I have little to say on this passage, where it seems necessary to maintain the vulgate notwith standing its obvious defects. My only reason for discussing it is to call attention to the strangeness of Jebb's proceeding when seeking to support Hermann's conjecture παλλλοιν which he admits into the text. The objection to Hermann's view is that, as he himself admits, there is no evidence that πáλληλος could be used in the sense of λληλιφóνος. For that, I suppose, is the meaning of ‘mutual hands,’ which both Jebb and Campbell suggest as a translation, although ‘mutual violence’ would be better. But the chief purpose of this note is to protest against the mode of interpretation applied to Philo de Mose 3. 36. II. p. 175 M. διà τàς ν ὓδασι καí πνρì γɛνιμéνας συνɛχɛῖς καì παλλλονς φθορáς Turnebu s rightl yrenders ‘alternas interneciones,’ and why Jebb supposes him to have meant ‘mutual’ I do not know. Anyhow he admits that Philo used the word in its ordinary sense of successive, and proceeds to paraphrase ‘owing to the continuous and rapid succession of calamities by flood and fire’ (J.'s italics: observe the addition of and rapid). All this is quite beside the mark, for the reference is to the alternate destruction of the world (according to the Stoics) at the κπὐρωσις by fire and at the ξὐγρωσιςby water. I must take leave to refer to the evidence collected in my book on Zeno and Cleanthes, p. 253, to which should be added a most instructive passage of Origen (Chrysipp. Stoic. II . 337, 32 V. Arn.): περì τν κακν λóγος οὐ μɛνóντων ɛì ν ταὐτᾦ διà τν ἤτοι τηροσαν τà πì γ$$$ς πρóνοιαν ἤ κατακλνσμοῖ καì κπνρ03CE;σɛσι καθαíρονσαν.Add the passages from Lucan quoted by Mr. Heitland in his Introduction, p. xliii.