_tædium vini adducunt_. Did he, or any else, with the interposition of an &c. make Trochaics? I say, and Stephanus says so, too, that it is in Pliny, lib. xiii. cap. 15, near the end; the whole sentence runs thus: _Ebriosis Ova noctuæ per triduum data in vino, tædium ejus adducunt_. I doubt not but these are the places he aimed at, although he disguised and minced the quotations; if they be not, I should be glad to augment my Stephanus with his additions. These things premised, I come to consider the Doctor’s proofs: _Res eo adducta est_: _adducta vita in extremum_: _adducta res in fastidium_: _rem ad mucrones et manus adducere_: _contractares et adducta in augustum_: _res ad concordiam adduci potest_: _in ordinem adducerem_: _adducere febres, sitim, tedium vini_ (all in Robert Stephen) betwixt which and _adducere malleum_, what a vast difference there is, I leave them to umpire _qui terretes et religiosas nacti sunt aures_, who are the competent judges of elegancy, and only cast in the verdict of one or two, who are in any place (where the purity of the Latin tongue flourisheth) of great esteem. Losæus, in his _Scopæ Linguæ Latinæ, ad purgandam Linguam a barbarie_, &c. (would any think that the Doctor’s elegant expression, frequent in all authors, which none but the malicious or ignorant can deny, should suffer so contumelious an expurgation?) Losæus, I say, hath these words: _Adferre plerique minus attenti utuntur pro adducere. Quod Plautus, in Pseudolo, insigni exemplo notat_. _CA._--Attuli hunc. _PS._--Quid attulisti? _CA._--Adduxi volui dicere. _PS._--Quis istic est? _CA._--Charinus.