The last phase of Greek philosophy has until recently been less intelligently studied than any other, and in our understanding of its development there are still lamentable lacunae. Three errors in particular have in the past prevented a proper appreciation of Plotinus' place in the history of philosophy. The first was the failure to distinguish Neoplatonism from Platonism: this vitiates the work of many early exponents from Ficinus down to Kirchner. The second was the belief that the Neoplatonists, being ‘mystics,’ were necessarily incomprehensible to the plain man or even to the plain philosopher. To have encouraged the persistence of this superstition in the nineteenth century is the least pardonable of Creuzer's many sins. The third was the chronological confusion involved in the ascription to Saint Paul's contemporary of the works of the pretended Dionysius Areopagita, which contain a fully-developed Neoplatonic theology. Though the fraud had been exposed by Scaliger, these writings continued down to the beginning of the nineteenth century (and in certain clerical circles down to our own day) to be used as evidence that the ‘Nsoplatonic trinity’ was an inferior imitation of the Christian one. When this false trail was at length abandoned the fashion for orientalizing explanations persisted in another guise: to the earliest historians of Neoplatonism, Simon and Vacherot, the school of Plotinus was (in defiance of geographical facts) ‘the school of Alexandria,’ and its inspiration was mainly Egyptian. Vacherot says of Neoplatonism that it is ‘essentially and radically oriental, having nothing of Greek thought but its language and procedure.’ Few would be found to-day to subscribe to so sweeping a pronouncement; but the existence of an important oriental element in Plotinus' thought is still affirmed by many French and German writers.

It is now generally agreed that the 7th and 8th Platonic Epistles are genuine. There may still be a lingering doubt, here or there, about the philosophical digression in the 7th; but with this exception both letters may be said to have established their claim to be regarded as the work of Plato.

Authorities on Apollo and Apollo cults are still divided into two camps. Some believe the god to have been Anatolian—Homeric god of the Troad, god of Branchidae and Lycia, a hawk-god, Smintheus, Lykios, with a western outpost at Carian-Ionian Delos, worshipped too in Crete, whence he passed to Pytho. In the other camp Apollo is, at least in part, believed to be a northerner, fair-haired, descending on Greece from the land of the Hyperboreans, the people ‘Behind the Beyond.’ And the mainstay of those who claim a partially northern origin for Apollo is in tales which both at Delos and at Delphi link him with the Hyperboreans.

TheProblems, which occupy pp. 859-967 of the Berlin Aristotle, have probably been less read and studied than any other treatise in the Aristotelian Corpus; they contain, however, a vast quantity of interesting information on a great variety of subjects, and an enquiry into their composition may be not without interest.

My suggestion that the H.A. was written during the reign of the Emperor Julian and in his interest has had, on the whole, ‘a bad press.’ Reviewers who have not thought it necessary to support with argument their doubts or their rejection of the theory are in a strong position: they remain practically unassailable. ‘The theory seems on a priori grounds improbable:’ a historical student can only reply that so is human nature—distressingly improbable, as he knows to his cost. ‘After reading this book one puts it down “met een zekere onvoldaanheid:”’ what can an author do save express his regret for having caused Dr. Van de Weerd this discomfort? But two stalwart defenders of the conservative position—De Sanctis and Lécrivain’—have sustained with detailed argument their unqualified rejection of my theory; in their cases it is possible to attempt a rejoinder.

In a note on this passage as far back as 1868, E. Wölmin 1 advanced the theory that the plural anulis is used here in a technical and stereotyped way as symbolic of equestrian rank. He is not sure whether such illogical use of the plural is to be found earlier than Tacitus or not.

Dieses von mir im J. 1924 behandelte Papyrusbruchstück wurde 1927 von v. Wilamowitz berücksichtigt. Er hält meine Zurückfuhrüng des Bruchstückes auf Antiphon für sehr ansprechend und auch meine Erklärung für treffend; die Ergänzungen befriedigen ihn nur zum Teil. Letzteres muss ich ihm unbedingt zugeben. Leider sind alle kleinen Fragmente des Papyrus sowie die Zz. 1–6 des Fr. B bei dem Hinüberführen aus England nach Amerika (oder bald darauf) spurlos verschwunden und somit fiir die Wissenschaft auf immer verloren; es ist also nicht mehr möglich zu beurteilen, ob ich Recht hatte, als ich die Zz. 14–15 des Fr. A mit dem Fr. F vereinigte. Dagegen ist Col. II. des Fr. A glücklicherweise erhalten; Prof. W. L. Westermann legte eine ganz hervorragende Freundlichkeit an den Tag, indem er mir zuerst eine photographische Aufnahme davon zusandte und dann meine Lesung an der Hand des Originals prüfte. Bei dem näheren Studium der Photographie bemerkte ich, dass sowohl Hunts Lesung der Z. 7 (περ [ι] Ẻπ [.]ϕ) wie auch meine fruhere durch diese falsche Lesung ins Leben gerufene Erganzung ganz unmöglich sind. Auf der Photographie las ich Z. 7 t περ[ι] επ[ ]ηδ‐‑, und teilte dieses Ergebnis W. L. Westermann mit. Nachdem er in das Original noch einmal eingesehen hatte, antwortete er mir darauf; ‘Das ist die richtige Lesung. Es ist absolut sicher.’ Zu der scheinbar nächstliegenden Ergänzung Περ[] έπ[ιτ]ηδ[ευ]μάτων, die auch ich im ersten Augenblick für passend hielt, kam Westermann, nachdem ihm mein Vorschlag zur richtigen Lesung des Textes bekannt worden war, ganz unabhängig von mir; ich glaube trotzdem dass diese Lesung nicht das Richtige trifft. Wir haben doch in Col. II. eine Reihe von Antithesen (s. unten); aus περ Υο‐‑ νης (Z. 5) ist aber keine Antithese zu έπιτηδεύματα zu konstruieren. Was nun diese Stelle (Z. 5) anbetrifft, so ist hier nur die Lesung Υο (vielleicht auch Υρ ?) möglich, keinesfalls aber das von mir a. a. O. vermutete Υα Aus den Resten Υο. νης oder Υο.νης ist allerdings kein griechisches Wort zu erganzen; doch haben die einzelnen Zeilen des Papyrus nicht gleiche Längen, sodass nichts dem im Wege steht, dass Z. nach Υο auch nichts gestanden habe; dann gelangen wir zur Lesung: πε[ρ] Υο[] έπ[ικ]ηδ [ευ]μάτων, d. h. ‘von der Geburt der Menschen sowie von den Bestattungsbrauchen’ —auch hier haben wir dann, wie in alien anderen Antithesen von Col. II. (s. den Text unten) an der ersten Stelleυμξφροντα, an der zweiten ξυμΦέροντα, vgl. Antiphon, P. Oxy. 1364, Col. III., Z. 28: κατμένξναύτοέστινάΠων

I have little to say on this passage, where it seems necessary to maintain the vulgate notwith standing its obvious defects. My only reason for discussing it is to call attention to the strangeness of Jebb's proceeding when seeking to support Hermann's conjecture παλλλοιν which he admits into the text. The objection to Hermann's view is that, as he himself admits, there is no evidence that πáλληλος could be used in the sense of λληλιφóνος. For that, I suppose, is the meaning of ‘mutual hands,’ which both Jebb and Campbell suggest as a translation, although ‘mutual violence’ would be better. But the chief purpose of this note is to protest against the mode of interpretation applied to Philo de Mose 3. 36. II. p. 175 M. διà τàς ν ὓδασι καí πνρì γɛνιμéνας συνɛχɛῖς καì παλλλονς φθορáς Turnebu s rightl yrenders ‘alternas interneciones,’ and why Jebb supposes him to have meant ‘mutual’ I do not know. Anyhow he admits that Philo used the word in its ordinary sense of successive, and proceeds to paraphrase ‘owing to the continuous and rapid succession of calamities by flood and fire’ (J.'s italics: observe the addition of and rapid). All this is quite beside the mark, for the reference is to the alternate destruction of the world (according to the Stoics) at the κπὐρωσις by fire and at the ξὐγρωσιςby water. I must take leave to refer to the evidence collected in my book on Zeno and Cleanthes, p. 253, to which should be added a most instructive passage of Origen (Chrysipp. Stoic. II . 337, 32 V. Arn.): περì τν κακν λóγος οὐ μɛνóντων ɛì ν ταὐτᾦ διà τν ἤτοι τηροσαν τà πì γ$$$ς πρóνοιαν ἤ κατακλνσμοῖ καì κπνρ03CE;σɛσι καθαíρονσαν.Add the passages from Lucan quoted by Mr. Heitland in his Introduction, p. xliii.

Gellia, of noble lineage, swore she would marry no one lower than a peer, but ultimately ( ‘as men should serve a cowcumber’) flung herself away on—whom ? Nupsisti, Gellia, cistifero, say the two best families of MSS.; nupsisti, Gellia, cistibero says the third.

The purpose of what follows is to show that if we assume March 1, 50 as the date on which ended the five years of imperium given to Caesar by the Lex Licinia Pompeia, we have a hypothesis which ‘works,’ in the sense that, as far as its relevance extends, it enables us to frame a coherent account of the dispute between Caesar and the Senate in the two years preceding the outbreak of civil war. The method followed will be to give a narrative based on that hypothesis and on the evidence which we possess. Many, at least, of the arguments and conclusions here adopted have been put forward already by various writers. I may mention, as an excuse for raising this question again (quippe qui cum ueterem turn uulgatam esse rent uideam), that a few suggestions will be made which I have not seen elsewhere. For the sake of clearness some very trite matters which belong to the years before 51 will first be recalled.

In pi. 48 of his Facsimilés de manuscrits grecs des XVe et XVIe Siècles M. Otnont gives a specimen of what purports to be the hand of Valeriano Albini. The MS. from which it is reproduced, Paris, gr. 1687, has at f. 158v τατην δ ββλον Οαλερίανοσ фορολɩβɩεὺσ Άλβνου Ενετὺσɩ, ν τψ το αϒοὐΕνετɩου μοναστηρψ εˣϒραΨε, εˣτη του κυρίον ᾑμων … αϕμ … (Omont, p. 15), which might be thought warranty enough. Unfortunately MS.

The least attentive Hellenist must have noticed that the Greek tongue contains a number of pairs of nouns of identical or nearly related meaning—one in the masculine, the other in the feminine. The subject attracted the notice of Lobeck, Pathoiogia, pp. 7 sq., Technologia, pp. 267 sq.; G. Meyer in Curtius' Studien V., p. 68; Stein in the introduction to his Herodotus, p. lx (on the variations in the MSS.); and the resultant list will be found in Kuhner-Blass I., pp. 501, 502. It is not complete (I can add one pearl of great price: ⋯ ⋯ν⋯μη from the Apophthegmata patrum, Migne, LXV. 261 B; and ⋯ν π⋯λψ E 397 was taken by Aristarchus to mean εν πύλῃ, and this may be the origin of the three πύλοι), and the question deserves investigation. The only doctrine that can be called such appears to be the remark in schol. BT on Σ 551 (which did not escape Lobeck), δρεπανας] Iωνɩκως, οủτοɩ ϒαρ τρεπουσɩ πάντα είς τ⋯φρη, ταϕρη αστραϒαλη.

The first volume of the collected works of Karl Marx, which is being issued by the Marx-Engels Institute of Moscow, opens with a dissertation entitled ‘Über die Differenz der demokritischen und epikureischen Naturphilosophie’, which he presented for his doctorate at the University of Jena in 1841. It is interesting to find one who was afterwards to win fame in very different fields starting his career with an enthusiastic tract on Greekphilosophy, which he evidently intended to make his work for years to come; for not only does he tell us in his introduction that this thesis is a prelude to a comprehensive study of Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Scepticism, ‘the philosophical basis of Roman life and character’, but appended to the dissertation are some seventy pages of preliminary notes for the larger work, which range over such varied subjects as ‘The Immanent Dialectic of the Epicurean Philosophy’, ‘The Idea of the “Wise Man” in Greek Philosophy,’, and ‘Parallels between the Epicureans, and the Pietists and Supernaturalists.’

The phrase may be rendered ‘uttering thick screams’, these English words bearing the same sense as in Scott,Heart of Midlothian, Chapter XXV.: ‘She proceeded to raise the family by her screams of horror, uttered as thick as if the Brownie had been flaying her.’

Professor Lindsay [Class. Rev. XLII. (February, 1928), p. 20] has drawn attention to a Celtic paralle (Ancient Lams of Ireland I., p. 27) to Aquilo, the Black Wind (from aquilus). A less remote parallel was found by Salmasius [Plin. Exerc. in Solinum (ed. 1629), p. 1258D] in the gloss (C.G.L. III. 84. 56) melatnboros uulturnus, on which he makes the following comment: ‘Glossae nostrae nondum editae: ‘ Septenirio, ΚЄρκίίας, Circius, Χωρupbs, Chaurus. Eaedem Glossae Volturnum Graece exponunt. An Volturnum quasi Volturinum idest nigrum dictum earum putauit auctor? Sed haec expositio conuenit Aquiloni, qui est μέλαςβορέαςƋς, unde et Aquilo id est aquilus uentus, casco uocabulo niger. ’He adds that the wind Volturnus was really so called because it blew towards Rome from Volturnum.