from fomething; but what that fomething is, we muft now inquire. There is a twofold motion of the feeds; one natural, which is downwards, and proceeds from weight; the other violent, which is upwards, and occafioned by ftroke. Now it is manifeft that all things are not nade by ftroke, because fome motion proceeds from weight. But fince the motion that proceeds from weight is natural, and keeps due on always in the fame tenor, it is no more favourable or conducive to liberty, than the motion caused by stroke. Nothing, therefore, can prevent the mind, which confifts of feeds, from being determined by a certain inward neceflity, that is to say, by the motion that proceeds from weight, but the declination of the feeds, which motion of theirs being made in no certain nor determinate place, nor at any certain or determinate time, can alone be the cause of li berty, or freedom of will.

Ver. 280. Lucretius fays,

Id facit exiguum clinamen principiorum
Nec regione loci certa, nec tempore certo.

66

In this difputation for the declination of his atoms, this is the third time that our poet has repeated thefe words, "nec regione loci certa, nec tempore certo," and as often too has our tranflator omitted them; even though they are an effential part of the argument, and the main fupport of it. For if the declination were made at a certain time, and in a certain place, the neceffity would be equally inevitable. And of this he himself was afterwards aware, as may be feen in his explication of these paffages in his Latin edition of this author; where he has given them the fame interpretation that I have done in thefe annotations.

Ver. 281. Lucretius has already taught that feeds are not liable to change; and now in these thirteen verfes he afferts, that the univerfal mafs of matter can never increase or diminish; for not one feed dies, whereby a gap might be made in it, and no new feed is introduced, whereby it may become more clofe; but it remains always the fame. Then he affirms that the motions of the feeds are immutable; that they have always moved in the fame manner they now do, and will always continue in the fame motion to all futurity. And therefore, that whatever things have been produced heretofore, the like things may alfo be produced now. For where the fame feeds, and the fame weight, always remain, and where no external force can be introduced, there too the fanie motion that proceeds from that weight, must of neceflity be also.

Ver. 294. Left any one fhould object against Lucretius, that the fenfes themfelves overthrow this opinion of the perpetual motion of the atoms; for if the univerfal matter be agitated, how comes it to pass that the all, the rè war, feems buried in fo profound a tranquillity. The poet anfwers in thefe twenty-five verfes, that this objection is very weak; for the motion of the feeds muft of neceffity be imperceptible, fince the feeds themselves are invisible to the fharpeft fight. Then he adds, that the motions even of fenfible things

often cannot be perceived by the eyes of fuch as behold them from afar; which he illuftrates by the example of fheep frifking up and down on the fide of a hill, and of an army moving to and fro in a plain. He means the whole mafs of all things; the univerfe.

Ver. 296. The atoms of which all things are compofed.

Ver. 313. We have an excellent defcription of this in Sir R. Blackmore's K. Arthur: The various glories of their arms combine, And in one fearful dazzling medley join. The air above, and all the fields beneath Shine with a bright variety of death. The fun starts back to fee the plains display Their rival luftre, and terreftrial day.

Ver. 319. He has difputed at large of the foli dity of the atoms, and of their properties, weight and motion, that proceed from it. He is now ing to treat of another of their properties, which is figure, and this relates to their fize or magnitude; for figure is the bound and manner of magnitude. And firft, he afferts in eight verses, that atoms are of different figures; not that their fhape is difcernible to the eye any more than their magnitude, which is imperceptible, as has been faid already : but because their different figu ration may be made evident by feveral arguments. Epicurus in Plutarch teaches that atoms, a 129 σχήματα λόγω θεάρια, have proper figures that are difcernible to the eye of reafon. And in the epiftle to Herodotus : τὰ ἄξομα τῶν σωμάτων καὶ μετὰ, ἐξῶν τὲ αἱ συγκρίσεις γίνονται σὲ εἰς ὡ διαλύονται, ἀπείλησα ἴςι τὴν διαφόραις τῶν σχημάτων ὁ γὰρ δύνατον γένεσθαι τὰς τοσαύτας διαφόρας ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν (perhaps ἀτόμων) σχημάτων περιειλημμένων.

Ver. 323. In the first place, he teaches that feeds are of different figures; because it is not likely that thofe corpufcles, being infinite as they are, fhould be all of the fame figure. Confider any things whatever, the greater their number is, the greater too, for the most part, is the variety of their figures; and therefore, what we ought to believe likewife of the atoms.

Ver. 327. Secondly, in thefe fix verfes he argues for the different figures of his atoms, from the various shapes and figures of all natural things that are compofed of them; as men, beafts, birds, fish, &c.

Ver. 328. This is certainly a very proper epithet for fish; though Ariftotle, and fome others, will not allow all fifh to be mute.

Ver. 333. Thirdly, he fhows in twenty-five verses, that this different figuration is very manifest and visible, not only in all kinds of things taken collectively, but even in the individuals of the fame kind; for among brute beats the dans know their young, and the young their dams, only by their different figuration. Then he illuftrates this argument with an elegant and lively defcription of a cow paflionately bemoaning the lofs of her facrificed calf; to which he lafly adds a hint of the agnition that lambs have of their mothers.

Vet. 340. Of the maternal affection of beasts | to their young, fee Oppian "AAUT. a. ver. 724. and Ovid, Faft. 4.

Ver. 358. In the four first of these seven verses he teaches, that the fanie fpecial, or, as they call it, individual difference may be difcerned by any who attentively confider them, not only in the ftalks and ears, but in the very grains of corn, in hells and the like; and in the three laft verfes he concludes, that the feeds themselves, fince they are not made by any artift, after one and the fame fhape and form, ought no less than the reft of things to be adorned with various and different figures.

Ver. 365. He proves that this contention for the variety of figures is not vain and ufelefs, but ever neceflary for the explication of feveral phenomenons of nature; and from those very phenomenons he fully proves the variety of the tigures of his atoms. And first, in seven verfes he teaches why the fire of lightning penetrates things more eafily, and with greater force than the fire that proceeds from oil, pitch, wood, &c. which is becafe the fire of lightning confifts of fmall and fubtle feeds; but thofe of the fire that comes from oil, &c. are thicker and more blunt. Thus fome feeds are lefs than others, according to the doctrine of Lucretius.

Ver. 366. He means that penetrates more eafily, for lightning lets out the wine, and leaves the veffel unhurt; fpares the scabbard, and melts the fword within it; and does feveral other wonderful things of like nature, which our fires will Lot do.

Ver. 372. In thefe four verfes, he teaches that this divertity of figures is the caufe that light pierces through horn, and that water ftops on its furface.

Ver. 374. Here Lucretius acknowledges, that fome feeds are less than others, though he afferted before that all feeds are leafts: yet he contradicts not himself, for by leafts, the Epicureans mean only bodies that are fimple and folid, and therefore indivifible.

Ver. 376. In these fix verfes he demonftrates, that fome feeds are not only bigger than others, but that fome are hooked and branchy, while o. thers are finooth and round. For the reason why wine paffes through a ftrainer fooner than oil, is, because the feeds of oil are full of hooks, and therefore the texture of the principles being more intricate and perplexed, they are not fo easily loofened and disjoined, to pass through the holes

of the ftrainer.

Ver. 382. In these ten verfes he urges the fame thing in an argument taken from the different tafte of things. For milk and honey are sweet, because they confift of little bodies formed in fuch a manner, that when they are poured upon the organ of the tafle, and are entering into the little pores of it, they are exactly fit for thofe fmall paffages, and thus they gently and fmoothly touch the organ, and pleasingly affect the taste. But wormwood and centaury are bitter and fharp, because the little bodies of which they are made, are form.

ed in such a manner, that when they come to enter into the little pores of the organ, they bear no proportion with them, and thus prick and hurt the particles of it, and tear and wound the organ itfelf. And hence it is reafonable to conjecture, that sweet things are compofed of smooth and round principles; and bitter things of feeds that are rough and full of hooks.

Ver. 384. Rue Lucretius mentions not rue but centaury, which is indeed a very bitter herb: the French call it fiel de terre, gail of the earth it had its name from Chiron the Centaur who first difcovered the virtues and ufe of it: for as he was handling the arms of Hercules, he chanced to wound himself in the foot with an arrow, and cured the wound by the application of this herb; of which fee meie in Pliny, lib xxv. c. 6

Ver. 385. In like manner, whoever eats of the herb fardon is faid to die of a diitorted mouth; for that herb centracts the nerves of the mouth, and caufes a violent grinning and laughing, fol. lowed by death. Hence the proverb, "Rifus Sardonius," is faid of those who laugh without cause, and when they have more reafon for forrow than for joy.

Ver. 392. He has hitherto been speaking of fweet and bitter tastes, and now he teaches, in feventeen verses, that things are pleasant or unpleasant to the other fenfes likewife, for the fame reason, that is, because the feeds of which they are compofed are fmooth and round, or rough and hooky. Thus in grateful and pleafing founds, fmeils, and colours, we muft acknowledge the feeds to be smooth and round, but in ungrateful and offenfive, hooky and rough.

Ver. 400 He alludes to the custom of the ancients in strewing the stage with saffron and other flowers, when plays were to be acted. Horace in the epiftle to Augustus:

Recte necne crocum florefque perambulet atta
Fabulam fi dubitem, &c.

And this they did to delight the audience with the fragrancy of odours.

Ver. 459. Because there are fome objects that are not altogether fo offenfive as to wound the organs of the fenfe, as bitter things do; nor fo grateful that are sweet, but rather tickle and affect them, as to delight and please them, as do the things with a fort of inoffenfive pain, if I may fo call it, we are to believe that the feeds of fuch things and rough, but that they are shaped with angles are not entirely smooth and round, nor hooky jutting out, fo that they may fometimes gently prick and tickle; but cannot wound and tear. This opinion the poet has included in five verses.

Ver. 413. Here our tranflator has not fully expreffed his author, whose words are,

Fæcula jam quo de genere 'ft, inulæque Sapores. The fœcula and the inula were two fauces of the Romans: The first of them, the fœcula, was an acid fauce, whose chief ingredient was indeed the lees of wine, (and the word properly fignifies the

lees or dregs of any liquid), as Turnebus fays on this paffage of Horace:

-acria circum

Rapula, lactuca, radices: qualia lafsum Pervellunt ftomachum, cifer, halec fœcula coa.

Lib. ii. Sat. 8.

The other, the inula, was a sweet fauce, made of the sweetish bitter root of the herb inula, elecampane, of which fee Columella, lib. xii. cap. 46. Horace too makes mention of it in the place above-cited:

Erucas virides inulis ego primus amaris
Monftravi incoquere.-

Now Lucretius fays, that the reason why the facula has an acid tafte, and the inula as it were a fweetish bitter, 18, because they do not confift of atoms that are wholly rough, or wholly fmooth, but of fuch as are of a nature between both, and have minute angles whofe points are blunted, and therefore rather tickle the organ of the taste, than hurt or wound it.

Ver. 414. In the laft place he comes to the fenfe of touch; and in thirteen verfes teaches, that the objects of that fenfe are differently figured; because heat and cold affect the organs in different manners. For Epicurus held, that fince the feeds of fire are pungent, and prick the fenfe, they must of neceflity have fome prominent angles; and that the feeds of cold have a trigonical or pyramidal figure; that is to fay, their figure confifts of four triangular faces. This we find in the epiftle to Pythocles, where giving the reafon of ice, he fays it is made xar' in

περιφορές σχηματίσμα ἐκ τῷ ὕδαλος, σύνεσιν δὲ τῶν σκαλΤηνῶν, τὸ ἐξυγονίων τῶν ἐν τῷ ὕδα]ι ὑπαρχόντων, ἡ κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἔξωθεν τῶν τοιάζων πρόσκρισιν, when the orbicular corpufcles (that are the efficient caufes of heat) are driven out of the water, and when thofe of a trigonical and acutangular figure, that are in the fame water are compreffed together, or when fuch corpufcles come from without, and join themselves to the water. Plutarch too is of the fanie opinion in the treatise, " De primo Frigido." Then he defcribes the touch; the darling fenfe of the Epicureans, and the feveral kinds of it, not without fome tranfport and exultation of mind.

Ver. 421. The feeds being tumultuously mixed together, confound the fenfe, because they are in a fort of commotion and uproar.

Ver. 427. He has hitherto been proving the diversity of the figures of his atoms from the different motions which the objects excite and caufe in the organs of the fenfes: he now brings other arguments to the fame purpose, taken from the firmness, as well as from the fluidity of things. For fome feeds have little hooks and clafps, by which they catch and hold fast one another; and the little empty spaces being filled up as much as poffible, they have not the liberty of mutually difentangling themfelves, and getting free from one another; and thus they compofe the firm and hard bodies of brafs, iron, ftones, and the like. Other particles are smooth, and approaching to an

orbicular figure, and of these are compofed all fluid bodies; for the smooth and round particles will not join to others, yield to the leaft thruft, are always in motion, and rolling up and down from place to place.

Ver. 430. A diamond is esteemed the hardest of all ftones, and scarce any blows can break it. Pliny, lib. xxxvii. c. 4. fays of it, "Incudibus deprehenditur ita refpuens ictum, ut ferrum utrinque diffiliat." It is fo proof to blows, that beat it on an anvil, and the iron on both fides will give way to its hardness.

Ver. 435. In these fix verses, he says, there are fome bodies we may reckon in the number of fluids, as fmoke, mift, flame, &c. which may be diffipated and diffolved with the flighteft ftroke, and therefore do not confift of hooky feeds entangled with one another. Yet these very bodies hurt and prick the fenfes; for mist and smoke offend the eyes; and flame penetrates hard things, and paffes even through ftones and rocks, there fore they are not compofed of principles entirely fmooth and round. He, for this reafon affert, that they are made partly of acute principles.

Our tranflator has omitted the three last verles of this argument, which are as follows: Non tamen hærere inter fe, quod quisque videmus Sentibus effe datum: facile ut cognofcere poflis Non è perplexis, fed acutis effe elementis. Lambinus rejects them likewife, and afferts them to be needlefs, for which Faber commends him, and adds, that they cannot be of Lucretius. The other editors, Nardius, Fayus, &c. retain them; and fo too does even Creech himself in his Latin edition, but only wishes for another word in lieu of fontibus, in which he fecms too critical and hard to please. I take the verfes to be not only not ufelefs, but even neceffary; and am of opinion, that Lucretius was in the right, and ought to af firm, as he does, that fince thofe fluid bodies af fect and penetrate into hard, they are compofed of pungent, penetrating, and acute principles, no lefs than of friooth and round: for the atoms that are either smooth or round cannot prick, offend, nor eafily penetrate into bodies; "nec tamen hzrere inter fe," &c. nor do their particles nevertheless adhere and mutually stick to one another, as the particles of thorns do; infomuch, that from thence you may rightly conjecture, that all those things that are fo foon and easily diffipated, are not compofed of principles that are hooked, en tangled, and perplexed among themselves: but of acute,

Non è perplexis, fed acutis effe elementis: And this is the meaning of this paffage, which has fo much einployed the interpreters.

Ver. 441. There are other fluids that are both bitter and tharp: for inftance, the water of the fea. And the poet afferts, in these fourteen veries, that all fuch things are compofed partly of smooth and round principles, from whence they have their fluidity; partly of fharp and rough, from which they derive their tartnefs and bitterness

Laftly, he demonstrates, that bodies of that nature are made of particles different in figure, because they may be separated. For, ftrain feawater through fand, it lofes its sharp particles, and becomes fweet, fo that it retains only its Imooth and round principles.

Ver. 455. What he here undertakes to prove, is this: The atoms vary in their figure, and in their bigness too, as is proved already. But yet that variety is not infinite, though it be indefinite or incomprehenfible. This he proves, firft in nineteen verfes, from the minutenefs of the feeds, which he has before demonftrated: for to make an infinite variety of figures, the mass of fome of the feeds muft of neceflity be immensely great, fince an immenfe magnitude only is capable of an immenfe variety of figures. If you would change the figure of a body, transpose its parts, and as many different pofitions as it can receive, fo many different figures there will be. Attempt to do the like with an atom, turn and transpose | every way the parts that can be conceived in it, and you will find only a finite variety of figures in fo fmall a body. Epicurus taught, that the figures of the atoms are incomprehenfible, but not infinite, εἶναι τὰ σχήματα τῶν ἀ]όμων ἀπερίληπία, rasa, fays Plutarch, de Placitis Philofoph. lib. i. c. 3. And Epicurus himfelf writes thus to Herodotus ; 'Ατόμοι ταῖς διαφοραῖς ἐκ ἁπλῶς ἄπειρο ἴσιν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἀπερίληπ]οι, εἰ μὴ μέλλει τις τὲ τοῖς μεγέθεσιν ἁπλῶς εἰς ἄπειρον αὐτὰς ἐκβάλλειν, ὅτε ἐν τω ἀρισαίου μέγεθες ἀπείρας ἐνησιν διαφορὰς ἀδύνατον.

Ver. 462. He does not mean that you should add two, three, or more parts; but fuppofe it to confift of three or more, that is to fay, of a definite number of parts, each figuration requires a peculiar pofition of the parts. Now the parts of any finite magnitude may be tranfpofed fo many ways, that no new way fhall remain to change the position from what it had been in before, for otherwife there would be still new and new parts even to an infinity; from whence the magnitude might at length be conceived to be infinite; but nothing of this can be in an atom, which is too little even to be feen.

Ver. 474. He brings another reason, in these fixteen verfes. If we grant ftill other and other figures, even to an infinity, no external qualities of natural things would be certain and determined, fince they might be fo diverfified by a new figuration, that at length there might arife a betLer than every beft, and a worfe than every wort Garments of the most precious colours, the sweetest odours, founds, and tastes, might be furpaffed by others, and would be no longer in efteem, while the things that feem now most offenfive and difpleafing, and to which we are most averle, would be valued above worse than might

arife daily.

Ver. 479. For fwans, when they are near their death, are faid to fing very fweetly. Thus Martial, lib. xiii. Epig. 77.

Dulcia defecta modulatur carmina lingua
Cantator Cycnus funeris ipfe fui.

The mournful fwan, thus when his death is nigh, In tuneful strains fings his own elegy.

But Pliny denies it," Olerum morte narratur flebilis cantus falfo, ut arbitrer, aliquot experimentis," lib. x. cap. 20. See the note on Book iii. ver. 5.

Ver. 486. Though our interpreter here mentions the sense of smelling, yet he, at the beginning of his argument, says, “Has et contemptus odor myrrhæ," the odour of myrrh would be contemned, which Lucretius there alleges as an instance of an object of that sense.

Ver. 488. No bigber.] That is, from either extreme, either of worft or beft. Nor can there be an infinite number of things between either extreme, because every thing is inclosed within certain bounds, and can neither enlarge itself into an infinite magnitude, nor contract itself into an infinite littleness; fo neither can the goodness of things be improved to an infinite, nor the badness of things be impaired to an infinite.

Ver. 490. In these seven verfes, he confirms his foregoing arguments, because, fays he, things are generally determined and bounded by their contrary qualities, which are fo extreme that though they may indeed have middle degrees, yet they can have no degree whatever without or beyond themselves, Lambine interprets this of the zones; but I rather think our tranflator in the right, and that Lucretius meant to speak of the most intense power and force of fire and frost, which are the extremes that bound the middle degrees of heat and cold. For fire is the moft hot, and froft or ice the most cold of all things.

Ver. 497. Having proved the different figures to be finite, he now adds, in seven verses, another of Epicurus's opinions, which is, that the feeds of a like figure are infinite in number; that the globous are infinite, the oval infinite, the pyramidal infinite, and in like manner of all the other figures. Then he adds a reason for this opinion, from the infiniteness of the atoms which he has proved before. For, fince the different forts of the figures are finite, it is evident, that if the atoms contained under each fort were finite in

number, there could be no infinity of atoms in the univerfe. Epicurus writes to the fame purpofe in the epistle to Herodotus: Kas ixásny di σχημάτισιν ἁπλῶς ἄπειροι ἔτιν ἀ]όμοι, ὦ γὰρ τὸ πᾶν εἴη τῷ πλήθει των ἀ]όμων ἄπειρον, εἰ μὴ ἁπλῶς ἂν ἴσιν αἱ καθ' εκάςην τὶ σχημάτισιν ὁμοῖαι.

Ver. 504. Gaffendus has omitted the four first of these verses, as being improper to the explica tion of the argument: and indeed we may dif peufe with the want of them, if we take Lucretius to be disputing ftill concerning the figures of his atoms; but if we confider the particular ar gument that follows, they feem even necessary. For he has just proved the infinity of the atoms under each figure: but foreseeing an objection hanging over his head, and that it might be the better understood together with the answer, he, in these four verses, gives notice to the reader what he is to expect: and certainly our tranfla

tor was in the right to retain them. But to return to the explication of Lucretius, who, in these thirty-three verses, firft objects against what he has been already arguing, that the atoms under certain figures may feem to be finite, because we fee that fome animals are more fcarce and fewer in number than others: to which he anfwers, that the animals that are fcarce in one country abound in another. For instance, that there are many elephants in India, though he scarce ever faw one at Rome. In the next place, that granting there were but one only thing of one certain kind in the world, yet unlefs the atoms of the fame figure were infinite, that only thing could not be born, nor grow. And, laftly, he brings a comparison to illuftrate this affertion; and as it is difficult to find a fimile more elegantly expreffed, fo we can never meet with one more properly applied. For what can better reprefent the perpetual motion of his atoms, than the disturbed and reftlefs agitation of the sea.

Ver. 511. A region of Afia, where there is great plenty of elephants, as there is likewife in Africa, though none are bred in Europe. Pliny, Nat. Hift. lib. viii. cap. 10 and Polybius, lib. v. fays, that in India the houses, and even the stalls of their beasts were enclosed with the trunks of elephants. And who knows not that the chief ftrength of the Indians confifted in their elephants, by the help of which they defended both themselves and their country.

Ver. 525. Cowley in his Davideis feems to have imitated this paffage of Lucretius:

The fea itself smooths her rough looks awhile, Flatt'ring the greedy merchant with a smile: But he whofe fhip-wreck'd bark fhe drank before, Sees the deceit, and knows fhe would have more.

Ver. 536. Lucretius ftruggles hard for the infiniteness of his atoms, the figures of which he will have to be very various, and those of each fhape to be infinite, which laft affertion is the greatest abfurdity imaginable. For infinite atoms muft fill all the space that is, because if there be any place that can receive another, there may be conceived an addition to the former number; and therefore to fay it was infinite is abfurd. And this proves that the infinite atoms of Epicurus can be nothing else but a vast heap of dull movelefs matter, coextended, with the infinite fpace. And how then could the world be made, how thefe various alterations of bodies, all which proceed from motion, is difficult to be conceived. And this likewife preffes the hypothefis of Cartes and his indefinite matter, as a little application will discover.

others decrease and die? from whence it muft be concluded that the feeds of a like figure are infinite in number.

Ver. 549. He has hitherto been proving the infinity of atoms, under all the feveral forts of figures; and now, in four verfes, he teaches, that things cannot be compofed of feeds of one and the fame figure; and that the various qualities of things proceed from the variety of the feeds, which must neceffarily produce a variety like wife of contexture. And this, indeed, he fulfi ciently proves in feveral places.

Ver. 551. In these fix verses, he brings his first argument from the earth, which none will deny, confifts of feveral forts of feeds, if they confider the fprings that bubble, and the flames that burit out of its bowels, together with what variety of trees and plants it produces, and that it supplies nourishment to man and beaft. For all thofe things cannot proceed from feeds of the fame magnitude, weight, and figure. Then in finty four verfes he fubjoins many things concern ing the earth: how the ancient poets feigned her to be the mother of the gods, and called her Cybele; he defcribes the ornaments of the goddefs, explains the mysteries of the whole fable, derides the fuperftition of it, and at length falis foul upon Providence itself.

Ver. 554. As Hecla, Vefuvius, and other mountains, which, as well as Ætna, eject flames, a convincing proof that there are fubterranean fires, and thofe too great and many, as appears likewife by the Vulcanian islands, and by the hot baths and fountains that break out of the earth in many places; and which, as Vitruvius, lib. i. haberent aut de falphure, aut de alumine, aut birightly obferves, could not be," fi non in imo tumine ardentes maximos ignes :" in which words he briefly declares the caufes of them. To which, as a farther proof, not to mention divers others, may be added earthquakes, fome of which most certainly derive their original from these fubter ranean fires. Whoever defires to be farther fatified touching this matter, may confult Pliny, 1. ii. c. 106. The Epicurean animadverfions of Gaffendus, and particularly Kircher in his Mund, Subterran. lib. iv. See likewife Ittigius expressly upon this íubject, in his treatise de Montium It cend. and the accurate difquifition of Alphonfus Borellus, in Hiftoria et Meteorologia Incendi. Ætnæi. Anno 1669. Of Etna, fee Book I. ver. 744. and Book VI. ver. 646.