[p. 25]
PART 7
VII. What difference then can be seen between
the purpose of him we call physician, who is an
acknowledged handicraftsman, the discoverer of the
mode of life and of the nourishment suitable for the
sick, and his who discovered and prepared originally
nourishment for all men, which we now use, instead
of the old savage and brutish mode of living ? My
own view is that their reasoning was identical and the
discovery one and the same. The one sought to
do away with those things which, when taken, the
constitution of man in health could not assimilate
because of their brutish and uncompounded character,
the other those things which the temporary condition
of an individual prevented him from assimilating.
How do the two pursuits differ, except in their scope | Or
"appearance." The two pursuits are really one, but
they appear to a superficial observer to differ. |
and in that the latter is more complex and requires
the greater application, while the former is the
starting point and came first in time ?
PART 8
VIII. A consideration of the diet of the sick, as
compared with that of men in health, would show
that the diet of wild beasts and of animals generally
is not more harmful, as compared with that of men
in health. | The text here is very uncertain ; I have combined that
of Littré with that of Kéhlewein so as to give a good sense :
"The diet of men in health is as injurious to the sick as the
diet of wild beasts is to men in health." |
Take a man sick of a disease
which is
neither severe and desperate nor yet altogether mild,
but likely to be pronounced under wrong treatment,
and suppose that he resolved to eat bread, and meat,
or any other food that is beneficial to men in health,
not much of it, but far less than he could have taken
had he been well ; take again a man in health, with
a constitution neither altogether weak nor altogether
|
