§6#2δύναται γὰρ ἅπαν ἀντεκπνεῖσθαι, καθάπερ τοῖς πλείστοις τε καὶ ἀκριβεστάτοις ἔδοξεν ἰατροῖς τε ἅμα καὶ φιλοσόφοις, οἳ μὴ τῆς οὐσίας, ἀλλὰ τῆς ποιότητος αὐτοῦ δεῖσθαί φασι τὴν καρδίαν ἐμψύχεσθαι ποθοῦσαν, καὶ ταύτην εἶναι χρείαν τῆς ἀναπνοῆς.
For all of it can be breathed out in return, just as it seemed to the most and most precise physicians and philosophers, who say that the heart, desiring to be cooled, does not need its substance, but its quality, and that this is the utility of respiration.
λαμβάνουσιν οὖν οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἐρασίστρατον κᾀνταῦθα τὸ ζητούμενον αὐτὸ, πρὶν ἀποδεῖξαι, δέον αὐτὸ τοῦτο πάλιν ἰδίᾳ ζητεῖν, ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς πεποιήκαμεν, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι τάξει περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων σκοπούμενοι, καὶ πάντες ὁμοῦ ζητοῦντές τε καὶ πράττοντες.
Therefore, those around Erasistratus here too take the very question for granted before demonstrating it, whereas they ought to have investigated this very thing again privately, just as we have done, and as all those who examine things in an orderly manner, and all who investigate and act at the same time.
ἀποδέδεικται δ’ ἡμῖν ἐν τῷ περὶ χρείας ἀναπνοῆς, ὡς ἤτοι παντελῶς ὀλίγον, ἢ οὐδὲν ὅλως τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος οὐσίας εἰς τὴν καρδίαν μεταλαμβάνεται.
But it has been demonstrated by us in "On the Utility of Respiration" that either entirely little or nothing at all of the substance of the pneuma is taken into the heart.
τὰ δ’ αὐτὰ διαμαρτάνουσιν κᾀν τῷ προβάλλειν, ὅπως αἱ κατὰ προαίρεσιν γεγυμνωμέναι περιέχουσιν αἷμα.
And they make the same error in proposing how [voluntary movements will occur] when the exposed [arteries] contain blood.
δείκνυμι ἐφεξῆς κινουμένας αὐτὰς ἀπαραποδίστως οὐ πρὸς τὴν ἁφὴν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν.
I show next that they move without hindrance, not only to the touch but also to the sight.
εἶτα ἐπερωτῶμεν λόγον, οὗ τὰ λήμματα καὶ πρὸς αὐτῶν ἐκείνων ὡμολόγηται.
Then we ask an argument, the premises of which are agreed upon even by themselves.
φασὶ γὰρ ἀληθὲς ὑπάρχειν τουτὶ τὸ συνημμένον. εἰ δὲ καὶ αἷμα περιέχουσιν αἱ ἀρτηρίαι, καὶ παρὰ καρδίας πληροῦνται πνεύματος, διαφθαρήσεται τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς κινήσεων ἡ τάξις. αὐτὸ μὲν γὰρ καθ’ ἑαυτὸ τὸ τοιοῦτο συνημμένον, εἰ αἷμα περιέχουσιν αἱ ἀρτηρίαι, διαφθαρήσεται τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς κινήσεων ἡ τάξις, οὔτ’ ἐκεῖνοι τολμῶσιν ἀληθὲς εἶναι λέγειν, οὔτ’ ἄλλος τις νοῦν ἔχων, δυναμένων γε δὴ τῶν ἀρτηριῶν οὐ διὰ τὸ πληροῦσθαι παρὰ τῆς καρδίας διαστέλλεσθαι, ἀλλ’, ὅτι διαστέλλονται, διὰ τοῦτο πληροῦσθαι.
For they say that this conditional proposition is true: "And if the arteries contain blood and are filled with pneuma from the heart, the order of the movements in them will be destroyed." For such a conditional proposition by itself—"if the arteries contain blood, the order of the movements in them will be destroyed"—neither they dare to say is true, nor anyone else who has a mind, since indeed the arteries are able to dilate not because they are filled from the heart, but, because they dilate, they are for this reason filled.
χρὴ τοίνυν προομολογεῖσθαι τὸ παρὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτὰς πληροῦσθαι πνεύματος, εἰ μέλλει τὸ συνημμένον ἀληθὲς ἔσεσθαι.
It is necessary, therefore, to agree beforehand that they are filled with pneuma from the heart, if the conditional proposition is to be true.
ἀμφοτέρων γὰρ τεθέντων, τοῦ τε περιέχειν αἷμα, καὶ τοῦ παρὰ τῆς καρδίας πληρουμένας διαστέλλεσθαι, τῷ διαφθείρεσθαι τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἐν αὐταῖς κινήσεων τὴν τάξιν, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἕπεται, θατέρῳ μόνῳ κατ’ οὐδεμίαν ἀνάγκην ἑπομένην.
For when both are posited—containing blood and dilating while being filled from the heart—the destruction of the order of the natural movements in them follows of necessity, whereas from one alone it follows by no necessity.
ἐρωτάσθω τοίνυν ὁ λόγος ἐπὶ τῶν γεγυμνωμένων ἀρτηριῶν ᾧδέ πως. εἰ αἱ ἀρτηρίαι καὶ αἷμα περιέχουσι, καὶ παρὰ καρδίας πληρούμεναι διαστέλλονται, διαφθαρήσεται τῶν ἐν αὐταῖς κινήσεων ἡ τάξις· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐ διαφθείρεται· φαίνεται γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο· οὐκ ἄρα καὶ αἷμα περιέχουσι, καὶ παρὰ καρδίας πληρούμεναι διαστέλλονται. οἱ δέ γε περὶ τὸν Ἐρασίστρατον, καὶ τὰ δύο λήμματα, καὶ τὸ συνημμένον καὶ τὸ ἀντικείμενον τοῦ λήμματος ἐν αὐτῷ προσιέμενοι, οὐκ οἶδ’ ὅπως οὐκέτι προσίενται τὸ συμπέρασμα, τυχὸν ἴσως ἀγνοοῦντες, ἅπερ οὐδὲ τοὺς ἐπιτυχόντας λέληθεν, ὡς ἐκ συνημμένου καὶ τοῦ ἀντικειμένου οὕτως εἰς ὃ λήγει τὸ ἀντικείμενον τοῦ ἡγουμένου περαίνεται.
Let the argument, therefore, be asked concerning the exposed arteries in some such way: "If the arteries both contain blood and dilate while being filled from the heart, the order of the movements in them will be destroyed; but indeed it is not destroyed, for this too is apparent; therefore they do not both contain blood and dilate while being filled from the heart." Yet those around Erasistratus, though accepting both premises—both the conditional and the contradictory of the consequent in it—somehow no longer accept the conclusion, perhaps being ignorant of what has not escaped even ordinary people, namely that from a conditional and its contradictory [consequent], the contradictory of the antecedent is thus concluded.
ἡγουμένου δὴ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ὄντος, οὐ μόνον τοῦ περιέχειν αἷμα τὰς ἀρτηρίας, ἀλλ’, ὡς ἐδείχθη μικρῷ πρόσθεν, καὶ τοῦ παρὰ καρδίας πληρουμένας διαστέλλεσθαι, τὸ συμπέρασμα γενήσεται τῆς τούτου συμπλοκῆς ἀποφαντικόν.
Since the antecedent in the argument is not only the containing of blood by the arteries but also, as was shown a little before, their dilating while being filled from the heart, the conclusion will be negative of this conjunction.
ὅπερ γὰρ ἐν συνημμένῳ τῷ ὅλῳ ἀξιώματι, τὸ μὲν ἡγούμενον ᾖ, τὸ συμπεπλεγμένον, τὸ δὲ λῆγον, τὸ ἁπλοῦν, εἶτα προσληφθέντος τοῦ λήγοντος, τὸ ἀντικείμενον ἐξ ἀνάγκης περαίνεται τοῦ συμπεπλεγμένου.
For when in the whole conditional proposition the antecedent is a conjunction and the consequent is simple, then, if the contradictory of the consequent is co-assumed, the contradictory of the conjunction is concluded of necessity.