[82] They do not, but make 26. Cruice adds an Alpha between the 8 and the 3: but in any case the rule just enunciated is broken by the reckoning in of two 2’s.
[83] Αἴας. Α = 1, ι = 10 = 1, α = 1 (omitted), ς = 200 = 2. 1 + 1 + 2 = 4.
[84] The Homeric name for Paris.
[85] κύριον ὄνομα as opposed to μεταφορὸν ὄνομα, a name transferred from one to another, or family name.
[86] Not 8 but 4. ο = 70 = 7, δ = 4, υ = 400 = 4, σ = 200 = 2, ε = 5 (with duplicate omitted) = 22, which divided by 9 leaves 4, or by 7, only 1. The next sentence and a similar remark at the last sentence but one of the chapter are probably by a commentator or scribe and have slipped into the text by accident. Oddly enough, nothing is said as to what happens if the “roots” are equal, as they seem to be in this case.
[87] Another mistake. Α = 1, σ = 200 = 2, τ = 300 = 3, ε = 5, ρ = 100 = 1, ο = 70 = 7, π = 80 = 8, ι = 10 = 1 (with duplicates omitted) = 28, which divided by 9 leaves 1, or by 7, 0 = 7.
[88] ὅταν μέντοι δευτερόν τινες ἀγωνίζωνται. Quum vero quidam iterum decertant de numeris, Cr. But the allusion is almost certainly to two charioteers or combatants meeting in successive contests. Half the divination and magic of the early centuries refers to the affairs of the circus, and the text has nothing about de numeris.
[89] Lit., inspection of the forehead (or face), or what Lavater called physiognomy. The word was known to Ben Jonson, who uses it in his Alchymist. “By a rule, Captain. In metoposcopy, which I do work by. A certain star in the forehead which you see not,” etc.
[90] ἰδέας.
[91] I have not thought it worth while to set down the various readings suggested by the different editors and translators for these “forms and qualities.” The whole of this chapter is taken from Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, and was corrupted by every copyist. The common type suggested with eyebrows meeting over the nose is plainly Alexandrian, as we know from the portraits on mummy-cases in Ptolemaic times.