[352] 358 F. This is a difficult passage. It seems necessary to read ἀνακλάσει for ἀναχωρήσει (cf. ἀνάκλασις δή που περὶ τὴν ἶριν, _Amatorius_, 765 E), but even then the meaning is difficult to elicit, and it is not confidently claimed that the rendering in the text has elicited it. Three translations are appended: “_For as mathematicians assure us that the rainbow is nothing else but a variegated image of the sun, thrown upon the sight by the reflexion of his beams from the clouds, so ought we to look upon the present story as the representation, or reflexion rather, of something real as its true cause_” (Plutarchi _De Iside et Osiride_ Liber: Græce et Anglice, by SAMUEL SQUIRE, A.M., Cambridge, 1744).—“_Und so wie die Naturforscher den Regenbogen für ein Gegenbild der Sonne erklären, das durch das Zurücktreten der Erscheinung an die Wolke bunt wird, so ist hier die Sage das Gegenbild einer Wahrheit, welche ihre Bedeutung auf etwas anderes hin abspiegelt_” (Plutarch _über Isis und Osiris_ herausgegeben von G. PARTHEY, Berlin, 1850).—_Legendum ἀναχρώσει vel ἀνακλάσει, ut Reisk._ “_Et quemadmodum mathematici arcum cælestem Solis tradunt esse imaginem variatam visus ad nubem reflexu: Sic fabula hoc loco indicium est orationis alio reflectentis intellectum._”—WYTTENBACH. [353] _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, vol. ii. p. 120. [354] In our spelling of this name we use the freedom of choice so graciously accorded by Xylander—_Si Euhemerus mavis, non repugno._ [355] _De Placitis Philosophorum_, 880 D. Cf. CICERO, _De Natura Deorum_. i. 42. “Ab Euhemero autem et mortes et sepulturæ demonstrantur deorum. Utrum igitur hic confirmasse videtur religionem, an penitus totam sustulisse?” See MAYOR’s note on this passage. The references to Lactantius and Eusebius and many others bearing on the question are collected by Corsini in his first dissertation on the _De Placitis_. Zimmerman is very indignant with Plutarch on account of the charge here brought against Euhemerus and Diagoras, and has defended them against our author with great energy and spirit. (_Epistola ad Nicolaum Nonnen qua Euemerus Messenius et Diagoras Melius ab Atheismo contra Plutarchum aliosque defenduntur._) [356] 360 A. [357] The language here seems curiously outspoken in view of the now established apotheosis of the Emperors. [358] 360 D. [359] 356, 357. Cf. _De Dædalis Platæensibus_. [360] 364 A. [361] 366 C. [362] 364 D. [363] 367 D. [364] 368 D. [365] 369 C. It is clear from a careful examination of the text that Plutarch gives only a critical examination of this theory: he does not adopt it as his own, as has frequently been asserted.