[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.