| [p. 41] |
κἢν μὲν ἡ
γαστὴρ ἢ ἡ κύστις τὸ ποτὸν ὑποφέρῃ, οὐδὲ ἐμέτου δεῖ· εἰ δὲ
μὴ, ἐπὶ πολλῷ τῷ ψυχρῷ τὸ πολλὸν ἐμέσαι χρή.
ἐκραγείη γὰρ ἂν ὥνθρωπος, εἰ
τοσόνδε πίνων μηδὲν διαχωροίη, ἢ ἱδρῶσι,
ἢ οὔροισι, ἢ κοιλίῃ.
τὴν μὲν τοῦ σώματος ἰδέην, οὐ κάρτα ἐπίκαιροι
ἐς κίνδυνον, ἢν καί τι πάθωσι ὀξέως.
ἀδενώδεες γὰρ τὴν φύσιν, ἐς δὲ ὄλεθρον
ἐπίκαιρον δὲ αὐτέων τὸ
ἔργον, ἥ τε διάκρισις τῶν οὔρων ἀπὸ τοῦ
αἵματος καὶ ἡ ἀπόκρισις.
It appears to me that all the translators have
misunderstood the meaning of these words, ἐς δὲ ὄλεθρον εὐήθεες,
which Henisch and Boerhaave translate, "ad mortem vero inferendam
ben・habiles sunt:" Wigan and Ermerins,--"ægrum tamen facile interimunt." Moffat rather
oddly,--"well calculated for bearing an attack." Now the literal meaning of the words
obviously is, "they are innocent as regards death;" which surely can imply nothing but that
the affections of the kidneys are not naturally deadly. (See Liddel and Scott's Lexicon under
the word.) In fact, whoever will read the context carefully must see that this meaning is the
only one in accordance with it, and with what is said below, namely, that the majority of
cases are not fatal. Ermerins, in this instance, vitiates the text by meddling with it, and
substituting γὰρ for δὲ
Ἐπέχει δὲ τήνδε ἢ
λίθος, ἢ ἐγγιγνομένη φλεγμονὴ,
ἢ αἱμάλωψ, ἤ τι τοιόνδε · εὖτε ἐκ ξυμπαθίης
μὲν τῆς διὰ τὴν ἰδέην τοῦ σώματος κακὸν γίγνεται οὐδὲν, ἡ δὲ
ἐπίσχεσις τῶν οὔρων πάντα τὰ δεινὰ πρήσσει.
πῦρ μὲν γὰρ
Here, again, nearly all
the translators and editors have misunderstood the meaning of the passage from not
perceiving that σώματος is here applied not to the whole
body, but to the organ or part of the body of which the author is treating, namely, the
kidneys. It would be superfluous to multiply references to passages in which Aretæus
applies σῶμα to a particular part of the body. See Morb.
Diut. i. 10; Curat. Morb. Diut. i. 13; also Galen, De Locis Affectis, i.9. Indeed Aristotle
applies it expressly to the kidneys, in the sense of the fleshy part of the organ, or viscus, H. A. i. 17, 15. The meaning of the passage in question, therefore,
evidently is, that "no mischief from sympathy arises in this case, owing to the peculiar
nature of the affected viscus itself, but the retention of the urine produces most horrible
mischief." Wigan translates the passage thus, -- "reliqui corporis species, nullo affectus ex
consensu, perturbatur." Boerhaave thus:--"quandoquidem ex consensu affectionis ob
formam corporis provenientis nulla creatur offensio;" and Ermerins thns: "quo facto nullum
quidem malum oritur propter cæterarum partium cum renis subitantia consensum." Of
these translations that of Ermerins approaches nearest to the true import of the passage. The
other two have no distinct meaning.