Articella (The Little Art of Medicine)

Add these things? [...] sown? [...]
[...] from diet? [...]
[...]
since errors? [...]
are borne with difficulty?
and a subtle? [...]
one holds to a diet? [...]
not using a diet? [...]
when through abstinence? [...]
strength fails? [...]
not such a diet? [...]
demands? [...]

coarser ones. Because of this, even in healthy people, very certain and established diets are deceptive, since errors are borne with difficulty. For this reason, therefore, thin and certain diets are more deceptive than those that are slightly more substantial.

Many interpreters understand this aphorism in such a way: that the errors of the sick do not come from themselves, but from the physicians who insist upon them, when they command against the patient's will that they hold to a subtle diet, by which they are harmed more than if they did not use such a thin diet. When they are compelled against their will, their strength fails from too much abstinence. Others define it absolutely, and they are more to be praised because it is an absolute—that is, they provide a more universal understanding—when they make it so that voluntary or coerced patients are understood. It is as if Hippocrates were saying: Any error in a subtle diet, whether it happens by itself or through something else, must necessarily harm, since through abstinence the strength fails, and because their custom does not demand such a diet. This meaning is clarified by what follows, namely, through this which he says: "Because of this, even in healthy people, very certain and established diets are deceptive." For the persistence of a subtle diet forces them to err. The following aphorism is clear.

Regarding the final stages of illnesses?
[...]
acute, it is therefore?
which he calls?
peracute?
7

Regarding the final stages of illnesses, the final treatments are potent for perfection.

He understands "final stages of illnesses" as those having no further limits after them, whence he commands a very subtle diet. If this is acute, it is the one he calls "peracute," on account of which Hippocrates also adds here: 7.

Where indeed according to intensity?
[...]
intensity of illness?
has continuous and final?
struggles?
[...]
a final and most thin?
[...]
where however not?
[...]
it is fitting to restore?
more coarsely?
[...]

Where indeed, according to the intensity of the illness, the disease has continuous and final struggles, it is necessary to use a final and most thin diet. Where, however, it does not, one should not; but it is fitting to restore [the patient] more coarsely. And one should concede only as much as the illness is milder than the final stages.

Just as he understood the "final illness" above, which no other could exceed, so too he placed the "final struggles" here first, beyond which no others are more extreme. He intends these to be the exacerbations of fevers and the rest of their symptoms, because peracute fevers constantly have final struggles; that is, in the first days preceding the fourth, whence the status the critical turning point of a disease follows immediately in these cases. For the status is nothing other than when the struggles and their symptoms reach their end. Therefore, a peracutus very acute/extremely violent disease is one where the status is continuous, which is understood in the first quarters [of the moon/days], or in those following any fourth day in the intensity of a peracute disease. Ultimately, one must use a most thin diet, since a most subtle diet is necessary in the status, just as he himself said in the book On Acute Illness: "While the status is continuous in the fourth days." It is sufficient to have said this much here. However, if anyone fears to give food in acute illnesses because of the inflammation of abscesses or the continuity of fevers, then even in the status it is more necessary to take caution, because all abscesses and inflammations in peracute illnesses are at this time at their limit, just as Hippocrates in Pitonosromaton likely referring to the De salubri diaeta or similar ancient medical tractates often grouped with Hippocratic writings, where he spoke particularly of a hot abscess. From the limit of heat and the universal inflammation of fevers, let it be understood in this way, for thus the ancients were accustomed to posit it. Whatever these refer to, the interpretation is good and certain. It is good that nature is permitted to work in a good state, neither impeded by food nor by any other thing. Therefore, in the status, it is necessary

What in the status ...?
[...]

[...] where of a hot?
[...] abscess he spoke?
[...] its nature?
[...] is able to endure?

that a thin diet be brought to its limit. If, however, the status has not yet arrived after the aforementioned four days, one should not immediately use the most thin diets, lest by chance the sick person die before the status. Therefore, in that person whose status is on the first fourth day, it is good to give the final diet immediately, whenever his nature is able to endure it. If not, only mellicratum a mixture of honey and water or a little barley water is sufficient. These, however, are at the limit of thinness. The "ancient healthy" [diet], which Hippocrates calls "coarse food," ought to be varied in the status after the fourth day, to which he adds: "That they may be descended as much as the disease softens." For example: if the status is somewhat near, slightly coarse food is offered; if, however, it is further away, [food] that is more coarse is offered; thus, an ordered diet is useful. 8

When in the status?
[...]
most thin diet?
[...]

When the illness is in the status, then it is necessary to use a most thin diet.

Others join this aphorism, as we ourselves do, to the one above. Others do not wish it to be continued. Nevertheless, however it is continued, there will always be one meaning. For in the status of a disease, a most subtle diet is ordered to be used, since at that time many symptoms follow, and the disease is being digested. Therefore, nature is not to be impeded in digesting the humors, which are the matter of the disease, since then it [nature] attends only to that one thing, so that it may survive the hour when it overcomes the humors. Therefore, nature should not be impeded by foods being digested, which we have prohibited in our books on dietetics. All these Hippocratic [instructions] are to be applied to the status, which is followed by the decline. For those who are about to die are to be omitted, according to the prognostics in which future events are pronounced. In the preceding [aphorisms], it is considered what kind of diet should be given according to the times of the disease; in the following ones, the diet to be given will be defined according to the strength of the sick person.

To contemplate therefore?
[...]
the sick person if?
a diet suffices?
[...]

To contemplate, therefore, it is necessary whether the diet suffices for the sick person for the status of the illness, and whether the latter [the patient] fails first and the diet does not suffice, or the illness fails and is blunted.

Because above he conceded to the diet according to the continuous or remote status of the disease, here he defines how it ought to be ordered according to the strength of the patients: so that strength, and not the disease, may be nourished, the sick person is instructed. These two, if they are well considered—that is, the diet according to the length and brevity of the status, and the strength of the sick person is weighed—our work follows usefully. For if the strength has failed and has not sustained itself, food should be given according to the quality or quantity as it expels [the illness]. Therefore, in the status, food is sometimes to be given against the symptoms that dissolve strength. But because there must be the greatest caution of the physician in diet, Hippocrates therefore thought the following aphorism should be joined to the preceding one. If anyone understands these three aphorisms as one, or for one, he will not err. I divided the aphorisms into three so as to explain them better one by one. 10

For whom therefore?
[...]
to restore thinly?
[...]

For whom, therefore, the status is continuous, it is necessary to restore them continuously and thinly. For whom, however, the status is later, towards that and before that a little should be taken away; previously, however, it should be restored more abundantly so that the sick person may suffice.

This aphorism, as we have said, is to be joined to the previous ones, but nevertheless, it is more universal than the others. For in the preceding one, he commanded a most thin diet in peracute diseases; in this one, absolutely in the status, everything

[...] strength? [...] universal? [...]
[...] from the beginning? [...] peracute? [...]