m strangury
and pains in the bowels"--the latter of which complaints they attribute
to gluttony, the former to a still graver indulgence. I had been really
much afraid of dysentery. But either the change of residence, or the
mere relaxation of anxiety, or perhaps the natural abatement of the
complaint from lapse of time, seems to me to have done me good. However,
to prevent your wondering how this came about, or in what manner I let
myself in for it, I must tell you that the sumptuary law, supposed to
have introduced plain living, was the origin of my misfortune. For
whilst your epicures wish to bring into fashion the products of the
earth, which are not forbidden by the law, they flavour mushrooms,
_petits choux_, and every kind of pot-herb so as to make them the most
tempting dishes possible.[433] Having fallen a victim to these in the
augural banquet at the house of Lentulus, I was seized with a violent
diarrhoea, which, I think, has been checked to-day for the first time.
And so I, who abstain from oysters and lampreys without any difficulty,
have been beguiled by beet and mallows. Henceforth, therefore, I shall
be more cautious. Yet, having heard of it from Anicius[434]--for he saw
me turning sick--you had every reason not only for sending to inquire,
but even for coming to see me. I am thinking of remaining here till I am
thoroughly restored, for I have lost both strength and flesh. However,
if I can once get completely rid of my complaint, I shall, I hope,
easily recover these.

[Footnote 432: The year of this letter has been inferred from the
mention of Lentulus's augural banquet. For P. Cornelius Lentulus
Spinther, son of the consul of B.C. 57, was in this year elected into
the college of augurs. Yet as we know that Cicero's Tusculan villa was
dismantled by Clodius, and was advertised for sale (though not sold), it
seems rather extraordinary that Cicero should have gone there for his
health. The _Fadii Galli_ were a family of Cicero's native place,
Arpinum.]

[Footnote 433: There were several sumptuary laws. Those which may
possibly be referred to here are (1) the _lex Licinia_ (? B.C. 103),
which defined certain foods as illegal at banquets, but excepted _quod
ex terra vite arbore ve sit natum_ (Macrobius, _Sat._ iii. 17, 9; Gell.
ii. 24, 7); (2) the _lex AEmilia_ (B.C. 68), which also defined both the
quantity and quality of food allowable at banquets (Gell. ii. 24, 12).]

[Footnote 434: C. Anicius, a sena