The text is corrupt, but probably contained ὁμίχλην. Cp. Plato, _Sympos._ 736 A. Footnote 190: _Theogon._ 117. Footnote 191: Fr. 371. Footnote 192: _Meteor._ 1, 3, 340 b 29. Footnote 193: _Cyclops_, I. 332-3 (Shelley’s tr.). Footnote 194: _Phaedo_, 97 C. Footnote 195: 1, 25, where the work is ascribed to Glaucus. Footnote 196: _Od._ 9, 393. Footnote 197: _Rep._ 6, 18, 507 C. Footnote 198: Cp. Plato, _Laws_, 716 E. ON THE INSTANCES OF DELAY IN DIVINE PUNISHMENT INTRODUCTION The Dialogue on _Delay in Divine Punishment_ stands somewhat apart from the others. It deals gravely with grave matters, the ways of Providence with man, and the ‘last things’. The method is ingenious and satisfactory. An Epicurean, after scoffing at Providence in a manner which deeply offends the company, leaves them abruptly. We are reminded of the departure of the Cynic Didymus at Delphi (p. 124), and of the immortal episode of Thrasymachus in the First Book of the _Republic_ of Plato. The small family party which remains, Plutarch, his brother Timon, his son-in-law Patrocleas, and an intimate friend Olympicus, take up the points suggested by the attack, not contentiously, or in the language of the Schools, but with a view to ascertain whether there is anything in them which concerns reasonable men. The friends successively raise these points: the slowness of the Gods in punishing, and their purposes in the delay; the justice of visiting the sins of parents upon children, or of a city upon a new generation of citizens; the persistence of the soul after physical death here. In all cases it is Plutarch who supplies the answer, whereas, in the other long Dialogues, there is some distribution of parts and an interplay of character. In the tone of the dissertations, which is sustained, and little relieved by humour, the piece most nearly resembles the essay _On Superstition_. Plutarch’s argument is marked by truly academic caution, and an admission of man’s ignorance and limitations, which might have come from the pen of Bishop Butler.