Kitap 2
6
Thus it seems to me better that we also should help the Erasistrateans with some contribution, since we are on the subject, and should advise those who reduce the vessel called primary and simple by Erasistratus into other elementary bodies to give up their opinion; for not only do they gain nothing by it, but they are also at variance with Erasistratus in this matter. That they gain nothing by it has been clearly demonstrated; for this hypothesis could not escape the difficulty regarding nutrition. And it also seems perfectly evident to me that this hypothesis is not in consonance with the view of Erasistratus, when it declares that what he calls simple and primary is composite, and when it destroys the principle of Nature's artistic skill.cf. Book I., chap. xii. For, if we do not grant a certain unity of substance i.e.. in biology we must begin with living substance — with something which is specifically alive — here with the unit mass of living matter. cf. p. 73, note 3. to these simple structures as well, and if we arrive eventually at inharmonious and indivisible elements, Ad elementa quae nec coalescere possunt nec in partes dividi (Linacre). On the two contrasted schools cf. p. 45. we shall most assuredly deprive Nature of her artistic skill, as do all the physicians and philosophers who start from this hypothesis. For, according to such a hypothesis, Nature does not precede, but is secondary to the parts of the animal.cf. loc. cit. Now, it is not the province of what comes secondarily, but of what pre-exists, to shape and to construct. Thus we must necessarily suppose that the faculties of Nature, by which she shapes the animal, and makes it grow and receive nourishment, are present from the seed onwards; whereas none of these inharmonious and non-partite corpuscles contains within itself any formative, incremental, Auxetic. cf. p. 26, note 1. nutritive, or, in a word, any artistic power; it is, by hypothesis, unimpressionable and untransformable, At corporum quae nec una committi nec dividi possunt nullum in se formatricem, auctricem, nutricem, aut in summa artificem facultatem habet; quippe quod impatibile esse immutibileque praesumitur (Linacre). whereas, as we have previously shown,Book I., chaps. v.-xi. none of the processes mentioned takes place without transformation, alteration, and complete intermixture. And, owing to this necessity, those who belong to these sects are unable to follow out the consequences of their supposed elements, and they are all therefore forced to declare Nature devoid of art. It is not from us, however, that the Erasistrateans should have learnt this, but from those very philosophers who lay most stress on a preliminary investigation into the elements of all existing things.
