[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.