§9#1Ταῦτα εἰπόντος τοῦ ἐμπειρικοῦ παρελθὼν ὁ δογματικὸς ὧδέ πως λεγέτω· Τάχα μὲν εὖ φρονοῦντί σοι καὶ ταῦτα ἦν ἱκανὰ, περὶ τοῦ μήθ’ ἡλικίαν, μήθ’ ὥραν, μήτε χώραν, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ προκαταρκτικὸν αἴτιον, ἢ μέρος τι τοῦ σώματος ἄχρηστον ὑπολαμβάνειν.
After the empiricist had said these things, let the dogmatist come forward and speak somewhat as follows: Perhaps indeed, if you are of sound mind, even these things were sufficient for you, so as not to suppose that either age, or season, or region, or indeed even a procatarctic cause, or any part of the body is useless.
εἰ δέ σε μήπω πέπεικεν ὁ ἐμπειρικὸς, ὑπομιμνήσκων τῶν φαινομένων, ἀλλά τινος ἔτι καὶ λόγου δέοι, τοῦτόν μοι δοκῶ προσθήσειν ἐγὼ, καὶ τὴν ὑπόθεσίν σου τῆς αἱρέσεως ἀποδείξω σαθράν.
But if the empiricist, by reminding you of the phenomena, has not yet persuaded you, but there is still need of some rational argument, I think I will add this myself, and I will demonstrate that the hypothesis of your sect is unsound.
ἀκούω μὲν γὰρ ὑμῶν λεγόντων γνῶσιν φαινομένων κοινοτήτων, ἐρωτῶ δὲ ἑκάστοτε, περὶ τί μάλιστα ἡ κοινότης αὕτη συνίσταται, καὶ πῶς αὐτὴν γνωριοῦμεν, οὐδέπω καὶ νῦν μοι δοκῶ γνῶναι δύνασθαι.
For I hear you speaking of a knowledge of apparent commonalities, but though I ask every time what on earth this commonality consists in, and how we shall recognize it, even now I think I am not yet able to know.
τὸ δ’ αἴτιον ἄχρι τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀλλήλοις ὁμολογεῖτε, περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων διαφερόμενοι.
And the reason is that you agree with one another as far as names go, while differing about the realities.
τινες γὰρ ὑμῶν ταῖς παρὰ φύσιν ἐκκρίσεσι παραμετροῦσι τὸ στεγνὸν καὶ τὸ ῥοῶδες, ἰσχομένων μὲν αὐτῶν, στέγνωσιν ὀνομάζοντες τὸ πάθος, ἀμέτρως δ’ ἐκκρινομένων, ῥύσιν.
For some of you measure the 'constricted' and the 'fluent' by the unnatural excretions, calling the affection 'constriction' when these are retained, and 'flux' when they are excreted immoderately.
ἄλλοι δέ τινες ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς τῶν σωμάτων διαθέσεσι τὰ πάθη φασὶν εἶναι, καὶ μέμφονταί γε δεινῶς τοῖς εἰς τὸ κενούμενον ἀποβλέπουσιν.
And certain others of you say that the affections are in the remaining dispositions of the bodies, and they terribly censure those who look to what is being evacuated.
ἐμοὶ δὲ ὅπη δοκοῦσιν ἑκάτεροι σφάλλεσθαι, τάχα ἂν ἤδη δηλώσαιμι.
And where each of the two groups seems to me to err, I might perhaps demonstrate right away.
γινέσθω δὲ ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος πρὸς ἐκείνους πρότερον, ὅσοι ταῖς παρὰ φύσιν ἐκκρίσεσι κρίνουσι τὰ πάθη.
And let our argument be directed first to those who judge the affections by the unnatural excretions.
θαυμάζω γὰρ αὐτοὺς, εἰ μήθ’ ἱδρῶτάς ποτε, μήτε οὖρα, μήτ’ ἐμέτους, μήτε διαχωρήματα πλείω τῶν κατὰ φύσιν εἶδον ἐν ταῖς νόσοις χρηστῶς κενούμενα, καὶ τὸ πάντων ἀτοπώτατον, εἰ μηδ’??ῥινῶν αἱμοῤῥαγίαν ποτὲ κρίνασθαι ἐθεάσαντο.
For I wonder at them, whether they have never seen in diseases sweats, or urine, or vomitings, or bowel movements greater than those according to nature being beneficially evacuated, and, most absurd of all, if they have never even beheld a hemorrhage from the nose acting as a crisis.
ταύτης μέν γε οὐ τὸ ποσὸν μόνον, ἀλλ’ ὅλον τὸ γένος παρὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχει.
In the case of this latter, indeed, not only the quantity but its whole kind is unnatural.
ἱδρώτων δὲ, ἢ οὔρων, ἢ ὅσα κατὰ γαστέρα, ἢ δι’ ἐμέτων ὁρμᾷ, τὸ μὲν γένος οὐ παρὰ φύσιν, οὕτως γε μὴν ἄμετρόν ἐστί ποτε τὸ πλῆθος, ὥστε ἐγὼ μὲν οἶδά τινας εἰς τοσοῦτον ἱδρώσαντας, ἄχρι τοῦ καὶ γνάφαλα διαβρέξαι, καὶ ἄλλους κατὰ γαστέρα κενωθέντας ὑπὲρ τριάκοντα κοτύλας, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐδόκει τούτων οὐδὲν παύειν, ὅτι τὸ λυποῦν ἐκενοῦτο.
But of sweats, or urine, or things that pass through the bowels, or are urged through vomiting, the kind is not unnatural, yet their multitude is sometimes so immoderate that I, for my part, know of some who sweated to such an extent as even to soak the wool-stuffings, and others who evacuated through the bowels over thirty kotylai, but it did not seem right to stop any of these things, because what was causing the trouble was being evacuated.
καίτοι τῷ γε ταῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἐκκρίσεσιν εἰς ἅπαντα κανόνι χρωμένῳ, κωλυτέα ἦν τὰ τοιαῦτα συμπτώματα.
And yet, for one who uses natural excretions as a rule for everything, such symptoms ought to have been prevented.
διὸ καὶ πιθανώτεροί πως εἷναι δοκοῦσιν οἱ τὰς διαθέσεις ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν αὐτοῖς τὰς κοινότητας ἐπιτιθέμενοι.
Therefore, those who place the commonalities in the dispositions within the bodies themselves seem somehow to be more plausible.
θαυμάζω δὲ καὶ τούτων, ὅπως αὐτὰς φαινομένας ἐτόλμησαν εἰπεῖν.
But I wonder at them too, how they dared to say that these are apparent.
εἰ γὰρ μὴ τὸ ῥέον ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας ἡ ῥύσις ἐστὶν, ἀλλ’ ἡ διάθεσις τῶν σωμάτων, ἐξ ἧς τὸ ῥέον, οὐκ ἐνδέχεται δὲ ταύτην οὐδεμιᾷ τῶν αἰσθήσεων φαίνεσθαι, πῶς ἂν αἱ κοινότητες ἔτι φαινόμεναι λέγοιντ’ ἄν;
For if the flux is not the fluid flowing from the belly, but the disposition of the bodies from which the fluid flows, and if it is not possible for this disposition to appear to any of the senses, how could the commonalities still be said to be apparent?
καὶ γὰρ ἐν κώλῳ δυνατὸν τὴν τῆς ῥύσεως διάθεσιν εἶναι, καὶ ἐν λεπτοῖς ἐντέροις, καὶ περὶ τὴν νῆστιν, καὶ περὶ τὴν γαστέρα, καὶ τὸ μεσάραιον, καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ τῶν ἐντὸς, ὦν οὐδὲν οὐδὲ αὐτὸ δυνατὸν αἰσθήσει λαβεῖν, οὔτε τὸ πάθος αὐτοῦ.
For indeed, the disposition of flux can be in the colon, and in the small intestines, and around the jejunum, and around the stomach, and the mesentery, and many other of the internal parts, of which it is not possible to perceive either the part itself by sense, nor its affection.
πῶς οὖν ἔτι φαινόμεναι λέγοιντ’ ἂν αἱ κοινότητες, εἰ μήπω καὶ τὸ διὰ σημείων γνωρίζεσθαι φαίνεσθαί τις ἐθέλοι καλεῖν;
How then could the commonalities still be said to be apparent, unless indeed one should wish to call even that which is recognized through signs 'apparent'?
ἀλλ’ εἰ τοῦτο, τίνι τῶν παλαιῶν ἰατρῶν ἔτι διαφέρουσιν, οὐκ οἶδα.
But if this is so, in what they still differ from the ancient physicians, I do not know.
πῶς δὲ ταχέως καὶ ἐν ἓξ μησὶν ἐπαγγέλλονται τὴν τέχνην ἐκδιδάσκειν;
And how is it that they promise to teach the art quickly and in six months?
οὐ γὰρ ἂν, οἶμαι, σμικρᾶς δέοιντο μεθόδου πρὸς τὸ γνῶναί τι τῶν ἐκφευγόντων τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἀλλὰ τῷ τοῦτο καλῶς ἐργαζομένῳ καὶ ἀνατομῆς χρεία τῆς ἕκαστον τῶν ἐντὸς, ὡς ἔχει φύσεως, διδασκούσης, καὶ φυσικῆς θεωρίας οὐ σμικρᾶς, ἵνα τό τ’ ἔργον ἑκάστου καὶ τὴν χρείαν ἐπισκέψηται.
For I think they would need no small method to know something of the things that escape sense, but for one who practices this well, there is need both of anatomy, which teaches how each of the internal parts is by nature, and of no small study of nature, in order to examine the function and utility of each.
πρὶν γὰρ εὑρεθῆναι ταῦτα, τῶν ἐν βάθει τοῦ σώματος μορίων οὐδενὸς οἶόν τε διαγνῶναι τὸ πάθος.
For before these are discovered, it is impossible to diagnose the affection of any of the parts in the depth of the body.
τί δεῖ λέγειν, ὅτι καὶ διαλεκτικῆς μὲν ἐνταῦθα χρεία μεγάλη, ἵν’, ἐκ τίνων τί περαίνεται, σαφῶς εἰδῇς, καὶ μὴ παρακρουσθῇς ποτε σοφίσμασι, μήθ’ ὑπ’ ἄλλου, μήθ’ ὑφ’ αὑτοῦ;
Why need I say that there is also a great need here for dialectic, so that you may know clearly from what premises what conclusion is reached, and never be misled by sophisms, either by another or by yourself?
καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἄκοντάς ἐστιν ἰδεῖν, ὅτε σοφιζόμεθα.
For indeed, we can see even ourselves engaging in sophistry against our will.
καὶ μὴν καὶ οἷόν τί ἐστιν ἡ ῥύσις, ἡδέως ἂν αὐτοὺς ἐροίμην, εἰ διαλέγεσθαι μεμαθήκασιν.
And furthermore, I would gladly ask them what kind of thing flux is, if they have learned to practice dialectic.
οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοῦτό γε μόνον ἀρκεῖν ἡγοῦμαι τό τισιν ἐξ αὐτῶν εἰρημένον, ὅτι διάθεσίς τις παρὰ φύσιν ἡ ῥύσις ἐστί.
For I certainly do not think that this alone is sufficient, which has been said by some of them, that flux is a certain unnatural disposition.
τίς γὰρ ἡ διάθεσις, εἰ μὴ μάθοιμεν, οὐδὲν ἂν οὐδέπω πλέον εἰδείημεν, ἆρά γε χάλασίς τις, ἢ μαλακότης, ἢ ἀραιότης.
For if we do not learn what the disposition is, we would still know nothing more; is it perhaps some relaxation, or softness, or rarefaction?
οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἀποῦσαί τι σαφὲς οὐδὲ αὐτῶν λεγόντων, ἀλλ’ ὅ, τι ἂν ἐπέλθοι, νῦν μὲν τοῦτο, αὖθις δὲ ἐκεῖνο, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ πάντα ἅμα, ὥσπερ οὐδὲν διαφέροντα.
For there is no clear answer from them when they speak, but whatever comes to mind, now this, another time that, and often indeed all at once, as if they differed in no way.