Theanthropos: or, God made man.: A tract proving the nativity of our Saviour to be on the 25. of December. / By John Selden, that eminently-learned antiquary, late of the Inner-Temple.

SECT. VII. The chief Objections that are made against this dayes being the true time of the birth, with plain Answers to them.

THe Objections against this received o∣pinion or tradition of the day made in later time are chiefly two; the one taken out of the enumeration of those circular courses, of the Priests divided into their 24. families, as is before expressed; and the other from the circumstances of the time of the year of this birth mentioned in holy Writ. For the first, divers Chronologers, af∣ter they have according to their own fancies altered the years of account from our Savi∣ours birth, (some making it one, some two, some three, some more years ancienter than

the Dionysian Epocha received in the Church) then, that they may settle also the very day of the birth, or at least the time of the year wherein the day fell, they calculate by those weekly ministrations of the 24. courses of the Priests, to find out the week wherein the course of Abia (of which Zachary was) mini∣stred in the Temple; for then would it fol∣low, that the time of Johns conception, from which the conception, and birth of our Savi∣our was accounted would nearly, if not ex∣actly be found also. For the Text is, That after those dayes (of his ministration) his wife Elizabeth conceived, and hid her self five months, &c. For example, some here supposing in their chronology that the birth was two years before the vulgarly-received time, and in the MMMMDCCXI. year of the Julian period, thus work in calculation to find out the time of the year when our Saviour was born; they observe first that Antiochus pol∣luted the Temple, and discontinued the dai∣ly Sacrifices, and so by consequence the con∣tinuance of these courses; then they say that Judas Macchabeus, upon the new Dedication of the Temple recontinued the daily Sacrifi∣ces, and by a like consequence restored the courses, and in restoring of them began with the first, that is, the course of Jehoiarid, and this in the 25. day of the Hebrew Moneth Caslea, in the MMMMDXLIX. year of the Julian period, which agrees with the 24. of

November of that year; this day fell on Munday, so that the continuance of the course of Ieheiarid was (according to the first constitution) till the morning of the Sabbath following, the next Sabbath before this new Dedication of the Temples falling so on the 22. of November: From this renewing of the courses they thus reckon; from the course of Ichoiarid, being the first, to that of Abia, being the eighth, must intercede 49. dayes; so that the course of Abia began on the 10. of Ianuary MMMMDL. year of the Iulian Pe∣riod; having then before supposed that the year of the birth was the MMMMDCCXI. year of the Iulian Period, and that the con∣ception of St. Iohn was in the year preceding, that is, in the year MMMMDCCX. they account over the whole cycles of those 24. courses that intercede from the course of A∣bia in Ianuary of the year MMMMDL. and thence observe at what time the course of A∣bia falls again in that MMMMDCCX. year of the Iulian Period; thus they find that in those 160. years 349. of those courses being past, the course of Abia being the last (in this computation, which begins at the next from it) of the 349. falls exactly to begin upon the 21. of Iuly (being the Sabbath) of the year MMMMDCCX. and so ends upon the 28. of the same July, that is, the morning of the Sabbath following: By which they conclude, that upon or immediately after the

28. of the same July St. John was concei∣ved; according to the Text, that tells us, Af∣ter the dayes of Zacharies ministration, &c. This being granted, it would follow that the birth of our Saviour (according to the vulgar cal∣culation from the time of St. Johns concep∣tion) would be in October or November of the following year, that is, of the MMMMDCCXI. of the Iulian Period. O∣thers by another liberty in this kind of num∣bering, placing it in September, others other∣wise, while they fetch their arguments out of the revolutions of their courses.

The other Objection, that is, from the circumstances of the time of the year of this birth, is out of the holy Text; where it is written, that there were Shepheards in the same countrey abiding in the fields, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. and keeping watch over their flock by night, and this at the time of the birth: This, say some, of all times fits not the midst of Win∣ter, or December; but rather the Spring, Summer or Autumn, when the temper or heat of the night permit both sheep and shepherd to be in the fields.

But neither of these reasons have any weight against that received tradition of the 25. of December, First, for the 24. courses, it were something indeed if we exactly knew with which of the courses Iudas Macchabe∣us began his Instauration of the Sacrifices;

for supposing then that from this beginning and new dedication untill Zacharies ministra∣tion no disturbance of the continuance of those courses had hapned, & also that had the just number of years fully agreed upon from the same dedication to our Saviours Birth, it were such an argument as could not in any way be exceeded, so that we also otherwise allow the common calculation of time that was used by the Fathers out of St. Luke, in regard only of the distance between the con∣ception of St. Iohn, and the conception and Birth of our Saviour. For St. John was, as they commonly agree conceived presently upon the end of Zacharies Ministration, and this conception once fixed were a constant E∣pocha (according to the vulgarly-receiv'd in∣terpretation of St. Luke) from whence the time of the year at least of our Saviours Birth-night may be clearly collected. But on the other side, if we fail in the certainty of the beginning of the courses, who sees not that nothing can be concluded out of them to satisfie such a judgement as dares not rely up∣on such conjecturall inferences without an o∣pen clearnesse in their antecedents? Now for that matter, no old Stories have mention of the name of that particular course with which Iudas Macchabaeus began; but they onely shew the new dedication, in which it may be granted that there was an instaura∣tion of the courses; but whether by begin∣ning

again (as they suppose) with that of Ie∣heiarid, which is first in Davids distribution, or with that of Jedaiah, being the second or with any other of the 24. nothing is left to in∣struct us; and we know that through Amio∣chus his prophanation of the Temple, the courses were discontinued in the 143. year from Selucu•• Nicanor, and that upon the 25. of Casleu, and that upon the same day five years after the sacrifices, and by conse∣quence the courses were restored. But it is neither known what course was then in Mi∣nistration, when Antiochus prophan'd the Temple (for we have no certain Epocha from which that can be deduced) or with what course the first week after the dedication was served: How then is it possible to reckon by the cycles of those courses, and so find the just time of this of Abia, or the eight? No more then it might be possible for one who knew only we had 12 moneths in the year, but withall were wholly ignorant when the first began, could yet tell at what season the 8. fell? And for that their conjecture of the beginning with the course of Jehoiarib, be∣cause that was the first in Davids distributi∣on, it is both in it self a very weak one and perhaps expresly against the strictness us'd a∣mong the Iews in observation of those cour∣ses. For besides that, no testimony at all as∣sures us but that any other of the courses as well as that of Ichoiarib (according to the op∣portunity

of time, and fitnesse of persons) might be the first at that new dedication. We have it confessed by the greatest of them which this way impugne the receiv'd tradi∣tion, that the certainty of the cycles of those 24. courses was so carefully kept so long as the sacrifices continued, that no one course might supply the room of another, against the order of succession in their cycles: For ex∣ample, if that of Iehoiarib were for this week, then of necessity that of Iedaiah, being the second in the cycle, must be for the week fol∣lowing, and that of Harim for the third week, that of Seorim for the fourth, and so the rest according to their succession in the cycle; and this insomuch, that if (for the purpose) that of Harim should have missed at the Temple at the third week, after the end of the course of Iedaiah, yet might not the service be supplyed either by the follow∣ing course of Scorim, or by the continuance of that of Iedaiah; neither might any other minister in the Temple that week, nor might that of Scorim (being the next in the cycle) begin till the Sabbath following. And to this purpose also, they bring that old Canon of the Iewes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. Every Priest and every Levite that puts himself into the ministrati∣on of any of his fellows is punishable with death. And by this also they understand that in Io∣sephus, † where he saies that the daily sacri∣fice

failed upon the 17. day of the Macedoni∣an moneth Panemus (which was the 17. day of their Tammuz, whereon the Iews keep a solemn Fast to this day and that this was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. for want of those that should Minister, as if onely (as they understand it) the reason were, because the course of that week failed, and might not be by their Ca∣nons supplyed either by the preceding course, or that which was the next week to succeed, nor by any other. This being thus confessed by them, they should otherwise have fearched in their way of proof out of those courses accounted from the new Dedi∣cation under Iudas Macchabaeus: For upon this supposition, they should first have been sure what had been the last course at the time of Antiochus his prophanation; then should they have reckoned over the cycles from that course, and so have observed from which of the 24. the Ministration beginning on the Sabbuth, being the 23. of Casleu in the 148. year (of Seleucus, or Dilkarnon) would hap∣pen; and thence might they have reckoned forward to search out that of Abia, in this question of Zacharies Ministration. For if there were such a carefull avoiding of sup∣plying the course of one by another, then followes it plainly, that it was cer∣tainly known at he time of Antiochus his pro∣phanation, to which of the courses the Mi∣nistration five years from that week would

necessarily belong as it was then known what course was in the present ministration: For example, admit five years were com∣plete from the end of the week of the pro∣phanation and discontinuance of the courses under Antiochus to the end of the week of the Dedication; and suppose also that the first course, that is of Iehoiarid, had served in the Temple in the week of prophanation, then must it necessarily first follow, that the course of Iedaiah on the second, must have served in the week following, that is, the first week of those five years: Now in those five years (taking in about a day to make the numbers round in the example) we have CCLXI. weeks, and 261. weeks are ten com∣plete cycles of those 24. courses, and 21. weeks of advantage to go on with to make an eleventh cycle: If then the strict observa∣tion of keeping every course to his own week (which was as well foreseen alwayes by the revolution of those cycles as any im∣moveable Feast, or the Dominical letter in our Ecclesiastick accounts is fore-known) were in such use, then clearly what course soever should have served in the sixth week of this eleventh cycle, which in our example falls to that of Iedaiah: Reckon with him in this eleventh cycle till the 21. course (as the weeks require) and then the course of Gamul is proper to the very week of the new Dedi∣cation; and this way, if the course which

served at the prophanation were known, it were easie to find which of them should by that tradition of the Iews have served at the Dedication: But when we neither know which of them served at the prophanation, nor which at the Dedication, what rashness is it to rely upon a bare conjecture; and that also such an one as is adverse to that received tradition of the exact keeping of the cycles; and is in substance confessed to be so by such as have used it? These things thus consider∣ed, it follows, that they which insist upon this argument, taken from the beginning of the 24. courses in that of Iehoiarib under In∣das Macchabeus, fail in their ground, and prove nothing at all against our received tra∣dition: The weakness of their Objection al∣so is therein increased, that their chronolo∣gy in it is so uncertain, that they know not clearly in what year to fix the birth; some of them making it one, some two, some three or more years before the common E∣pocha, and this also upon conjecture. But while they vary so much in the year, they have little reason to be confident (out of their own grounds only, wherein they re∣fuse this so ancient tradition) that they can in their supposed years be sure of the very day of which no other old testimony in∣structs them, then either what we have be∣fore remembred, or that which shall present∣ly be both delivered, and so cleared also

that it may not have weight against what is already justified. And it might easily fall out, that the certain year of the birth might be forgotten, or at least not so remembred, or the memory of it not so preserved, as that later posterity could clearly have notice of it; and yet that the day of the moneth on which the Birth sell, might by the continu∣ance of tradition (as it hath been) be clearly known. The anniversary celebration gave the day certain to posterity, which could not thence find any thing to rectifie them in the exactnesse of the year, as we see also in an example of the Roman States. They clearly knew that the birth of Servius Tullius, who was the first that was King there a∣gainst the will of the common people, first fell upon the Nores of some moneth, but they knew not at all of what moneth, nor in what year, for ought appears: And there∣fore they avoided publick meetings in the City upon the Nones of every moneth through the year, that so they might be sure to avoid them (as supposed most unlucky to the State) anniversarily upon his birth∣day. This anniversary avoiding publick meetings, or Fairs, on the Nones, continued the certainty of his being born on the Nones of some moneth, though the moneth were unknown; and so did the anniversary cele∣bration continue from the Disciples to the day of the moneth, though perbaps the year

be not clearly enough certain. And there was other reason also why the certainty of the year might be unknown: For there is nothing that preserves such a certainty, but either such expresse testimonie of Authors as cannot be questioned, or else a continuance of vulgar supputation of time from, or very near from the time of the Birth it self. But we have herein had neither of these. For the first, that is, the testimony of old Authors, they vary in the years of Augustus and of the Consuls, which are the Characters by which they design it; and besides, they are not of such antiquity as that we can clearly rely up∣on them; and for that of the vulgar supputa∣tion of time, the common account either in Instruments, Letters, Receipts, or the like; was not all made by the years of our Lord, till between D. and DC. after the Birth; that is, after the time that Dionysius made his cycle of DXXXII. by multiplication of the cycle of the Sun into the Golden number, and from that time brought in (according to his own suppositions) the supputation of time by the years of our Lord. For before that age the Christians use was, either to note times by the Consuls of the year, as the ancient course of Rome was; and as we see in old General Councils, and in Receipts of the Emperours, in the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian; whence also Constantine ordained it for a † Law; that if any Edicts or Constitu∣tions

of the Emperours should be found fine die & Consule, they should be held of no au∣thority; or else by that Aera (commonly called Aera Hispanica) which began under Augustus 38. years before the Dionysian Epo∣cha of our Saviour, and was chiefly used in Spain; as we see both in the Titles of the old Councils of Sivil, Bracara and Toledo, and in the Inscriptions of that Country; but also it was in use in Africk and France, as we may collect by most of the Titles of the Councils of Carthage, of Arles, and Valence; unless we suppose that Isidore (from whose Volumes of Councils we have these) being a Spariard, used the supputation by that Aera in the Ti∣tles, without warrant of the original Copies. But we have in the very Acts of the fourth Council of Arles use of this Aera; which was also in the accounts of time at Rome, as is seen in the Epistles of Pope Leo subscribed with the years of it. Others denoted the years by an account from some regaining of their freedom; as those of Antiochia did from Epocha 48. years before our Saviour, which is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so frequently spoken of in Evagrius his Church∣story; or from that of Seleucus or Dhilkarnun, beginning after Alexanders death. Others from the year of the Creation as the Greek Church: others from a time that fell 283. years after our Saviour (as those of Aegypt, and the adjoyning Churches) that is, from

Dioclesians persecution; which in Aegypt and Aethiopia is to this day retained; and by the Christians that use Arabique cal∣led 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tarick Alshehu∣da, The Epocha of the Martyrs; and among the Aethiopians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: a∣math Michrath, i. The year of Grace. So was also that of Spain in common use there, till somewhat above 300. years since it was by special constitution abrogated, and the year of our Lord made the beginning of the account of time; and this alteration is by the Spanish Lawyers referred to Iohn the first King of Castile. Duravit (Aera) usque ad tempora Iohannis primi (saith † Lopez) qui jussit apponi annos Nativitatis Domini. So also writes Aze∣vedo, so others of them; whence it appears, that anciently, till long after our Saviour, no account was vulgarly made by the years of his birth in which the true year might be by a continuall tradition retain'd: and also, that although about the time of Iustinian (that is, when Dionysius began his cycle) the course of reckoning from the Birth was brought into use, yet it was received but in few parts of Christendom, & that principally within Ita∣ly, in the instruments, it seems, of the Court of Rome. And it is observable here also, that with us in England however our ancientest Stories of the time since Christianity, both in Saxon

and Latine, are deduced by distinction made out of the years of our Saviour, and that ac∣cording to the Court of Rome; our Church-proceedings and instruments belonging to that jurisdiction they have anciently had, and still retain an account by those years; yet the characters of time, both in the plead∣ings and instruments of the secular jurisdicti∣on, hath been ever and is chiefly by the years only of our Sovereigns, Kings or Queens; so are our Records distinguished, of Pleas, Pa∣tents, Parlaments, and the like; so are the instruments of conveyance, and what else is of that nature: In which, doubtless, the an∣cient course of computation is so retained, that it shews us that none other hath been ever proper to the practice of our secular ju∣risidiction. And although indeed at this day clearly it be not of exception or erroneous, if the times in a pleading or instrument be di∣stinguished onely by the year of our Lord, yet anciently it was much stood upon under Edward the Third, when in a Writ of An∣nuity brought by the Prior of St. Trinity of London against an Abbot, the Prior declared upon a composition bearing date in such a year of the Lord, and the Defendants Coun∣sel took exceptions to it, supposing that none should declare at the Common Law of the year of our Lord, but of the King; but upon deliberation it was resolved good, for this reason onely, because the composition

had onely the date of the Lord; as if proper∣ly and necessarily otherwise it should have been of the year of the King: And so, doubt∣less, did they think who in the times of King Henry the Third, and King Iohn, not onely carefully used the years of the King onely, as at this day; but also in Recogni∣sances entred for payment of money a year or two after the entry, they denoted the time of payment by the year of the King, that should happen onely if he reigned so long; as in the 41. of Henry the Third the Recognisance should bind the Recognisor to pay money in 42. or 43. of his Reign. All which further consirms, that the computati∣on of time by the years of our Lord, even after such time as it came at all to be in use, hath not been near so vulgarly received as the anniversary celebration of the day of the birth, under the name of the old civil Sol∣stice or the 25. of December; and therefore it may easily be, that the very year may be uncertain for want of such a continuance of tradition, which might have come to us from the time of the birth, if from thence a com∣putation received at first in the Church had continued it. But the yearly celebration or memory continued even from the eldest of Christian time, hath taught us the exact day of the Moneth; therefore we have reason e∣nough still to resolve on it.

But also for farther search into what may

at all afford us any ••ertainty of the ••o••••se that Ministred at the time of St. Jol•••• Co••∣ception; if we first believe the perpetual continuance of them according to the succes∣sion in their cycles, and then also the testi∣mony of an old Jew touching the course that serv'd at the second destruction of the Tem∣ple under Vespasian, shall so have another time then hath been yet mentioned for the course of Abia in the conception of St. John, and by consequence another Birth-day of our Saviour, if we keep still the vulgar supputa∣tion of time collected out of St. Luke. That Jew is Rabbi Jose, whose words in the Seder Olam Rabba are these; when the Temple was first destroyed, it was Evening of the Sab∣bath, and the end also of the Sabbatical year, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, and the weekly course was that of Jehoiarib, and it was day of Ab; and so it was also in the time of the se∣cond destruction. If we find the course of Jehoiarib fixed at the second destruction un∣der Vespasian, that is, in the 70. year of the vulgar account from the birth, and that a∣bout the beginning of August, to which the 9. day of Ab answers: From hence there∣fore reckon by the cycles backwards into the year that precedes the Julian year, in which our Saviours birth is commonly fixed, and so between the beginning of this August in the year of the destruction, and the begin∣ning

of August preceding the vulgarly sup∣posed time of the conception of St. John, will intercede ••1. complete years, that is, 154. cycles of those courses of 24. and 9. courses over; therefore plainly in that year the course of Ichoiarth is about the 9. week from the be∣ginning of August, that is, in the end of Sep∣tember; and so it follows, that the end of the course of Abia, being the 8. fell in the end of November, or 8. weeks later than in the old calculation, which placed it in the end of September: And the birth of St. Iohn (as it is now celebrated) would thus have been in the 7. Moneth from the conception, which in nature were reasonable enough; but the ho∣ly Text well endures the common and most ancient interpretation, which denotes it to be in the 9. at least. And were this autho∣rity of Rabbi Iose to be insisted on, and the perpetual succession in the cycles of those courses in this age preceding the destruction to be resolved on, there were cause enough here to seek for another exposition of the time of the birth out of the words of the ho∣ly Text▪ For the common account from Zacharies Ministration will so fall wholly, unless we change the vulgarly-received year of our Saviours birth, and (as some do) place three or four years back more than the Dio∣nysian account doth; for so will the course of Abia be brought into September: and if we make it fall four years sooner (as Susligd

doth) that course with and also in the end of Septemb. according to the common calculation herein used by the Fathers: But I will avoid here the making of such uncertainties of thronology of years to be arguments to justi∣ste what is otherwise certain enough in the day. Neither can we rely here, either upon the perpetual succession of the course, or on the testimony of that Rabbi; for the con∣stant continuance of the courses in their suc∣cession, there is great reason in this time af∣ter Augustus to doubt of it, in regard both of the Jews doing frequently otherwise than their Canons bind them, as also in regard of some meer necessity which might occasion some change in the succession, when they were in those later dayes subject to the State of Rome. And for that of the course of Ie∣hoiarib then ministring, there is not credit enough in the Author to make us believe him: For, besides that while he tels us so, he is mistaken in the true day of the second destruction of the Temple, which fell on the 10. of Lous or August, in that year, not on the 4. which answers to his 9. of Ab; the Sacrifices, and so the courses of the Priests ceased about three weeks before, that is, on the 17 day of the Moneth Tamuz, and this for the want of Priests, as Iosephus, who knew it of himself, expresly hath written: But he tels us not a word of what course then ministred, no more doth Abraham Ben Da∣vid

in his Cabala, or he that extracted the Se∣der Olam Zuta out of the Seder Olam Rabba, where this is reported from Rabbi Iose; al∣though both these Authors speak most parti∣cularly of the second destruction of the Tem∣ple, but they abstain from this of the course then in service, as from what had been deli∣vered without warrant by Rabbi Iose, who indeed had learned from an old groundless tradition, that at the first destruction under Nebuchadnezzar, the course of Iohoiarib ser∣ved in the Temple, and that this second de∣struction was upon the same day of the same Moneth which the first was on; and because he would have all in both destructions alike, he added also, that the course of Iehoiarib ser∣ved now at the second destruction, when in∣deed no service at all was in the Temple, and that the Sacrifices and Ministration were en∣ded: So before the destruction other testi∣mony is in the Iews Liturgy, which con∣firms that of Iosephus to be infallible; on the Fast of their seventeenth of Tamuz they sing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. Because in this day the continual Sacrifice cea∣sed, this day the continual Sacrifice was taken a∣way: If the Sacrifices then, and the courses with them (for the one of them is not with∣out the other) ceased on the 17. day of Ta∣muz, what credit is to be given to him that tels us what course ministred in the Sacrifices three weeks after? which being so cleared,

there is nothing remaining in the cycles of those courses that can impugne the received tradition of this birth-day.

And for that other argument of the Shep∣herds watching in the night, what makes that against this of December? as if the shep∣herds might not properly be in the fields watching their sheep in the night at the midst of Winter, especially in so warm and con∣tinually temperate a Climate: For, although in Italy the precepts of Husbandry were, that in the Winter their sheep should be kept in Coats rather than in Fields, yet they had their Winter-feedings abroad also; and the Climate of Bethlehem is of less latitude by ten degrees than that of Rome, and is also by so much the more temperate alwayes; and e∣ven in our Climate, which is much colder than either of them, we have watching of sheep, feeding, or remaining in the fields, at this time of the year. The rest objected out of the circumstances of time, as that the birth of the Redeemer of all men should be on that day on which the creation of the first man was, that is, as they without ground sup∣pose, on the 25. of March, and such like, are far more vain, and not worthy of menti∣on. These things being at length cleared, we need not, I trust, be at all moved by the opposition of those learned men, Beroald, Paulus de Midleburgo, Suslyga, Ioseph Scali∣ger, Kepler, (although he stands fot the same

time of the year, but relies on the tradition of the day) Wolfius, Hospinian, Lidiat, Cal∣visius, Casaubon, and the rest that have both made it a question, and shewed also their o∣pinions against it.

Notes

• D. Luc. c. 2. comm. 8.
• Lib. Hasmo∣naeorum c. 1.20 & 4.52. Epit. Jasonis c. 10.15. item Jo∣seph Ben Gori∣on l. 3: c. 13.
• Vide sis in∣primis Jos. Scalig. Isag. canon. l. 3. p. 298.
• †

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Macrobius, l. 1. Saturnal. c. 13.
• Beda de Temp. rat. c. 45.
• †

  C. Theodos. tit. de constit. prim. l. 1. si qud.
• Jos. Scalig. de emendat. Temp. p. 465, & 629.
• †

  ad l. 52. par∣tit. 3. tit. 18. de las escrituras.
• ad l. 3. Reco∣pil. l. 2. tit. 1. de las leges.
• 23 Ed 3. fol. 21 b. 24 Ed. 3. fol. 51 a. & 53 b.
• Archia. de temp. reg. Joh. & Hen. 3.
• Edit. Basil. p. 125.
• D. L••c: c. 1. com. 36. & 56.
• Joseph 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Virgil. Georg. 3. & vide Co∣lumel. l. 7. c. 4. Varre. l. 2. c. 2. & Pallad. in Novemb.