theasameno tini epi kriou kathaemenpo, kai pesonti ex autou ek ton
euprosthen, mnaesteuomeno de kai mellonti en autais tais haemerais tous
gamous epetelein, proeipein auto hoti hae gunae sou porneusei, kai kata
to legomenon, kerata soi poiaesei kai outos apethae, k.t.l."--Artem.
_Oneirocritica_, lib. ii, cap. 12.]

See Menage, _Origines de la Langue Françoise_, Paris, 1650, in verb.
"Cornard." I have only seen Reiff's edition of Artemidorus, 8vo. Lipsiæ,
1805. His illustrations of the passage (far too numerous to be quoted)
seem to be curious, and likely to repay the reader for the trouble of
examination. His note commences with a reference to Olaus Borrichius,
_Antiqua Urb. Rom. facies_:--

"Alexander Magnus ....successores ejus..... in nummis omnes
cornuti quasi Jovii, honore utique manifesto, donee cornuum
decus in ludibria uxoriorum vertit somnorum interpres
Artimidorus."

On which he observes,--

"Benè. Nam ante Artimidorium nullus, quod sciam, hujus scommatis
mentionem fecit. Quod enim Traug. Fred. Benedict. ad Ciceron.
_Epist. ad Div._ 7.24. ad voc. 'Cipius' conjecit, id paullo
audientus mihi videtur conjecisse."

I have not succeeded in obtaining a sight of this edition of the
Epistles. And I should feel much obliged to any one who would quote the
"conjecture," and so enable your readers to gauge its "audacity" for
themselves. Is it not odd that Reiff should have made no remark on the
utter want of connection between the "honor manifestus," and the