§1#2εἰπεῖν οὖν βούλομαι καὶ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἁπάντων, ὅσα τὴν μὲν γνῶσιν οὐκ ἀναγκαίαν ἔχει πρὸς ὑγίειαν σώματος ἢ τὰς τῆς ψυχῆς ἠθικὰς ἀρετὰς, ἐπεκόσμησε δ’ ἂν, εἴπερ ἐγνώσθη βεβαίως, διὰ τῶν γιγνωσκομένων ἀκριβῶς, ἀποτελούμενα κατὰ ἰατρικήν τε καὶ τὴν ἠθικὴν φιλοσοφίαν, ἣν ἐγώ φημι χρησίμην τε ἅμα καὶ δυνατὴν εἶναι πᾶσι τοῖς βουλομένοις ἀσκῆσαι· καὶ γέγραπταί μοι περὶ τούτου δύο βιβλία.
Therefore, I wish to speak also about all such matters, whose knowledge is not necessary for the health of the body or the ethical virtues of the soul, but would have adorned, if indeed it had been known with certainty, through the things accurately known, those things accomplished according to medicine and ethical philosophy—which I say is both useful and possible at the same time for all who wish to practice it; and two books have been written by me on this.
νυνὶ δὲ ὅπερ ὑπεσχόμην προσάξω, τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐνθένδε ποιησάμενος.
But now I will bring forward what I promised, making my beginning from here.
ὅτι μὲν ἐκ τῆς τῶν δ’ στοιχείων κράσεως ἅπαντα τὰ παρ’ ἡμῖν σώματα γίγνεται, βεβαίως γιγνώσκειν φημί· καὶ προσέτι δι’ ὅλων αὐτῶν κεραννυμένων, οὐχ, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἡγεῖτο, κατὰ σμικρὰ μόρια καταθραυομένων.
That all our bodies arise from the mixture of the four elements, I say I know with certainty; and furthermore, that they are mixed throughout their wholes, not, as Empedocles thought, by being broken down into small particles.
εἴτε δὲ τῶν σωματικῶν οὐσιῶν ὅλων δι’ ἀλλήλων ἰουσῶν, εἴτε τῶν ποιοτήτων μόνων, οὔτ’ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναί φημι γινώσκειν, οὔτε ἀποφαίνομαι.
But whether the entire bodily substances pass through one another, or the qualities alone, I say it is not necessary to know, nor do I declare myself.
πιθανώτερον δὲ εἶναι νομίζω, κατὰ τὰς ποιότητας γίγνεσθαι τὰς κράσεις.
But I think it is more plausible that the mixtures occur according to the qualities.
τήν γε μὴν ψυχὴν, εἰ μὲν ἀθάνατος οὖσα ταῖς σωματικαῖς οὐσίαις κεραννυμένη τὰ ζῶα διοικεῖ, γινώσκειν βεβαίως οὐκ ἀπαγγέλλομαι, καθάπερ οὐδὲ εἰ μηδεμία καθ’ ἑαυτήν ἐστιν ἡ οὐσία ψυχῆς.
On the other hand, as for the soul, whether being immortal it governs animals by being mixed with the bodily substances, I do not announce that I know with certainty, just as I do not declare whether there is no substance of the soul by itself.
ἐκεῖνο μέντοι φαίνεταί μοι σαφῶς, ὅτι, κᾂν εἰσοικίζηται τοῖς σώμασι, δουλεύει ταῖς φύσεσιν αὐτῶν, αἵπερ εἰσὶν, ὡς ἔφην, ἐκ τῆς τῶν στοιχείων ποιᾶς κράσεως γιγνόμεναι.
That, however, appears clearly to me, that even if it enters into the bodies, it serves their natures, which are, as I said, produced from some mixture of the elements.
καὶ κατὰ γε τοῦτο πρὸς τὴν ἰατρικὴν τέχνην οὐδὲν ἡγοῦμαι βλαβήσεσθαι διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τῆς καλουμένης ἐμψυχώσεώς τε καὶ μετεμψυχώσεως.
And in this respect, I think that the medical art will be in no way harmed by ignorance of the so-called animation and transmigration of souls.
ἐπιτήδειόν τε γὰρ εἶναι τὸ σῶμα χρὴ τὸ δεξόμενον τὴν ψυχὴν, ἀλλοιωθέντος τε αὐτοῦ μεγάλην ἀλλοίωσιν ἐν τῇ κράσει παραχρῆμα τὴν ψυχὴν ἐξιέναι, ψυχομένου μέντοι σφοδρῶς ἐν ταῖς κενώσεσι τοῦ αἵματος, καὶ ἐν ταῖς πόσεσι τῶν ψυχόντων φαρμάκων, ὅταν τε σφοδρῶς ᾖ τὸ περιέχον ψυχρὸν, ἀμέτρως τε θερμαινομένου κατά τε τοὺς πυρετοὺς καὶ τὰς εἰσπνοὰς τῆς φλογὸς, ἢ τῶν ὑπερθερμαινόντων φαρμάκων πόσεις.
For the body that is to receive the soul must be fit for it, and when a great alteration occurs in its mixture, the soul immediately departs—namely, when it is severely cooled during the evacuations of blood and in the drinkings of cooling drugs, and when the environment is severely cold, and when it is immoderately heated during fevers and inhalations of flame, or drinkings of overheating drugs.
οὐ μόνον δὲ οὕτως ἀλλοιωθείσης τῆς κράσεως τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχὴν ὁρῶμεν αὐτοῦ χωριζομένην, ἀλλὰ κᾀπειδὰν τῆς ἀναπνοῆς στερηθείη πάντως, κᾀνταῦθά τινος γινομένης ἀλλοιώσεως κατὰ τὸ σῶμα.
And we see the soul separated from the body not only when its mixture is thus altered, but also whenever it is completely deprived of breath, some alteration also occurring there in the body.
τηρουμένης οὖν τῆς φυσικῆς εὐκρασίας ἐν τῷ σώματι, τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ χωρισθῆναι δοκῶ μοι γινώσκειν ἀδύνατον εἶναι.
Therefore, as long as the natural good mixture is maintained in the body, I think I know that it is impossible for its soul to be separated.
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτῆς, ἥτις ἐστὶν, οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον οὔτε εἰς τὰς ἰάσεις τῶν νοσημάτων οὔτε εἰς φυλακὴν τῆς ὑγιείας ἐπίστασθαι, καθάπερ οὐδὲ εἰς τὴν ἠθικὴν φιλοσοφίαν, πρακτικήν τε καὶ πολιτικήν.
And for this reason, it is not necessary to understand its substance, whatever it is, either for the cures of diseases or for the preservation of health, just as it is not for ethical philosophy, practical and political.
ὀνομαζέτω γὰρ αὐτὴν ἕκαστος, ὡς ἂν ἐθέλῃ, χωρίζων τῆς θεωρητικῆς.
For let each person call it as he wishes, separating it from theoretical philosophy.
ἐπιπλέον δὲ περὶ τούτων ἐν ἑτέροις ὑπομνήμασι γέγραπταί μοι.
More has been written by me about these things in other treatises.
τῶν δὲ φυσικῶν δυνάμεων ἔτι δεδειγμένων, ὁπόσαι τε καὶ ὁποῖαί εἰσι, ζήτησίς τις γίνεται κατὰ ἀκολουθίαν, ὅπως φαμὲν αὐτὰς ἕλκειν μὲν τὸ οἰκεῖον, ἀποκρίνειν δὲ τὸ ἀλλότριον.
But since the natural powers have already been shown, both how many and of what kind they are, a certain inquiry follows in order: how we say they draw what is appropriate and reject what is foreign.
ἀδύνατον γὰρ εἶναι φαίνεται προγνωρίσαι σαφῶς, ὁποῖον μέν τι τὸ οἰκεῖόν ἐστιν, ὁποῖον δέ τι τὸ ἀλλότριον, ἢ τὴν ὁλκὴν τῶν οἰκείων, ἢ τὴν ἀπόκρισιν τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ποιεῖσθαι.
For it appears impossible, without clearly recognizing beforehand what kind of thing is appropriate and what kind is foreign, either to attract the appropriate or to reject the foreign.
τὸ δὲ γνωρίζειν αἰσθητικῆς δυνάμεως ἔργον εἶναι φαίνεται.
And recognizing appears to be the work of a sensory power.
διὰ τοῦτο οὖν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ παρακοή τίς ἐστι, καίτοι σαφῶς εἰρηκότος τοῦ Πλάτωνος· Ἕτερόν ἐστι γένος αἰσθήσεως ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς· οἰομένων τῶν ἀκουόντων εἶναί τινα γνωριστικὴν δύναμιν ἐν αὐτοῖς τῶν οἰκείων τε καὶ ἀλλοτρίων.
Therefore, for this reason, there is a certain misunderstanding in this argument, although Plato clearly said: 'There is another kind of perception in plants'; for the hearers think that there is some cognitive power in them for recognizing what is appropriate and foreign.
τούτων γὰρ μόνων ἐστὶν ἡ διάγνωσις αὐτοῖς, ἥ τε καθ’ ἡδονὴν, ἥ τε κατ’ ἀνίαν, ἥ τε κατά τινα παραπλησίαν τούτοις ἢ ἀνάλογα τὰ παθήματα γιγνομένη, τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθητικῶν διαγνώσεων οὐ μετεχούσης τῆς φυτικῆς ψυχῆς.
For this diagnosis alone belongs to them, which occurs according to pleasure, pain, or some affection similar or analogous to these, since the vegetative soul does not share in other sensory diagnoses.
οὔτε γὰρ τῶν ὁρατῶν, οὔτε τῶν ἀκουστικῶν, οὔτε τῶν ὀσφραντῶν, οὔτε τῶν γευστῶν, οὔτε τῶν ἁπτῶν ποιοτήτων ἔχει διάγνωσιν, ἀλλὰ μόνον τῶν τρέφειν ἢ μὴ τρέφειν δυναμένων.
For it has no diagnosis of visible, audible, olfactory, gustatory, or tactile qualities, but only of those things capable of nourishing or not nourishing.
τὰ μὲν γὰρ τρέφειν δυνάμενα πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἕλκουσα, καὶ κατέχουσα, καὶ πέπτουσα, καὶ μεταβάλλουσα πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον τῆς τρεφομένης οὐσίας, τὰ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενα τρέφειν οὐ προσίεται.
For attracting to itself, holding, digesting, and changing to the appropriateness of the nourished substance what is capable of nourishing, it does not admit what is not capable of nourishing.
ὥστε μοι Πλάτων ὀρθῶς δοκεῖ λέγειν, αἴσθησιν ἔχειν τὰ φυτὰ, τῶν οἰκείων τε καὶ ἀλλοτρίων δηλονότι, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο ζῶα προσηκόντως ἂν λεχθῆναι, μετὰ τοῦ μηδὲ τῆς ἐξ αὑτῶν κινήσεως ἐστερῆσθαι.
So Plato seems to me to speak correctly in saying that plants have perception, clearly of what is appropriate and foreign, and according to this they might fittingly be called animals, along with not even being deprived of motion from themselves.
ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τῆς τοιαύτης γνώσεως ἀναγκαίας οὔσης εἰς τὴν ἰατρικὴν φιλοσοφίαν, ἀρκοῦμαι διὰ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν μόνην ἄχρι τοῦ πιθανοῦ προερχόμενος ἐπαινεῖν τὸν Πλάτωνα, καὶ ζῶα καλοῦντα τὰ φυτὰ, καὶ μετέχειν αἰσθήσεως μόνης φάσκοντα, τῆς τῶν οἰκείων τε καὶ ἀλλοτρίων διαγνωστικῆς, ἥτις ἂν ἀκριβὴς σκοπὸς τοῦ γένους τῶν ἡδέων τε καὶ οὐχ ἡδέων οὖσα φανεῖται.
But since even such knowledge is not necessary for medical philosophy, I am content, for the sake of consistency alone, proceeding as far as the plausible, to praise Plato, both for calling plants animals and for saying that they participate in only one perception, that which diagnoses what is appropriate and foreign, which will appear as being the accurate target of the class of things pleasant and not pleasant.
δι’ οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν, ἕλκειν αὐτὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον, ἢ ἐξομοιοῦν ἑαυτοῖς, ἢ διὰ τὴν ἀπόλαυσίν τε καὶ τὴν ἐγγινομένην αὐτοῖς ἡδονήν.
For it is impossible to say that they draw what is appropriate, or assimilate it to themselves, for any other reason than for enjoyment and the pleasure arising in them.
ἀλλ’, ὡς ἔφην, ἀρκεῖ πρὸς ἰατρικὴν ἐπίστασθαι τοῦτο μόνον, ὡς ἕλκει μὲν τὸ οἰκεῖον, ᾧπερ καὶ τρέφεται, ἀποκρίνει δὲ τὸ ἀλλότριον.
But, as I said, it is sufficient for medicine to know this alone: that it draws what is appropriate, by which it is nourished, and rejects what is foreign.
ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον εἰς φιλοσοφίαν ἠθικὴν ἄχρηστος ἡ τῶν τοιούτων ἀκριβὴς γνῶσις, ὅθεν οὐδὲ ὁ Πλάτων αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσεν.
And still more is the accurate knowledge of such things useless for ethical philosophy, which is why Plato himself did not mention it.