northern portion of the western town wall, which in one section

served at the same time as an embankment against floods (it was apparently more conspicuous in the time of P. Cluver, Sicilia, p. 133), of an extensive necropolis, about 1000 tombs of which have been explored, and of a deposit of votive objects from a temple. The harbour lay to the north of the town. See P. Orsi in Monumenti dei Lincei (1891), i. 689-950; and Atti del congress delle scienze storiche, v. 181 (Rome, 1904). (T. AS.)

MEGARIAN SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY. This school was founded by Euclides of Megara, one of the pupils of Socrates. Two main elements went to make up the Megarian 155 ~;, . gp », p, , doctrine. Like the Cynics and the 1, :"§ ., I'l'(»»- 1 W, ” Cyrenaics, Euclides started from the l ', , 7 5 Y LF' 1' fly- M Socratic principle that virtue is know- . ' »' f' - W” ( ledge. 'But into combination with this , ,, ' .' ' », ' ";}°: he brought the Eleatic doctrine of Unity. itll* , ", lj , Perceiving the difficulty of the Socragc “W ' 1 V 4 p 2 i, 1l; f, ]'r dictum he endeavoured to give to the f '-, i » 1 ' A 5 word “ knowledge ” a definite content by “Egg i "P, divorcing it absolutely from the sphere A , V l i . of sense and experience, and confining it " “li 31, ' - l s, l -; to a sort of transcendental dialectic or ' l A l'., l§ log1c. The Eleatic unity is Goodness, Ni, L Q and is beyond the sphere of sensible A " >~ Ugg, ', .» apprehension. This goodness, therefore, § lp””". " <" ~ alone exists; matter, motion, growth " M” ~ . and decay are iigments of the senses;, Qs Athey have no existence for Reason. § ;*§ ' 'ff -W “ Whatever is, is !” Knowledge is of f pi? Q. ideas and is in conformity with the ' ., necessary laws of thought. Hence Plato ' fem',3 - a in the Sophist describes the Megarians as “the friends of ideas.” Yet the Megarians were by no means in agreement with the Platonic idealism. For they held that ideas, though eternal and immovable, have neither life nor action nor movement. This dialectic, initiated by Euclides, became more and more opposed to the testimony of experience; in the hands of Eubulides and Alexinus it degenerated into hairsplitting, mainly in the form of the reduclio ad absurdum. The strength of these men lay in destructive criticism rather than in construction: as dialecticians they were successful, but they contributed little to ethical speculation. They spent their energy in attacking Plato and Aristotle, and hence earned the opprobrious epithet of Eristic. They used' their dialectic subtlety to disprove the possibility of motion and decay; unity is the negation of change, increase and decrease, birth and death. None the less, in ancient times they received great respect owing to their intellectual pre-eminence. Cicero (Academics, 42) describes their doctrine as a “nobilis discipline, ” and identifies them closely with Parmenides and Zeno. But their most immediate influence was upon the Stoics (q.'v.), whose founder, Zeno, studied under Stilpo. This philosopher, a man of striking 'and attractive personality, succeeded in fusing the Megatian dialectic with Cynic naturalism. The result of the combination was in fact a juxtaposition rather than a compound; it is manifestly impossible to find an organic connexion between a practical code like Cynicism and the transcendental logic of the Megarians. But it served as a powerful stimulus to Zeno, who by descent was imbued with oriental mysticism.

For biblio raphical information about the Megarians, see Eucuoas; lgunutrnas; Dronoaus CRONUS; Srrtro. See also ELEATIC SCHOOL; CvNrcs; STOICS; and, for the connexion between the Megarians and the Eretrians, MENEDEMUS and Prulano. Also Zeller, Socrates and the Socratic Schools; Dyeck, De Megaricorum doctrina (Bonn, 1827); Mallet, Histoire de Vécole de Mégare (Paris, 1845): Ritter, Uber die Philosophie der imeg. Schule; Prantl, Geschichte der Lo ik, i. 32; Henne, L'école de Mégare (Paris, 1843); Gomperz, Greek Thinkers (Eng. trans. 1905), ii. 170 seq.

MEGARON, the principal hall of the ancient

been found at Tiryns and Mycenae, and references are made to it in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

MEGATHERIUM (properly Megalotherium), a huge extinct edentate mammal from the Pleistocene deposits of Buenos Aires, typifying the family Megalheriidae (or M egalotheriidae), and by far the largest representative of the Edentata. Except, indeed, for its relatively shorter limbs Megatherium americanum rivalled 'an elephant in bulk, the total length of the skeleton being 18 feet, five of which are taken up by the tail. The M egalheriidae, which include a number of genera, are collectively

Greek- palace, situated in the andron or men's quarter. Examples have

FIG. 1.4-Skeleton of the Megatherium, from the specimen in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

known as ground-sloths, and occupy a position intermediate between the sloths and the ant-eater; their skulls being of the type of the former, while their limbs and vertebrae conform in structure to those of the latter. As in the other typical South American e dent ates, there are no teeth in the front of the jaws, while those of the cheek-series usually comprise five pairsin the upper and four in the lower. In nearly all the other Pleistocene forms these teeth were sub cylindrical in shape, with the summit of the crown (except sometimes in the first pair) forming a. cup-like depression; enamel being in all cases absent.. From all these Megatherium differs in the form and structure

of the teeth.

In form, as shown in fig. 2, the teeth are quadran ular prisms, each of which is surmountedgby a pair of transverse ridges. They grew apparently throughout life, and were implanted to a. great depth in the jaws, being 7 or 8 in.- in length, with a cross-section of at least an inch and a half. The ridges on the crown are due H to the arrangement of the vertical layers of hard dentine (fig. 3, d), softer vasodentine ('v) and cement (c). The skull

is relatively small, with the lower jaw very deep in its central portion, and produced in part into a long snout-like

symphysis for the reception, doubtless, of a large and fleshy tongue (fig. 2). Unlike sloths, the megatherium has seven cervical vertebrae; and the spines of all the trunk-vertebrae incline backwards. The pelvis and hind-limbs are much more powerful than the fore-quarters; thereby enabling these animals, in all probability, to rear themselves on their ind- uarters, and 'thus pull down the brandhes of trees: if not, indeed, in some cases to bodily uproot the trees themselves. Large chevron-bones are suspended

to the vertebrae of the'tail,

if

-nv

il

i

i

-aiu#

wr/li

W

lx

(From Owen.)

FIG. 2.-Lower law and

Teeth of Megalherium..

which was massive, and robably afforded a support when the monster was sitting up. %he humerus has no foramen, and the