jeanflop/post_ocr_correction2 huggingface dataset:
anyone die who had the complete signs of digestion. We answer that question and say one cannot die in the natural course after the digestion of the matter, and one can die from the accidental ailment. And that accidental ailment can come from three things, i.e. through disregard of the physician, or from another illness succeeding the first, or from error concerning the energies, for Galenus says, if the physician and attendant of the patient be mistaken, that prepares one for death even though the matter be digested, and Galenus says, if an illness come during the decrease, even though it be slight, it induces death from the error about the energies, for Galenus says, if the natural expelling energy and the animal energy be confused in operation, that one can die from that confusion. Let it be asked here whether a digestive should be given in the increase of the illness; it seems it should not, for Galenus says the digestive is given to diminish the matter of the illness, and it cannot be diminished in the increase, so a digestive should not be given in the increase. Then Galenus says a digestive should not be given when the unfavorable accidental ailments are very strong, so since the unfavorable accidental ailments are very strong in the increase, a digestive should not be given then. Then digestives are not used except when the natural heat is powerful to act in them, and the natural heat is being turned into fierce heat in the increase, so a digestive should not be given in the increase of the illness. Then Constantinus says the increase is simply the perfecting of digestion, so since the digestion is completed in it, a digestive should not be given in it. This is opposed, and we say on the authority of Galenus that a digestive should be given in the beginning and the increase of the illness. We answer that and say that digestives are divided in three ways, i.e. evident digestion, obscure digestion, and perfected digestion, and we say that the obscure digestion is in the
unfavorable accidental ailments are very strong, so since the unfavorable accidental ailments are very strong in the increase, a digestive should not be given then. Then digestives are not used except when the natural heat is powerful to act in them, and the natural heat is being turned into fierce heat in the increase, so a digestive should not be given in the increase of the illness. Then Constantinus says the increase is simply the perfecting of digestion, so since the digestion is completed in it, a digestive should not be given in it. This is opposed, and we say on the authority of Galenus that a digestive should be given in the beginning and the increase of the illness. We answer that and say that digestives are divided in three ways, i.e. evident digestion, obscure digestion, and perfected digestion, and we say that the obscure digestion is in the beginning of the illness, and it is evident in the increase, and it is perfected in the status, and this distinction is made for a curable illness. Let it be asked here if food causes digestion of the matter of the illness; it seems it does not, for Galenus says in the book De Causis that digestion is simply transmuting the matter of the illness, and food, as such, does not transmute thus, but increases the matter it finds in the body, as Hippocrates says in this canon: "Non pura". i.e. that impure bodies are injured by nourishment, so food does not digest the matter of the illness. Then Hippocrates says in the commentary of the Aphorisms these words: "Natura impetitur". i.e. nature is hindered from digesting the flesh through the consumption of food, so the matter of the illness is not digested by food. Then Galenus says in the commentary of Regimen Acutorum these words: "Eadem est". i.e. the physician should have the same intention in giving food to healthy people and to sick people, and food is not given to healthy people to digest the matter, so it should not be given to sick people to digest the
in the book De Causis that digestion is simply transmuting the matter of the illness, and food, as such, does not transmute thus, but increases the matter it finds in the body, as Hippocrates says in this canon: "Non pura". i.e. that impure bodies are injured by nourishment, so food does not digest the matter of the illness. Then Hippocrates says in the commentary of the Aphorisms these words: "Natura impetitur". i.e. nature is hindered from digesting the flesh through the consumption of food, so the matter of the illness is not digested by food. Then Galenus says in the commentary of Regimen Acutorum these words: "Eadem est". i.e. the physician should have the same intention in giving food to healthy people and to sick people, and food is not given to healthy people to digest the matter, so it should not be given to sick people to digest the matter. Then Galen says in De Ingenio Sanitatis that the matter is thickened and the constrictions are increased by the consumption of food, so the matter is not digested by food. That is opposed according to Haly in the commentary to Techne who says that labor and consumption of food digest the matter of the illness, so food works towards the digestion of the matter of the illness. Then Hippocrates says in the first book of Regimen Acutorum these words: "ptisan est. i.e. I have found no food whatever better for sick people than an infusion of barley, for it expels corruption and digests the matter of the illness. Then Hippocrates says in the fourth book of Aphorisms in this canon: Oportet ad., i.e. the body should be prepared by moderate foods before the purgative called hellebore, and it is for the digestion of the matter Hippocrates orders that, so digestion of the matter is caused by food. Then Avicenna says in the fourth book these words: "Cibus moderatus. i.e. moderate food relieves the energy and natural heat, and since digestion simply is the functioning of the natural heat it is understood that digestion is caused by moderate food. We
digest the matter of the illness, so food works towards the digestion of the matter of the illness. Then Hippocrates says in the first book of Regimen Acutorum these words: "ptisan est. i.e. I have found no food whatever better for sick people than an infusion of barley, for it expels corruption and digests the matter of the illness. Then Hippocrates says in the fourth book of Aphorisms in this canon: Oportet ad., i.e. the body should be prepared by moderate foods before the purgative called hellebore, and it is for the digestion of the matter Hippocrates orders that, so digestion of the matter is caused by food. Then Avicenna says in the fourth book these words: "Cibus moderatus. i.e. moderate food relieves the energy and natural heat, and since digestion simply is the functioning of the natural heat it is understood that digestion is caused by moderate food. We answer that according to Galen in the commentary to this canon: ad bonis, who says there are two ways in which food is given to sick people, i.e. food as food, and food as food and cure; food as food has the property of increasing, fattening and nourishing the substance of the body, and digests the matter only incidentally by strengthening the energies and the members. Food as food and cure digests directly and transmutes the offending matter if it be of an opposite kind to it. And note that in every material fever there are initial cause, antecedent cause and connective cause, so that on that account let it be asked here for which of these causes digestion is suitable; it seems it is for the connective cause, for Haly says in the commentary to Techne, 'Causa antecedenti. ', i.e. the antecedent cause should have evacuation, and the connective cause a digestive. Then the same man says that digestion is simply a change that hinders corruption, and corruption is simply the connective cause, so a digestive should be given in the connective cause. This is opposed, for Galen says (the connective cause) makes no delay after the status in
of the body, and digests the matter only incidentally by strengthening the energies and the members. Food as food and cure digests directly and transmutes the offending matter if it be of an opposite kind to it. And note that in every material fever there are initial cause, antecedent cause and connective cause, so that on that account let it be asked here for which of these causes digestion is suitable; it seems it is for the connective cause, for Haly says in the commentary to Techne, 'Causa antecedenti. ', i.e. the antecedent cause should have evacuation, and the connective cause a digestive. Then the same man says that digestion is simply a change that hinders corruption, and corruption is simply the connective cause, so a digestive should be given in the connective cause. This is opposed, for Galen says (the connective cause) makes no delay after the status in disappearing, so since the connective cause is in the status, a digestive should not be given for it. Then Galen says digestion should check corruption, and the connective cause is not checked until the status, and digestion is not needed in the status, so a digestive should not be used for the connective cause. We answer that and say that digestives should be given for the antecedent and connective causes. Let it be asked here whether phlebotomy is suitable in any fever; it seems it is not, for Galen says the physician should imitate nature and follow its operations, and the proper work of nature is to expel everything excessive and injurious, and there is no fever in which nature expels the blood, so the physician should not practice phlebotomy in any fever. Then Galen says blood should not be let when it evacuates good blood along with bad blood, for the evacuation of the good blood along with the bad blood injures more than it relieves, and the vein could not be opened in fevers without expelling the good blood in it, so phlebotomy should not be practiced in fevers. Then Galen says that the opening of the vein
for the connective cause. We answer that and say that digestives should be given for the antecedent and connective causes. Let it be asked here whether phlebotomy is suitable in any fever; it seems it is not, for Galen says the physician should imitate nature and follow its operations, and the proper work of nature is to expel everything excessive and injurious, and there is no fever in which nature expels the blood, so the physician should not practice phlebotomy in any fever. Then Galen says blood should not be let when it evacuates good blood along with bad blood, for the evacuation of the good blood along with the bad blood injures more than it relieves, and the vein could not be opened in fevers without expelling the good blood in it, so phlebotomy should not be practiced in fevers. Then Galen says that the opening of the vein evacuates only the humor that offends inside the veins, and the matter of intermittent fever is outside the veins, and Avicenna says these words: (p. 31 b, 1) "Venole exsiccata. i.e. when the veins are evacuated they attract to themselves crude humors, and continuous intermittent is created then, so phlebotomy is not suitable in any fever. Then phlebotomy is not suitable in chronic illnesses, for Galen says light diet should not be given in chronic illnesses, as Hippocrates says in this canon: "In alma. ", since light diet is a sort of purgative, blood-letting still more a sort of purgative, so it is not suitable in chronic fevers. And Galen says phlebotomy is not suitable in fevers accompanied by great heat, and no fever is without heat, so blood should not be let in any fever. Then Avicenna says when the energy is weak blood should not be let, and it should not be let when the energy is powerful as Hippocrates says in this canon: "Ea corum. ", so blood should not be let in any fever. This is opposed according to Galen in the nineteenth book of "De Ingenio Sanitatis", for he says not only is phlebotomy suitable
is not suitable in any fever. Then phlebotomy is not suitable in chronic illnesses, for Galen says light diet should not be given in chronic illnesses, as Hippocrates says in this canon: "In alma. ", since light diet is a sort of purgative, blood-letting still more a sort of purgative, so it is not suitable in chronic fevers. And Galen says phlebotomy is not suitable in fevers accompanied by great heat, and no fever is without heat, so blood should not be let in any fever. Then Avicenna says when the energy is weak blood should not be let, and it should not be let when the energy is powerful as Hippocrates says in this canon: "Ea corum. ", so blood should not be let in any fever. This is opposed according to Galen in the nineteenth book of "De Ingenio Sanitatis", for he says not only is phlebotomy suitable in "synochoc inflatio", but it is suitable in every corrupt fever unless the energy or age of the patient prevents it. Then Galen says there are two things which come from phlebotomy in fevers, i.e. the lowering of the excessive heat and the expulsion of the corruption, so phlebotomy is suitable in every fever. Then Galen says in the commentary to the Aphorisms in this canon: "Dolores oculorum" speaking of curing the eyes, for he says there when many humors offend together, blood should then be let, and many humors offend in corrupt fevers, so blood should be let in them. We answer that according to Galen who says whenever the energy is relieved by blood-letting, even though the fever be the greater for it, it should be let, for Galen advises blood-letting to strengthen the energy, and nourishment-cure to expel the matter of corrupt fever. Let it be asked here which is more profitable in fevers, the nourishment-cure or phlebotomy. It seems the humor is more profitable, for the humor cure expels only the excess matter, and it is not so of phlebotomy, for it activates offending and harmless matter, so the humor cure is more profitable in fevers
suitable in every fever. Then Galen says in the commentary to the Aphorisms in this canon: "Dolores oculorum" speaking of curing the eyes, for he says there when many humors offend together, blood should then be let, and many humors offend in corrupt fevers, so blood should be let in them. We answer that according to Galen who says whenever the energy is relieved by blood-letting, even though the fever be the greater for it, it should be let, for Galen advises blood-letting to strengthen the energy, and nourishment-cure to expel the matter of corrupt fever. Let it be asked here which is more profitable in fevers, the nourishment-cure or phlebotomy. It seems the humor is more profitable, for the humor cure expels only the excess matter, and it is not so of phlebotomy, for it activates offending and harmless matter, so the humor cure is more profitable in fevers than phlebotomy. Than Galenus says the evacuation caused by the humor cure is natural and scientific (vide H, 2.12), and evacuation caused by blood-letting is scientific only, so the evacuation due to nature and science is more beneficial than phlebotomy. Then Galenus says the evacuation which least expels natural heat and spirits is most beneficial in fevers, and it is clear that heat and spirits are less expelled by the humor cure than by evacuating the blood, so the humor cure is more profitable in fevers than evacuation of the vein. Then Galenus says the evacuation which most frees the constrictions is most profitable in fevers, and the humor cure frees the constrictions more than phlebotomy, so the humor cure is more beneficial in fevers than phlebotomy. This is opposed according to Galenus who says blood-letting evacuates only the amount the physician wishes, and it is not so of the humor cure, for it evacuates the humors excessively at times against the physician's wish, so blood-letting is more beneficial in fevers than humor cure. Then Galenus says all humor cures are in the nature of poison and inimical to nature, and that is not so of evacuation of the vein
and spirits is most beneficial in fevers, and it is clear that heat and spirits are less expelled by the humor cure than by evacuating the blood, so the humor cure is more profitable in fevers than evacuation of the vein. Then Galenus says the evacuation which most frees the constrictions is most profitable in fevers, and the humor cure frees the constrictions more than phlebotomy, so the humor cure is more beneficial in fevers than phlebotomy. This is opposed according to Galenus who says blood-letting evacuates only the amount the physician wishes, and it is not so of the humor cure, for it evacuates the humors excessively at times against the physician's wish, so blood-letting is more beneficial in fevers than humor cure. Then Galenus says all humor cures are in the nature of poison and inimical to nature, and that is not so of evacuation of the vein according to Galenus, so phlebotomy is more profitable in fevers than the humor cure. We answer that and say that the humors offend in two ways, i.e. sometimes in quality and sometimes in quantity, and when they offend in quantity blood should then be let, and when they offend in quality the humor cure should then be used. Let it be asked here whether blood should be let in the beginning of fevers. It seems it should not on the authority of Avicenna in the first book saying: Phlebotomia... i.e. the blood should not be let before the digestion of the matter, so it should not be let in the beginning of fevers. Then Galenus says the physician should follow the natural operations, and nature does not expel any part of the illness at its beginning, so the physician should not expel it, as Hippocrates says in this canon: Incipientibus... Then Avicenna says there are two things preventing the use of humor cure and phlebotomy in fevers, i.e. the strength of the unfavorable accidental ailments and the crudeness and thickness of the matter, and it is of the strength of the unfavorable ailments Hippocrates spoke in this canon: "Digesta..." Neither
quality the humor cure should then be used. Let it be asked here whether blood should be let in the beginning of fevers. It seems it should not on the authority of Avicenna in the first book saying: Phlebotomia... i.e. the blood should not be let before the digestion of the matter, so it should not be let in the beginning of fevers. Then Galenus says the physician should follow the natural operations, and nature does not expel any part of the illness at its beginning, so the physician should not expel it, as Hippocrates says in this canon: Incipientibus... Then Avicenna says there are two things preventing the use of humor cure and phlebotomy in fevers, i.e. the strength of the unfavorable accidental ailments and the crudeness and thickness of the matter, and it is of the strength of the unfavorable ailments Hippocrates spoke in this canon: "Digesta..." Neither phlebotomy nor humor cure should be used in the beginning of fevers. Then Avicenna says that one must wait for the digestion of every matter that is in one place before expelling, and the matter of intermittent fever is in one place outside the veins, so blood should not be let in the beginning of these fevers. Then Galenus says in the first De crisi that the cause of ulcers and of fever is the same from the point of view of evacuation, and the matter in an ulcer should not be evacuated till the status, so purgatives should not be given in fever till the matter be digested. Then Galenus says nature should be relieved when it needs relief, and Galenus says nature does not need relief in the beginning of the illness, so blood should not be let in the beginning of fevers. This is opposed in the eighth book of De Ingenio Sanitatis, for Galenus says one should do all that prepares and hastens the matter towards digestion, and Galenus says phlebotomy in the beginning of fever hastens the matter towards digestion, so phlebotomy is suitable in the beginning of fevers. Then Galenus says in the chapter
let in the beginning of these fevers. Then Galenus says in the first De crisi that the cause of ulcers and of fever is the same from the point of view of evacuation, and the matter in an ulcer should not be evacuated till the status, so purgatives should not be given in fever till the matter be digested. Then Galenus says nature should be relieved when it needs relief, and Galenus says nature does not need relief in the beginning of the illness, so blood should not be let in the beginning of fevers. This is opposed in the eighth book of De Ingenio Sanitatis, for Galenus says one should do all that prepares and hastens the matter towards digestion, and Galenus says phlebotomy in the beginning of fever hastens the matter towards digestion, so phlebotomy is suitable in the beginning of fevers. Then Galenus says in the chapter on sinoma inflatio that one should not wait for the digestion of the matter nor for the Crisis without letting blood, so blood should be let in the beginning of fevers. Then Avicenna says blood should be let when energy is strongest, for the physician should not let blood during weakness of energy, so since there is none of the four periods of the fever in which the energy is stronger than in the beginning, it is then blood should be let. Then Avicenna says that, whenever nature is strong and the matter plentiful, blood should then be let, and the matter is plentiful and nature strong at the beginning of fever, so blood should be let in its beginning. We answer that and say according to Avicenna in the fourth book that there are three classes in which evacuation is given with regard to the cause (or from the vein), i.e. hora electa expediens et eirena; hora electa, i.e. the chosen, proper time, and the number of days and the prohibited times should not be examined for this if the energy is strong and the invalid in need of it. Expediens indeed, i.e. when evacuation benefits nature more than
weakness of energy, so since there is none of the four periods of the fever in which the energy is stronger than in the beginning, it is then blood should be let. Then Avicenna says that, whenever nature is strong and the matter plentiful, blood should then be let, and the matter is plentiful and nature strong at the beginning of fever, so blood should be let in its beginning. We answer that and say according to Avicenna in the fourth book that there are three classes in which evacuation is given with regard to the cause (or from the vein), i.e. hora electa expediens et eirena; hora electa, i.e. the chosen, proper time, and the number of days and the prohibited times should not be examined for this if the energy is strong and the invalid in need of it. Expediens indeed, i.e. when evacuation benefits nature more than it injures it. Eirena, i.e. when the illness is increased by the evacuation and the natural heat decreased. Let it be asked here whether baths should be given in every fever; it seems not, for Galenus says in the second book of "Remedia acutorum", that one should not bathe with a phlegmatic fever, and the reason of that is that it disperses the light matter and leaves the heavy matter undispersed, so baths should not be taken in every fever. Then Galenus says that everything that increases the corruption and preserves it should not be done, and Galenus says corruption is increased and preserved by bathing, so it should not be done in fevers. Then Galenus says in the commentary of the fourth particle of Aphorisms that one should not bathe in hot water in a fever accompanied by ulcers, so bathing is not suitable in every fever. Then Galenus says in the commentary of this aphorism: "Sub caute.", and Aristotle says these words: Balneum, i.e. bathing in fevers is opposed to the evacuation of the matter, so bathing is not suitable in fevers. This is opposed according to Galenus in the eighth book of De ingenio Sanitatis, for he