1. Morgagni[ JR ], with Paaw, thinks it probable, that there is some chasm in the text, because Celsus does not describe the coronal suture, which he could not be ignorant of.

2. Over these muscles too, &c. Super bos quoque musculos, qui tempora contegunt, os medium, in exteriorem partem inclinatam, positum est.) Thus Linden and Almeloveen. All the other copies have, sub his musculis, qui tempora connectunt; in the following words they differ, which Ronsseus would read thus, os medium in interiorem partem inclinatam; in this he was followed by Paaw, who was of opinion, that Celsus intended here the processus petrosus; which Morgagni thinks quite foreign to the question. It is probable, says the same author, that Linden changed sub his musculis into super hos musculos, to make the description answer to the processus zygomaticus, which our author describes a little after, under the name of jugale. His own conjecture is, that Celsus wrote sub his musculis, qui tempora continent, and that he meant that part of the temporal bone which is covered by the crotaphite muscle. Morgag. Ep. 7. p. 212. 214. But as this description of a bone is inserted in the midst of the sutures, there is some foundation to suspect the whole to be an interpolation.

3. The maxilla is a soft bone. Maxilla vero est molle os.) Thus all the editions read, but Morgagni[ JS ] suspects molle should be mobile, a moveable bone; for Celsus himself calls the sternum a strong and hard bone, which is not to be compared in that respect with the maxilla.—It is no objection to this reading, that the author adds, solaque ea movetur, for that is to exclude the upper jaw-bone. The reader will please to observe, that maxilla, by our author, is applied only to the lower jaw-bone, for he includes the upper jaw-bones under the malÆ.

4. Is broader below.) I have here followed the proposed emendation of Morgagni, infra for intra. Ep. 1. p.40.

5. And all the vertebrÆ.) What follows relating to the structure and connection of the vertebrÆ, appears to be very much corrupted, in so much, that the reading in all the copies makes our author contradict himself. I shall be content with mentioning some observations of Morgagni’s upon the reading of Linden. The words in the parenthesis (says he) exceptis tribus summis, except the three uppermost, were surely never wrote by Celsus, at least not as they stand; for if the three first vertebrÆ want depressions in their superior surfaces, how comes the first to receive into its depressions the two small processes of the head, as our author immediately adds?

The adding of parvis to tuberibus he judges to be superfluous, because Celsus had said just before exiguis ejus processibus. He conjectures that secunda superioris parti inferiori inseritur is interpolated, because the connection is more natural without these words. A little after follows tertia eodem modo secundam excipit, as if a process stood out from the inferior part of the second vertebra, to be surrounded by the third in the same manner, that its processus dentatus is surrounded by the first; so that all these five words he seems with justice inclined to expunge.

After these Linden adds, Jamque vertebra tertia tubercula, quÆ inferiori inserantur, excipit; which at first view must appear highly absurd. I therefore have followed, in the translation, the reading of Nicolaus, Pachel, Pinzi, Stephens, and Morgagni’s manuscript, exigit for excipit.—See Morgagni Ep. vii. from 173 to 177.

6. The six inferior ones.) Almeloveen and Linden read here septem inferiores, others write undecim, as if the following description related to all the ribs. But that is false, as appears by the sequel, and it is plain, from the whole passage, our author could write nothing else than sex.

7. But at the first rib, &c.) This whole paragraph is extremely obscure. The variation of reading in the older copies does not in the least lessen the difficulty. If we were allowed to understand by jugulum, the neck, the whole description, lame as it is, could then answer no bone but the clavicle; but jugulum in no other place of this work seems to be used for any thing else but the clavicle, so that id ipsum, &c. would appear to be the beginning of the description of that bone.—Morgagni thinks, that though the description is far from just, yet that most of the words, as they now stand, relate to the spine of the scapula, which may be said to sustain the clavicle; and it is observable, that if our author does not intend the spina scapulÆ here, he makes no mention of it at all. Vide Morgagni, Ep. vii. p.177. I must own the reading appears to me so much depraved, that it is impossible to determine, precisely, what our author has had in view.

8. Is a little concave, &c.) This translation follows Linden and Almeloveen. In all the other copies the reading is leniter gibbus, et in priorem et posteriorem, interiorem et exteriorem partem, as if the bone was concave on no side. Morgagni[ JT ] therefore proposes a reading agreeable to truth. Leniter gibbus in priorem et posteriorem et interiorem, cavus in exteriorem; i. e. gently convex in its fore and posterior, and internal part; concave externally.

9. The two bones of the fore arm at first, &c.) The reading in Linden and Almeloveen is primo vero duo radii et brachii ossa, &c. which at once appears to be wrong, because Celsus had said before, quÆ res sedem brachio prÆstat, quod constat ex duobus ossibus, to which two he immediately gives the names of Radius and Cubitus, so that it would be sufficient, as Morgagni observes, to have wrote duo brachii ossa, or if they must be named duo radii et cubiti ossa according to the first of which I have translated. The other editions have primo vero duobus radiis brachii ossa. See Morgagni, Ep. i. p.28.

10. Properly enough, &c.) Sura was the Roman name for the calf of the leg, whence our author says, that name is properly enough given to the fibula.

11. The same may be collected.) Colligi idem potest. Morgagni[ JU ] would have the old reading restored here, nigrities colligi quidem potest. A blackness may be discovered, &c. because these words in the next chapter, sive autem nigrities quam terebra detexit, &c. make it plain the terebra was only used in sounding the blackness.

12. But if the blackness goes thorough.) Sin autem nigrities, and then there follows est aut si caries, which appears a manifest error by reason of what follows. With Constantine and Ronsseus, I therefore judge these words should be expunged, and have taken no notice of them in the translation.

13. Is made by the angle of a chisel.) I here take the reading of the older editions, angulo scalpri sinus exiguus fit. I suppose sit in Linden and the later copies has been a typographical error. See Morgagni, Ep. vi. p.162.

14. Being raised in the same.) I have here translated agreeably to the old reading excitatÆ nares, instead of which, by a palpable error, Linden and Almeloveen had exercitatÆ nares. Morgagni, Ep. i. p.29.

15. The swelled part.) In Almeloveen and Linden it is tumens locus, instead of which the old reading was better, tum is locus, then this part; because our author had not mentioned any swelling before. Vid. Morgagni, Ep. v. p.140.

16. For if any part is separated from a vertebra, or is any way broken.) This is according to the reading of Linden and Almeloveen; but several of the older copies have Si id, quod ex vertebra excedit, aliquo modo fractum est; that is, If the part, that stands out from a vertebra (the spinal process) is any way fractured. This agrees very well with what is said afterwards of the fragments being spinous.

17. Which should be rolled about the fracture. QuÆ circa fracturam ter voluta.) I find no various reading in any of the editions, but I think I can produce one from our author himself, who is far from a profusion of words and repetitions, and thinks this circumstance of importance enough to make a rule bcsy itself in the following words; Satisque est eam ter hoc quoque modo circuere. Upon his authority I have therefore ventured to omit the first ter.

18. And if means only are found, &c.) The period in Linden and Almeloveen runs thus, Ac, si nihil aliud quam dolori occurrendum est, idem, qui fuit, ejus usus est; that is, ‘And if nothing else is to be done but to remove the pain, its use continues the same as before.’ As it is evident this cannot be our author’s meaning, I have followed in the translation the old reading occursum for occurrendum.

19. Broader than the wound.) I follow here the old reading latioribus for laxioribus in Linden, of which I could find no proper sense. In the following words I have also removed the point at vulnus potest as the ancient editions have it, and the connection seems to require.

20. Must be applied with that part, &c.) This is according to Linden’s edition.—None of the more ancient seem to give the true reading of this whole passage taken together, but some of them afford hints. Instead of AcutÆ ossis prominentis cuspidi, Pinzi has Recte se habendi capiti; others Recte se habenti capiti. Upon the whole I think Morgagni’s[ JV ] reflections upon this passage extremely probable; our author had before ordered a sharp point of a fragment to be either cut off or filed down and smoothed: he is now considering how the fragment itself is to be replaced. If we read it thus, the sense seems to be pretty clear: Vulsella, quali fabri utuntur, injicienda est capiti ossis recte habenti, ab ea parte, qua sima est, &c. that is, ‘A workman’s vulsella should be applied with that part, which turns inward, to the sound end of the bone, that by its convex part the prominent bone may be thrust into its place.’

21. Unite obliquely. Solent tamen interdum adversa inter se ossa confervere.) Thus Linden and Almeloveen.—But by what follows it is plain adversa was never wrote by our author in this place. Many editions have transversa; others diversa, which I think is the only probable reading, and have taken it in the same sense as Morgagni does.—Ep. vi. p.164.

22. Of the scapula recedes from the humerus. Os scapularum ab humero recedit.) Morgagni very ingeniously suspects that instead of ab humero our author wrote ab jugulo, because the clavicle is joined with the scapula, as the tibia with the fibula. Ep. vii. p.209. As it now stands ab humero, it would come under the second head; Modo articuli suis sedibus excidunt.

23. Yet it is of no use. Et ut aliquid decoris eo loco, sic nihil usus admittitur.) Thus Linden and Almeloveen, and I find no other variation in any of the copies, except sit for sic, which does not alter the sense. Our author had said immediately before, ‘That bones thus separated never come together again,’ which makes it improbable he would add, ‘That some comeliness would remain.’ For this reason I suspect we should read amittitur for admittitur, and then the meaning will be quite opposite, thus, ‘And though their comeliness is impaired, yet their use continues the same as before.’

24. Is less firmly held after it is reduced.) In a luxation of the humerus from a lax habit Hippocrates advises the use of the actual cautery, but with great caution, for fear of injuring the blood vessels or tendons; and when the ulcers are clean and fit for cicatrizing, to bind the arm close down to the side, and allow no motion, that the cicatrix may contract the part the more, and strengthen the joint. He censures the practice of his predecessors, who cauterized on the external and anterior side, which ever way the bone had been luxated, and observes that when the humerus is liable to slip into the arm-pit, this would rather push it downward, than prevent its luxation. He proposed therefore the new method of applying the cautery to that part, toward which the bone is liable to be protruded. Hippocrat. de Articul. p.787, 788, and 789.

25. That even frequent speaking, by the motion of the mouth, hurts the nerves of the temples.) This is according to the reading of Linden and Almeloveen. The old editions have adeo ut sermo quoque frequens motu oris per nervos lÆdat; that is, that even frequent speaking, by the motion of the mouth by the nerves, hurts. See Morgagni, ep. v. p.130.

26. Tone of the nerves be restored.) I follow here the old editions in reading restituta for destituta.

27. That the finger may be restored, &c.) In Linden and Almeloveen, ut ita in locum, unde lapsus est digitus, restituatur. [ JW ]Morgagni observes, that our author had said, there were as many different cases and the same signs as in the hands; but according to this reading he takes no notice of the cure of lateral luxations. Whereas the whole is set right by restoring the old reading, which was, instead of these words, that are quoted from the original, Atque id, quod in latus elapsum est, digitis restitui, i. e. “and that which is luxated laterally ought to be reduced by the fingers.”

28. Having treated of the humerus.) Cum de humeris dixerim. We might here (says Morgagni) have taken humeris for the superior extremities as cruribus for the inferior, but the MS. and all my editions have cum de his dixerim: de his quoque (or as Stephens has it de iis quoque) quÆ in cruribus, &c. Ep. vi. p.167.

29. By keeping the middle or upper part of the joint in some canaliculus.) This whole sentence Potest tamen conditus articulus medius aut summus canaliculo aliquo contineri, in all the old editions is placed at the end of the 24th chap. and not here.—But [ JX ]Morgagni suspects, and as it appears to me, very justly, it should be rather referred to luxated fingers than toes, and that Linden guided by some MS. had transferred it from the 24th to the 19th, from whence it was transposed to this place by the carelessness of the copiers, where it stands very improperly.