The last proposition but one must evidently be distasteful to the modern “physical philosopher,” who sees the “objects” before him, but fails to see the light of the Universal Mind, which reveals them, _i.e._, who proceeds in a diametrically opposite way. Therefore the learned Professor comes to the conclusion that the ancient Philosopher, whom he now judges from Plato’s _Timæus_, must have acted in a decidedly unphilosophical and even irrational way. For: He passes abruptly from persons to ideas and numbers, and _from ideas and numbers to persons_,(8) he confuses subject and object, _first_ and _final_ causes, and in dreaming of geometrical figures(9) is lost in a flux of sense. And now an effort of mind is required on our parts _in order to understand his double language_, or to apprehend _the twilight character of the knowledge_ and the genius of ancient philosophers which, under such conditions [?], seems by a divine power in many instances to have anticipated the truth.(10) Whether “such conditions” imply those of ignorance and mental stolidity in “the genius of ancient philosophers” or something else, we do not know. But what we do know is that the meaning of the sentences we have italicized is perfectly clear. Whether the Regius Professor of Greek believes or disbelieves in a hidden sense of geometrical figures and of the Esoteric “jargon,” he nevertheless admits the presence of a “double language” in the writings of these Philosophers. Thence he admits a hidden meaning, which must have had an interpretation. Why, then, does he flatly contradict his own statement on the very next page? And why should he deny to the _Timæus_—that preëminently Pythagorean (mystic) Dialogue—any Occult meaning and take such pains to convince his readers that The influence which the _Timæus_ has exercised upon posterity is partly due to a misunderstanding. The following quotation from his Introduction is in direct contradiction with the paragraph which precedes it, as above quoted: In the supposed depths of this dialogue the Neo‐Platonists found hidden meanings and connections with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and out of them they dictated doctrines quite at variance with the spirit of Plato. Believing that he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, or had received his wisdom from Moses,(11) they seemed to find in his writings the Christian Trinity, the Word, the Church ... and the Neo‐Platonists had a method of interpretation which could elicit any meaning out of any words. They were really incapable of distinguishing between the opinions of one philosopher and another, or between the serious thoughts of Plato and his passing fancies.(12)... [But] there is no danger of the modern commentators on the _Timæus_ falling into the absurdity of the Neo‐Platonists.