BIBLIOGRAPHY
Codices
Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris. No. 2267.
Library of St. Mark. Venice. No. 275.
Translations
Arabic translations by Honain in the Escurial Library, and in the Library at Leyden. Hebrew translation in the Library at Bonn. Latin translations in the Library of Gonville and Caius College (MSS.), No. 947; also by Linacre in editions published, London, 1523; Paris, 1528; Leyden, 1540, 1548, and 1550; also by C.G. Kühn, Leipzig, 1821.
Commentaries and Appreciations
Nic. de Anglia in Bib. Nat. Paris (MSS.), No. 7015; J. Rochon, ibidem, No. 7025; J. Segarra, 1528; J. Sylvius, 1550, 1560; L. Joubert, 1599; M. Sebitz, 1644, 1645; J.B. Pacuvius, 1554; J.C.G. Ackermann, 1821, in the introduction to Kühn’s translation, p. lxxx; Ilberg in articles on “Die Schriftstellerei des Klaudios Galenos,” in Rhein. Mus., Nos. 44, 47, 51, and 52 (years 1889, 1892, 1896 and 1897); I. von Mueller in Quæstiones Criticae de Galeni libris, Erlangen, 1871; Steinschneider in Virchow’s Archiv, No. cxxiv. for 1891; Wenrich in De auctorum graecorum versionibus et commentariis syriacis, arabicis, armiacis, persisque, Leipzig, 1842.
SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS
BOOK I
Chapter [I]
Distinction between the effects of (a) the organism’s psyche or soul (b) its physis or nature. The author proposes to confine himself to a consideration of the latter—the vegetative—aspect of life.
Chapter [II]
Definition of terms. Different kinds of motion. Alteration or qualitative change. Refutation of the Sophists’ objection that such change is only apparent, not real. The four fundamental qualities of Hippocrates (later Aristotle). Distinction between faculty, activity (function), and effect (work or product).
Chapter [III]
It is by virtue of the four qualities that each part functions. Some authorities subordinate the dry and the moist principles to the hot and the cold. Aristotle inconsistent here.
Chapter [IV]
We must suppose that there are faculties corresponding in number to the visible effects (or products) with which we are familiar.
Chapter [V]
Genesis, growth, and nutrition. Genesis (embryogeny) sub-divided into histogenesis and organogenesis. Growth is a tridimensional expansion of the solid parts formed during genesis. Nutrition.
Chapter [VI]
The process of genesis (embryogeny) from insemination onwards. Each of the simple, elementary, homogeneous parts (tissues) is produced by a special blend of the four primary alterative faculties (such secondary alterative faculties being ostopoietic, neuropoietic, etc.). A special function and use also corresponds to each of these special tissues. The bringing of these tissues together into organs and the disposal of these organs is performed by another faculty called diaplastic, moulding, or formative.
Chapter [VII]
We now pass from genesis to growth. Growth essentially a post-natal process; it involves two factors, expansion and nutrition, explained by analogy of a familiar child’s game.
Chapter [VIII]
Nutrition.
Chapter [IX]
These three primary faculties (genesis, growth, nutrition) have various others subservient to them.
Chapter [X]
Nutrition not a simple process. (1) Need of subsidiary organs for the various stages of alteration, e.g., of bread into blood, of that into bone, etc. (2) Need also of organs for excreting the non-utilizable portions of the food, e.g., much vegetable matter is superfluous. (3) Need of organs of a third kind, for distributing the pabulum through the body.
Chapter [XI]
Nutrition analysed into the stages of application (prosthesis), adhesion (prosphysis), and assimilation. The stages illustrated by certain pathological conditions. Different shades of meaning of the term nutriment.
Chapter [XII]
The two chief medico-philosophical schools—Atomist and Vitalist. Hippocrates an adherent of the latter school—his doctrine of an original principle or “nature” in every living thing (doctrine of the unity of the organism).
Chapter [XIII]
Failure of Asclepiades to understand the functions of kidneys and ureters. His hypothesis of vaporization of imbibed fluids is here refuted. A demonstration of urinary secretion in the living animal; the forethought and artistic skill of Nature vindicated. Refutation also of Asclepiades’s disbelief in the special selective action of purgative drugs.
Chapter [XIV]
While Asclepiades denies in toto the obvious fact of specific attraction, Epicurus grants the fact, although his attempt to explain it by the atomic hypothesis breaks down. Refutation of the Epicurean theory of magnetic attraction. Instances of specific attraction of thorns and animal poisons by medicaments, of moisture by corn, etc.
Chapter [XV]
It now being granted that the urine is secreted by the kidneys, the rationale of this secretion is enquired into. The kidneys are not mechanical filters, but are by virtue of their nature possessed of a specific faculty of attraction.
Chapter [XVI]
Erasistratus, again, by his favourite principle of horror vacui could never explain the secretion of urine by the kidneys. While, however, he acknowledged that the kidneys do secrete urine, he makes no attempt to explain this; he ignores, but does not attempt to refute, the Hippocratic doctrine of specific attraction. “Servile” position taken up by Asclepiades and Erasistratus in regard to this function of urinary secretion.
Chapter [XVII]
Three other attempts (by adherents of the Erasistratean school and by Lycus of Macedonia) to explain how the kidneys come to separate out urine from the blood. All these ignore the obvious principle of attraction.