In its broadest signification, ariolation embraces all divination. Here, however, I take it strictly, as Isidore does when he writes: “Arioli are so called because around the altars of idols they utter abominable prayers, offer deadly sacrifices, and by these celebrations receive the responses of demons.” By these words he describes only explicit divination, which is referred to oracles. This also pleased Rabanus and Gratian, Ivo and Burchard, who brought it into their Decretum. The same Isidore wants haruspicy to be named from the observation of hours; others more rightly derive it from the old word haruga, which, according to Donatus, signified a victim.
[margin: Ariolation and haruspicy: Isidore, Etymologies, book 8, chapter 9, on arioli; Rabanus, Gratian, Ivo, and Burchard adopting the same in decree collections; Donatus on the old word haruga, meaning sacrificial victim]
I now use each name with a certain moderate breadth, for the whole hieroscopy of the ancients, or the discipline of divining which they were accustomed to observe in the sacrifices of the Gentiles. Therefore I think that in former times expressed idolatry always intervened in these practices, though not always an explicit pact. Today it can happen that neither intervenes.
The first divination of haruspices, or gazarenes, as St. Jerome teaches they were called on Isaiah 47, was from the observation of the still living victim: while it was being led forth, while it was being set before the altar, while it was being handled, and while wine was being poured over it. We may call it thytomancy, thytice, or thymatice. If anyone wants all these confirmed by examples, let him consult book 1 of the Formularies of Barnabe Brisson, a man certainly consumed by a cruel and unworthy death. We too once touched on some points in Seneca’s Oedipus, at these verses:
Bring to the altars a bull white in its back, whose neck has never been pressed by the curving yoke. The rich victim stood before the sacred altars. Come quickly here, Manto, and scatter the salted meal on the necks of the bulls. Do they endure the rites with tranquil face, and the hands moved toward them? Do they fall to the ground at one wound? Does the blood leap quickly from the narrow wound, or, slow, water deep gashes?
[margin: Jerome on Isaiah 47 on gazarenes; Barnabe Brisson, Formularies, book 1, on divination from the living victim; Seneca, Oedipus, with Del Rio’s earlier commentary on the sacrifice scene]
The second form was extispicy, by which they scrutinized the movement and all the members of the slaughtered victim, especially the liver. From this the Greeks called it hepatoscopy. Lucian and Arnobius richly mock it. Our tragedian describes it in the same play:
“Tell us the certain signs of the entrails.” “Father, what is this? The entrails do not tremble with a light movement, as they usually do, but shake my whole hands. Blood springs out from new veins. The heart is sick and withered deep within, and lies hidden, submerged. The veins are livid. A great part is missing from the fibers. The liver, rotten with black bile, foams. And always an omen heavy for a single rule: see, two heads rise on equal folds; but a thin membrane hides the head of one, denying concealment to hidden things. The hostile side rises with strong force, and stretches seven veins. A slanting boundary cuts all these off, forbidding them to return backward. The order has been changed. Nothing lies in its own place, but all things are driven back.”
This inspection was not of any animals at all, but only of certain ones. Juvenal says in Satire 6:
An Armenian or Commagene haruspex, after handling the warm lung of a dove, promises a tender lover, or the great testament of a rich childless man. He scrutinizes the breasts of chickens, and the entrails of a puppy, sometimes of a child.
Of a child cut from a living mother, as we are taught from the wicked magical rites of Julian the Apostate.
[margin: Lucian, On Sacrifices, and Arnobius against extispicy; Seneca, Oedipus; Juvenal, Satire 6; Cedrenus and Theodoret on Julian the Apostate]
The third is pyroscopy and pyromancy. In this, sometimes pitch was pounded and scattered into the fire; sometimes torches smeared with pitch were kindled and marked with certain characters. If the flame of the torches came together into one, they foretold a prosperous outcome; if it appeared licking and divided, an unhappy outcome; if it rose up in three points, a glorious outcome; if it was variously scattered, death for a sick man and sickness for a healthy one; if it crackled, misfortune; if suddenly extinguished, great danger. Sometimes they threw the victim into the fire and considered only the flame of the sacrificial fire: whether it came together into one pyramid, which was prosperous, or was divided, which was adverse; what color, brightness, ascent, and noise the fire had; whether it quickly seized the victim, or was extinguished, and similar things. Some think the author of this practice was Amphiaraus; others, the Argonauts; others, different people. Among the Romans Tanaquil used it, according to Valerius Maximus. The same tragedian says of this:
“What of the flame? Has it now seized the abundant feast?” “The light suddenly shone, and suddenly fell. Did the clear and bright fire stand fixed, and straight lift its pure crown toward the sky, and unfold its hair, spread into the upper air? Or uncertain of path, did it creep around the sides, and with wavering smoke fall turbid?” “The flame had no single face and was changeable: as the rainy rainbow entwines various colors in itself, and with curved, painted fold announces storms over a great part of the sky. You would doubt what color is absent from it, or what color it is. Blue wandered mixed with yellow marks; again it became bloody, and finally went off into darkness. But see, the hostile fire departs into two parts. The altars bellow, and the hearths tremble.”
The Lithuanians use this today. For if the shadow of sick persons, with the body set before the fire, falls in front, they conceive a certain hope of recovering health; if it falls behind, they cry out and consider the sick man as abandoned. Are the Germans free of this fault? Those who sin in the lighting of pyres which they piously kindle in honor of blessed John, the old idolatry of the Chaldeans and Egyptians having been changed into a sacred custom, do so when they attend to the crackling, smoke, manner of flame, and similar things; likewise those who think they must circle or leap over them a definite number of times. For these are, as Wimpina rightly judged, remains of the old pagan lustration and passage through fire, which the Fathers refuted from Sacred Scripture. Glycas, from Theodoret, taught this, to avoid gathering many authorities: “He even passed his children through fire. What, I ask, does that phrase mean? Josephus relates that a certain Ahaz burned one of his sons in sacrifice to Baal. But Theodoret thinks otherwise: ‘I think,’ he says, ‘that by these words is meant a certain species of error which has endured even to our times. For we see fires kindled once in the year, into which certain boys and men throw themselves. Mothers even carry infants through the flame. Therefore the practice seems to be a certain averting and lustration.’”
[margin: Valerius Maximus, book 1, chapter 6, on Tanaquil; Ananias on Lithuanian fire divination; Conrad Wimpina, On Divination, chapter 2, on pagan lustration by fire; Glycas, folio 269, and Theodoret, questions 6.21-22, on passing children through fire; Cardano]
The fourth is cloudy capnomancy, the observer of smoke, and it is twofold. Either they threw grains of sesame or black poppy onto burning coals and observed the smoke rising from them; or, without grains of this kind, they observed only the smoke of a sacrifice, and sometimes the smoke of a funeral pyre. To this belongs Ovid’s line in the Ibis about the pyre of Polynices and Eteocles:
A new concord will come from a brother’s smoke, which old discord separates from the kindled pyre.
On smoke there is this line of Papinius in book 10 of the Thebaid, where after describing Tiresias’ pyromancy he adds that Tiresias drank in the prophetic smoke with his mouth:
He has long embraced the crowned fires, drinking the prophetic vapor with flaming face.
That vapor was smoke. For who would believe that Tiresias drank in flame and survived? Theophylact on Hosea 4 teaches that the Jews too used capnomancy and considered whether the smoke which rose from the sacrifice of victims ascended straight, or inclined obliquely. Pictorius, in On Magic, chapter 11, referred to this certain verses of Papinius on the death of Menoeceus which plainly belong to pyromancy. I think incense-smoke was not another species, but a kind of capnomancy: the form in which they divined from the smoke of burning incense. Statius writes:
Nor by incense-smoke flying above the altars.
This is true of that form; but there is another, quite different, which Dio describes.
The fifth is libanomancy, properly so called. Dio Cassius sets it out when treating the Nymphaeum near Apollonia: “There too an oracle is given, and in this way. After taking incense and making prayers concerning the matter they desire, they throw the incense itself onto the fire so that it may carry those prayers with it. Then, if the vow is going to be fulfilled, the incense is immediately seized by the fire; and if the incense has perhaps fallen outside the fire, the fire runs to it, snatches it up, and consumes it. But if the vow will be vain, the incense is not accepted by the fire; and if it is thrown into the very flame, it withdraws from it and escapes. Thus in both directions the fire predicts future things, except death and marriage; about these it is not lawful for anyone to consult that oracle.”
[margin: Ovid, Ibis; Statius, Thebaid; Theophylact on Hosea, chapter 4; Pictorius, On Magic, chapter 11; Dio Cassius, book 41, on the Nymphaeum near Apollonia]
The sixth is tephromancy or spodomancy, by which they formerly divined from the ashes of sacrifices. This seems to have been done at the altar of Apollo Ismenius; and therefore Sophocles in Oedipus Tyrannus called the ash “divinatory ash.” Perhaps something similar was also to be observed in the ash of Alpheus, which for that reason Moschus called “sacred dust,” where from Pausanias I once taught that by “dust” ashes are signified, just as it is taken in the Hercules Oetaeus:
And hairs filthy with native dust.
Today a certain trace of this superstition flourishes when the matter about which divination is to be made is written in ash with a finger or stick, the ash is entrusted to the open air, and attention is paid to letters appearing in the stirred ash. Likewise, when they order someone to think of three persons with whom he wishes or hopes to contract marriage; then they draw three furrows in the ash and he is ordered to assign his own furrow to each person. Then he stands turned away, so that he does not see the furrows, while the other points to them with tongs until one of them is chosen three times by him; the woman whom that furrow designated is promised to him as his future wife. This last could be reduced to a divining lot.
[margin: Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus; Pausanias and Moschus on divinatory ash]
The seventh is hydromancy and oenomancy, by which they considered the color of each liquid poured in sacrifice. In Aeneid 4:
When she was placing gifts on the burning altars, she saw, horrible to tell, the sacred liquids grow black, and the poured wine turn into foul blood. She told this sight to none, not even to her sister.
Some recognize ariolation here. I rather think it a curse or omen, as in these lines from Thyestes:
The spring rose flowed from his head; his hair was wet with rich amomum. Amid sudden horrors it stood. Rain falls on his unwilling face. A groan comes into the middle of his words, and terror wanders within his voice.
And again:
But what is this? My hand refuses to obey. The weight increases and burdens my right hand. Bacchus, brought to my very lips, flees, and flows around my jaws from my deceived mouth. The table itself leaped up from the trembling ground. The fire scarcely shines.
Yet omens too are a form of divination, though they are included under auguries or auspices, about which in the following section. Alexander of Naples attributes divination from wine to the Persians.
[margin: Hydromancy and oenomancy examples from Virgil and Seneca; Alexander of Naples, books 5, 6, and 13, on Persian wine-divination]
The eighth form is taken from various foods: critomancy, aleuromancy, and alphitomancy. Theodorus Balsamon, on the Sixth Synod in Trullo, writes of this: “Certain women with barley announce things which are unknown to others. These are called critheiai; they sit at churches and sacred images, professing that they learn future things from them, and they predict the future no otherwise than Pythonesses.”
Another practice could seem to be indicated by Horace in book 1 of the Epistles to Fuscus:
Like a slave of the priest, I refuse to taste.
In an old manuscript of St. Lawrence of Liege, at that place this note was written: “When suspicion of theft is held among slaves, they are led to a priest, who gives each one a crust of bread infected with an incantation. When it sticks in the throat, he declares the person guilty of manifest theft.” Thus it is read there. I wanted to transcribe it not to explain an incantation, but to note ancient superstition.
Likewise, I think there was another kind in sacrifices, the kind Theocritus describes in the Pharmaceutriae. They observed meal and libations, and especially wheat, barley, spelt, and flour made from grain roasted and ground, and then the sprinkling of the victim that followed. Seneca says:
And scatter the salted meal on the necks of the bulls.
On this matter, from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Suidas, and others, I noted many things there in the commentary. Promanteia was performed with cheese; ichthyomancy with fish, a most ancient form, for Polydamas in the Trojan War and Tiresias the Theban used it. Among the Lycians it was sought from living fish in more than one place: in the trench of Dina, in the spring of Apollo at Myra, and at the village of Syrrhus. Oothytice or oomancy was drawn from signs appearing in eggs; Suidas wants Orpheus to have used it. Leonicus gives some notes on the same in book 3 of Various History, chapter 13. To this belongs the fraudulent little paper of that recent impostor, which he threw into the fire and showed unharmed in any of the eggs brought to him. The superstitious expiation of the worshipers of Isis through eggs, of which Juvenal speaks in Satire 6, is not to be referred here.
[margin: Divinations by food, animals, and eggs: Balsamon on barley-divining women; Horace, Epistles, book 1, and the Liege manuscript note on bread used to reveal theft; Theocritus, Pharmaceutriae; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Suidas, and others on meal; Pliny, Natural History, Caelius Rhodiginus, Antiquities, book 7, chapter 29, and Plutarch, On the Intelligence of Animals, on fish, animals, and eggs]
The ninth is ceromancy, which the Turks also use today, when they melt wax, drop it into water, and observe the figures produced from it. Alsatian old women have invented another kind. When someone is sick, they light as many wax candles of equal weight as there are saints whom they suppose to be the senders of the disease, and they assign his own saint to each candle. The saint whose candle is consumed first they pronounce to be the author and injurer of the disease.
The tenth is anthropomancy, which scrutinized the fibers and entrails of slaughtered human beings. Heliogabalus used it, a monster, not a man. Julian the Apostate used it too; he cut open pregnant women, as was discovered at Antioch and Carrhae. A certain Pollentianus also used it, according to Ammianus, as did the Scythian diviners and Arlunae, from whom the Tartars received it, as Cromer narrates in book 8 of the History of Poland. The ancient Lusitanians used it too, according to Strabo in book 3. This could conveniently be reduced to extispicy, as could the sacrifice of sons in Topheth, where they were burned by fire in honor of Moloch in Sacred Scripture.
[margin: Ammianus, book 29; Bavarian Annals, book 1; Cromer, book 8; and Strabo on anthropomancy; 4 Kings and Ezekiel on Topheth and Moloch]
The eleventh was daphnomancy, from the burning of a laurel branch. It was a prosperous sign if it crackled with a crash; an unhappy one if, according to Propertius, “the burned laurel was silent on the extinguished hearth.” Parthasius and Rhodiginus say many things about this, and in such a way that you do not know who received it from whom. They also prophesied by first chewing laurel leaves, as Lycophron and Hesiod testify; hence laurel was called the symbol of divination by Constantine in the Geoponica and by Aphthonius in the Progymnasmata.
The twelfth can be botanomancy, when knowledge of the future was sought from the leaves or little branches of vervain, lunaria, sage, tamarisk, fig, and other simples, marked with the name of those making inquiry and with the question. Beware of confusing with these the Sibyl’s leaves in Maro, for on them no question was written, but an oracular song. Sycomancy required fig leaves. Concerning divination by tamarisk, or myrica, Caelius Rhodiginus writes from Nicander’s scholiast: “Apollo ordained that the tamarisk should announce future things to mortals; therefore Nicander calls this shrub mantis, that is, prophet. Moreover the Scythian magi also prophesy with tamarisk wood. In Lesbos, too, Apollo holds a tamarisk branch; for this reason he is also surnamed Myricans. Archaeus also reports that this god was once seen in dreams adorned with a tamarisk branch. Metrodorus relates that the tamarisk is the most ancient plant; for the Egyptians in Jupiter’s procession are crowned with myrica, that is, tamarisk, as Dioscorides interprets it, just as among the Medes the magi are crowned.”
[margin: Daphnomancy and botanomancy: Propertius, book 4, on silent laurel; Parthasius on Claudian, Rape of Proserpina, book 2, and Caelius Rhodiginus, Antiquities, book 7, chapter 7, on laurel; Lycophron and Hesiod on chewed laurel leaves; Constantine in the Geoponica and Aphthonius in the Progymnasmata; Caelius Rhodiginus, Antiquities, book 7, chapter 29, from Nicander’s scholiast, on tamarisk/myrica as a prophetic shrub]
The thirteenth is omphalomancy, proper to midwives, who conjecture how often a woman in childbirth will afterward give birth from the little knots attached to the umbilical cord and afterbirth.
The fourteenth is also a new superstition from the same obstetrical school: amniomancy. The fetus in the mother’s womb is wrapped in three membranes. The first is called chorion, or afterbirth; another, from the shape of a sausage, allantoides; the third, from its softness, amnion. These two latter sometimes burst forth with the fetus in such a way that the face and head of the infant appear, as it were, helmeted. The common people in Belgium call this a helmet, den Helm. This membrane gave a surname to the emperor Diadumenus, and Roman advocates bought this covering for much money, thinking that they were greatly helped by it toward victory in cases. From the reddish or livid color of this covering old women prophesy the infant’s fortune. This is amniomancy; on its vanity Levinus Lemnius of Zierikzee should be read. Jovius too, lest he omit any superstition, gave himself too much to vanities of this kind for a bishop, when in book 1 of the Pescara he considered that Ferdinand d’Avalos came from the womb wrapped in such a skin.
[margin: Amniomancy and caul superstitions: Lampridius, Life of Diadumenus, on the imperial cognomen and Roman advocates buying the caul; Levinus Lemnius, On Hidden Miracles of Nature, book 2, chapter 8; Jovius, Pastures, book 1, on Ferdinand Davalos’s birth caul]
The fifteenth is an equally ridiculous divination of the Jews by the leduim, of which the rabbis pretend Moses made mention. They want it to have been a certain animal called ledus, of human form, from the middle of whose navel a cord hung down, by which it clung to the ground like a gourd. As far around as the length of the cord allowed, it fed on every fruit of the earth. They say that it cannot be caught by hunters unless the cord is cut by an arrow; then it immediately expires. Men who carried its bones in their mouths according to a fixed rite obtained the gift of prophesying, and from this were called Iddegonim. Such are the fables those circumcised men force upon us, worthy both to be fastened to the earth with their yiddoa and to be fed with it.
If they did not attribute a human form to it, we could suspect that they alluded to a certain animal of the sheep kind which they say is born in the neighboring Tartary of Muscovy, clinging thus to the earth and feeding on the grasses near it as far as the length of the cord permits, and withering after the lack of pasture. Sigismund writes of this in Muscovy, as does Julius Scaliger against Cardano, and Andreas Libavius more fully and expressly in part 2 of his Singular Disputations, on the Scythian lamb.
[margin: Jewish ledus/yiddoa traditions: Moses Maimonides on negative precept 38, tied to Deuteronomy 18 and Leviticus 19; comparison with the Scythian lamb in Sigismund von Herberstein on Muscovy, Scaliger against Cardan, and Andreas Libavius, Singular Disputations, part 2, on the Scythian lamb]
The sixteenth is lithomancy, of which Iamblichus makes mention, as does Orpheus when treating the siderite stone. Its rite is not sufficiently clear to me. Some think that the Jews used certain divining stones, and that these were prohibited by Moses in Leviticus 26:1. For where our translation has “a notable stone,” they prefer to translate “a stone of imagination,” or, as others say, “a stone of speculation.” But they are trifling with their rabbis, whom they follow too readily. For eben maskith names a stone so adorned with picture or craft that by its appearance it seizes and entices people to honor it. For this reason it is added not “that you may divine by it,” but “that you may bow yourself down to it,” that is, that you may adore it.
I will not hide from you what once came into my mind about this passage before I saw the Roman edition. I suspected that our translator first wrote “a stone for a sign”; then, when others transposed the words into “a sign-stone,” it finally became “a notable stone.” The translation of the Seventy confirms the conjecture, for in it is written explicitly lithon skopon, “a stone sign.” And that was an old superstition: they placed Mercuries on roads, or other road gods and wayfaring gods, as markers and signs of journeys. Therefore the lawgiver forbids not the placing of stones as road markers, but the placing of such stones in the guise of gods and for adoration. I know what Oleaster brings forward at length here about the root sakhah, but I cannot approve his so readily deserting the common interpreter, and even openly accusing him of ignorance in his translation of the passage in Job. Even if the true meaning were “to cover,” I could say that things which are painted are covered and overlaid with colors. One could refer to this species the superstition of those who, so that dreams foretelling the future may happen to them, carry an amethyst gem.
[margin: Iamblichus and Orpheus on lithomancy; Leviticus 26:1; Oleaster on the Hebrew root and the stone passage]
The seventeenth is rhabdomancy, which was manifold. Caelius Rhodiginus writes about it thus: “It is permissible to conjecture from many things that rods were of remarkable use among the ancients in divine matters. Those who more carefully recorded Persian rites say that their magi, who preside over sacrifices, burn flesh placed over myrtle and laurel with very fine rods, then sprinkle it with oil mixed with milk and honey, and make prayers while holding very thin bundles of tamarisk in the hand. In the middle of the pyrethia stood an upright altar, where unextinguished fire was preserved, and prayers were likewise made not without tamarisk rods. Likewise in Scythia, where many are handed down as prophets, divination is conceived with willow rods: they loosen and separate them, and, after laying each one separately on the ground, they prophesy while grasping and arranging the rods. The Enarees, whom Herodotus thinks to be androgynes, split linden into three parts, and by entwining and loosening their fingers foretell future things.” Later he adds: “For in very many places, as we said, rods presage; Dio too confirms this in the third book of his Composition.”
What Rhodiginus says about the Persian magi he borrowed from Herodotus and Strabo. That the Turks, offspring of the Scythians, have retained this custom is gathered from Collenuccio’s Histories. But note this, reader: rhabdomancy does not belong to one head only. For one form contained explicit invocation, namely that which by fixed words caused a straight twig of its own accord to come into a circle with its ends joined. Another belongs to lots, when they tried by rods that had been given to see to whom a kingdom or some other thing would fall. Thus the prerogative of priesthood fell to Aaron by the flowering of the rod; and thus some, from the apocrypha, hand down that the Blessed Virgin was given as spouse to Joseph; at that time the divinatory lot was still permitted. Sometimes it must be referred to our ariolation, which Tacitus called an auspice, as in the practice of the Persians, Scythians, and also Germans, which Tacitus describes in his book On the Customs of the Germans, about which more later in Section 3. Sometimes it belongs to omens, as in the story Crantzius tells in book 4 of the Metropolis, chapters 19 and 29.
“The annals of Emperor Henry III,” he says, “record the story of the boy Hildebrand: when he was the son of a wood-worker, from little sticks arranged in order he himself, unknowingly, put together these letters, which a literate man standing by read from that arrangement of splinters: ‘I shall rule from sea to sea.’ From this he conjectured something divine in the boy and persuaded the father to give him over to letters. Once given over, he advanced, came into the royal chancery, and became scriniary. The emperor, warned in a dream about him, because the boy seemed to have horns with which he would strike down his son, threw the man into chains. But released from chains by the empress, he sought the monastery of Cluny. From there he advanced first to subdeacon, then to cardinal, and finally to Gregory VII.” These things Crantzius reports from those annals. I do not know why he calls it a fable.
[margin: Rhabdomancy: Caelius Rhodiginus; Herodotus, book 1, and Strabo, book 15, on Persian Magi; Herodotus, book 4, on Scythian linden-rod divination; Dio and Tacitus on rod or branch auspices; Collenuccio, Neapolitan History, book 2, on Hildebrand/Gregory VII’s childhood sign; Crantzius, Metropolis, book 4, chapter 19, on the same annalistic account]
The eighteenth is lampadomancy, when some light a candle in honor of St. Anthony and trust that in this way they will find lost things. There is also the old lantern superstition of which Propertius writes:
But the flame did not remain constant in the replenished lamps.
And elsewhere:
Or whether he wished the scant lamp to be touched by the master.
Petronius in the Satyrica: “The lamps, exhausted of moisture, were scattering a thin and final light.” This seems rather to belong to an augury of omen. Whether the method of detecting theft by dish and loincloth which Sextus Pompeius describes belongs here is doubtful to me; I think rather it does not belong here, whatever Acron has handed down.
[margin: Propertius, book 4, Petronius, Sextus Pompeius, and Acron on lampadomancy and the doubtful dish-and-cloth theft test]
The nineteenth may be called parthenomancy, namely the twofold divination by which they tested the virginity of a girl. The first is by a little cord, a practice still today in wicked use; and Catullus seems once to have looked to this in the wedding of Peleus and Thetis:
Her nurse, visiting her at the rising light, will not be able to put yesterday’s thread around her neck.
The second, according to William of Paris, was that in Britain it was customary to grind agate into a fine powder and offer it in a drink. Whoever, man or woman, took it, unless a virgin, was immediately compelled to vomit. Other things are also reported which give the same judgment through urine. They are reported as secrets of nature; I fear they are wholly magical. Certainly they are unlawful and liable to restitution of reputation.
There are also other harmful arts and a thousand names, which, like those involving urine, are unknown and untried by me and by others. Theologians and canonists condemn all these. See Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 4, chapter “if anyone,” 26, question 5; John of Salisbury, book 2 of the Policraticus, chapter 28; Michael Medina, book 2 On Right Faith in God, folio 29; and Julius Sirenius, book 9 On Fate, chapters 15 and 16.
[margin: Catullus and William of Paris on virginity tests; Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, book 4; John of Salisbury, Policraticus / De nugis curialium, book 2, chapter 28; Michael Medina, On Right Faith in God, book 2, folio 29; and Julius Sirenius, On Fate, book 9, chapters 15-16, on condemned harmful arts]