Footnotes

0 An earlier version of this analysis appeared in Riverside Quarterly, and that version is Copyright (c) 1968 by Leland Sapiro. Our thanks to him and to the author for permission to include this revised version in this volume.

1. The volume-page references in this essay are to the translation of Spengler by Charles Francis Atkinson (two volumes: New York: Knopf, 1926, 1928). Spengler completed this work in late 1922.

2 Forgetfulness, alas, did indeed play a role. The volumes were written roughly in the order III, I, IV, II over a period of 15 years (during which I was also writing other books), and inconsistencies crept in despite my best intentions to keep them out. For this edition, I have corrected a large number of those pointed out to me by Dr. Mullen, where I agreed that they were inconsistencies. Where I didn't, I let them stand-along with Dr. Mullen's objections to them.-J. B

3 A wholly valid argument. Nevertheless I have not changed the text, because—"particularly in Vol. I-I was trying to make the point that when two Civilizations come in conflict with one another, the issue is resolved long in advance of formal military victory by each side becoming more like the other. The point would have seemed trivial to Spengler, who points out that all Civilizations are alike in their essential features to begin with; but in our century the process is highly visible once one's attention has been called to it, an opportunity I couldn't (and can't) resist.- J. B.

4 After this point, cleaning up the inconsistencies in the chronology involved advancing all the dates, and so I have altered Dr. Mullen's subsequent dates-which followed the original Chronology to reflect the changes.-J. B.

5 The Issue at Hand (Chicago: Advent, 1964), p. 60n.

6 Spengler uses the phrases "centralized bureaucracy-state" in connection with the Egyptian third political epoch [1, Table iii. but I hardly think that Blish's Bureaucratic State is intended to be an aristocratic state.

-RDM