[261]. τήν ἔμφυτον τοῦ λόγου καὶ αὐτοσχέδιον (ὡς ἄν τις εἴποι.)
[262]. τὸ ἀπειρόκαλον, one of the most damaging of Greek critical terms.
[263]. ἄτονος.
[264]. σμικρολογία καὶ τὸ προσκορὲς τιον παρισώσεων. It is needless to say that this προσκορὲς, this “satiated nausea” of the balanced antithetic sentence, has recurred as regularly as the resort to the most obvious, and, so long as it is fresh, most effective, of rhetorical devices.
[265]. And it cannot be too often repeated that when Byzantine men of letters were not criticising they were often doing something better for us. He would be a sorry critic himself who would not give a wilderness of all but the very greatest members of his own class for John Stobæus or Constantine Cephalas.
[266]. Unless, which one would rather not think, he meant the Problems (v. supra p. [49] sq.) as such.
[267]. There is in Photius a later notice of Isocrates, in connection with others of the usual set of Attic orators; and these are chiefly interesting for some references to the literary historian Cæcilius, referred to by Longinus, and to Longinus himself as “the critic who flourished under Claudius” (predecessor of Aurelian), “and took great share in the struggle of Zenobia, queen of the Osrhoeni.” But the criticism on Demosthenes referred to can hardly be that of the Περὶ Ὕψους.
[268]. Ed. Boissonade, Paris, 1851.
[269]. Ed. cit., p. 81, l. 299 sq.