apparent in the work On Pride, in which the Peripatetic love of historical examples comes to light. If the character of the writings of the Peripatetic are so sharply distinct from those of the Stoic, one would expect that Panaitios would have been able to separate them. Not so. He ascribed to the Chian only the letter; and yet, of his Protreptikos there are still fragments extant. These belong to προτρεπτικῶν β of the catalogue; further are probably to be ascribed to the Stoic: περὶ τῶν Ζήνωνος δογμάτων and πρὸς Κλεάνθην.
D. believes the material of the Memorabilia has not been sufficiently utilized for determining the actual teaching of Sokrates. The chief passage for the Sokratic notion of Dialectic is IV, 5. 11 f. Dialectic is here the art of separating the possible courses of conduct into groups from a moral standpoint. In addition to this, D. brings forward as explanatory of the Sokratic notion of Dialectic Mem., IV, 2. 12 f. and I, 1. 16 f. In IV, 6. the essence of Dialectic is defined as the knowledge of τί ἕκαστον εἴη τῶν ὄντων. This is a step further than the foregoing chapter, in which Dialectic had for its object only moral conduct; here it receives a universal employment,—ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων. Author finds that the Xenophontic Sokrates employs the notion of Dialectic in two senses: (1) it is directed chiefly to ethical conceptions, in which διαλέγειν is used for the correct demarcation of opposed notions; (2) in a wider sense it includes the most manifold forms of argumentation. Mem., III, 9. 4 f. is cited as a passage of prime importance for the Sokratic philosophy. Author shows from this that the ethical σοφία of Sokrates has a double function: (1) knowledge of the right; (2) knowledge of the right as efficient cause in directing conduct. In thus giving σοφία an application to conduct, the Sokratic notion of virtue as knowledge is cleared of some difficulty.
Professor S., after a discriminative account of the life and personality of Lord Herbert of Cherbury, proceeds to a notice of the works and especially the philosophy of the same. It is on his philosophical works that Lord Herbert's true title to fame rests. He belonged to the speculative and not to the empirical philosophers. His point of view is closely allied to that of Descartes, by whom his work was much appreciated. Such merit as belongs to priority of time must be allowed to Herbert. Herbert did not start, as Descartes did, with the sole impreg-
