1. Physician makes a wound.) An English reader may naturally suppose that the term should be surgeon; but as our author here uses the word medicus, I did not think myself at liberty to depart from it; especially as his not using chirurgus was from choice, since this word occurred in the preceding paragraph. Celsus supposes an accomplished physician acquainted with all the branches.

2. Nevertheless, it is not right to trust, &c.) In this translation I have followed Linden and Almeloveen. But the reading in most of the old editions, as Nicolaus, Pinzi, Junta, Aldus, Gryphius, &c. is Neque tamen fas non est nihil cucurbitula agere; that is, ‘Yet it is not an inviolable rule always to employ the cupping-vessel.’ Which I must own, appears most agreeable to the sense of this place; because our author immediately proceeds to consider a case, in which cupping can be of no service. See Morg. Ep. vi. p.151.

3. Even before the suppuration is formed.) I have here followed the old reading, tum pure quoque maturior hÆc interdum esse consuevit, which seems to agree better with our author’s reasoning; for as he had just blamed Meges for introducing the new term callus instead of tunica, without necessity; so he adds, that he was mistaken also in believing that it was never found but inclosing an old collection of matter. He on the contrary says, that it sometimes appears before the generation of pus. Linden and Almeloveen read tum, pure quoque maturiore, hÆc interdum esse consuevit; that is, ‘And this is found, even when the suppuration is more ripened.’ Whether the connexion of this with what went before be natural, the reader may judge for himself. I do not know but these learned editors may have put another sense upon maturiore, when the suppuration is sooner ripened: which would be pretty much the same with the old reading. However the first is preferred by Morgagni, Ep. vi. p.152.

4. Lest convulsions follow, which may debilitate, &c.) This translation is agreeable to the reading in Linden and Almeloveen; but all the older editions read thus, ne vel distendantur hi, vel membrum debilitent; i. e. ‘Lest either convulsions follow, or the limb be disabled.’ And this appears the more probable, as one of them might happen without the other following. And so it is quoted by Fabricius ab Aquapendente.

5. And some again require a wound, &c.) Jamque alia rectam plagam desiderant, ut in carne: alia vero vehementer cutem extenuant, in quibus tota ea super pus excidenda est. There are several variations in the reading of the copies of this paragraph, but they do not remove the difficulty. Morgagni[ JO ] very ingeniously conjectures, that after Celsus had considered such as were quite mature, he next mentioned such as were not quite ripe; and did not talk here of cutting off the whole skin, because he afterwards says, Est etiam in rerum natura, ut cutis latius excidenda sit; and that what is here said of the skin being extenuated, was repeated from above by carelessness. All the old editions and MSS. have itemque for jamque; none of them ut; the MS. tuto for tota. Upon the whole, he seems inclined to read it thus: Itemque alia rectam plagam desiderant in carne; in quibus tuto ea super pus incidenda sit; i. e. ‘Others again require a wound in a straight direction in the flesh, in which it may be proper and safe to make an incision above the pus.’

6. Crude lint.) Fabricius ab Aquapendente and Rhodius take this crude lint to be such as has not been boiled in a lixivium.

7. Loosing this knot. Soluto nodo.) Morgagni[ JP ] here prefers the old reading, salvo nodo, without loosing the knot, for this reason, that our author immediately orders the knot to be loosed every third day, for changing the string. And thus also it is quoted by Aquapendente, De chirurg. operation. cap. 93.—Celsus has here followed Hippocrates, Lib. de fistul. where he orders the string to be drawn and twisted every day, as much as it is loosened by the putrefaction of the fistula; but he says nothing of untying the knot every day. The difference is not material; for if salvo nodo be the reading, the string must be made tighter in the manner Hippocrates directs. According to the reading of Linden, the method is plain, nor does it seem to be attended with any difficulty; for it is untied twice a day to move the ligature; and also untied every third day, for the sake of introducing a fresh ligature, because the old one must not be suffered to rot.

8. A very small habenula may be cut out.) Linden and Almeloveen read here, habenula tenuis admodum injiciatur, which I think has no proper connection either with what goes before or follows. It is true, Aquapendente has given two explications of this passage, according to the same reading, De chirurg. operat. cap. 93. Neither of which appears to me consistent with the reasons Celsus gives for this method: I have therefore chosen to follow Nicolaus, Pachel, Pinzi, Junta, Aldus, and others, who have ejiciatur for injiciatur, which seems to clear up the difficulties of this place.—Our author uses habena often for a strap; but by habenula here he must understand a small slip or stripe of flesh.

9. Gum in this place (pituita) must signify a purulent fluid.

10. Like a spatha.) A knife was said to resemble a spatha, when it ended in an acute point with sharp edges on both sides, which our author mentions chap. x. for the excision of a polypus in the nose.—The needle here described is thin and broad, so that it was more like this instrument than a common needle. Vid. Fabric. ab. Aquapend. de Oper. Chirurg. cap. 107.

11. Of the colour of wax.) I have here departed from the reading of all the copies, and instead of it admit the correction of Mercurialis cereus for cÆruleus, which is approved by the best judges, and seems to be confirmed by its affinity to the gold colour immediately following. Vid. Mercurial. Var. Lect. lib. v. cap. 5. & Le Clerc. Hist. de la Medicine, p. 2. liv. 4. sect. 2. chap. 5.

12. The needle sharp pointed, but not too slender.) The reading in Almeloveen is Tum acus admovenda est, aut acuta, aut certe non nimium tenuis. As I could find no sense from this reading, or any other that is proposed, I have taken the liberty to read thus, Tum acus admovenda est acuta, at certe non nimium tenuis.

13. With timidity. Timide.) Though this reading may be defended, yet as what our author adds of the needle finding no resistance should make an operator more cautious, it is possible he wrote temere.

14. Below the bone.) I have here followed the old reading sub osse, and not as Almeloveen has it ab osse, which plainly appears to be erroneous by what our author says, when he mentions this species again, Manifestum sub osse descendere.

15. Humour still flows.) Here is a manifest error in Linden and Almeloveen, who read tumor instead of humor, which all the old copies have. Morgagni, ep. 5. p.150.

16. And therefore cannot be separated.) In the original Ideoque legi non possunt. Our author here barely mentions the lectio venarum, and a little below speaks of it as a distinct operation in these words, Sed nihil melius est, quam quod in Gallia quoque comata sit, ubi venas in temporibus, et in superiore capitis parte legunt. In the conclusion of the chapter he promises a full explanation of it, when he comes to the varices of the legs. The place he refers to is the 31st chapter of this book, where the reader will find, he does not once use the word lego through the whole: not that he forgot it, for he puts us in mind of this very passage in the beginning: Huc autem et earum venularum, quÆ in capite nocent,—curationem distuli; he then proceeds to describe two methods of cure by the actual cautery, and excision. In the first process I find nothing applicable to lego, there as well as here, cauterizing being quite a different thing; but in the second, namely the excision, the veins are separated from the contiguous parts, and are taken up by several blunt hooks, at the distance of four fingers breadth from each other, then, one of these hooks being raised, the vein is cut through and pulled away: so in all the rest (the terms are Excipitur, diducitur, attrahitur, evellitur, rursus abscinditur.) Now from the various senses, which lego bears in the classics, it seems without a strain capable of signifying any step of this operation. And as it is not uncommon among the ancients to include several known consequences under one term, I must own it appears to me our author intends them all, when he uses the word lego in this chapter.

17. Through what remains.) Instead of super est in Linden and Almeloveen, which seems to be directly contrary to our author’s meaning, I read in one word superest, with the older editions.

18. Defects in these three parts, if they be small, &c.) Linden and Almeloveen read Curta igitur in his tribus, ac si qua parte parva sunt, &c. The more ancient editions have Ac si qua parva paria sunt; neither of which seem to give the author’s meaning. I cannot help thinking the whole passage should run thus. Curta igitur in his tribus, si qua parva sunt, curari possunt: si qua majora sunt, aut non accipiunt curationem, &c. For neither paria nor parte appear to be at all proper after what was said in the conclusion of the last chapter, where he expressly confined these defects to the three parts abovementioned. I have therefore ventured to translate according to that reading; a liberty however I durst not take without advertising the reader.

19. Sometimes however the skin—left deformed.) I have here translated according to the reading of Linden and Almeloveen, from which I find no other variety than that of autem for tamen. But this observation by no means agrees with the general rule contained in the next words, Hujusmodi loci altera pars incidenda, altera intacta habenda est. If we are allowed to reject haud, it will run thus: Sometimes however it happens, that to draw forward the skin on one of the sides, would effectually disfigure the part it has left. This sense appears quite consistent both with the general rule, Hujusmodi loci, &c. and its application, Ergo ex imis auribus, &c.

20. Two regulÆ.) Regula is commonly taken for a ruler. Our author himself directs a single regula to be applied to a fractured bone, where there is a protuberance, to keep that down, Lib. viii. cap. 10. In this place he mentions the end proposed by them. It seems probable that they were two pieces of wood fixed together by a hinge, and used in the same manner as farriers use the instrument by them called barnacles.

21. In two lines.) Instead of duÆ tunicÆ, I read here with Nicolaus, Aldus, Stephens, and others, duÆ lineÆ.

22. Small glands, Glandulis.) Most of the old copies have instead of this word, medullis. But Aquapendente in quoting this place, follows the same reading with Linden and Almeloveen.

23. The coats however, &c.) I have here followed the old reading tunicÆ, for tunicarum in Linden and Almeloveen. According to which the translation would run, ‘They (the testicles) are pained however in wounds and inflammation of the coats, which contain them.’—Which must appear quite inconsistent with what our author had said the line before, so that Morgagni[ JQ ] very properly asks how they can be void of all sensation, and yet be pained in diseases of their coats?

24. By an assistant.) I read ministro instead of sinistro, which is in Linden.—See Morgagni, Ep. vi. p.147.

25. Sometimes upon account of their health. Interdum valetudinis causa.) Some of the older editions insert before this, Interdum vocis, Sometimes on account of their voice. I do not know how this came to be dropped afterwards: for it is certain this was one very common reason for infibulating.

26. Sticks where that grows narrower.) In Almeloveen and Linden, Nonnunquam etiam prolapsus in ipsam fistulam calculus, qui subinde ea extenuatur.——-Which I think is capable of no sense, and have therefore taken the liberty to follow Morgagni’s conjecture qua for qui. Ep. i. p. 38.

27. Being first slightly anointed with oil, &c. Leniter prius unctos oleo simul in anum ejus demittit.) The old editions, without any mention of the oil, have, Leniter prius unum deinde alterum in anum ejus demittit; that is, Introduces gently the fore and middle fingers, first the one and then the other.

28. Come out prone, that is, with its end foremost, ut pronus exeat.) This Constantine changed in the margin into Ut ne pronus exeat, which Linden received into the text. Constantine explains prone by lying on its side, and says it is hardly possible to extract an oblong stone in that posture, supposing, no doubt, that it must necessarily lie across the orifice. See Morgagni, Ep. v. p.128.

29. Then in that part where the bottom of the wound is straiter, &c. Deinde ea parte qua strictior ima plaga est.) Thus all the printed copies read. This passage has given rise to a variety of opinions on the nature of the first and second wound: some imagining that the first, which is called the lunated incision, was concave towards the rectum; others, on the contrary, from the word coxÆ being used for the ilia as well as the ischia, believed it was concave towards the scrotum.

Then, with respect to the transverse incision made through the neck of the bladder, some have thought that the word transverse was used as it regarded the first wound, so that the second incision was nearly perpendicular to the first, and the urethra was divided longitudinally; others again have supposed, that the incision was made transverse, with regard to the course of the urethra, that is, the neck of the bladder was opened transversely.

Though all the printed copies agree in the above reading, yet Morgagni informs us that instead of Qua strictior ima plaga est, his ancient MS has Qua resima plaga est, which would determine the convexity of the lunated incision to be towards the rectum; because in that case the cornua of the lunated incision would point to the superior part of the body. But this reading does not fix the direction of the plaga transversa, whether it was called so in respect of the parts, or the first incision: nor does that ingenious author favour us with his own opinion, but seems to prefer this to the common reading. Ep. vii. p.189.

Now it should seem almost certain, that the lunated incision was meant to be concave towards the rectum; because when made in that direction, it would probably render the rectum much more loose and supple, than it is in its natural state, and thereby greatly facilitate the operation, by allowing the surgeon a much freer use of the two fingers, which are introduced into the rectum, and consequently admitting him to bring the stone more easily forwards into the neck of the bladder. One would suppose, however, that the benefit here suggested to arise from this lunated incision, was not extremely evident, or it would not have been dropped so early by succeeding surgeons: Ægineta makes not the least mention of this process, nor do we know when it was first discontinued. Perhaps, even in Celsus’s time, there were different methods of performing this operation; for does not he himself, when describing Meges’s manner of cutting upon a rough stone, omit the lunated incision? And does he not imply that there were different methods by saying, Quocunque autem modo cervix ea parte secta est, &c.?

With regard to the transversa plaga, it should seem by the use of that term, when he describes the manner of cutting women, that it was transverse with respect to the perineum; and indeed, it is natural to suppose, when the stone was brought forward by the fingers, and the neck only of the bladder was to be cut, that the incision should be made in that direction. But those, who contend that the transversa plaga was made transverse with respect only to the first incision, may urge, that Celsus in this very passage orders the incision of the neck of the bladder to be made so large, that the opening in the iter urinÆ may exceed the dimensions of the stone. If, therefore, Celsus in this place intends that the urethra should be opened, one would suppose the incision must be made according to the length of that canal; but I believe it may be questioned, whether Celsus is sufficiently accurate in his notions of the anatomy of these parts, to determine his meaning by that expression.

It is very remarkable, that how much soever this operation of Celsus’s may have engaged the attention of later ages, neither Galen, Oribasius, nor Ægineta make the least mention of his method: nay Ægineta (lib. vi. cap. 60.) describes the cutting on the gripe nearly as it has been practised in our own age.

30. A crotchet, in the original uncus.) Our author here describes the instrument he mentions, and as the use is the same, and the form not very different from that once employed by modern surgeons, I have taken the liberty to use their term. But the reader will please to observe, that this uncus is different from that mentioned in chapter xxix. used in extracting a dead foetus.

31. On the external part smooth.) As the ancient editions have exteriori, which is made extremely clear by our author’s description, Qua corpori jungitur, it is hardly worth while to observe that interiori in Linden must be an error of the press.

32. Knees.) Other copies have inguinibus, instead of in genibus.

33. Which by pressing upon the bladder.) Instead of Atque vesicam urgendo, in Linden and Almeloveen, I read QuÆ vesicam urgendo, with Nicolaus, Pachel, Pinzi, and several other old editions.

34. Into the anus. In anum.) This is the reading of all the copies, which I have seen; but it is highly probable our author wrote colem for anum. For as I see no propriety in introducing a pipe into the anus, so in the very case before us, a catheter in the urethra, is at present esteemed the best method of cure.

35. Sore places.) It appears that in this place, Celsus uses the word cicatrix for a wound as well as a scar, of which I do not remember another instance in his work.

36. Which are brought to digestion.) I have here followed the old reading, in quibus pus moveri debet, because I think it more agreeable to our author’s practice.——Constantine had inserted non, in which he was followed by Linden and Almeloveen; he supported his correction by referring to p.290. lib. 5. in the original, where Celsus gives directions about a hÆmorrhage from wounds; but I own I can see nothing there to incline me to his opinion.