§7Πρὸς ταῦτ’ οὖν οὐδὲν ἔχοντες λέγειν, ὥσπερ ἐπί τινα βωμὸν ἐλέους καταφεύγουσι τὴν Πυῤῥωνείαν ἀγροικίαν, οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἔχειν φάσκοντες, ὑποβάλλεσθαι διαλεκτικαῖς περιεργίαις ἰατρικὴν θεωρίαν.
Having nothing to say to this, therefore, they flee as if to some altar of mercy to Pyrrhonian rustic ignorance, claiming that it is not correct to subject medical theory to dialectical curiosities.
εἶθ’ ἡμῶν ἐρωτώντων αὖθις αὐτοὺς, εἰ τοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις λήμμασιν ἐπιφέρειν ὁτιοῦν ἔξεστιν, ἢ μέθοδός τίς ἐστι καὶ τέχνη ἡ διδάσκουσα, τίνων ὁμολογηθέντων τί περαίνεται, πρὸς μὲν ταῦτα οὐδὲν ἀποκρίνονται, μάχης δ’ ὑπαρχούσης, τί γὰρ δὴ καὶ ἔχουσιν ἀποκρίνασθαι;
Then, when we ask them again whether it is permitted to infer anything whatsoever from agreed premises, or whether there is some method and art that teaches what is concluded when what has been agreed, they answer nothing to this; but since there is a conflict—for what indeed do they have to answer?
νοῦν ἔχειν ἐναργῶς οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία μέθοδος, ἀλλ’ ἔξεστιν ἁπλῶς ἐπιφέρειν ὁτιοῦν τοῖς δοθεῖσι λήμμασιν, ὡς ἔστι μὲν, οὐ χρηστέον δ’ αὐτῷ πρὸς τὰς ἀποδείξεις.
Clearly, there is no method to have intellect, but it is permitted simply to infer anything whatsoever from the given premises, or [they might say] that there is indeed, but one must not use it for demonstrations.
ἀλλ’ ἀμφότερα δεινῶς ἄτοπα.
But both are terribly absurd.
τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρότερον εἰ φαῖεν, ὥσπερ οὖν ἤδη τις ἀναισχυντήσας ἀπετόλμησεν εἰπεῖν, ἑξῆς γε ἀκούσονται παρ’ ἡμῶν τοιούτους λόγους, οἵουσπερ κᾀκεῖνος ἤκουσεν. αἱ ἀρτηρίαι διχίτωνές εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ αἷμα ξανθόν ἐστιν, οὐκ ἄρα πνεῦμα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἷμα περιέχουσιν αἱ ἀρτηρίαι. καὶ γελασάντων γε αὐτῶν, συνείροντες ἡμεῖς ἕτερον ἐπηνέγκαμεν λόγον τοιοῦτον· οἱ κόρακες μέλανές εἰσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ κύκνοι λευκοί· οὐκ ἄρα πνεῦμα μόνον ἐν ταῖς ἀρτηρίαις περιέχεται. καὶ πάλιν γελῶντες τρίτον γε τοιοῦτον· τὸ πῦρ θερμόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ χιὼν ψυχρὰ, καὶ σὺ μωρός· οὐκ ἄρα ἐνδέχεται πνεῦμα μόνον ἐν ταῖς ἀρτηρίαις περιέχεσθαι. ἂν γὰρ ὅλον ἐξῇ τοῖς δοθεῖσι λήμμασιν ὁτιοῦν ἐπιφέρειν, καὶ μηδεμία μέθοδος ᾖ τῆς τοῦ συμπεράσματος εὑρέσεως, τί κωλύει τοιούτους ἐρωτᾶσθαι λόγους;
For if they should say the former, just as indeed someone already shamelessly dared to say, they will next hear from us such arguments as that person also heard: "The arteries are two-coated, but indeed blood is yellow; therefore, the arteries contain not only pneuma but also blood." And when they laughed, we, linking them together, brought forward another such argument: "Crows are black, but indeed swans are white; therefore, not only pneuma is contained in the arteries." And when they laughed again, a third such: "Fire is hot, but indeed snow is cold, and you are a fool; therefore, it is not possible for only pneuma to be contained in the arteries." For if it were entirely permitted to infer anything whatsoever from the given premises, and there were no method of finding the conclusion, what would prevent such arguments from being asked?
ἐὰν δ’ ᾖ τις τέχνη καὶ μέθοδος, αἷσπερ ὁτιοῦν διαγινώσκεται, τίνων ὁμολογηθέντων τί περαίνεται, πότερον ὁ μὴ γιγνώσκων αὐτὴν, ἢ ὁ γινώσκων μὲν, μὴ χρώμενος δὲ δοκεῖ σοι σωφρονεῖν μᾶλλον, ἢ ὅστις γινώσκει καὶ κέχρηται;
But if there is some art and method by which anything whatsoever is distinguished, showing what is concluded when what has been agreed, does he who does not know it, or he who knows it but does not use it, seem to you to be more sensible than he who both knows and uses it?
θαυμάζω δ’ ὑμῶν, ὦ Ἐρασιστράτειοι, πῶς ὑμνοῦντες ἑκάστοτε τὸν Ἐρασίστρατον τά τ’ ἄλλα καὶ ὡς Θεοφράστῳ συνεγένετο, φεύγειν τολμᾶτε τὰς λογικὰς μεθόδους, ὧν χωρὶς οὔτε Θεόφραστος οὔτε Ἀριστοτέλης ἐνεχείρουν τι γράφειν.
I wonder at you, O Erasistrateans, how, while singing praises to Erasistratus on every occasion, among other things, for his having studied with Theophrastus, you dare to flee logical methods, without which neither Theophrastus nor Aristotle attempted to write anything.
ταῦτά τινες αὐτῶν μόγις αἰδεσθέντες, ὥσπερ ἐξ ὕπνου βαθέος ἐγερθέντες, οὐκ ἔτ’ ἀγροίκως τε καὶ ἀγρίως, ἀλλ’ ἤδη λογικῶς τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνως ἐπιγραφέντες ἐπεχείρουν διαλέγεσθαι, καὶ τί, φασὶν, πλέον ἂν περαίνοιτο πρὸς τοῦ λόγου τοῦ, οὐχὶ καὶ αἷμα ἔχουσιν αἱ ἀρτηρίαι καὶ παρὰ καρδίας πληροῦνται πνεύματος, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἤδη μὲν ἔφαμεν αὐτὸ τοῦτο κακῶς ὑμᾶς ἐπιφέρειν· οὐκ ἄρα αἱ ἀρτηρίαι αἷμα περιέχουσιν. μὴ γὰρ τοῦτ’ εἶναι τὸ περαινόμενον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι συνδραμεῖν εἰς ταὐτὸ, αἷμά τε περιέχεσθαι ταύτας, καὶ παρὰ καρδίας πληροῦσθαι πνεύματος.
Some of them, barely feeling shame at this, as if awakened from a deep sleep, no longer behaving rustically and savagely, but now registering themselves logically and humanely, attempted to discuss, and they said, "What more would be concluded by this argument: 'Do the arteries not both have blood and get filled with pneuma from the heart?'" And we already said that you infer this very thing badly: "Therefore the arteries do not contain blood." For it is not this that is concluded, but that these two cannot run together into the same thing, namely that they contain blood and are filled with pneuma from the heart.
ἐφεξῆς δέ τοι πάλιν ἐκ τούτου ποτὲ καὶ τὸ περιέχειν αὐτὰς αἷμα συνάγομεν. ἔσται γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοιοῦτος.
And next, indeed, from this we shall at some point also conclude that they contain blood.
εἰ αἷμα περιέχουσιν αἱ ἀρτηρίαι, οὐ παρὰ καρδίας πληροῦνται πνεύματος· ἀλλὰ μὴν αἷμα περιέχουσιν αἱ ἀρτηρίαι· οὐκ ἄρα παρὰ καρδίας πληροῦνται πνεύματος. ἐφ’ ᾧ πάλιν εἰ βουληθείημεν, τῶν ἔμπροσθεν ἀναμνήσαντες, αὖθις ἐρωτήσομεν ᾧδε· εἰ αἱ ἀρτηρίαι πλήρεις αἵματος ὑπάρχουσιν, καὶ αὗται σφύζουσι τεταγμένως, καὶ ταῖς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν πεφυκυίαις οὐ κωλύουσιν ὡσαύτως κινεῖσθαι, ἢ διὰ τὸ πληροῦσθαι παρὰ τῆς καρδίας πνεύματος σφύζουσιν, ἢ δι’ ἄλλην αἰτίαν·
For the argument will be as follows: "If the arteries contain blood, they are not filled with pneuma from the heart; but indeed the arteries contain blood; therefore, they are not filled with pneuma from the heart." Whereupon again, if we should wish, reminding them of the previous things, we shall ask again thus: "If the arteries are full of blood, and these beat in an orderly manner, and do not prevent those arising from them from moving in the same way, do they beat because they are filled with pneuma from the heart, or through another cause?
ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐ τὸ πρῶτον· ἄρα τὸ δεύτερον. ἐφεξῆς δ’ αὖθις ἐρωτήσομεν ᾡδί· ἢ διὰ τὸ πληροῦσθαι τοῦ παρὰ καρδίας πνεύματος αἱ ἀρτηρίαι διαστέλλονται, ἢ ὅτι διαστέλλονται, πληροῦνται·
But indeed not the first; therefore the second." Next we shall ask again thus: "Is it because they are filled with pneuma from the heart that the arteries dilate, or is it because they dilate that they are filled?
ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐ τὸ πρῶτον· ἄρα τὸ δεύτερον, τῷ εἶναί τινα δύναμιν ἐν τοῖς χιτῶσιν αὐτῶν, ὑφ’ ἧς διαστέλλονται, πᾶν ἕλκεται τὸ συνεχὲς ἐκ παντὸς μέρους αὐτῶν, ὅθεν ἂν ἐγχωρῇ. νοήσαις δ’ ἂν ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐπὶ παραδειγμάτων τὴν διαφορὰν πληρουμένου διαστέλλεσθαι, καὶ διαστελλομένου πληροῦσθαι.
But indeed not the first; therefore the second, because there is some power in their coats by which they dilate, and everything continuous is drawn from every part of them, from wherever it is possible." And you would understand still more from examples the difference between being dilated while being filled, and being filled while dilating.
οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀσκοὶ καὶ οἱ θύλακοι πληρούμενοι διαστέλλονται· αἱ φύσαι δὲ τῶν χαλκέων διαστελλόμεναι πληροῦνται.
For bellows and bags are dilated while being filled, but the bellows of blacksmiths are filled while dilating.
τὰς τοίνυν ἀρτηρίας ὅτι μὲν ἢ κατὰ τὸν πρότερον ἢ κατὰ τὸν δεύτερον τρόπον ἀναγκαῖον πληροῦσθαι, παντὶ δῆλον.
That it is necessary, then, for the arteries to be filled either in the former or in the second way is clear to everyone.
ὅπως δ’ ἔχει τἀληθὲς, ἐπιδέδεικται ἡμῖν καὶ δι’ ἄλλων ὑπομνημάτων αὐτάρκως, ἀτὰρ οὐχ ἥκιστα καὶ νῦν πέφανται τὸ διαστελλομένας αὐτὰς ἕλκειν ἐκ παντὸς τοῦ πλησιάζοντος διὰ τῶν περάτων τε καὶ τρημάτων ὅ τι περ ἂν ἑτοιμότατα δύνηται πληρῶσαι τὴν διαστολὴν αὐτῶν.
But how the truth stands has been demonstrated by us sufficiently also in other treatises, and not least now it has been shown that, by dilating, they draw from everything that is near through their ends and perforations whatever can most readily fill their dilation.
ἢ γὰρ τοῦτο πάντως, ἢ θάτερον· ἐδείχθη δὲ ψεῦδος ἐκεῖνο· δῆλον ὡς τοῦτ’ ἀληθές.
For it is either entirely this or the other; and since that was shown to be false, it is clear that this is true.