6
It must be clearly understood that some are not benefited in disease by slops, but when they take them, their fever and pain grow manifestly worse, and it is plain that what is taken proves nourishment and increase to the disease, but wears away and enfeebles the body. Any men who in this condition take dry food, barley-cake or bread, even though it be very little, will be hurt ten times more, and more obviously, than if they take slops, simply and solely because the food is too strong for their condition; and a man to whom slops are beneficial, but not solid food, will suffer much more harm if he eat more than if he eat little, though he will feel pain even if he eat little. Now all the causes of the pain can be reduced to one, namely, it is the strongest foods that hurt a man most and most obviously, whether he be well or ill.
7
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 scopeOr 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?
