But enough about the Asclepiadeans. The Erasistrateans, in attempting to say how the kidneys let the urine through, will do anything or suffer anything or try any shift in order to find some plausible4 explanation which does not demand the principle of attraction.
Now those near the times of Erasistratus maintain that the parts above the kidneys receive pure blood, whilst the watery5 residue6, being heavy, tends to run downwards7; that this, after percolating8 through the kidneys themselves, is thus rendered serviceable, and is sent, as blood, to all the parts below the kidneys.
For a certain period at least this view also found favour and flourished, and was held to be true; after a time, however, it became suspect to the Erasistrateans themselves, and at last they abandoned it. For apparently9 the following two points were assumed, neither of which is conceded by anyone, nor is even capable of being proved. The first is the heaviness of the serous fluid, which was said to be produced in the vena cava, and which did not exist, apparently, at the beginning, when this fluid was being carried up from the stomach to the liver. Why, then, did it not at once run downwards when it was in these situations? And if the watery fluid is so heavy, what plausibility10 can anyone find in the statement that it assists in the process of anadosis?
In the second place there is this absurdity11, that even if it be agreed that all the watery fluid does fall downwards, and only when it is in the vena cava, still it is difficult, or, rather, impossible, to say through what means it is going to fall into the kidneys, seeing that these are not situated12 below, but on either side of the vena cava, and that the vena cava is not inserted into them, but merely sends a branch into each of them, as it also does into all the other parts.
What doctrine13, then, took the place of this one when it was condemned14? One which to me seems far more foolish than the first, although it also flourished at one time. For they say, that if oil be mixed with water and poured upon the ground, each will take a different route, the one flowing this way and the other that, and that, therefore, it is not surprising that the watery fluid runs into the kidneys, while the blood falls downwards along the vena cava. Now this doctrine also stands already condemned. For why, of the countless15 veins16 which spring from the vena cava, should blood flow into all the others, and the serous fluid be diverted to those going to the kidneys? They have not answered the question which was asked; they merely state what happens and imagine they have thereby17 assigned the reason.
Once again, then (the third cup to the Saviour18!),5 let us now speak of the worst doctrine of all, lately invented by Lycus of Macedonia, but which is popular owing to its novelty. This Lycus, then, maintains, as though uttering an oracle19 from the inner sanctuary20, that urine is residual21 matter from the nutrition of the kidneys! Now, the amount of urine passed every day shows clearly that it is the whole of the fluid drunk which becomes urine, except for that which comes away with the dejections or passes off as sweat or insensible perspiration22. This is most easily recognized in winter in those who are doing no work but are carousing23, especially if the wine be thin and diffusible; these people rapidly pass almost the same quantity as they drink. And that even Erasistratus was aware of this is known to those who have read the first book of his “General Principles.” Thus Lycus is speaking neither good Erasistratism, nor good Asclepiadism, far less good Hippocratism. He is, therefore, as the saying is, like a white crow, which cannot mix with the genuine crows owing to its colour, nor with the pigeons owing to its size. For all this, however, he is not to be disregarded; he may, perhaps, be stating some wonderful truth, unknown to any of his predecessors24.
Now it is agreed that all parts which are undergoing nutrition produce a certain amount of residue, but it is neither agreed nor is it likely, that the kidneys alone, small bodies as they are, could hold four whole congii,6 and sometimes even more, of residual matter. For this surplus must necessarily be greater in quantity in each of the larger viscera; thus, for example, that of the lung, if it corresponds in amount to the size of the viscus, will obviously be many times more than that in the kidneys, and thus the whole of the thorax will become filled, and the animal will be at once suffocated25. But if it be said that the residual matter is equal in amount in each of the other parts, where are the bladders, one may ask, through which it is excreted? For, if the kidneys produce in drinkers three and sometimes four congii of superfluous26 matter, that of each of the other viscera will be much more, and thus an enormous barrel will be needed to contain the waste products of them all. Yet one often urinates practically the same quantity as one has drunk, which would show that the whole of what one drinks goes to the kidneys.
Thus the author of this third piece of trickery would appear to have achieved nothing, but to have been at once detected, and there still remains27 the original difficulty which was insoluble by Erasistratus and by all others except Hippocrates. I dwell purposely on this topic, knowing well that nobody else has anything to say about the function of the kidneys, but that either we must prove more foolish than the very butchers if we do not agree that the urine passes through the kidneys; or, if one acknowledges this, that then one cannot possibly give any other reason for the secretion28 than the principle of attraction.
Now, if the movement of urine does not depend on the tendency of a vacuum to become refilled, it is clear that neither does that of the blood nor that of the bile; or if that of these latter does so, then so also does that of the former. For they must all be accomplished29 in one and the same way, even according to Erasistratus himself.
This matter, however, will be discussed more fully30 in the book following this.
点击收听单词发音
1 dignified | |
a.可敬的,高贵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 appellations | |
n.名称,称号( appellation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 impudent | |
adj.鲁莽的,卑鄙的,厚颜无耻的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 plausible | |
adj.似真实的,似乎有理的,似乎可信的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 watery | |
adj.有水的,水汪汪的;湿的,湿润的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 residue | |
n.残余,剩余,残渣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 downwards | |
adj./adv.向下的(地),下行的(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 percolating | |
n.渗透v.滤( percolate的现在分词 );渗透;(思想等)渗透;渗入 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 apparently | |
adv.显然地;表面上,似乎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 plausibility | |
n. 似有道理, 能言善辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 situated | |
adj.坐落在...的,处于某种境地的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 countless | |
adj.无数的,多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 veins | |
n.纹理;矿脉( vein的名词复数 );静脉;叶脉;纹理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 thereby | |
adv.因此,从而 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 saviour | |
n.拯救者,救星 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 oracle | |
n.神谕,神谕处,预言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 sanctuary | |
n.圣所,圣堂,寺庙;禁猎区,保护区 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 residual | |
adj.复播复映追加时间;存留下来的,剩余的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 perspiration | |
n.汗水;出汗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 carousing | |
v.痛饮,闹饮欢宴( carouse的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 predecessors | |
n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 );前辈;(被取代的)原有事物;前身 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 suffocated | |
(使某人)窒息而死( suffocate的过去式和过去分词 ); (将某人)闷死; 让人感觉闷热; 憋气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 superfluous | |
adj.过多的,过剩的,多余的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 secretion | |
n.分泌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |