The metaphor is derived from archery. The epithet πτερόεɩς is appropriate to arrows [πτερόεντες ỏịστοί E 171, ỉờν ἰβλ⋯τα πτερόεντα Δ 117, ἰοì πτερόεντες π 773, ἰ⋯ πτερόεντα ϒ 68]. Just as ἰ⋯ πτερόεντα means ‘feathered arrows,’ so ἔπεα πτερόεντα means ‘feathered words.’ The early Greeks, when they formed a picture of words in their minds, thought of them as missiles—not as birds. Whence ‘to utter’ words is ἱέναɩ or ⋯ϕɩέναɩ. Missiles so light are more readily imagined as arrows than as spears or stones.

In the ontology of the Philebus (23C–30E) νο⋯σ is the αἰτία τ⋯ς συμμ⋯ξεωσ, the cause (called also τ⋯ δημιουργο⋯ν and τ⋯ ποιο⋯ν) that combines π⋯ρας with ἃπειρον into the mixture called γ⋯νεσισ εἰς οὐσ⋯αν or γεγενημ⋯νη οὐσ⋯α: correspondingly in the Timaeus the Demiurge, ⋯ ἃριστος τ⋯ν αἰτι⋯ν (29A), brings order into unordered chaos by ‘Forms and Numbers’ (διεσχηματ⋯σατο εἴδεσι κα⋯ ⋯ριθμοῖς 53B). In the Philebus the Universe has a Soul, discriminated from the νο⋯ς that causes it (30B, where it is argued that we cannot imagine that the αἰτ⋯α, while it provides our human bodies with a soul, does not ‘devise that which is fairest and most precious’ in the body of the Universe: οὐ γ⋯ρ που δοκο⋯μ⋯ν γε … ⋯ν το⋯τοις δ' οὐκ ἃρα μεμηχαν⋯σθαι τ⋯ν τ⋯ν καλλ⋯στων κα⋯ τιμιωτ⋯των φ' σιν): correspondingly in the Timaeus the Demiurge devises (⋯μηχαν⋯σατο 34c) a soul of the world, as well as its body.

Two papyri ascribe this poem to Sappho (P. Oxy. 1232 and P. Oxy. 2076); Athenaeus (XI. 4600) attributes v. 10 to her; Philostratos (Imag. II. i, p. 62) attributes v. 30 to her. In three of these places the poem is assigned to her Second Book. Perhaps it is true that hardly any other poem of Sappho is so often ascribed to her by antiquity. This admittedly proves no more than that the poem was certainly handed down in the Sappho-book in antiquity: it does not necessarily prove its authenticity. But at least it settles the burden of proof on those who would deny that Sappho wrote it. Now it has been thought that certain arguments can be employed to justify the overthrow of ancient testimonies. If, however, these arguments should proveto be fallacious or insufficient, the poem will automatically be reascribed to Sappho.

Thetext of the de Caelo was the subject of an interesting article in the Rivista Storia Antica, N.S. IX, by Dr. R. Rubrichi; he showed that where the manuscriptsdiverge, we ought to bring in the evidence of Simplicius, and that when we look closely into the sense, the commentator's reading is in most cases decidedly preferable; he also established a fact which is familiar from editions of the othér physical treatises, namely that there is some specially close affinity between the text of E and that used by Simplicius.

One of the most interesting recent attempts to interpret the peculiarities of Plotinus's philosophy is that of Bréhier in his ‘La Philosophie de Plotin’(Bibl. de la Revue des Cours et Conférences, Boivin, Paris, 1928). His thesis, contained in the last four chapters of the work, is that Plotinus, instead of being simply the continuator of the Greek rationalist tradition, is the founder of modern European Idealism, or, perhaps more accurately, Pantheism. ‘Avec Plotin nous saisissons done le premier chatnon d'une tradition religieuse qui n'est pas moins puissante au fond en Occident que la tradition chretienne …’. He is the spiritual ancestor of Spinoza and Hegel. It is interesting in passing to compare this view with that of Dean Inge, for whom Plotinus is the spiritual begetter of S. Thomas Aquinas. The divergences of modern interpreters of the Plotinian metaphysic are often both amusing and suggestive.