[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?