8. Daimon and Hero, with Excursus on Ritual Forms preserved in Greek

tragedy; 9. Daimon to Olympian; 10. The Olympians; 11. Themis.” [90] F. M. Cornford, _Origin of Attic Comedy_, 1914, see especially pp. 10, 13, 55, 157, 202, 233. [91] A. B. Cook, _Zeus_, Cambridge, 1914, pp. 134-5, 12-14, 66-76. [92] Rendel Harris, _Picus who is also Zeus_, 1916; _The Ascent of Olympus_, 1917. [93] Farnell, _Greece and Babylon_, pp. 292, 178-9. [94] See Ernest Riess, _Superstitions and Popular Beliefs in Greek Tragedy_, in _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, vol. 27 (1896), pp. 5-34; and _On Ancient superstition_, _ibid._ 26 (1895), 40-55. Also J. G. Frazer, _Some Popular Superstitions of the Ancients_, in _Folk-lore_, 1890, and E. H. Klatsche, _The Supernatural in the Tragedies of Euripides_, in _University of Nebraska Studies_, 1919. [95] See Zeller, _Pre-Socratic Philosophy_, II (1881), 119-20, for further boasts by Empedocles himself and other marvels attributed to him by later authors. [96] _Laws_, XI, 933 (Steph.). [97] _Timaeus_, p. 71 (Steph.). [98] _Symposium_, p. 188 (Steph.); in Jowett’s translation, I, 558. [99] _Timaeus_, p. 40 (Steph.); Jowett, III, 459. [100] _Ibid._, pp. 41-42 (Steph.). [101] _Timaeus_, p. 39 (Steph.); Jowett, III, 458. [102] W. Windelband, _History of Philosophy_, English translation by J. H. Tufts, 1898, p. 147. [103] Windelband, _History of Ancient Philosophy_, English translation by H. E. Cushman, 1899. [104] For a number of examples, which might be considerably multiplied if books VII-X are not rejected as spurious, see Thorndike (1905), pp. 62-3. T. E. Lones, _Aristotle’s Researches in Natural Science_, London, 1912, 274 pp., discusses “Aristotle’s method of investigating the natural sciences,” and a large number of Aristotle’s specific statements showing whether they were correct or incorrect. The best translation of the _History of Animals_ is by D’Arcy W. Thompson, Oxford 1910, with valuable notes. [105] See the edition of the _History of Animals_ by Dittmeyer (1907), p. vii, where various monographs will be found mentioned. [106] Perhaps pure literature was over-emphasized in the Museum at Alexandria, and magic texts in the library of Assurbanipal. [107] A list of magic papyri and of publications up to about 1900 dealing with the same is given in Hubert’s article on _Magia_ in Daremberg-Saglio, pp. 1503-4. See also Sir Herbert Thompson and F. L. Griffith, _The Magical Demotic Papyrus of London and Leiden_, 3 vols., 1909-1921; _Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, with facsimiles and complete translations_, 1909, 3 vols. Grenfell (1921), p. 159, says, “A corpus of the magical papyri was projected in Germany by K. Preisendanz before the war, and a Czech scholar, Dr. Hopfner, is engaged upon the difficult task of elucidating them.” [108] W. C. Battle, _Magical Curses Written on Lead Tablets_, in _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, XXVI (1895), pp. liv-lviii, a synopsis of a Harvard dissertation. Audollent, _Defixionum tabulae_, etc., Paris, 1904, 568 pp. R. Wünsch, _Defixionum Tabellae Atticae_, 1897, and _Sethianische Verfluchungstafeln aus Rom_ (390-420 A. D.), Leipzig, 1898. [109] Since 1898 various volumes and parts have appeared under the editorship of Cumont, Kroll, Boll, Olivieri, Bassi, and others. Much of the material noted is of course post-classical and Byzantine, and of Christian authorship or Arabic origin. [110] For example, see R. Wünsch, _Antikes Zaubergerät aus Pergamon_, in _Jahrb. d. kaiserl. deutsch. archæol. Instit., suppl._ VI (1905), p. 19. [111] T. L. Heath, _The Works of Archimedes_, Cambridge, 1897, pp. xxxix-xl. [112] On “Aristotle as a Biologist” see the Herbert Spencer lecture by D’Arcy W. Thompson, Oxford, 1913, 31 pp. Also T. E. Lones, _Aristotle’s Researches in Natural Science_, London, 1912. Professor W. A. Locy, author of _Biology and Its Makers_, writes me (May 9, 1921) that in his opinion G. H. Lewes, _Aristotle; a Chapter from the History of Science_, London, 1864, “dwells too much on Aristotle’s errors and imperfections, and in several instances omits the quotation of important positive observations, occurring in the chapters from which he makes his quotations of errors.” Professor Locy also disagrees with Lewes’ estimate of _De generatione_ as Aristotle’s masterpiece and thinks that “naturalists will get more satisfaction out of reading the _Historia animalium_” than either the _De generatione_ or _De partibus_. Thompson (1913), p. 14, calls Aristotle “a very great naturalist.” [113] This quotation is from Professor Locy’s letter of May 9, 1921. [114] The quotations are from a note by Professor D’Arcy W. Thompson on his translation of the _Historia animalium_, III, 3. The note gives so good a glimpse of both the merits and defects of the Aristotelian text as it has reached us that I will quote it here more fully: “The Aristotelian account of the vascular system is remarkable for its wealth of details, for its great accuracy in many particulars, and for its extreme obscurity in others. It is so far true to nature that it is clear evidence of minute inquiry, but here and there so remote from fact as to suggest that things once seen have been half forgotten, or that superstition was in conflict with the result of observation. The account of the vessels connecting the left arm with the liver and the right with the spleen ... is a surviving example of mystical or superstitious belief. It is possible that the ascription of three chambers to the heart was also influenced by tradition or mysticism, much in the same way as Plato’s notion of the three corporeal faculties.” [115] Professor Locy called my attention to it in a letter of May 17,