On the Natural Faculties.

On the Natural Faculties.
By Galen
Translated by: A.J. Brock
Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press 1916


Digital Hippocrates Collection Table of Contents



ON THE NATURAL FACULTIES Book I
   PART 1
   PART 2
   PART 3
   PART 4
   PART 5
   PART 6
   PART 7
   PART 8
   PART 9
   PART 10
   PART 11
   PART 12
   PART 13
   PART 14
   PART 15
   PART 16
   PART 17

BOOK TWO
   PART 1
   PART 2
   PART 3
   PART 4
   PART 5
   PART 6
   PART 7
   PART 8
   PART 9

BOOK THREE
   PART 1
   PART 2
   PART 3
   PART 4
   PART 5
   PART 6
   PART 7
   PART 8
   PART 9
   PART 10
   PART 11
   PART 12
   PART 13
   PART 14
   PART 15


This electronic edition is funded by the National Library of Medicine History of Medicine Division. This text has been proofread to a high degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using Data Entry.
(Medical Information Disclaimer: It is not the intention of NLM to provide specific medical advice but rather to provide users with information to better understand their health and their diagnosed disorders. Specific medical advice will not be provided, and NLM urges you to consult with a qualified physician for diagnosis and for answers to your personal questions.)

BOOK THREE

 [p. 277]


PART 9

Concerning the spleen, also, we shall therefore have no further doubts
cf. p. 205.
as to whether it attracts what is proper to it, rejects what is foreign, and has a natural power of altering and retaining all that it attracts; nor shall we be in any doubt as to the liver, veins, arteries, heart, or any other organ. For these four faculties have been shown to be necessary for every part which is to be nourished; this is why we have called these faculties the handmaids of nutrition. For just as human faeces are most pleasing to dogs, so the residual matters from the liver are, some of them, proper to the spleen
Thus Galen elsewhere caalls the spleen a mere emunctory (ἐκμαγεῖον) of the liver. cf. p. 214, note 1.
, others to the gall-bladder, and others to the kidneys.


PART 10

I should not have cared to say anything further as to the origin of these [surplus substances] after Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Diocles, Praxagoras, and Philotimus, nor indeed should I even have said anything about the faculties, if any of our predecessors had worked out this subject thoroughly.

While, however, the statements which the Ancients made on these points were correct, they yet omitted to defend their arguments with logical proofs; of course they never suspected that there could be sophists so shameless as to try to contradict obvious facts. More recent physicians, again, have been