digestion occurs, or spends time upon the secretion of biliary superfluities;v. p. 123. for in these cases also it would have been sufficient to have named the parts through which the function takes place, and to have omitted the method. On the contrary, in these cases he was able to tell us not merely through what organs, but also in what way it occurs- as he also did, I think, in the case of anadosis; for he was not satisfied with saying that this took place through the veins, but he also considered fully the method, which he held to be from the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled. Concerning the secretion of urine, however, he writes that this occurs through the kidneys, but does not add in what way it occurs. I do not think he could say that this was from the tendency of matter to fill a vacuum,cf. Book II., chap. i. for, if this were so, nobody would have ever died of retention of urine, since no more can flow into a vacuum than has run out. For, if no other factor comes into operationVital factor necessary over and above the mechanical. save only this tendency by which a vacuum becomes refilled, no more could ever flow in than had been evacuated. Nor, could he suggest any other plausible cause, such, for example, as the of nutriment by the stomachcf. p. 199, note 2. which occurs in the process of anadosis; this had been entirely disproved in the case of blood in the vena cava;pp. 91, 93. it is excluded, not merely owing to the long distance, but also from the fact that the overlying heart, at each diastole, robs the vena cava by violence of a considerable quantity of blood.

In relation to the lower part of the vena cavai.e. the part below the liver; cf. p. 91, note 2. there would still remain, solitary and abandoned, the specious theory concerning the filling of a vacuum. This, however, is deprived of plausibility by the fact that people die of retention of urine, and also, no less, by the situation of the kidneys. For, if the whole of the blood were carried to the kidneys, one might properly maintain that it all undergoes purification there. But, as a matter of fact, the whole of it does not go to them, but only so much as can be contained in the veins going to the kidneys;Renal veins. this portion only, therefore, will be purified. Further, the thin serous part of this will pass through the kidneys as if through a sieve, while the thick sanguineous portion remaining in the veins will obstruct the blood flowing in from behind; this will first, therefore, have to run back to the vena cava, and so to empty the veins going to the kidneys; these veins will no longer be able to conduct a second quantity of @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@

Yet neither Hippocrates nor any of the other physicians or philosophers whom I mentioned a short while ago thought it right to omit this; they say that when the heat which exists naturally in every animal is well blended and moderately moist it generates blood; for this reason they also say that the blood is a virtually warm and moist humour, and similarly also that yellow bile is warm and dry, even though for the most part it appears moist. (For in them the apparently dry would seem to differ from the virtually dry.) Who does not know that brine and sea-water preserve meat and keep it uncorruptedLit. aseptic., whilst all other water- the drinkable kind- readily spoils and rots it? And who does not know that when yellow bile is contained in large quantity in the stomach, we are troubled with an unquenchable thirst, and that when we vomit this up, we at once become much freer from thirst than if we had drunk very large quantities of fluid? Therefore this humour has been very properly termed warm, and also virtually dry. And, similarly, phlegm has been called cold and moist; for about this also clear proofs have been given by Hippocrates and the other Ancients.

ProdicusProdicus of Ceos, a Sophist, contemporary of Socrates. also, when in his book "On the Nature of Man" he gives the name "phlegm" - to that element in the humours which has been burned or, as it were, over-roasted, while using a different terminology, still keeps to the fact just as the others do; this man's innovations in nomenclature have also been amply done justice to by Plato.Plato, Timaeus, 83-85, passim Thus, the white-coloured substance which everyone else calls phlegm, and which Prodicus calls blenna [mucus],cf. the term blennorrhoea, which is still used. is the well-known cold, moist humour which collects mostly in old people and in those who have been chilledcf. the Scotch term "colded" for "affected with a cold"; Germ. erkältet. in some way, and not even a lunatic could say that this was anything else than cold and moist.

+ to that element in the humours which has been burned or, as it were, over-roasted, while using a different terminology, still keeps to the fact just as the others do; this man's innovations in nomenclature have also been amply done justice to by Plato.Plato, Timaeus, 83-85, passim Thus, the white-coloured substance which everyone else calls phlegm, and which Prodicus calls blenna [mucus],cf. the term blennorrhoea, which is still used. is the well-known cold, moist humour which collects mostly in old people and in those who have been chilledcf. the Scotch term "colded" for "affected with a cold"; Germ. erkältet. in some way, and not even a lunatic could say that this was anything else than cold and moist.

If, then, there is a warm and moist humour, and another which is warm and dry, and yet another which is moist and cold, is there none which is virtually cold and dry? Is the fourth combination of temperaments, which exists in all other things, non-existent in the humours alone? No; the black bile is such a humour. This, according to intelligent physicians and philosophers, tends to be in excess, as regards seasons, mainly in the fall of the year, and, as regards ages, mainly after the prime of life. And, similarly, also they say that there are cold and dry modes of life, regions, constitutions, and diseases. Nature, they suppose, is not defective in this single combination; like the three other combinations, it extends everywhere.

At this point, also, I would gladly have been able to ask Erasistratus whether his "artistic" Nature has not constructed any organ for clearing away a humour such as this. For whilst there are two organs for the excretion of urine, and another of considerable size for that of yellow bile, does the humour which is more pernicious than these wander about persistently in the veins mingled with the blood? Yet Hippocrates says, @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ understood from a comparison. Imagine, then, some new wine which has been not long ago pressed from the grape, and which is fermenting and undergoing alteration through the agency of its contained heat.i.e. its innate heat. Imagine next two residual substances produced during this process of alteration, the one tending to be light and air-like and the other to be heavy and more of the nature of earth; of these the one, as I understand, they call the flower and the other the lees. Now you may correctly compare yellow bile to the first of these, and black bile to the latter, although these humours have not the same appearance when the animal is in normal health as that which they often show when it is not so; for then the yellow bile becomes vitelline, Lit. lecithoid. being so termed because it becomes like the yolk of an egg, both in colour and density; and again, even the black bile itself becomes much more malignant than when in its normal condition,Note that there can be "normal" blakc bile. but no particular name has been given to [such a condition of] the humour, except that some people have called it corrosive or acetose, because it also becomes sharp like vinegar and corrodes the animal's body- as also the earth, if it be poured out upon it- and it produces a kind of fermentation and seething, accompanied by bubbles- an abnormal putrefaction having become added to the natural condition of the black humour. It seems to me also that most of the ancient physicians give the name black humour and not black bile to the normal portion of this humour, which is discharged from the bowel and which also frequently rises to the top [of the stomach-contents]; and they call black bile that part which, through a kind of combustion and putrefaction, has had its quality changed to acid. There is no need, however, to dispute about names, but we must realise the facts, which are as follow:-

-

In the genesis of blood, everything in the nutrimentthe term food here means the food as introduced into the stomach; the term nutriment (trophé) means the same food in the digested condition, as it is conveyed to the tissues. cf. pp. 41-43. Note idea of imperfectly oxidized material being absorbed by the spleen. cf. p. 214, note 1. which belongs naturally to the thick and earth-like part of the food, and which does not take on well the alteration produced by the innate heat- all this the spleen draws into itself. On the other hand, that part of the nutriment which is roasted, so to speak, or burnt (this will be the warmest and sweetest part of it, like honey and fat), becomes +

In the genesis of blood, everything in the nutrimentthe term food here means the food as introduced into the stomach; the term nutriment (trophé) means the same food in the digested condition, as it is conveyed to the tissues. cf. pp. 41-43. Note idea of imperfectly oxidized material being absorbed by the spleen. cf. p. 214, note 1. which belongs naturally to the thick and earth-like part of the food, and which does not take on well the alteration produced by the innate heat- all this the spleen draws into itself. On the other hand, that part of the nutriment which is roasted, so to speak, or burnt (this will be the warmest and sweetest part of it, like honey and fat), becomes yellow bile, and is cleared away through the so-called biliaryLit. choledochous, bile-receiving. vessels; now, this is thin, moist, and fluid, not like what it is when, having been roasted to an excessive degree, it becomes yellow, fiery, and thick, like the yolk of eggs; for this latter is already abnormal, while the previously mentioned state is natural. Similarly with the black humour: that which does not yet produce, as I say, this seething and fermentation on the ground, is natural, while that which has taken over this character and faculty is unnatural; it has assumed an acridity owing to the combustion caused by abnormal heat, and has practically become transformed into ashes.Thus over-roasting - shall we say excessive oxidation? - produces the abnormal forms of both black and yellow bile. In somewhat the same way burned lees differ from unburned. The former is a warm substance, able to burn, dissolve, and destroy the flesh. The other kind, which has not yet undergone combustion, one may find the physicians employing for the same purposes that one uses the so-called potter's earth and other substances which have naturally a combined drying and chilling action.

Now the vitelline bile also may take on the appearance of this combusted black bile, if ever it chance to be roasted, so to say, by fiery heat. And all the other forms of bile are produced, some the from blending of those mentioned, others being, as it were, transition-stages in the genesis of these or in their conversion into one another. And they differ in that those first mentioned are unmixed and unique, while the latter forms are diluted with various kinds of serum. And all the serums in the humours are waste substances, and the animal body needs to be purified from them. There is, however, a natural use for the humours first mentioned, both thick and thin; the blood is purified both by the spleen and by the bladder beside the liver, and a part @@ -576,10 +576,10 @@

"The stomach does not appear to exercise any traction."cf. p. 97.

Now the fact is that the stomach possesses two coats, which certainly exist for some purpose; they extend as far as the mouth, the internal one remaining throughout similar to what it is in the stomach, and the other one tending to become of a more fleshy nature in the gullet. Now simple observation will testify that these coats have their fibres inserted in contrary directions.It appears to me, from comparison between this and other passages in Galen's writings (notably Use of Parts, iv., 8), that he means by the "two coats" simply the mucous and the muscular coats. In this case the "straight" or "longitudinal" fibres of the inner coat would be the rugae; the "circular" fibres of the inner intestinal coat would be the valvulae conniventes.And, although Erasistratus did not attempt to say for what reason they are like this, I am going to do so.

The inner coat has its fibres straight, since it exists for the purpose of traction. The outer coat has its fibres transverse, for - the purpose of peristalsis.The term here rendered peristalisis peristoé in greek; it is applied on ly to the intermittent movements of muscles placed circularly round a lumen or cavity, and comprehends systolé or contraction and diastolé or dilation. In its modern significance, peristalsis, hoever, also includes the movements of longitudinal fibres. cf. p. 97, note 1. In fact, the movements of each of the mobile organs of the body depend on the setting of the fibres. Now please test this assertion first in the muscles themselves; in these the fibres are most distinct, and their movements visible owing to their vigour. And after the muscles, pass to the physical organs,i.e.those containing non-striped or "involuntary" muscle fibres; organs governed by the "natural" pneuma ; cf. p. 186, note 3. and you will see that they all move in correspondence with their fibres. This is why the fibres throughout the intestines are circular in both coats- they only contract peristaltically, they do not exercise traction. The stomach, again, has some of its fibres longitudinal for the purpose of traction and the others transverse for the purpose of peristalsis.The term here rendered peristalisis peristoé in greek; it is applied on ly to the intermittent movements of muscles placed circularly round a lumen or cavity, and comprehends systolé or contraction and diastolé or dilation. In its modern significance, peristalsis, hoever, also includes the movements of longitudinal fibres. cf. p. 97, note 1. For just as the movements in the musclesBy this term is meant only what we should call the "voluntary" muscles. take place when each of the fibres becomes tightened and drawn towards its origin, such also is what happens in the stomach; when the transverse fibres tighten, the breadth of the cavity contained by them becomes less; and when the longitudinal fibres contract and draw in upon themselves, the length must necessarily be curtailed. This curtailment of length, indeed, is well seen in the act of swallowing: the larynx is seen to rise + the purpose of peristalsis.The term here rendered peristalisis peristoé in greek; it is applied on ly to the intermittent movements of muscles placed circularly round a lumen or cavity, and comprehends systolé or contraction and diastolé or dilation. In its modern significance, peristalsis, hoever, also includes the movements of longitudinal fibres. cf. p. 97, note 1. In fact, the movements of each of the mobile organs of the body depend on the setting of the fibres. Now please test this assertion first in the muscles themselves; in these the fibres are most distinct, and their movements visible owing to their vigour. And after the muscles, pass to the physical organs,i.e.those containing non-striped or "involuntary" muscle fibres; organs governed by the "natural" pneuma ; cf. p. 186, note 3. and you will see that they all move in correspondence with their fibres. This is why the fibres throughout the intestines are circular in both coats- they only contract peristaltically, they do not exercise traction. The stomach, again, has some of its fibres longitudinal for the purpose of traction and the others transverse for the purpose of peristalsis.The term here rendered peristalisis peristoé in greek; it is applied on ly to the intermittent movements of muscles placed circularly round a lumen or cavity, and comprehends systolé or contraction and diastolé or dilation. In its modern significance, peristalsis, hoever, also includes the movements of longitudinal fibres. cf. p. 97, note 1. For just as the movements in the musclesBy this term is meant only what we should call the "voluntary" muscles. take place when each of the fibres becomes tightened and drawn towards its origin, such also is what happens in the stomach; when the transverse fibres tighten, the breadth of the cavity contained by them becomes less; and when the longitudinal fibres contract and draw in upon themselves, the length must necessarily be curtailed. This curtailment of length, indeed, is well seen in the act of swallowing: the larynx is seen to rise upwards to exactly the same degree that the gullet is drawn downwards; while, after the process of swallowing has been completed and the gullet is released from tension, the larynx can be clearly seen to again. This is because the inner coat of the stomach, which has the longitudinal fibres and which also lines the gullet and the mouth, extends to the interior of the larynx, and it is thus impossible for it to be drawn down by the stomach without the larynx being involved in the traction.

Further, it will be found acknowledged in Erasistratus's own writings that the circular fibres (by which the stomach as well as other parts performs its contractions) do not curtail its length, but contract and lessen its breadth. For he says that the stomach contracts peristaltically round the food during the whole period of digestion. But if it contracts, without in any way being diminished in length, this is because downward traction of the gullet is not a property of the movement of circular peristalsis. For what alone happens, as Erasistratus himself said, is that when the upper parts contract the lower ones dilate.cf. p. 97. And everyone knows that this can be plainly seen happening even in a dead man, if water be poured down his throat; this symptomFor "symptom," cf. p. 13, and p. 12, note 3. "Transitum namque materiae per angustum corpus id accidens consequitur" (Linacre). Less a "result" or "consequence" than an "accompaniment." results from the passage of matter through a narrow channel; it would be extraordinary if the channel did not dilate when a mass was passing through it.i.e. this is a purely mechanical process. - Obviously then the dilatation of the lower parts along with the contraction of the upper is common both to dead bodies, when anything whatsoever is passing through them, and to living ones, whether they contract peristaltically round their contents or attract them.i.e. this pneomenon is a proof neither of peristolé nor of attraction. cf. p. 97, note 2.

+ Obviously then the dilatation of the lower parts along with the contraction of the upper is common both to dead bodies, when anything whatsoever is passing through them, and to living ones, whether they contract peristaltically round their contents or attract them.i.e. this pneomenon is a proof neither of peristolé nor of attraction. cf. p. 97, note 2.

Curtailment of length, on the other hand, is peculiar to organs which possess longitudinal fibres for the purpose of attraction. But the gullet was shown to be pulled down; for otherwise it would not have drawn upon the larynx. It is therefore clear that the stomach attracts food by the gullet.

Further, in vomiting, the mere passive conveyance of rejected matter up to the mouth will certainly itself suffice to keep open those parts of the oesophagus which are distended by the returned food; as it occupies each part in front [above], it first dilates this, and of course leaves the part behind [below] contracted. Thus, in this respect at least, the condition of the gullet is precisely similar to what it is in the act of swallowing.Contraction and dilatation of course being reversed. But there being no traction, the whole length remains equal in such cases.

And for this reason it is easier to swallow than to vomit, for deglutition results from both coats of the stomach being brought into action, the inner one exerting a