“Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any attraction.” But when he is dealing5 with anadosis he does not mention the Hippocratic view even to the extent of a single syllable6. Yet we should have been satisfied if he had even merely written this: “Hippocrates lies in saying ‘The flesh4 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,” 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 doctrine2, 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 ridicule8 upon that which they are quite incapable9 of refuting, without any attempt at argument, their words are really thereby10 constituted rhetoric7. For rhetoric proceeds by persuasive11 reasoning; words without reasoning are buffoonery rather than rhetoric. Therefore, the reply of Erasistratus in his treatise12 “On Deglutition” was neither rhetoric nor logic13. For what is it that he says? “Now, the stomach does not appear to exercise any traction4.” Let us testify against him in return, and set our argument beside his in the same form. Now, there appears to be no peristalsis of the gullet. “And how does this appear?” one of his adherents14 may perchance ask. “For is it not indicative of peristalsis that always when the upper parts of the gullet contract the lower parts dilate15?” 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, 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, when once we have granted the attractive faculty16 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 secretion17 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 digestion18 occurs, or spends time upon the secretion of biliary superfluities; 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 veins19, but he also considered fully20 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, for, if this were so, nobody would have ever died of retention21 of urine, since no more can flow into a vacuum than has run out. For, if no other factor comes into operation save only this tendency by which a vacuum becomes refilled, no more could ever flow in than had been evacuated22. Nor, could he suggest any other plausible23 cause, such, for example, as the of nutriment by the stomach which occurs in the process of anadosis; this had been entirely disproved in the case of blood in the vena cava; 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 cava there would still remain, solitary24 and abandoned, the specious25 theory concerning the filling of a vacuum. This, however, is deprived of plausibility26 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; this portion only, therefore, will be purified. Further, the thin serous part of this will pass through the kidneys as if through a sieve27, while the thick sanguineous portion remaining in the veins will obstruct28 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 unpurified blood to the kidneys — occupied as they are by the blood which had preceded, there is no passage left. What power have we, then, which will draw back the purified blood from the kidneys? And what power,in the next place, will bid this blood retire to the lower part of the vena cava, and will enjoin29 on another quantity coming from above not to proceed downwards30 before turning off into the kidneys?
Now Erasistratus realized that all these ideas were open to many objections, and he could only find one idea which held good in all respects — namely, that of attraction. Since, therefore, he did not wish either to get into difficulties or to mention the view of Hippocrates, he deemed it better to say nothing at all as to the manner in which secretion occurs.
But even if he kept silence, I am not going to do so. For I know that if one passes over the Hippocratic view and makes some other pronouncement about the function of the kidneys, one cannot fall to make oneself utterly31 ridiculous. It was for this reason that Erasistratus kept silence and Asclepiades lied; they are like slaves who have had plenty to say in the early part of their career, and have managed by excessive rascality32 to escape many and frequent accusations33, but who, later, when caught in the act of thieving, cannot find any excuse; the more modest one then keeps silence, as though thunderstruck, whilst the more shameless continues to hide the missing article beneath his arm and denies on oath that he has ever seen it. For it was in this way also that Asclepiades, when all subtle excuses had failed him and there was no longer any room for nonsense about “conveyance towards the rarefied part [of the air],” and when it was impossible without incurring34 the greatest derision to say that this superfluity [i.e. the urine] is generated by the kidneys as is bile by the canals in the liver — he, then, I say, clearly lied when he swore that the urine does not reach the kidneys, and maintained that it passes, in the form of vapour, straight from the region of the vena cava, to collect in the bladder.
Like slaves, then, caught in the act of stealing, these two are quite bewildered, and while the one says nothing, the other indulges in shameless lying.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
traction
|
|
| n.牵引；附着摩擦力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
syllable
|
|
| n.音节；vt.分音节 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
rhetoric
|
|
| n.修辞学，浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
ridicule
|
|
| v.讥讽，挖苦；n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
persuasive
|
|
| adj.有说服力的，能说得使人相信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
dilate
|
|
| vt.使膨胀，使扩大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
secretion
|
|
| n.分泌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
digestion
|
|
| n.消化，吸收 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
veins
|
|
| n.纹理；矿脉( vein的名词复数 )；静脉；叶脉；纹理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
retention
|
|
| n.保留，保持，保持力，记忆力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
evacuated
|
|
| 撤退者的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
plausible
|
|
| adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
solitary
|
|
| adj.孤独的，独立的，荒凉的；n.隐士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
plausibility
|
|
| n. 似有道理, 能言善辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
sieve
|
|
| n.筛，滤器，漏勺 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
obstruct
|
|
| v.阻隔，阻塞(道路、通道等)；n.阻碍物，障碍物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
enjoin
|
|
| v.命令；吩咐；禁止 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
downwards
|
|
| adj./adv.向下的（地），下行的（地） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
utterly
|
|
| adv.完全地，绝对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
rascality
|
|
| 流氓性，流氓集团 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
33
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
incurring
|
|
| 遭受，招致，引起( incur的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |