Aretaeus, De causis et signis acutorum morborum (lib. 1)
Francis Adams LL.D., Ed.

1 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 after ἐπίκαιρον.

2 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 ... 10; Curat. Morb. Diut ... 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 ... 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 thus: “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.

3 the text in all the mss. is evidently vitiated. I have adopted the emendations partly of Wigan and partly of Ermerins. The reforms of the latter are sometimes too radical for my conservative judgment.