^{page 1 note 1} And are not, as Knox says, ‘a general discussion’ of the subject; cf. ed. pr., note. 4599.1

^{page 2 note 1} The Comparatio Menandri et Philistionis appears to be a special and perhaps intermediate case.

^{page 2 note 2} For a summary of examples see Lime d'Écolier, pp. xxiv ff.

^{page 2 note 3} A fact which weakens Knox's arguments (op. cit.) pp. 12 ff., about the reasons for the decay of Greek poetry and prose respectively.

^{page 2 note 4} See Hense, s.v. ‘Johannes (Stobaeus)’, P.-W. ix.

^{page 3 note 1} See ibid. 2577.

^{page 3 note 2} Quintilian calls Euripides ‘sententiis densus’(Inst. 10. 1. 65). Even if my attribution to him of col. I, 1. 3 is incorrect, our anthology will no doubt have contained some of Euripides, with whom Túxn was such a favourite topic; see Busch, G., Untersuchungen zum Wesen der Túxn in den Tragōdien des Euripides, diss. Heidelb. 1937;Google ScholarJaeger, W., Paideia, tr. Highet, ii, p. 351.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} For the kind of use to which the Sophists put poetry, see Cramer, Fr., Geschichte d. Erziehung u. d. Unterrichts im altertum (1832), ii p. 182;Google Scholar for the treatment of passages of the poets by sophists and other see ibid., p. 256. see also Gomeperz, H., op. cit., pp. 127ff.Google Scholar; cf. ibid., p. 188; Büttner, , Basileios des Grossen Mahnworte an die jugen, Diss Munich, 1908, pp. 10f.`Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} The views of scholars who postulate a presophistic origin for the in the work of Alcidamas are mentioned in Kirk's article, loc. cit.

^{page 6 note 1} For inquiries into the source of Plutarch, Quomodo adolescens etc., the relation between Plutarch and St. Basil, and the sources of the latter see Schlemm, , De Fontibus Plutarchi commentationibus de audiendis poetis et de Fortuna, Diss. Göttingen, 1893;Google ScholarBüttner, G., op. cit., pp. 21 ff., 67 ff.Google Scholar; Seidel, , Vestigia diatribae, qualia reperiuntur in aliquot Plutarchi scriptis moralibus, Diss. Breslau, 1906;Google ScholarStelzenberger, , Die Beziehung frühchristl. Sittenlehre zur Ethik der Sloa, p. 468.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 1} We see a sneer at Sophistic polymathy in the pretentious variety of scientific and philological subjects learned by Socrates' pupils in the Clouds (e.g. 11. 191 ff.).

^{page 7 note 2} The expression is from Cratinus, fr. 307 (Kock).

^{page 9 note 1} For the use of citations in the diatribe see, for example, Wendland, , Beiträge zur Gesch. der gr. Phil., pp. 3ff.;Google Scholar Seidel, op. cit.; Büttner, , op. cit., pp. 61ff.Google Scholar; Stelzenberger, , op. cit., pp. 439ff.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} Cf. the rather similar expression Philodemus, Rhet. 2, col. xliii,

^{page 11 note 1} And very useful; see Homa, art. cit. 80.

^{page 11 note 2} Following Colson, who adopts and defends a MS. reading.

^{page 11 note 3} One drawback to Colson's convincing explanation of the reading adopted by him is the fact that we have no examples of such an exercise in the papyri. Could antilogiae be read? This would well describe (for example) Berl.Kl. Texte V. 22 A and B. Or possibly even anthologiae is not out of the question. But if so, some other explanation of subiectis dictorum rationibus will be necessary.

^{page 11 note 4} Cf. Lechner, , op. cit., pp. 83–4.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 1} ‘The attitude assumed by the two schools of thought to the ordinary curriculum was practically the same, in spite of the difference of general outlook’. Cf. Horna, art. cit. 79 f.

^{page 12 note 2} See Marrou, , op. cit., pp. 238ff.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 1} References to it as a rhetorical topic are legion. In the introduction to a collection of attributed to Plutarch or Caecilius Calactinus the writer hints plainly at the use of in the discussion of ‘general questions’ such as . Much the same points are made by Quint. Inst. 12. 29 ff., with express reference to rhetorical composition, but without mention of the specific topics. The same topics are mentioned by Quintilian 4, 25 (‘ducendane uxor”, ‘petendine magistratus”); cf. Clem. Alex. Protr. 11. 113. 1; Strom. 2. 137. 2; Jerome, Adv. Jov. 1 (Migne, P.L. xxiii, p. 260 A f.); Eustath. S. Philothei Laud., § 11.

^{page 13 note 2} Cf. Theon, Prog., p. 122, 11. 22 ff. Spengel.

^{page 14 note 1} Cf. Lechner, , op. cit., p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} For a different account of the relegation of poetry to the preliminary (and inferior) place in education see Colson, , op. cit., introduction, pp. xxix ff.Google Scholar This account makes the process a gradual one; but it seems already inherent in the scheme outlined in Plato's Laws.

^{page 14 note 3} See von Wartensleben, Begriff d. griech. Chreia, Heidelberg, 1901; Horna, art. cit. 75 f., with the supplementary notes of von Fritz, ibid, 87 f.; Collart, Les Papyrus Th. Reinach, ii. 25 f.; Marrou, , op. cit., pp. 241 f.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} On late gnomologia see Stelzenberger, , op. cit., pp. 473ff.;Google Scholar Horna, art. cit 81 ff.

^{page 17 note 1} As in the case of the Strasbourg papyrus mentioned C.Q. xliv (1950), p. 134, n. 2. 4599.1

^{page 18 note 1} See Gerhard's work for the occurrence of from Chares in later anthologies and their mistaken attribution to comedy.

^{page 18 note 2} In Stobaeus the is assigned definitely to Anaximenes. (For his importance in the history of prose see Wendland, Anaximenes von Lampsakos—a work which (pp. 100 f.) contains some interesting statements about fiori-legia.)

^{page 19 note 1} For a short account, see Norden, , op. cit., pp. 673ff.Google Scholar