Book 2
8
Now, Erasistratus is thoroughly small-minded and petty to the last degree in all his disputations — when, for instance, in his treatise On Digestion,Gk. pepsis; otherwise rendered coction. he argues jealously with those who consider that this is a process of putrefaction of the food; and, in his work On Anadosis,cf. p. 13, note 5. with those who think that the anadosis of blood through the veins results from the contiguity of the arteries; also, in his work On Respiration, with those who maintain that the air is forced along by contraction. Nay, he did not even hesitate to contradict those who maintain that the urine passes into the bladder in a vaporous state,e.g. Asclepiades. as also those who say that imbibed fluids are carried into the lung. Thus he delights to choose always the most valueless doctrines, and to spend his time more and more in contradicting these; whereas on the subject of the origin of blood (which is in no way less important than the chylificationLit. chlosis; cf. p. 238, note 2. of food in the stomach) he did not deign to dispute with any of the ancients, nor did he himself venture to bring forward any other opinion, despite the fact that at the beginning of his treatise on General Principles he undertook to say how all the various natural functions take place, and through what parts of the animal! Now, is it possible that, when the faculty which naturally digests food is weak, the animal's digestion fails, whereas the faculty which turns the digested food into blood cannot suffer any kind of impairment?That is to say, the haematopoietic function deserves consideration as much as the digestive processes which precede it. Are we to suppose this latter faculty alone to be as tough as steel and unaffected by circumstances? Or is it that weakness of this faculty will result in something else than dropsy? The fact, therefore, that Erasistratus, in regard to other matters, did not hesitate to attack even the most trivial views, whilst in this he neither dared to contradict his predecessors nor to advance any new view of his own, proves plainly that he recognized the fallacy of his own way of thinking.i.e.. Erasistratus could obviously say nothing aobut any of the huours or their origins, since he had not postulated the four qualities (particularly the Warm-that is, innate heat).
