^{Page 24 note 1} Two points in connection with the problem of sources may perhaps be mentioned here. (A) Adler, M. (Diss. Philol. Vindob., 10, 169)Google Scholar sees in various details, such as the story about Cronus, the mention of Ogygia and Britain, of the Maeotic gulf and the Caspian sea, and the ‘sagax sententia’ that what we call a continent is really an island, clear indications of the work of Poseidonius. This source seems to me to be ruled out by the evidence of Strabo and the elder Pliny. Strabo (2. 3. 5) ridicules Poseidonius for believing that Eudoxus of Cyzicus had discovered trustworthy evidence of the possibility of sailing round Africa and for concluding δι⋯τι ⋯ ο⋯μενη κ⋯κλῳ περιρρεῖται τῷὠκεανῷ ‘οὐ γ⋯ρ δεσμ⋯ς περιβ⋯λλεται ἠπε⋯ροιο, ⋯λλ ⋯ς ⋯πειρεσ⋯ην κ⋯χυται τ⋯ μιν ο⋯τι μιαινει’ The source of these hexameter verses is unknown, but they are certainly intended by Strabo to be an expression of the view held by Poseidonius. Pliny (N.H. 6. 57) says: ‘Poseidonius ab aestivo solis ortu ad hibernum exortum metatus est earn (sc. Indiam), adversam Galliam statuens,’ and the statement is repeated by Solinus (ch. 52), who says of Poseidonius: ‘Hanc (sc. Indiam) adversam Galliae statuit.’ This must mean that he supposed the coast of Gaul to be opposite the east coast of India in the same sense as the east coast of Japan is now known to be opposite the west coast of America. He could not have held this if he had believed that a transatlantic continent intervened.

(B)Parallels for many of the details of life on the island of Cronus may be found in romantic descriptions of Utopias, such as those of Euhemerus (in Diodorus 5, 41–46), Theopompus (in Aelian, , Var. Hist. 3. 18)Google Scholar, Diodorus (5, 19–20), and Lucian's parody of this type of writing, the Vera Historia. Still more striking is the correspondence between Plutarch's narrative and the account of the Hyperboreans given by Hecataeus of Abdera (Miiller, F.H.G. 2. 386–388).388). The Hyperboreans lived on an island opposite what is vaguely called ⋯ Kελτικ⋯; they were devoted to the service of Apollo, as Plutarch's islanders to that of Cronus; they were on friendly terms with the Greeks, especially the Athenians and Delians, and there was a protradition that their country had been visited by Greeks, who left behind costly offerings inscribed in Greek characters. One of their number, Abaris, visited Greece and renewed the old friendship with the Delians. (On this cf. A. D. Nock, C.R. 1929, p. 126.) The moon appeared to be quite close in the land of the Hyperboreans, so that the inequalities of its surface couldbe clearly seen. This is the substance of what is preserved by Diodorus, and it is surely not going too far to regard Hecataeus as one of Plutarch's sources for this part of his work, used perhaps in conjunction with an account of Abaris by Heracleides Ponticus (cf. de aui. poet. 14E). The holy people who had been visited by Greeks and who send one of their number in historic times to return the visit are features common to both stories, and the theory which Plutarch favours about the markings on the moon is mentioned as a fact in the work of Hecataeus. The stranger Abaris travelled about in Greece and gave protradition phecies (Lycurgus fr. 85, Blass), and Plutarch's stranger is introduced as giving religious instruction; moreover, Abaris is said by Pausanias (3. 13. 2) to have founded a temple to K⋯ρησώτειρα at Sparta, and the gist of the instruction of Plutarch's stranger to Sulla is that men should honour the moon, whose name is K⋯ρη as well as φερσεφ⋯ν·, more than they do.

_{Page 25 note 1} Timaeus 24E (A. E. Taylor's translation).

^{Page 25 note 2} Böckh, , quoted by Humboldt, , Kritische Untertsuchuttgen über die hist. Entw. der geogr. Kenntniss von der neuen Welt, 1. 177Google Scholar, thought that Ogygia was the island of Cronus, and that ὧν δ⋯ τῇ ῇγυγ⋯ᾳ or ⋯ν δ⋯τῄ πρώτῄ.but this seems most improbable.

^{Page 26 note 1} Cf. Stewart, , Myths of Plato, 466Google Scholar and Cary, and Warmington, , The Ancient Explorers, 97, who give references to several geographical writers later than Plato testifying to the muddiness of the AtlanticGoogle Scholar.

² For a survey and criticism of the long-lived belief, shared by Kepler, that Plutarch's story iswho not imaginary, but refers to an actual discoveryof America by the ancients, cf. Ebner, E., Geogr. Hinweise u. Ankldänge in Plutarchs Schrift ‘de facie’,Munch. Geogr. Stud. 19 (1906)Google Scholar.

^{Page 27 note 2} This point has been noticed by Jones, R. M., The Platonism of Plutarch, p. 51Google Scholar.

^{Page 28 note 1} It is, I think, generally admitted that the eschatology of Plutarch is ultimately based upon that of Plato, but the nature of the intermediate steps in the process of transformation has been the object of much dispute. Heinze, R., Xenocrates. pp. 125 ffGoogle Scholar. divided the de facie myth between Xenocrates and Poseidonius on the score of alleged inconsistencies, which von Arnim, , Plutarch über Dämonen und Mantik, pp. 47 ffGoogle Scholar. has shown to be not grave enough to justify such a division. Reinhardt, K., Kosmos und Sympathie, pp. 313 ffGoogle Scholar. analyzes the myth, on very slender grounds, into three parts, one of which, the psychological theory that mind conies from the sun and soul from the moon, he ascribes to Poseidonius. Apart from the weakness of the positive evidence which he brings (cf. Jones, R. M., Poseidonius and solar eschatology in Classical Philology, 1932, pp. 116 ff.)Google Scholar, this possibility seems to be definitely excluded by the evidence of Galen, De Plac. Hipp, et Plat., where it is repeatedly stated that, though Poseidonius rejected the view of Chrysippus that passions are merely affections of the judgment, and adopted the Platonic classification of τὺ λογιστ7iota;κ⋯ν τὺ θυμοειδ⋯ς and τ⋯ ⋯πιθυμητι7kappa;⋯ν, he held that these were only faculties of a single substance, not μ⋯ρη or εἴδη, as Plato had called them. Cf. especially p. 501 (Müller): ⋯ δ⋯ Aριστοτ⋯λης τɛ καἱ ⋯ иοσειδών7iota;ος εἳδμ⋯ν ⋯ μ⋯ρη ψυχ⋯ς οὐκ ⋯νομζουσι. δ7nu;ομ⋯ζουσι. δυν⋯μ⋯νης. I hope to deal in detail with the whole question of the sources of Plutarch's myths on another occasion.

^{Page 27 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 42 ff. Von Arnim, though he rightly rejects most of Heinze's arguments, attempts himself to prove that the myth proper also must be derivative. His argument runs as follows (pp. 65 ff.). He shows that the passage describing the substance of the moon in ch. 29 is essential to the myth, since it brings out the parallel between mind, soul, body, and sun, moon, earth. In each of these series the middle place is occupied by a mixed body. The moon, according to Plutarch, is an ἂστρου σ⋯γκραμα 7κ7α⋯ γ⋯σ (943E), and soul is μικτ⋯ν κα⋯ μ⋯σον, καθ⋯περ⋯ σελ⋯νη tau;⋯ν ἂνω κ⋯τω ɑ⋯μιγμɑκɑ⋯ μετɑκ⋯Ρɑσμɑ ὑπ⋯ το⋯ θεο⋯ γ⋯γονε](945D). Plutarch praises Xenocrates for having had some notion of the intermediate nature of the moon, but the system given as that of Xenocrates does not agree with that of Plutarch in that it does not make the moon a mixture of fire and earth. This von Arnim considers to be the central point of the myth, and he concludes ‘dass der Mythos seinem materiellen Gedankengehalte nach nicht nur nicht von Xenocrates sondern auch nicht von Plutarch stammen kann. Denn nur wenn Plutarch den Mythos von einem andern Autor iibernahm, konnte er seinen Sinn so ungenau auffassen, dass er ihn fur ubereinstimmend mit der Lehre des Xenocrates hielt.’

But has Plutarch misunderstood the doctrine of the composition of the soul which he expounds ? Von Arnim admits that it is impossible to know of what elements soul can be com-pounded, although it is called μικτ⋯ν κɑ⋯ μ⋯αον. It would be ridiculous to suppose that it Is com-pounded of mind and body; why then does the main point of the parallel lie in the moon's being compounded of astral fire and earth?

Again, what can the words μικτ⋯ν κɑ⋯ μ⋯σον mean? Von Arnim has no suggestion to offer, but surely the most reasonable supposition is that soul is of a nature intermediate between immaterial mind and material body, being in fact an extremely tenuous vapour. (At 945A soul is said to retain the shape of the body; it feeds on exhalations, and the effect of purification is to render it bright and transparent. Cf. de vindicta 564AB.) This is just the point for which Xenocrates is praised, ὃλως δ⋯ μ⋯τε τ⋯ πυκν⋯ν ɑὐτ⋯ κɑθ' ɑὑ⋯ 7mu;⋯τε τ⋯ μɑνĐν εἷνɑι Ѱυχ⋯ς δεκτικ⋯ν). and his view of the nature of the moon corresponds to what I suppose to be Plutarch's view of the nature of the soul, in making it of a density (T⋯ δε⋯τεΡον πυκτ⋯ν)midway between those of the sun and earth (T⋯ πΡ⋯τον πυν⋯ν and τ⋯τΡτον πυκν⋯ν).

Finally, von Arnim has involved himself in a manifest contradiction; on p. 53 he emphasizes the fact ‘dass die Lehre des Xenocrates als der richtigen (offenbarten) Lehre nahe verwandt u. ahnlich, nicht als mit ihr identisch gelobt wird.’

On p. 36 there is a second argument. Von Arnim believes the de genio myth to contain two inconsistent doctrines, and concludes that neither can be Plutarch's own. It follows that the subStance of the de facie myth, which agrees with one of the parts of the de genio, cannot be Plutarch's either. I hope to show in a subsequent paper that no inconsistency is to be found in the de genio myth.

^{Page 29 note 1} 墟 ἔστιν ὂπη Ѱɑ⋯ει τ⋯ς ⋯ƛηθεἰɑ κɑἱ τ⋯μυθ⋯δεɑ.

^{Page 29 note 2} 29D: ⋯⋯ν ἂπηδεν⋯ɑ ἧττον πɑΡεχ ώμεθɑ εἰκ⋯τɑɑ (sc. ƛ⋯γουɑ) ⋯γɑπ⋯ν χΡ⋯, μεμνημ⋯νημ⋯νουɑ ὡɑ ⋯ λ⋯γων ⋯γὼ ὑμεῖɑ τε οἱ κΡιτἰ φὑσιν ⋯νθΡωπ⋯νην ἔχομενν, ὢστε πεΡ⋯ το⋯τοντ⋯ν εἰκ⋯τɑ μθον ⋯ποδεομ⋯νουɑ πΡ⋯πειιο⋯του μηδ⋯ν ἔτι π⋯Ρɑξηεῖν

^{Page 29 note 3} 114D: T⋯ μ⋯ν οὖν τɑ⋯τɑδιισɑσθɑι οὓτωɑ ἔχειν ὡɑ ⋯γὼ διεƛ⋯ƛυθɑ, οὐ πρ⋯πει νο⋯ν ἒχοντι ⋯νδρ⋯ ὅτι ν⋯ντοι ἢ το⋯τ' ⋯στ⋯ν ἢ τοια⋯τ'…το⋯το κα⋯ πρ⋯πειν μοι δοκεῖ κα⋯ἄξιον κινδυνε⋯σαι οἰομ⋯νψ οὕτως ἔχειν.

^{page 29 note 4} De an. procr. 1013E ff. Cf. also de vindicta, 550D.

^{page 29 note 5} De genio 589F; de vindicta 561B.