jeanflop/post-ocr-correction huggingface dataset:
recess of quotidian. Since we have alluded to the access of fevers: Let it be asked whether there are four periods in every fever, i. e., beginning, increase, status, and decrease; It seems there are not, for Galenus says there are illnesses which are usually in one state, as Hippocrates says in this way: Quibus, etc. According to that, the four periods do not occur in every fever. This is opposed, according to Aristotle, who says there are four periods in every fever. And note that those four periods are understood in two ways, i. e. completely and partially. And
understood in two ways, i. e. completely and partially. And the complete periods are those that continue throughout the illness. And the partial periods of the illness are the periods of the access. And the complete periods are divided in two manners, i. e. first with respect to the digestion of the matter, and secondly with respect to the non-digestion. According to that, the beginning of the illness is the point at which the symptom of digestion is not evident, as Avicenna says in the first canon that the beginning of the illness is when the natural heat is suppressed
of the illness is when the natural heat is suppressed by the matter of the disease, until the symptom of digestion is evident. And the increase is the period in which the symptom of digestion clearly begins, as Avicenna says, that the increase is simply the period when the natural heat is moved to contend with the matter of the illness, revealing the symptom of digestion or non-digestion. And the status, according to Avicenna, is when it reaches the definite end of the unfavorable accidental ailments, together with the digestion of the matter, or with its non-digestion, if it be
of the matter, or with its non-digestion, if it be a mortal illness. And Avicenna says in the first book that the status is simply a vehement fight between nature and the illness. And the decrease is when the matter begins to undergo digestion and expulsion, and it is about that Avicenna says: Principium, i. e. The beginning is — as we have said. And the increase is when the unfavorable accidental ailments are much strengthened. And the status is when the unfavorable accidental ailments are very violent. And the decrease is when the unfavorable accidental ailments visibly diminish. And
decrease is when the unfavorable accidental ailments visibly diminish. And the partial periods that are in the paroxysm only are divided with regard to the accidental ailments. And the beginning of the paroxysm is when the heat turns from the heart to the external members. And the increase of the paroxysm is when the heat turns from the other members to the heart. And its status is when the heat is dispersed completely through all the members. And the decrease of the paroxysm is when the heat is diminished and lessened. We answer this question according to Avicenna who says
lessened. We answer this question according to Avicenna who says that every illness from which one recovers has four periods in general. And Avicenna says that mortal illnesses have not four periods in general, and this conclusion is affirmed according to Galenus in the book De Crisi, who says that one does not die in the decrease of an illness, accordingly, there are not four periods in a mortal illness, though Avicenna says that a certain mortal illness has four periods partially, as we said above. Let it be asked here from which of the following the cure should commence,
here from which of the following the cure should commence, i. e., from the accidental ailment of the fever, or from the cause of the fever, or from the fever itself. It seems one should cure the cause of the fever first, as Galenus says in the book De ingenio sanitatis these words: Ante, i. e., before everything the physician should be careful of the cause of the disease, according to that the cause of the fever should be cured first. Then Galenus says in the same book that the fever will continue if the cause continues, so the cause
fever will continue if the cause continues, so the cause should be cured first. Then the same man says, when unfavorable complexion and cause and Matter exist together, one should begin from the cause, and after it from the bad complexion, and then from the disease, so the cure should be begun from the cause. Then Galen says in the commentary of the first particle of the "Aphorisms": "Medicus, i. e. the physician is the instrument of nature and should imitate it in every way, and so, since nature begins from the cause, as is clear in these words: Natura,
from the cause, as is clear in these words: Natura, i. e. nature first digesting and then dividing and afterwards expelling, as Avicenna says in the fourth particle of the Aphorisms in this canon: "Incipientibus," so the cure should begin from the cause. Then Galen says in De ingenio sanitatis "Omine," i.e. what Galen says in this proverb is: "O physician, if you increase the cause, and lessen the fever, you do not cure the fever," so the cure should begin from the cause as Hippocrates said in this canon, "Digesta." Then Avicenna says in the fourth book in the
"Digesta." Then Avicenna says in the fourth book in the chapter on putrid fever this saying: "Si virtus," i.e. if the energy is strong the matter should be expelled first without moving the unfavorable complexion, for Galen says the energy is strong in acute illnesses during two or three days, and so beginning should be made from the cause. Then Avicenna says in the fourth book these words: "Prius," p. 27 b. I) i.e. Avicenna says here the cure should begin with everything that cures ephemera and everything that follows it such as the cause and the fever, for Avicenna
it such as the cause and the fever, for Avicenna says, if the fever be cured and the cause continue, that the fever returns again, and if the cause is cured the fever is cured, so the cause should be cured first. Then Avicenna says in the fourth book these words: "Impossibile," i.e. it is impossible to expel the fever unless the cause be expelled, so beginning should be made from the cause. Then Galen says De ingenio sanitatis this distinction that the cause is sometimes stronger and more vigorous than the disease, and at other times the disease is
than the disease, and at other times the disease is stronger than the cause, and at that time one should begin from the disease, and when the cause is stronger one should begin from it. This distinction is opposed according to Galen who says there is no effect (?) of the thing which comes (perhaps which does not come) from a thing stronger than the thing itself, accordingly since the disease comes from the cause, as fever comes from corruption, the cause is stronger than the disease. Then it seems the fever is not stronger than the cause and the
the fever is not stronger than the cause and the cause is not stronger than the fever, for Galen says that fever injures only when the cause continues, and the cause injures only when the fever continues, so neither of them is stronger than the other. This is opposed on the authority of Aristotle who says these words: "Quod ultimum," i.e. everything which is last in composition is first in dissolution, so, since fever is later than the cause, the cure should begin from the fever. Then Galen says in De ingenio sanitatis: "Febris sequitur," i.e. the fever follows the
De ingenio sanitatis: "Febris sequitur," i.e. the fever follows the cause and the accidental ailment follows the fever, so the physician should begin first from the accidental ailment, and afterwards from the illness, and last from the cause. Then Galen says in the tenth book of De ingenio sanitatis these words: "Si materiam," i.e. if we cure the cause first and the fever continue, the fever and the patient die together, so the cure should begin from the fever and not from the cause. Then Galen says in De ingenio sanitatis these words: "In omne," i.e. in every fever let
sanitatis these words: "In omne," i.e. in every fever let the cure begin from the unfavorable complexion, and Galen says in the same passage that the unfavorable complexion is identical with the disease or the fever, so the cure begins from the fever or from the disease and not from the cause. Then Galen says the cure should begin from everything which first and most injures the natural functions, and fever injures nature more than the cause of the fever does, so the cure should begin from the fever. Then Galen says in the second book of "Techne" these words:
Galen says in the second book of "Techne" these words: "Cura debetur," i.e. the illness should be cured and the cause should be preserved, so the beginning should be from the fever. Then Galen Says in every illness which is throughout the body while the cause is local, beginning should be made with the illness and not with the cause, and that is how it is with fever, i.e. its cause is local and itself universal, as is clear in intermittent fever the cause of which can be in the stomach or in the intestines, and in causon fever, for
stomach or in the intestines, and in causon fever, for the cause of this fever is in the veins of the heart and of the liver, so one should begin with the fever and not with the cause. Then Galen says in the twelfth book of "De ingenio sanitatis," if the fever is due to fullness (or a humour), as synochus, and syncope ensues, the cure of this accidental ailment first is ordered, and then the fever, for Galen says in the first canon these words: "P-28, a. I Accidens," i.e. The accidental ailment tries to cure itself leaving the
i.e. The accidental ailment tries to cure itself leaving the disease and the cause, as is clear in colica and ilica, for we should cure the pain first in these and leave the constrictions causing the pain, so the cure should begin from the accidental ailment. Then Galen says in the ninth book of "De ingenio sanitatis" these words: "Curato," i.e. If the disease be cured, the accidental ailment is cured; so the cure should begin from the disease and not from the accidental ailment. Then Galen says that the one cure serves disease and the accidental ailment, so since
one cure serves disease and the accidental ailment, so since the accidental ailment departs through the cure of the disease, the cure should begin from the disease and not from the accidental ailment. Then Galen says medicine is not good except in an illness from which one recovers, and every illness from which one recovers has its cause decreasing until the status and the illness increasing, as Hippocrates says in the Aphorisms in this canon: In quo anim bus. and in this other canon: Circa principio. so on account of that one should begin not from the cause but from
that one should begin not from the cause but from the illness itself. We answer that question and say that corruption is the cause of fever, and one must examine three things with regard to the corruption, as Galen says, quantity, motion and poisonous quality. Great or small quantity of the corruption; motion, namely the poisonous matter going from member to member; quality of the corruption is simply ebullition caused by corruption in the veins, so that on that account Galen says here that the cause and the fever are equal with respect to the quality we mentioned, for if
equal with respect to the quality we mentioned, for if the ebullition of the corruption we have mentioned be very acute and violent, the fever will continue likewise, and, if the fever be violent, the quality of the corruption must be strong in the veins as we said, and it is not so with respect to quantity and motion, for the corrupting matter can be moving (recte dangerous) as to quantity and not dangerous as to quality. And Galen says that matter like that does not easily prepare for its status, and the illness is chronic and the strength endangered
status, and the illness is chronic and the strength endangered by the length of the illness. And Galen says the quantity of the corruption can be great as to action and not acute as to quality as Hippocrates says in the first book of Aphorisms: Febribus. for it is thus Galen understands Hippocrates here, that the matter of the fever can be great and the fever itself weak. And Galen says here that the matter (omit) the motion we have mentioned can be dangerous and the unfavorable complexion not dangerous in the one fever, as Galen says in the commentary
in the one fever, as Galen says in the commentary of this aphorism: In valeo. i. e. the quality indeed injures greatly through excessive ebullition in the veins, and this ebullition Galen calls causa incendium as is clear in pestilential fevers, as Galen says pestilential fever is mild, gentle and not dangerous in the beginning as regards appearance, though it kills without delay through the dangerous character of the unfavorable complexion which is in it. The accidental ailment, indeed, for Galen says it is of two kinds. The first kind, i. e. an accidental ailment, which follows the nature of
i. e. an accidental ailment, which follows the nature of the disease and is like the cause of the disease, as an unfavorable quality engendered in the body after illness, and in the case of this accidental ailment, according to Galen, cure should be given only with respect to the unfavorable quality from which it was engendered. The second kind, i. e. when the accidental ailment follows the nature of the disease, and after this disease the accidental ailment continues and is itself the cause of a disease, such as syncope, extreme pain, insomnia, light-headedness, and the like, and this
syncope, extreme pain, insomnia, light-headedness, and the like, and this accidental ailment demands a cure not needed by the disease, and the physician is compelled to cure these accidental ailments first and to leave the fever during that time. We answer this question and say the physician should begin from the cause when the fever does not weaken the strength, and when the fever is stronger, weakening the strength, than the cause, then one should begin from the fever, and we say the same with respect to the accidental ailment, and so we leave this question. Let it be asked
and so we leave this question. Let it be asked here whether the one cure is suitable for the fever and for the cause and for the accidental ailment; it seems it is not, for Galen says in the second book of Techne: Causa debetur i. e. digestion and evacuation should be for the cause, and digestion is hot and dry, and evacuation likewise, as Galen says in the eleventh book of De ingenio sanitatis in the fifth chapter, and in the commentary to Prognosticorum in the first book, and in the commentary to Regimenta acutorum in the third book,
in the commentary to Regimenta acutorum in the third book, every digestive and purgative cure should be hot and dry, and every cure suitable for the fever itself should be cold and moist as it is itself hot and dry, as Hippocrates says in the Aphorisms: Humidum diureticum. that for that reason the same cure is unsuitable for fever and cause. Then Aristotle says these words: Quod contrarium. i. e. the contrary is not easy in dissimilar things, and fever and the cause of fever are dissimilar and diverse, so the same cure is not suitable for them. Then Galen
the same cure is not suitable for them. Then Galen says a transmuting digestive cure should be given for the cause of the fever, and a purgative cure should be given for the fever itself, if so, since these are dissimilar, the same cure should not be given for cause and for fever. Then Galen says in De ingenio sanitatis, if syncope comes from the fever, hot things should be given for the syncope, such as pure wine, and cold things for the fever, such as an infusion of barley, so the same cure should not be given for the
so the same cure should not be given for the accidental ailment and for the fever. Then the same man says that, if a flux comes from the fever, styptic things must be given for the flux, and purgative things for the fever, so a similar cure is not to be given for accidental ailment and fever. Then Avicenna says in the fourth book in the chapter on putrid fever these words: Causa febris. i.e. the cause of the fever is increased by the consumption of food, and Galen says in the commentary on Aphorisms, when the unfavorable ailments are
in the commentary on Aphorisms, when the unfavorable ailments are dispersing the strength and weakening it, food should be given then, and especially in the status, so the same cure is not to be used for cause and fever. Then Galen says in the sixth book of De ingenio sanitatis these words: In cura. i.e. in illness of the stomach the same cure serves for cause and illness, and it is not so for other illnesses such as fever and the like, so the one cure does not serve for fever and cause. This is opposed in the book Techne
fever and cause. This is opposed in the book Techne according to Galen who says the cause of the fever and the fever itself are identical, and every cure which serves for the cause is suitable for the fever, so the one cure should be given for cause and fever. Then it seems the one cure serves for the cause and for the fever itself, for Aristotle says these words: Unum quoque i.e. the property of every cold thing is to transmute and thicken, and Galen says in the commentary of the second particle of Aphorisms Omnisdigestio. (p. 29 a,
of the second particle of Aphorisms Omnisdigestio. (p. 29 a, r) i.e. every digestive proceeds to coagulation, and every coagulation goes to coldness, so that the one cure fits fever and cause. Then Galen says that phlebotomy is suitable in fever for it evacuates the cause and cools the body, and every thing that cools the body is suitable for fever, and everything by which proper evacuation is made is suitable for the cause of the fever, so, since phlebotomy does those things in fever and in the cause of the fever, it should be done in each of them,
the fever, it should be done in each of them, so the same cure should be used for fever and cause. Then Avicenna says in the fourth book that syrup of vinegar and vinegar itself are suitable in fever and in the cause of the fever for they digest and transmute and nourish, and everything that does this is suitable in fever and in the cause, so the one cure should be used for the fever and for the cause. Then he says in De ingenio sanitatis these words: Omne quod. ", i.e. everything which expels the cause expels the
quod. ", i.e. everything which expels the cause expels the effect of the cause, so everything which expels the cause expels the effect of the cause i.e. the fever, so the one cure serves for each of them. Then it seems that the same cure serves for the cause and for the accidental ailment, for he says the fever is the matter of the accidental ailment and everything by which the fever is cured cures the accidental ailment, so the one cure serves for cause and accidental ailment. Then Galen says in the book de Accidente et Morbo that the
says in the book de Accidente et Morbo that the accidental ailment follows the disease as the shadow follows the body, so the accidental ailment is cured by everything that cures the disease. We answer this and say that the cure in respect to the fever is understood in two ways i.e. directly and indirectly; directly when the fever is expelled by cold, moist things as Hippocrates said Humidi diete etc.; indirectly i.e. when true tertian is cured by rhubarb which is hot and dry, for when reddish bile which is the matter of tertian is evacuated, tertian is then
is the matter of tertian is evacuated, tertian is then cured. Understand that the accidental ailments of fever are classed in two ways, i.e. the ailment which accompanies the fever, and the ailment which comes after the fever; the ailment which accompanies the fever such as redness of the cheeks in peripneumonia, and the darkness and blackness of the tongue in causon and in true tertian, and we say that when these attacks are cured the accidental ailments are cured; and the ailments that come after the fevers, such as syncope and abdominal flux and colic, passion and insomnia, light-headedness
syncope and abdominal flux and colic, passion and insomnia, light-headedness and the like, we say that these ailments are not cured by the cure of the fever. And we say that cure is divided in three ways, i.e. in general, specially, and by number. In general, such as everything cured by its opposite, as Galen says in the second Techne: Omnis cura. ", i.e. every illness being cured by its contrary in equal degrees. Specially, further divided into four (recce three) parts, i.e. its quality and its quantity and its substance. Its quality, such as heat and moisture, cold and
substance. Its quality, such as heat and moisture, cold and dryness, heat and dryness, cold and moisture. Quantity, such as fullness and emptiness. Its substance, such as thickening and attenuation and cutting and cleaning and the like. From the number, indeed, such as the illness in the fourth degree which should be given a contrary cure corresponding to that degree. 1. 49. 6. Let it be asked here whether nature is helped by the cure externally or internally; it seems it is not, for Galen says in the third book of De Ingenio Sanitatis: Natura non. i.e. nature is not
of De Ingenio Sanitatis: Natura non. i.e. nature is not deficient in anything, so nature is not relieved by the cure externally or internally. Then Aristotle says in the first book of De generatione that there is no reaction between the corporeal and the incorporeal, and nature is incorporeal and the cure corporeal, (p. 29 b, I) so there is no reaction between them, and, since there is not, nature is not relieved by the cure. Then Galen says in De ingenio sanitatis the words: Nil invenitur. i.e. there is nothing which helps nature but injures nature first, and Galen
nothing which helps nature but injures nature first, and Galen says that no cure helps nature more than a digestive, and digestion does not injure nature according to Galen, so nature is not relieved by any cure. Then Galen says in the first De interioribus: "Natura non." i.e. nature does not need the help of the cure except when it cannot of itself overcome the illness, or when the illness is greater than nature, and, when the illness is stronger than nature, then it is mortal, so nature is not relieved by the cure, for Galen orders that the cure
relieved by the cure, for Galen orders that the cure should not be given in mortal illnesses. Then Galen says in the commentary of the second book of Aphorisms, that nature is not relieved by anything outside of nature, and the cure is against nature, so nature is not relieved by the cure. Then Galen says that if any cure helps nature it is digestion, and everything that is ready for corruption does not help nature, and the qualities of digestion are ready for corruption i.e. heat, moisture, so nature is not helped by the cure. Then Aristotle says in
is not helped by the cure. Then Aristotle says in the third book of Physiologia that the cure does not work in the human body until the natural heat acts in the cure, so since the natural heat must work against the cure nature is weakened by the cure. This is opposed according to all the doctors. Then it seems it is not suitable to give a digestive in every continuous putrid fever such as syncope, for Galen says it is not suitable to give a digestive in this fever. Then it seems that a digestive should not be given
Then it seems that a digestive should not be given at all, for Hippocrates says in this canon: "Si ex." i.e. that Phlebotomy should be used when the four humours increase together, and the humour-cure should be given when one humour errs alone, if so, Avicenna says that digestion is simply the preparation of the matter that is not ready for expulsion on account of coagulation and viscosity, and, when the four humours increase together, digestion is not needed but evacuation by the vein, as we have said, and when one humour errs, it should be purged by a humour-cure