Professor H. J. Rose's thoughtful and suggestive article, “Mythology and Theology in Aeschylus,” has probably led many students of Aeschylus to reread his tragedies with an eye on the specific problems to which Rose directs our attention and also to rethink such impressions and views concerning Aeschylus' religious outlook as they may previously have formed. Professor Rose skillfully illustrates the difference between mythology and theology by contrasting the praise of Zeus in the first great chorus of Agamemnon with the references to Cassandra's experience which we find in a later part of the same play. It is probably true that there are in Aeschylus' work masses of traditional mythology that have not been reforged by his own creative imagination, not become organically assimilated to his own religion, but these are few and far between. On the whole, mythology provides the material which his vigorous and intense thought hammers into shape — into a new mythos which shows the gods acting as Aeschylus' own religious — or theological — convictions demand that they should act. In the larger part of his paper Professor Rose unless I have missed some points, is less anxious to separate the areas of mythology and theology by a clearly drawn boundary line, and to me at least this restraint seems very wise; for if one thinks too rigidly in the terms of these two concepts one runs a risk of cutting through the live tissue and of tearing asunder what has become intimately blended in the poet's own religion.

The three books to Autolycus of Theophilus of Antioch enjoyed a considerable measure of popularity among later Christian writers. His work was used not only by Greek but also by Latin writers. Eusebius found it in one of the libraries he used, probably at Caesarea; it was also employed by Methodius, Epiphanius, Procopius of Gaza, and John of Damascus. Novatian, Lactantius and Jerome certainly knew his writings; probably Minucius Felix should be added to the list. Three manuscripts of the Ad Autolycum survive; two are copies (one incomplete) of a third, an eleventh or twelfth-century manuscript now in Venice.

A generation ago the study of Russian church history was considered a highly specialized field. Outside Slavic lands little attention was paid to it and in Heussi's great compendium of church history the sections on Russia occupy hardly more than a page. Similarities and differences between Russian and Roman or Anglican theology interested enthusiasts for the restoration of unity between Eastern and Western Christianity and this led in some instances to serious historical study. The names of Palmer, Neale, Stanley and Fortescue in England, of Palmieri in Italy and d'Herbigny in France, not to mention other scholars associated with the excellent publications of the Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies, are familiar in this connection. The Ecumenical Movement after 1918 effected a wider and better understanding of the Russian Church especially in England and America. No general and popular interest, however, was stimulated or sustained.