Since the publication of a lecture called ‘Where Was Vergil's Farm?’ in the John Rylands' Library Bulletin in 1923, and its appearance in a fuller form as Ch. II. of my Harvard Lectures on the Vergilian Age, no hostile criticism has appeared except from writers in Mantua itself (who naturally cling to the local tradition for its own sake), until the book of my friend Prof. E. K. Rand, In Quest of Vergil's Birthplace. This describes in a delightful way his travels in the region of Mantua and Carpenedolo, in the summer of 1929, and re-examines the question in the light of his experience. It also includes several valuable photographs and a map of the Provincia di Mantova, from all of which I have been glad to learn much. The reproductions of pages from the three manuscripts and two editions of the Life by Probus are particularly welcome.

I argued in § II. (Ion and Theseus) that in the lost chapters of the Ἀθηναίων Πολιτεία Aristotle recorded (in connexion with the Synoikisis) the creation by Theseus of the Eupatrid Order, from whom the Archons were chosen: that this tallies with Thuc. II. 15: that Thucydides further suggests that the continuous existence of the Areopagus Council dates from the same time: that finally Council and Order stand to each other as patres and patricii did in Rome.

τυτθòν δ' ὅσσονἄπωθεν ἁλιτπὐτοιο γέροντος

γενναίαις σταφυλαîσι καλòν βέβριθενἀλωά

τὰν ὀλίγος τις κῶρος ἐφ' αἱμασιαîσι φυλάσσει

ἣμενοσ' ἀμφ· δέ νιν δύ' ἀλώπεκες ἃ μὲν ἀν' ὂρχως

φοιτῆ σινομένα τὰν τρώξιμον, ἂ δ' ἐπὶ πήρᾳ

πάντα δóλον τεύχοισα τò παιδίον οὐ πρὶν ἀνησεῖν

φατὶ πρὶν ἀρίστοισιν ἐπὶ ξηροῖσι καθίξη.

αὐτὰρ ὃ γ' ἀνθερίκοισι καλὰν πλέκει ἀκριδοθήραν

σχοίνϕ ἐφαρμóσδων· μέλεται δέ ο· οὒτε τι πήρας

οὒτε φυτῶν τοσσῆνον, ὅσον περὶ πλέγματι γαθεῖ.

The purpose of the present article is to examine the use of Logos as an ontological term in the Plotinian system and to seek to trace its connexion with Stoicism. Although at first the fact that the fundamental meaning metaphysically of Logos for Plotinus is a spiritual activity due, both as created and as creator, to the desire for contemplation may appear to be an obstacle to a close resemblance with the Spermatic Logos of Stoicism, the creative aspect of the elemental Fire, nevertheless abundant and striking similarities in other respects seem to furnish conclusive evidence that the title which I have selected is not mistaken. The full importance of the Plotinian Logos cannot indeed be grasped until the development of the term has been studied not merely in Stoicism but in Philo and early Patristic Literature; for then the common function of Logos in every system, the reconciliation of the transcendent and the immanent views of God, is clearly manifested. But here only a brief indication of the evolution of the Logos doctrine between the diffusion of Stoic thought and the emergence of Neoplatonism is possible. Chief interest will be directed to the use by Plotinus of the spermatic conception, fundamentally Stoic, of a creative Nature which informs and pervades the Cosmos as its immanent Logos.

The former part of this paper attempted to show—

1. That in Anaxagoras' scheme of physics the following substances were elements:

(a) The animal substances (such as Flesh, Bone, Marrow, etc.);

(b) The vegetable substances (such as Bark, Wood, etc.);

(c) The so-called Opposites (the hot, the cold, etc.); and

2. That there is no evidence that Anaxagoras asserted any substances to be homoeomerous, and that, even if he had done so, the word ‘homoeomerous’ does not bear the meanings often attached to it by those theories which assume he made the assertion. The meaning of is, ὁμοιομερής is, not ‘simple in substance,’ i.e. ‘elementary,’ but ‘simple in formation.’

There is an epigram preserved in two lives of Pindar, that in the scholia Ambrosiana and the rambling biography of the poet by Eustathios. It is perhaps most conveniently accessible in von Christ's larger edition of Pindar, pp. ci and cii, and runs as follows:

ἦ μάλα ρωτμάχτε καὶὔμητισ λιуὑφωνιινδάρ‘nu; ἓκλατ θуατέρεσ πινταί, αρуθεν ἦμoσ ἴκντκμίζσ ἔνδoθι κρωσσῦ λειψαν' ἀπ' ༀπὺ ξεινησ ἀθρόα πρκαïῆσ.

IIρωτμάχη Eustathius. 2. Éκλαταὶ ινδάρ θуατέρεσ East. et Ambr., corr. Gerhard.