For some chapters the topic of dreams and their interpretation absorbs his attention,[474] and at first he discusses in an apparently credulous and approving tone “the varied significations of dreams, which both experience approves and the authority of our ancestors confirms.”[475] He explains that now the dream concerns the dreamer himself, now someone else, now common interests, sometimes the public or general welfare; and he quotes Nestor to the effect that “trust is put in the king’s dream concerning public matters.”[476] After referring credulously to the Sibylline verses predicting Christ’s incarnation, passion, and ascension, John continues his exposition of the interpretation of dreams. He explains that the season of year when one dreams, the place where one dreams, and the personal characteristics of the dreamer must all be taken into account; that sometimes interpretations should be by contraries, and again from like to like. But then he checks himself with the words: “But while we pursue these traditions of the interpreters, I fear lest we deservedly seem not so much to trace the art of interpretation, which is either no art at all or an idle one, as to dream ourselves.” He adds further, “Whoever fastens his credulity to the significations of dreams evidently wanders as far from sincere faith as from the path of reason.”[477] [Sidenote: Dreams of Joseph and Daniel.] John then attacks the _Dream-Book of Daniel_, which he says “circulates impudently among the hands of the curious” and gives a specific interpretation for each thing imagined by the dreamer. He denies the truth and authority of the book and argues at some length that neither Joseph nor Daniel would have composed such a work, and that they interpreted dreams by divine inspiration, not by any occult art learned in Chaldea or Egypt. In the first place, the method of interpretation set forth in this book is faulty and crude. The remainder of John’s argument is worth quoting in part: