Preface, no date (1577), Thomas Erastus to the Reader (BP.Erastus.1580-03)
| Author: | Thomas Erastus |
| Recipient: | Reader |
| Type: | Preface |
| Date: | no date [1577] |
| Place: | no place |
| Pages: | 1 |
| Language: | Latin |
| Quote as: | https://www.theatrum-paracelsicum.com/index.php?curid=3016 |
| Editor: | Edited by Julian Paulus |
| Source: | Thomas Erastus, Disputatio de putredine, Basel: Leonhard Ostein for Successors of Johannes Oporinus 1580, p. 116 [BP.Erastus.1580-03]
|
| Reprinted from: | BP.Erastus.1577-02 |
| Reprinted in: | BP.Erastus.1590-02 |
| Note: | This transcription is not based on the first edition (1577), but on a later reprint (1580) |
| Translation: | Raw translation see below |
| Abstract: | Erastus emphasizes the importance of understanding decay, not just for physicians but also for other professionals, particularly philosophers. He highlights the widespread discussion on the topic, noting the varied opinions and the lack of consensus, especially concerning Aristotle's views and those of physicians. He points out disagreements among commentators of Aristotle's "Meteorologica" Book 4, which further complicates the understanding of decay. (generated by Chat-GPT) |
| Back to Paratexts Back to Texts by Thomas Erastus |
[p. 116] Candido lectori S[alutem].
Cognitionem putredinis non Medicis tantùm, verumetiam aliarum artium, & inprimis Philosophiæ studiosis vtilem ac necessariam esse, nullus est qui negare ausit. Quocirca non videmur temerè Naturam eius, Ortum, Differentias & Causas inuerstigare: atque alios, vt idem nobiscum facere tentent, prouocare. Nihil est nomine magis tritum: at res ipsa sic est ignota, vt vix vllum reperias, qui non dissentientia scribat & dicat. Plurimi disputant, vtrum eadem sit Arist[otelis] & Medicorum de putredine sententia. Sic quoque dißident, qui in 4. Meterolog. commentarios conscripserunt, vt quid sequi debeas, & quid verum sit, non facilè inuenias. Nostras hac de re cogitationes, quas iam olum versare cœpimus, publico examini ob id subijcere voluimus, vt vel meliora edocti falsum vero permutemus, vel in sententia certius confirmemur. Speramus etiam conatum nostrum cunctis bonis, ac veritatis amantibus probatum iri, etiamsi videant nos scopum attingere perfectè non potuisse. Si aliud nihil præstitimus, viam certè alijs vlterius sine errore procedendi aperuimus. Vale.
English Raw Translation
Generated by ChatGPT-4 on 17 August 2023. Attention: This translation is a machine translation by artificial intelligence. The translation has not been checked and should not be cited without additional human verification.
To the candid reader, greetings.
No one dares deny that the understanding of decay is not only beneficial and necessary for physicians but also for practitioners of other arts, especially those devoted to philosophy. Therefore, it does not seem rash for us to investigate its nature, origin, differences, and causes, and to challenge others to attempt the same with us. Nothing is more commonly discussed by name, yet the subject itself remains so unknown that you can scarcely find anyone who does not write or speak with differing opinions. Many debate whether the views on decay held by Aristotle and the physicians are the same. Similarly, those who have written commentaries on Aristotle's "Meteorologica" Book 4 also disagree, making it difficult to determine what one should follow and what the truth is. We wanted to submit our thoughts on this matter, which we began contemplating long ago, to public scrutiny so that we might either be taught better views and exchange falsehood for truth or be more firmly confirmed in our opinion. We also hope that our efforts will be approved by all good people and lovers of truth, even if they see that we might not have perfectly achieved our goal. If we have accomplished nothing else, we have certainly paved the way for others to proceed further without error. Farewell.
