Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Caecilius, Longinus, and Photius
Heath, Malcolm
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Autumn 1998; 39, 3; ProQuest
pg. 271

Caecilius, Longinus, and Photius 

Malcolm Heath 

P 
HOTIUS DREW ON a number of different sources in compil­

ing his essays on the ten orators (codices 259-268). His 
core biographical source is the pseudo-Plutarchan Lives of 

the Ten Orators; for Demosthenes, Libanius' hypotheses are also 
used. An important contribution by Rebekah M. Smith 
identified a number of passages which show stylistic evidence 
of Photius' own hand, proving that he made a more significant 
contribution than has generally been acknowledged. But a 
residue of material remains which cannot be assigned to any ex­
tant source. Smith subsequently extended her analysis, arguing 
that significant sections of this residue are derived, directly or 
indirectly, from Caecilius of Caleacte.1 In this paper I shall argue 
for a different position, defending the following three theses: 
(i) Photius' unidentified source is an author who cited Caecilius, 
but who was also willing to comment on and criticise his opin­
ions. Since there are grounds for believing that this later author 
cited and criticised the views of others as well, only those pas­
sages in which Caecilius is named (485b14-36, 489b13-15) can 
safely be included among his fragments. 
(ii) The later author who cited, commented on, and criticised 
Caecilius was the third-century critic Cassius Longinus-a 

1 R. M. Smith,"Photius on the Ten Orators," GRBS 33 (1992) 159-189; 
"Two Fragments of 'Longinus' in Photius," CQ N .5. 44 (1994) 525-529; "A 
Hitherto Unrecognized Fragment of Caecilius," AJP 115 (1994) 603-607 
(hereafter SMITH with dates). The passages she attributes to Caecilius are 
conveniently listed in (1994a) 527. 

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 39 (1998) 271-292 
© 2000 GRBS 

271 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

272 CAECILIUS, LONGINUS, AND PHOTIUS 

hypothesis too brusquely discarded by Smith.2 Since Longinus, 
an exceptionally erudite and authoritative critic, is unlikely to 
have followed anyone predecessor slavishly, this strengthens 
the argument against attributing material to Caecilius where he 
is not referred to by name. 
(iii) We do not know how material from Longinus reached 
Photius, or with what degree of adaptation; and we cannot be 
sure to what extent Photius himself rearranged, abbreviated, 
paraphrased and added to this material. We must therefore 
also exercise caution in attributing material to Longinus. 

1. Antiphon, cod. 259, 485b14-40 

(485b14) 0 ~£V'tot ltKEAWTll~ KatKiAtO~ ~T, KEXPllO"Sai CPY]o"t 'tov 
p~'t"Opa 't"Ol~ Ka'ta cSHlVOtaV O"x~~aO"tv, aAAa Ka'tEuSu a'thqJ Kat 
a1tAaO"'t"ou~ 'ta~ vo~O"n~ £KCP£PEO"Sat, 'tP01tT,V cSE £K 't01) 1tavoup­
you Kat avaAAa~tv oihE ~Y]'tllO"at 'tov avcSpa O{5.E xp~O"aO"Sat, 
aAAa cSt' alHrov cST, 'trov voY]~a'twv Kat 'tll~ cpuO"tKlls au'trov 
aKoAouSia~ aynv 'tov aKpoa'tT,v 1tpO~ 'to ~ouAY]~a. (b21) 01 

yap 1taAat p~'tOPE~ ixavov au'tol~ £VOllt~OV EUPElV 'tE 'ta £vSUIl~­
Ilam Kat 'ttl cppaO"n 1tEpt 't't"ro~ a1taYYElAat. £o"1toucSa~ov yap 'to 
OAOV 1tEpt 'tT,V A£~t v Kat 'tOY mu'tY]~ KOO"IlOV, 1tpro'tov IlEV 01tW~ 
EtY] O"y]llavnKT, Kat EU1tPE1t~~, Eha cSE Kat £vap~ovtO~ 1, 'tou'twv 
O"UVSEO"t~. £V 'tou'tqJ yap au't"Ol~ Kat 'tT,v 1tPOs 't"OU~ icStw'ta~ 
cSwcpopav £1tt 'to KPEl't't"OV 1tEptytVEO"Sat. (b27) Eha dmov cO~ 
aO"Xy]llanO"'to~ elY] Ka'ta cStavowv 0 't01) 'A vncprov'to~ AOYO~, 
WO"1tEP £1ttcStOpSOUIlEVO~ eau'tov· (b29) ou 't01)'to A£YW, CPY] 0" iv , cO~ 
oucSEv Eupto"KEml cSwvota~ 1tapa 'Avncprovn O"xlllla· Kat yap 
£pw'tY]O"i~ 1tOU Kat 1tapaAEnl'l~ Kat £'tEpa 'totaum EVEtO"tv au'to1) 

20n Longinus see most fully L. Brisson and M. Patillon "Longinus 
Platonicus Philosophus et Philologus, I. Longinus Philosophus," ANRW II 36.7 
(1994) 5214-5299, and "II. Longinus Philologus," 34.4 (1998) 3023-3108. My 
references to the fragments of Longinus follow their numeration. In "Longinus 
On Sublimity," PCPS 45 (1999) 43-74, I argue that the treatise On Sublimity is 
likely to be by Longinus, but the position developed in the present paper is 
independent of that claim. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 273 

'tOte; AOYOte;' aAAa 'tl q>l1J.lt; <511 Ill, Ka't' E1tt'tl]8£uow Ill]'t£ O'uv£xroe; 
EXPl]O'a'to 't01)'tO te; , aAA' Ev8a (xV 11 <pUO'te; mhl, 1l£808£iae; 'tt voe; 
XWpte; (XrtTlY£v' 0 81, Kat 1t£pt 'toue; 'tuxov'tae; 'trov i8tw'trov EO''ttV 
opav. (b36) 8ta 'tOu'to Kat <hay 'tte; aO'Xlllla'ttO''tOue; dvat A£ytl 
Aoyoue;, 0'0 Ka8a1ta~ oill't£ov 'trov O'Xlllla'tWV au'toue; a1t£O''t£Pll­
Il£VOUe; dvat ('tOU'to yap aDUva'tov) aAA' o'tt 'to EIlIl£8080v Kat 
O'UV£xEe; Kat EPPWIl£VOV 'trov O'Xlllla'tWV OUK EO''ttV Opmll£VOV EV 
aU'tole;. (b40) 

(485b14) But the Sicilian Caecilius says that the orator did 
not use the figures of thought; instead, his ideas are expressed 
directly and without contrivance, and he did not seek out or 
make use of any unscrupulous turn or inversion, but led the 
hearer wherever he wished through the thoughts themselves 
and their natural sequence. (b21) For the ancient orators con­
sidered it sufficient to invent arguments and express them in an 
excellent style. Their whole concern was with diction and its 
ornamentation-first, that it should be meaningful and 
appropriate, and then that the arrangement of the words 
should also be harmonious. For it is in this that their 
difference from and superiority to lay people lies. (b27) Then, 
having said that Antiphon's discourse is unfigured with 
respect to thought, as if correcting himself he says: (b29) I do 
not mean that no figure of thought is found in Antiphon-for 
erotesis and paraleipsis and other things of the sort are 
present in his speeches. So what do I mean? That he did not 
use them habitually or continually, but only where nature 
itself led him to it without any technical artifice; and this can 
be observed in ordinary lay people as well. (b36) For this 
reason, whenever someone says that speeches are unfigured, 
one should not jump to the conclusion that they are devoid of 
figures (that is impossible), but that the systematic, continual 
and pronounced use of figures is not to be observed in them. 
(b40) 

This passage derives from a source which reports and quotes 
Caecilius.3 Of en loch prints the whole passage as Caecilius fro 

3Since Photius himself is not likely to have had direct access to Caecilius' 
work, and since in the parts that are not direct quotation there are none of the 
signs of Photius' style identified by Smith, it is reasonable to assume that the 
mix of report and quotation was already present in Photius' source. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

274 CAECILIUS, LONGINUS, AND PHOTIUS 

103, marking b21-27 and b29-40 as direct quotations; but it is 
clear from the infinitive 1tEptytVEcr8at that b21-27 is indirect, 
and Smith (1994a, 526) treats only b29-40 as direct quotation. I 
suspect, however, that even this goes too far. It is not clear why 
Caecilius should move at b36 from explaining what he meant by 
describing Antiphon's discourse as unfigured to commenting on 
what anyone might mean by describing any discourses4 as un­
figured; but it is easy to imagine the later author who quotes 
Caecilius' self-clarification using it as a peg on which to hang 
general advice of his own about how negative statements of that 
kind are to be understood. 

There is some slight lexical evidence in b36-40 to support the 
suggestion that Photius' source is an author significantly later 
than Caecilius: £1111£8000<; (b39) does not seem to be attested in 
other rhetorical texts before Sopater (Rhet.Gr. IV 318.8, 12) and 
Syrianus (2.81.2 Rabe). Moreover, part of this passage appears 
(in epitome) as the third of a series of excerpts on topics in 
rhetorical theory and criticism (213-216 Spengel-Hammer): 
on .p01tl] £K .ou 1tavoupyou Kat £~aA.A.a~l<; ouoqtta ~V £V .01<; 
upxatot<;, UA.A.a Kat .a 'tou YOU crX~lla'ta (}\jI£ 1tO'tE d<; 'tou<; 
OtKaVtKOus A.oyOUS 1tapncrllA.8EV· ~ 1tA.dffiV yap au'tols cr1tOUOl] 
1tEpt 'tl]V A.£~tV Kat 'tOY 'tau'tll<; KocrllOV ~V Kat 'tl]V cruv8~K1lV Kat 
apllOVtav. (213.8-12) 

There was no unscrupulous turn or inversion in the ancients. In 
fact, the figures of thought entered forensic speeches at a late 
date; their predominant concern was with diction, its ornament 
and harmonious arrangement. 

This is not the only parallel between the excerpts and Photius: 
as we shall see, there is another clear example in 488b2S-27 (= 
§2 below), and a possible one in 492b9-17 (§6). It seems likely, 
therefore, that the collection of excerpts was made from the 
same work that was Photius' source. The collection certainly 
postdates Caecilius, since much of the rhetorical doctrine that it 

4Smith's translation (1994b, 604 n.3) is misleading on this point, rendering 
the indefinite A6yo\)~ as "his speeches." 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 275 

contains derives from a later period.s One example that does 
not seem to have been mentioned before is the parallel between 
excerpt 6 (214.7-9, on the handling of 1tapaypaq)11) and Sopa­
ter's commentary on Hermogenes (Rhet.Gr. IV 315-22, esp. 
317.27-318.13; cf. 596.30, 599.16)-the very passage cited 
above for the use of EJlJle808o<;.6 

The collection of excerpts is headed "From Longinus" (= 
Longinus F16); so if this ascription is trustworthy, we can 
identify Photius' source precisely. There is always a measure of 
uncertainty in the manuscript attribution of technical material/ 
but this instance affords no specific grounds for doubt. Smith, 
in rejecting the attribution of the excerpts to Longinus, makes 
two points.s First, she reports Spengel's claim that the super­
scription is in a different hand from the excerpts themselves; 
but subsequent inspection of the manuscript by Graeven over­
turned this claim.9 Secondly, she conjectures that the attribution 
was prompted by the mention of Longinus in excerpt 2 (213.6); 
but the text there (A,eyo1)<Jt AOYYlvo<;) is clearly corrupt, and 
(given that the heading is not a later addition) Longinus' name 
is more likely to have intruded as a result of the superscription. 

5 A. Mayer, Theophrasti Kepi USewq libri fragmenta (Leipzig 1910) xxx­
xxxvii, was driven to this conclusion, even after resorting to the desperate 
expedient of twice emending" Aristides" into" Aeschines." He suggests 
(xxxvii) Apsines as a source, implausibly seeing (e.g.) excerpt 16 (215.18-21, 
with four heads of purpose) as a summary of" Apsines" 291-296 (with six). 

6It may be relevant that Sopater derived some material indirectly from 
Longinus' pupil Porphyry: H. Rabe, Prolegomenon Sylloge (Leipzig 1931) 
xiii-xiv. 

7See M. Heath, "Apsines and pseudo-Apsines," AlP 119 (1998) 89-111. 

BSmith (1994a) 525, overlooking some relevant contributions to the 
discussion: H. Graeven, "Ein Fragment des Lachares," Hermes 30 (1895) 
300-303; B. Keil, "Longinfragmente," in M. Adler, ed., Verhandlungen der 
Siebundvierzigsten Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmiinner in 
Halle a. d. Saale vom 7. bis 10. Oktober 1903 (Leipzig 1904) 54; A. Brinkmann, 
"Rhetorica," RhM 62 (1907) 625-628; K. Aulitzky, "Longinos," RE 13 (1927) 
1411. More recently, Brisson and Patillon II (supra n.2) 3078-3080 have also 
accepted the attribution to Longinus. 

9Graeven (supra n.8) 302. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

276 CAECILIUS, LONGINUS, AND PHOTIUS 

The resemblance between excerpt 7 (214.10-15) and a fragment 
of book 2 of Longinus' Philological Discourses preserved by the 
fifth-century sophist Lachares (F21a = Lachares 294.14-35 
Graeven) provides an admittedly limited measure of cor­
roboration. 

There is nothing implausible in the hypothesis that it was 
Longinus who transmitted this fragment of Caecilius. Caecilius' 
works were available to members of Longinus' intellectual circle: 
a fragment of Porphyry (408F Smith = Euseb. Praep.Evang. 
10.3.13) describes a discussion at a dinner-party given by 
Longinus in which one of the participants cites a judgement of 
Caecilius on Menander.lO Caecilius was also available to 
Tiberius (probably the philosopher and sophist of Suda t 550), 
who cites him in On Figures; since he also cites Apsines he 
cannot be earlier than the third century.u 

2. Lysias, cod. 262, 488b25-489a9 

(488b25) ecrn IlEV EV OUK oAlYOU; autou AoYOt~ ~8tKO~, YlVEtat OE 
Kata OUlVOWV (, ~8t1<;:0~, otav XPTlcrtT,v Exn 1tpOalpEcrtV Kat 

1tPO~ ta ~EAtlW pE1tOucrav. (b 27) 08EV ou XPT, "'tA&~ ta 
1tpax8EVta AEYEtV, aAAa Kat tT,V YVWIlTlV cruva1ttEtv IlE8 ' ii~ 
E1tpattEtO €KacrtoV, OlOV UV IlEv xaAE1ta Tl Kat 1tpo~ <PlAou~ 11 
aAAw~ IlEtPlOU~ tT,v avaYKTlv ainacr8at, {Xv OE allElvW, tT,v 
1tpOalpEcrtv. autTl OE llaAtcrta 1tt8avT, Ylvetat, £i tT,v aitlav 
1tpocrAa~ot. ta~ IlEVtOt aitla~ ou XPT, toU AUO"ttEAou~ €VEKa 
1tapaAall~aVEtv· <PPOVlIlOU yap llaAAov 11 XPTlcrtOU Kat 
EUYVWIlOVO~ ta totauta. xaA£1to~ OE (, tP01tO~ <puAa~at· Oto Kat 
Aucrla~ EV aut<i'> <palVEtat 1toAAaKt~ OWllaptavwv. (b36) 
8auIlaSOVtat IlEVtOt yE autou aAAot tE 1tOAAOt Aoyot Kat OT, Kat 
o 1tpO~ ~toYEitova Emtp01tf1~· m8av1lv tE yap Kat Ka8apav tT,V 

10 If Longinus was the author of On Sublimity (see supra n.2), then of course 
we know that he studied Caecilius' works. 

llCf F. Solmsen "Tiberius (2)," RE 6A (1936) 804-807; G. Ballaira, Tiberii 
de figuris Demosthenicis libellus cum deperditorum operum fragmentis (Rome 
1968). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 277 

<hflYll(HV 1tOU;t'tcu, aAA' OUK Eu8u~ £1tt 'ta~ aU~1lcrEt~ Kat 'ta~ 
OEtvfficrEt~, 01tEP 1tOAAOt 1tucrxoucrtv, U1tUYE'tat. Kat yap Ouo' £crnv 

oiKEta 'ta 'tOtau'ta Ti1~ 1tpffi'tll~ OtOacrKaAia~ 'tOu 1tpuY!la'to~, 

aAA' £v 'tOt~ !lE'ta 'tau'ta xffipav £Xft KamA£YEcr8at. Kat 1tOAAl,V 
O£ 'tl,V Ka8apo'tllm Kat cra<P1lVEtav £v 'tE 'tOt~ 1tpuY!lacrt Kat 'tat~ 

A£~EcrtV a1t' au'til~ 'til~ 'tOu AOYOU 1tPO~UAAE'tat apxil~, wcr1tEP 
Kat 'to crxil!la 'to Ka't' Eu8EtaV ap!lo1;ov a<Pllyl)crEt, Kat 'to !IT\O£v 
n £~C08EV cruVE<p£AKEcr8at. 'to O£ 'til~ ap!lovia~ au'tou KUAAO~ ou 
1taV'to~ £crnv aicr8uvEcr8cu' Kat yap OOKEt !lev a1tA&~ Kat ro~ 

£'tUXE cruYKEtcr8cu, d~ i)1tEP~OAl,V O£ KOcr!lOU Ka'tEcrKetmcrmt. 
(a9) 

(488b25) In many of his speeches he expresses character. One 
expresses character in respect of thought whenever there is an 
intention that is virtuous and inclines towards what is morally 
superior. (b27) So one should not simply state the facts, but 
also add the intent with which each thing was done-e.g. if it 
was harsh and directed towards friends or other reasonable 
people, attribute it to necessity; but if it was better, to free 
choice. This is most convincing if the reason is included as 
well-though reasons should not include advantage: that is 
the mark of someone who is calculating rather than virtuous 
and well-meaning. This manner is hard to sustain, which is 
why even Lysias can often be seen making mistakes in it. (b36) 
But very many of his speeches are held in high esteem, and not 
least that Against Diogeiton, dealing with a case of guardian­
ship. He makes the narrative persuasive and lucid, and is not 
immediately diverted into amplification and expressions of 
strong emotion, as happens to many. That kind of thing is not 
appropriate to the initial exposition of the facts, though they 
do have their place in what follows. He achieves a high de­
gree of lucidity and clarity both in the facts and in his diction 
from the very start of the speech, and likewise the figure of 
direct assertion, which is suitable to narration, and the 
avoidance of introducing external factors. Not everyone can 
perceive the beauty of his arrangement of words; the con­
struction seems to be simple and spontaneous, but is contrived to 
an exceptional degree of ornament. (a9) 

As noted above, b25-27 corresponds to Longinus, excerpt 14 
(215.14-15): 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

278 CAECILIUS, LONGlNUS, AND PHOTIUS 

on ~8a.:0~ AOyo~ yivctat Ka'ta OUXVOtaV, o'tav XPl1O"'t~v £Xll 
1tpOaipEO"tV Kat 1tpo~ 'to. PEA'tiro pE1tOuO"av. 

A speech expresses character in respect of thought whenever it 
has an intention that is virtuous and inclines towards what is 
morally superior. 

Of en loch prints b25-a13 as fr.l09; his annotation ("Dionysii 
esse non possunt '" quare haec et quae praecedunt Caecilio 
tribui") notably fails to consider all the alternative possibilities. 
Smith (1994a, 527) curtails the Caecilian fragment at a9, con­
vincingly assigning the next sentence to Photius on stylistic 
grounds; she supports the attribution to Caecilius on the 
grounds that b25-27 is "strikingly similar to Caecilius' writing 
on Antiphon which is quoted in codex 259"-i.e. 485b14-40 
(§1). But the similarity is not sufficiently striking to compel the 
attribution; and if the identification of Photius' source as 
Longinus is correct, then he was fully competent to deploy the 
technical language of rhetoric with the authoritative tone on 
which Smith remarks (1994a, 528; cf 1994b, 603). 

3. Lysias, cod. 262, 489a14-489b2 

(489a14) allq>tpaAAEtat IlEV 1tap' eviot~ 0 1tEpt 'tou O'l1KOU AOyO~' 
o O'l1KO~ oE vuv d86~ eO'nv iEpa~ £Aaia~. (a 15) aAA' on IlEV 
yv~O'to~ A uO'iou, £K 'tE 'tmv KEq>aAatrov 01lAOV Kat £K 'tmv 1tEpt 

mhou £1ttXEtPl1lla'trov Kat £~ au'tou yE 'tOu 1tP0011l10U 't1l~ 'tE 
Otl1~O'Ero~ Kat 'tOU £1ttAOYOU (1tavu yap oatlloviro~ Kat Ka'ta 't~v 
d8tO'llEVl1V 'tep aVopt £v 't11 cmAo'tl1n OEtv6't11'ta eO'nv £~EtpyaO'­
IlEva 'tau'ta). Kat Il~V Kat 'to Ka't' £v8ull11lla aAAa Il~ Ka't' 
£1ttXcipl1lla 1tpaHEtV 'ta~ a1tooci~Et~ 'tou AuO'iou llaAtO''ta 'to 
iOtrolla a1tayyEAAEt. aAAa Kat 'to Il~ Ka8' EV ota'tpipov'ta 1l11KU­
VEtV 'tOY AOYOV 't1l~ 'tOU AuO'iou £O''ttV aKptpcia~, Kat 'to EU1taYE~ 
'tmv AOYrov, Kat 'to 010. ppaxu'tl1'to~ 1tOAA~V 1tapEXEtV Tjoov~v, 0 
IlE'ta yE Lll1lloO'8EVl1V oi)'to~ IlOVO~ 'tmv aAArov Pl1't6prov q>aivnat 
Ka'top8roO'a~, Kat 'to KaAAo~ OE 't1l~ Ota'tU1troo"Ero~, ev cP 1l~'tE 
nAa'trovo~ 1l~'tE Lll1lloO'8EVOU~ 1l~'tE A iO'Xivou 'to £AaH6v eO'nv 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 279 

(l7t£VTJV£YIl£VO>;. iBiwlla 8e AUO'lou Kat 'to 'ta>; avn8£O'£l>; npoaY£lV 
IlTJ8allm>; Ilev £1l<PatvouO'a>; 'to £1t1~£~OUA£UIl£VOV, 'to 8e un' 
au'tmv 'tmv npaYlla'twv £n£O'1taO'Il£vov 8£lKVU£lV. 't£KIlTJ ptoV 8e 

't11>; AUO'laK11>; 8uvall£w>; Kat 'to £V naO'n 'tn1t£plo8cp 'tmv KWAWV 
£uaPIl0O''tov Kat Il£'ta Ka8apo'tTJ'tO>; £uav8£>;. (a34) 

(489a14) The authenticity of the speech On the Stump is 
disputed by some. (The stump is a kind of sacred olive tree.) 
(a15) But that it is genuinely Lysias' work is clear from the 
heads of argument, and from the detailed argumentation, and 
from the proem itself and the narrative and the epilogue; for 
these things are worked out very remarkably, and in 
accordance with the man's characteristic combination of 
simplicity and forcefulness. Even using enthymemes rather 
than epicheiremes to effect the demonstration is a strong 
indication of Lysias' individual technique. Moreover, not 
lengthening the speech by dwelling on pOints one by one is a 
mark of Lysias' precision; also the compactness of the 
language, and the great pleasure afforded by brevity (in 
which, apart from Demosthenes, he alone among the orators is 
successful), and the beauty of his descriptions (in which he is 
not inferior to Plato, Demosthenes, or Aeschines). Another 
feature of Lysias' individual technique is the introduction of 
counterpositions that give no hint of being premeditated, but 
display what is suggested by the actual facts. Also evidence of 
Lysias' power is the harmonious arrangement of the cola in 
each period, and the combination of purity and freshness in 
the style. (a34). 
Of en loch does not include this passage among the fragments 

of Caecilius. Smith (1994b) assigns it to him on the grounds of 
stylistic similarities to 485b14-40 (§1), 488b25-489a9 (§2), and 
489b3-b17 (§4). However, the similarities to §1 are not suffi­
ciently distinctive to establish common authorship, and there is 
no positive evidence to connect §2 or §4 to Caecilius. One 
possible terminological pointer to a later date is the use of 
"counterposition" (av'tte£O'l>; a30) in a sense that does not seem 
to be attested before the second century A.DP The subject-

12The reference is to the technique of mentioning an argument on the 
opposing side in order to refute it. For the evidence (which is inevitably 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

280 CAECILIUS, LONGINUS, AND PHOTIUS 

matter of this paragraph fits well with Longinus' status as a 
recognised authority in questions of attribution (Eunap. VS 
4.1.5 = 6.27-7.2 Giangrande), and in what immediately follows 
we find another piece of evidence consistent with the identifica­
tion of Photius' source as Longinus: 
(489a34) nauAo~ 8€ yE 6 h: Mucria~ 'tov 'tE 1tEpt 'tOU crllKOU 

AOyov, ou8ev 'trov dpTW€VWV cruvtd~, Til~ 'tE YVllcrto'tll'tO~ 'trov 
AucrtaKrov EK~aAAEt AOYWV, Kat1tOAAOU~ Kat KaAou~ aAAou~ d~ 
vo8ou~ a1toppt~a~EVo~ 1tOAA~~ Kat ~EyaAll~ 'tou~ av8pro1tou~ 

wcpEAda~ a1tEcr't€PllcrEV, OUX EU PtcrKO~€VWV En 'trov U1tO 8ta~OAr,V 
1tEcrOV'tWV· a1ta~ yap a1toKpt8€V'tE~ 1t(xpEwpa81lcrav, E1ttKpa'tE­

cr't€pa~ 't~~ 8ta~OA~~, Wcr1tEP Kat E1t' aAAwv 1tOAArov, fl 't~~ 

aA1l8da~ YEYEVll~€Vll~. (b2) 
(489a34) Paul of Mysia, not understanding the things I have 
just explained, excludes the speech On the Stump from the 
genuine corpus of Lysianic speeches. And by rejecting many 
other fine speeches as spurious he does mankind a serious dis­
service. For works that have fallen victim to slander are no 
longer in circulation; having once been judged inauthentic they 
are neglected, slander proving (as is the case in other areas, 
too) stronger than the truth. (b2) 
Smith (1992, 179f; 1994b, 606) convincingly assigns this 

passage to Photius. But we must also ask where Photius got the 
name of Paul of Mysia from, and why he mentioned him here. 
The most obvious explanation is that the source from which 
Photius drew the preceding section referred to Paul of Mysia (or 
"some, including Paul") by name, and that Photius has sub­
stituted "some" at a14, reserving the name for use in his own 
appended comment. 

Paul of Mysia is probably identical with Paul of Germe, 
mentioned in the Suda (1t 811) as a commentator on Lysias, 
with an interest in questions of attribution. His date is un-

tenuous) for the distribution of the term in this sense see Heath (supra n.7) 
106-107. The usage is found in the excerpts from Longinus (213.14, 214.4-5). 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 281 

certain.13 But Eunapius (4.3 = 10.11-13) refers to "Paul and 
Andromachus from Syria" as leading teachers of rhetoric in 
Athens in Porphyry's time; if these names are derived from 
Porphyry himself, they are likely to reflect the situation in 
Athens before he left the city in 263. Andromachus is probably 
Andromachus of Neapolis, who according to the Suda (a 2185) 
taught in Nicomedia under Diocletian (A.D. 284-305). If he was 
invited to teach in Nicomedia when Diocletian established his 
capital there, this would imply that he was already dis­
tinguished in Athens; so his career could well have overlapped 
with Porphyry's Athenian period.14 The Paul mentioned by 
Eunapius is sometimes identified with Paul of Lycopolis;lS but 
he is dated by the Suda (1t 812) to the reign of Constantine, 
making it unlikely that he was prominent in Athens before 263. I 
therefore prefer an alternative candidate: there is a perfect 
chronological fit if we assume that the Paul who was a leading 
rhetorician in Athens while Porphyry was there is Paul of 
Germe, also known as Paul of Mysia, and that the criticism of 
Paul of Mysia's judgement in Photius derives from Longinus. 

4. Lysias, cod. 262, 489b3-b17 

(489b3) fcrn O€ /) Aucriu~ OEtVO~ ~€v 1tu8~vacr8at, t1tt't~OEtO~ O€ 
'tou~ 1tpO~ aU~l1<Hv Otu8Elvat A6you~. (b4) nv€~ ~€V ot)v 'trov 1tEpt 
'tou~ Pl1'tOptKOU~ Otu'tptp6V'tffiV A6you~ OUK 6p8ro~ u1t~x8l1crav 

13W. Stegemann, "Paulus (15), (16)," RE 18 (1949) 2372-2373; PLRE II 850 
s.v. "Paulus (12)" (there is no evidence to support the suggested fourth-century 
date). 

14Cohn, "Andromachos (20)," RE 1 (1894) 2154; PLRE 163 S.v. "An­
dromachus (2)." F. Millar, "P. Herennius Dexippus: the Greek World and the 
Third-century Invasions," J RS 59 (1969) 12-29, at 18: "it would be a 
reasonable guess, though no more, that Andromachus went first to Athens, like 
other Syrians, and moved from there to Diocletian's court at Nicomedia." 

lsThe identification is assumed in PLRE I 683 S.V. "Paulus (1)"; J. Geiger, 
"Notes on the Second Sophistic in Palestine," ICS 19 (1994) 221-230, at 227. 
Stegemann ("Paulus [18]," RE) is more cautious; cf. Millar (supra n.14) 18: 
"perhaps identifiable with an Egyptian sophist whom the Suda makes a 
contemporary of Constantine." 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

282 CAECILIUS, LONGINUS, AND PHOTIUS 

ElltE1V ltEpt Aucriou W~ altODE1~at !l£V 'ta EYKAlJ!la'ta 1tap' 
ovnvaouv 'troY 1taAatrov aVDprov 'to 1tPOKEKpt!l£VOV £XEt, 
au~fjcrat D£ 'tau'ta 1tOAArov EvDElJt;. Kat yap EA£yxov'tm <pavEprot; 

U1tO 'troy au'tou AOYWV 1tOAU 'tfj~ E1t' aU't0 Dtacr<paAAO!lEVOt 
KpicrEW~. Kat !laAtcr'ta yE 'tou'tou~ 0 Ka'ta MVllcrt1t'LOA£!lOU 

DtEA£YXEt· 8au!lacr'Lro~ yap 'tf]v Ka'tllyopiav ltpO~ Il£YE8o~ o-b'to~ 
lluXllcrE. (b 13) KatKiAtot; D£ allap'taVEt EUp€'ttKOV Il£v 'tOY 
aVDpa, Elm:p aAAov nva, cruvollOAOYrov, OtKOVO!lfjcrat D£ 'La 

EUPE8£v'ta OUX o1hwt; lxavov· Kat yap Kav 'tou'tCP 'to Il£PEt 'tfjt; 
apE'tfj~ 'tou AOYOU OUDEVO~ opa'tm <pauAo'tEpOt;. (b 17) 

(489b3) Lysias is skilled at stirring emotions, and well­
equipped to compose speeches so as to achieve amplification. 
(b4) Some students of oratorical literature have been misled 
into saying of Lysias that in demonstrating the charges he has 
the edge over any of the ancients whatsoever, but that he is 
inferior in amplifying them. But they are clearly refuted by 
the speeches themselves as seriously mistaken in their judge­
ment of him. In particular, the speech Against Mnesiptolemus 
completely refutes these people: his amplification of the 
accusation in the direction of grandeur is remarkable. (b13) 
Caecilius is mistaken when he concedes that the man is as 
good at invention as anyone, but not so competent in the dis­
position of the material invented. In fact, in this aspect of 
excellence in oratory, too, he is obviously inferior to none. (b17) 

Of en loch prints this passage as Caecilius fr.llO. Smith 
(1994a, 527) suggests that b3-13 reports Caecilius' view, and 
that "Photius adds at the end of this passage: KatKiAto~ D£ 
allap'tavEt ... and contradicts the opinion just reported." But 
this mistakes the structure of the argument, which runs as 
follows: (i) some have supposed that Lysias, though good at 
demonstration, is weak in amplification; but that is refuted by 
the effective use of amplification in Against Mnesiptolemus; (ii) 
Caecilius thinks that Lysias, though good at invention, is weak 
in arrangement; but he is second to none in this as well. Ampli­
fication is part of invention; so the "some" in (i) are identifying 
a weakness in invention on L ysias' part. Caecilius, by contrast, 
denies that Lysias is weak in invention; he finds a different 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 283 

weakness. Thus the opinion reported in b3-13 cannot be that of 
Caecilius; and the passage as a whole must derive from a later 
critic who is familiar with, and willing to contest, the opinions 
of Caecilius and of other rhetoricians. 

5. Demosthenes, cod. 265, 491a33-492a13 

After a brief introduction the codex on Demosthenes begins 
with material on the authenticity of On Halonnesus (491a2-12) 
and On the Treaty with Alexander (491a22-28) taken (without 
acknowledgement) from Libanius' hypotheses; Photius inserts 
what is probably his own response to Libanius' denial of the 
authenticity of On Halonnesus (491a12-22).16 He then mentions 
doubts about the authenticity of the speeches Against Aristo­
geiton (491a29-33), drawing (once again without acknowledge­
ment) on Libanius. But Libanius' summary of Dionysius of Hali­
carnassus ("Dionysius of Halicarnassus does not accept that 
these speeches are by Demosthenes, on the evidence of the style 
[£K 'ti1~ i()Eac; 'tfKUatPOUfVOC;]") is either misread or else pun­
ningly adapted (491a31: "among whom was Dionysius of 
Halicarnassus, who provides no substantial evidence for his 
own assumption ['tfKUilPtov 'ti1~ i()Eac; {moA1l\jlfro<;] ... ") in order 
to provide a transition to a response that is not derived from 
Libanius: 
(491a33) ... OU()£ £KftVO O"UVt()ftV £ElfA1lO"a<;, ffi~ 7tOAAip /lfH~rov 

£(HtV f\7tfP il £KclVOU a7to<paO"t<; au'to<; 6 'APIO"'tOYfhrov avo/loAo­
yrov ~Tl/lOO"ElEVllV Ka't' au'tou YEYpa<pEVat· Kat yap a7toAoyoU/lf­
VO~ OUK £v 'tip 7tapEpycp AEYrov aAA' £7tt/lfAro~ av'tayroVtsO/lfVO<; 
£v 'tip AOYCP ()ctKVU'tat, o~ £7ttYEypa7t'tat a7toAoyia 7tpo<; 'tT,v 

£V()ft~tv AUKOUPYOU Kat ~1l/l00"ElEVOU~. (a39) 
(491a33) ... He also refuses to see that of far greater weight 
than his own denial is the acknowledgement by Aristogeiton 
himself that Demosthenes had written against him. He shows 
this in his defence (not in a passing comment, but in the course 

160n this passage see Smith (1992) 180-182. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

284 CAECILIUS, LONGINUS, AND PHOTIUS 

of a careful counter-argument) in the speech entitled Defence 
against the Indictment brought by Lycurgus and Demosthenes. 
(a39) 

The appeal to documentary evidence prevents us from at­
tributing the response to Photius' independent judgement, but 
the source is not extant. At this point, therefore, Photius has 
switched from Libanius to a different source. This is the first 
part of an extended section of material of unknown provenance. 
Photius continues: 
(491a40) Kat 6 Ka'tu M£l~iou ~£ Kat Ka't' AicrXivou A6yoe; ai'tiav 

EcrXf 'tOu ~il 'tilv alnilv Ka'ta 7tavw apf'tilv 'to ~TJ~ocrSfvlK0 cruv­
~lacrfficracrSat xapaKTIlPl· Kat yap ev 'tOte; ~ucrt 'to{n01e; Aoyole; eK 
~taA£1~~a'trov nvwv 'tate; au'taie; evvoiate; e7tl~aAArov a~lA­

AacrSal ~oKfi 7tpOe; Eau'tov, rocr7tfP acrKou~fvOe; aAA' OUK e7t' 
au'tOte; ayrovl~o~fVOe; 'tOte; EpyOle;. ~lO Kai nVfe; EcpTJcrav EKa'tfpov 
AOYOV ev 'tU7tOle; KawA£lcpSflvat, aAAa ~il 7tpOe; EK~OcrtV ~ta­

KfKaSapwl· Kahol Kat 'tOU'tO fUAa(3Ecrupov Ot PllSEV'tfe; AOYOl 
7tOlOUcrlV. (b7) aAA' Ot yf 'tou'toue; ainffi~fvol, 'ti av cpatfV 7tfpt 
'APlcr'td~ou, oe; Kat Ka'taKoproe; 'to i~lffi~an 'tOu'tf!> cpaiYf'tat 
KfXPTJ~EVOe;, rocr7tfP Kat 'to 7tP01EVat Ka'ta 'tae; epyacriae; 7tEpa 
'tOU ~f'tpiou, Kat 'to 7tfpiHf!> ~aAAOv il 'to ~e.Pf!> 'tfle; xpdae; 
cru~7tapfK'tdvf(JSat; (bll) 

(491a40) The speeches Against Meidias and Against Aeschines 
have also been accused of not maintaining in every respect 
excellence equal to Demosthenes' distinctive character. For in 
these two speeches at intervals he gives his attention to the 
same ideas, and seems to enter into rivalry with himself, as if 
he were practising rather than engaged in a real contest. So 
some have said that each speech was left in draft and not 
revised for publication. Yet the speeches in question do even 
that with a degree of discretion. (b7) And what would those 
who criticise them say of Aristides, who clearly uses this 
particular technique to excess, as well as going beyond due 
measure in his elaborations and stretching his material out to 
excess rather than keeping to the limit of what is needed? 
(bl1) 

Demosthenes Against Meidias is discussed again in 492a41-



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 285 

b9 (§6)Y Smith (1994a, 527; 1992, 173) assigns a40-b7 to Cae­
cilius. But there are no specific grounds for this attribution; if 
the argument presented so far is correct, Longinus would be a 
more likely candidate. Smith (1992, 182) assigns the discussion 
of Aristides in b7-11 to Photius; this seems likely: see further on 
492b9-17 (§6). 
(491bll) ,.ulAlcrm Of 0 Ka't' AicrXivou A6yoe; 1tapEcrXEv ai't'iav £v 
i)1to~v~~acrt Ka'taAEAEt<p8at OU1t(O 't~v £pyacriav <X1tEtAll<Pwe; 
'tEAEiav, ot6n Kat a 1tpOe; 't~v Ka'tllyopiav 1tOAA~V EcrXE 't~v 

cl~uop6'tll'ta Kat KOu<p6'tll'ta, £1tt 'tD 'tEAE't)'t'D "COu A6you 
1tapE8E't'O· 01tEP OUK av 1tEptEtOEV 0 p~'t<op, de; £~€'t'acrtv clKpt­
~Ecr'tEpav 'trov ioi<ov A6y<ov Ka'tacr'tae;. (b 17) clAAa yap oux 01)'t<O 
1tp6Etcrtv 0 Aucriou Ka'ta MVllcrt1t'tOAE~OU A6yoe;, £v 1tacrt Of 'tOle; 
OEO~EVOte; ~EPEcrt 'to 1ta811nKov <puAa~ae; OUOf 1taU6~EVoC; 't1le; 
£1tt<popac; cl1tEcr'tll, £1tE'tEtVE Of ~aAAov, OUOf Ka'ta 'to 'tEAoe; 'tove; 
clKpoa'tae; <X1tocr'tUC; 1tapo~uvEtv. (b22) 

(49Ibll) The speech Against Aeschines in particular has been 
accused of having been left in notes and not having received its 
final revision, because what makes the most indistinct and 
insubstantial contribution to the prosecution was placed at the 
end of the speech; the orator would not have overlooked this 
if he had undertaken a careful examination of his own 
speeches. (bI7) But Lysias' Against Mnesiptolemus does not 
proceed in this manner, but in all the sections that need it he 
sustains the emotional level, and does not relax the intensity, 
but rather increases it, and does not give up inciting his 
audience even at the end. (b22) 
Of en loch prints bll-b22 as Caecilius fr.143; Smith (1994a, 

527) concurs. It can scarcely be a coincidence that this passage 
and 489b4-13 (§4) are the only extant references to Against Mne­
siptolemus; presumably both derive from the same source, and 

17There are references to Against Meidias in Longinus, excerpts 18, 20. 
Brisson and Patillon I (supra n.2) 5231 n.3 ascribe a work on Against Meidias 
to Longinus, adopting Ruhnken's rather arbitrary emendation of a corrupt 
entry in the Suda's bibliography, 1tEpt 'tOll K«'t(l t<pU~lOU; Adler prints M. 
Schmidt's 1tEpt 'tOll K(l'tCx <pu{crtv) ~iou, palaeographically a more elegant 
solution, although still uncertain. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

286 CAECILIUS, LONGINUS, AND PHOTIUS 

Longinus' exceptionally wide reading-Eunapius describes him 
as "a living library and a research institute on legs" (~1~At09T\I(11 
w; ~v EI.nI'UXOC; Kat 1tfpl1ta'touv IlOucrftOV, 4.1.3 = 6.13-15 = 

Longinus F3a)-is a relevant consideration. 
(491b22) Kat J.lEV'tOt Kat 'tOY 1tapa1tpfcr~dac; 'ttv£C; EV U1tO­
J.lvTlJ.lacri <pacrt Ka'taAfl<p9ilvat, aAA' ou 1tPOC; EK80crtv ou8£ 1tpOC; 
'to 'til; Epyacrtac; a1tllpncrJ.lEVOV Yfypa<p9at. 8Hl 'tE; 8ton J.lf'ta 'ta 
E1ttAoytKa, 1toAAa 'tf ov'ta Kat crXf80v 'to 1tAftcr'tOV J.lEpOC; E1tEXOV­
'ta, 1toAAae; 1tpO au'to)V avn9Ecrfle; dmov, 1taAtv E1tt avn9Ecrfle; 
hpa1tf'to' 01tfP aV01KOV0J.l1l'tov 'tE Ecrn Kat 8tfpptJ.lJ.lEVOV. (b28) 

(491b22) However, some even say that the speech On the False 
Embassy was left in notes and not written up for publication or 
with a view to perfecting its workmanship. Why? Because 
after the epilogue (which is extensive, and takes up nearly 
the largest section) although he has addressed many counter­
positions before that, he comes back again to counterpositions; 
and this is poor organisation and disorderly. (b28) 
Smith (1994a, 527) assigns this to Caecilius. But note again 

the use of the term "counterposition" (av'ti9fcrtC;: cf on 489a30, 
in §3 above). 
(491b29) Kat 'tOY U1t£P La'tupou 8£ AOYov 'tile; E1tt'tpo1tilC; 1tpOe; 
Xapt81lj.lOV oi J.l£V 1tpOC; 'tllv KptcrtV EXOV'tfe; 'to acr<paAee; ~1lJ.l0-
cr9Evoue; AEyoucrtV dvat, (, 8£ KaAAij.laxoe;, ou8' iKavOe; roy 
KptVflV, ~flvapxou VOj.lt~fl. nv£e; 8£ au'tov U1tf~aAov'to Aucrtlf, 
Kat'tOt Kat 'tOY XPOVOV EXOV'tfC; aU'tOte; 8taj.lax0j.lfVoV Kat 'tOY 
'tU1tOV a1tav'ta 'tile; Epyacrtae; Kat 'ta 1tpaYJ.la'ta Kat 'tllV EPJ.lll­
vdav. J.lap'tupia 8£ 'tou 81lJ.l0cr9fVtKOV ctVat 'tOY AOYOV Kat (, 
1tAaytacrJ.lOe; Kat il cruvEXfla 'trov 1tfpt08wv Kat il fu'toVta' E~ 
aU'tOD yap 'tou 1tPOOtJ.ltOU 'tOU'tOte; (, Aoyoe; 8ta1tOtKiAAf'tat. Kat 
J.lllv Kat il 1tfpt 'trov 6voj.la'twv EKAoY'h de; 'to aptcr'tov aVl1vEx9at 
Kat il cruv9fcrtC; lOt) EXflV 1tf<ptAo'ttJ.lll'tat. J.lap'tupft 8£ Kat 'ta crx~­
j.la'ta· Ecrn yap cruvfcr'tpaJ.lJ.lEVa J.lf'ta YOPYO'tll'toe; Kat 1tOtKtAtaV 
'to AOY<P 1tapfxOJ.lfva· Kat yap EpW't~crfte; 1tpO~aAAf'tat Kat 
U1tocr'tpo<pac; Kat 'to acruv8f'tov, ote; j.laAtcr'ta ~1lj.locr9Evl1e; xaipft 
XproJ.lfVOe;. aAAa Kat il cruv9fcrte; E1ttj.lfAllc; Kat 'tllV Evapyftav 'to 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 287 

K6cr/lq:l ou Ota<p8Eipoucra, at 'tE 1tEpi0801 'tCP a1tYlpncr/lEVq:l cruv­
ay6/lEVat Ka1 'to 1tPE1tOV 1tav'taxou OlC£cr<!:>SOUcrl. (492a5) 'to /l£v 

o?>v /lYlOEVO<; <pdoEcr8al cruv8ecrE())<; al.) .. a 1tav'ta 81£lAll<P8at 

1tEP16801<; £crn /l£V 'IcroKpa'tOu<; Ka1 A ucriou 1tpo<; ,1Yl/locr8EVYlV 
Kotv6v' ~ 8£ Ka'ta 'ta<; 1tEP16oou<; EV 'tou<; /lEYE8Ecrt 1t01K1Aia 

cru /l1tAYl poucrC( 'ta KWAa Aa/l~aVO/lEvYl 't~v 1tpo<; hd vou<; 

olC£<popav a1tEpyaSE'tat, 'tou /lEv 'IcroKpa'tou<; w<; 'ta 1tOAAa 
/lYlKUVOV'tO<; 'tl1v Epyacriav au'twv, 'tou 8£ Aucriou cruV'tE/lvov'to<;. 

£I; ha'tepou of: 'tOl)'t())V 'tCP ,1Yl/locr8ev£l 'to 1tPE1tOV 8tacr<!:>Snal. 

(a13 ) 
(491b29) Critics of sound judgement say that the speech 
Against Satyrus, dealing with a case of guardianship in reply 
to Charidemus, is by Demosthenes. Callimachus (not a 
competent critic) thinks that it is by Deinarchus. Some have 
attributed it to Lysias, though they have against them the 
chronology, the whole manner of its workmanship, the facts, 
and the style. Evidence that the speech is by Demosthenes is 
its obliquity, the continuity of the periods, and its vigour; 
right from the start the speech is distinguished by these 
features. Moreover, the vocabulary is excellent, and the ar­
rangement of words aspires to high quality. The figures 
provide further testimony: they are concentrated, have 
rapidity, and give the speech its variety. He makes use of 
erotesis, hypostrophe, and asyndeton, all of which Demos­
thenes particularly likes to use. Moreover, the arrangement of 
the words is careful, and does not impair the vividness 
through ornamentation; and the periods, rounded off to 
perfection, maintain what is appropriate throughout. (492a5) 
Never to be neglectful of arrangement, but to divide every­
thing into periods, is something Isocrates and Lysias have in 
common with Demosthenes; but the variation in the length of 
the cola that make up the periods is what makes the differ­
ence between them-Isocrates in general extends them, while 
Lysias keeps them short; by comparison with each of them, 
Demosthenes preserves due measure. (a13) 
Of en loch prints b29-a13 as Caecilius fr.144; Smith (1994a, 

527) concurs. Again, a point of terminology arises: yopy6'tYl<; 

(b41) is not attested as a literary critical or rhetorical term 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

288 CAECILIUS, LONGINUS, AND PHOTIUS 

before the second century A.D., although it then becomes com­
mon. IS 

6. Demosthenes, cod. 265, 492a27-b17 

After the last passage in §5 Photius returns to Libanius, 
borrowing comments on On the Peace (492a14-22) and Against 
Neaera (492a23-6)}9 it is only now that he refers to Libanius by 
name, and even here he does so in a way that disguises his 
direct dependence. He then reverts to material for which there is 
no extant source: 
(492a27) <pacrt OE 'tOY L11lJ.l.ocr8£vllv 0 Kat K £'t1l YEYovo'ta 'tOY 7tept 
'trov (X'teAdWV Tl'tOl 'tOY 7tpO~ A£7t'tivllv qnA07tovTjcracr8m AOYOV, 

oil 'to 7tpOOiJ.l.tOv AOyytVO~ J.l.EV 0 KPl'tlKO~ aYWvlcr'tlKOV VOJ.l.iS£l 
(£7tt KAaUoiou OE O{)'tO~ TlKI.laSe, Kat 'to. 7tOAAa cruvllywvis£'to 

ZllvO~iq. 'tn 'trov 'Ocrpol1Vrov ~aO"lAiot, 't~V apx~v Ka'teXOUcrn 
'OOeva80u 'tou avopo~ a\)'til~ 't£'teAeU'tl1KO'tO~, TlV Kat J.l.e'ta­

~aAelV d~ 'to. 'Iouoaiwv £811 a7to 'til~ 'EAAl1vtKil~ o£lcrlOmJ.l.ovia~ 
7taAmO~ avaypa<p£l AOyO~)· aAAa yap 0 J.l.£V Aoyytvo~ 'tOtaU'tl1v 

7tept 'tou 7tPO£lPl1J.l.£VOU 7tpoolJ.l.iou \jIf\<pov £~aY£l. (hePOl OE OUK 
6p8ro~ £<pacrav 'to 7tpooiJ.l.tOv i)8tKOV £ivm. (a38) Kat 7tOAAOU~ 
o{)'to~ 0 AOYO~ 7tapecrxeV ayrova Kpivecr8m 7tpo'te8d~, rocr7tep Kat 
'Acr7tacricp 'tip pTj'tOPl, (he J.l.110' a<plYJ.l.£vCP 'til~ 'tou AOYOU 8ewpia~ 
ei~ aKpi~£lav. (a40) 

(492a27) They say that Demosthenes was 24 years old when 
he laboured on the speech On the Tax Immunities or Against 
Leptines, the proem of which the critic Longinus thinks is 
combative. (He lived under Claudius, and collaborated 
extensively with Zenobia, the queen of Osrhoene who took 
power when her husband Odenathus died. An old account 
records that she converted to Judaism from the Greek 
superstition.) Longinus, then, casts this vote about the afore­
mentioned proem. Others have claimed, incorrectly, that the 

lBSee further I. Rutherford, Canons of Style in the Antonine Age (Oxford 
1998) 118 n.l. 

19The introduction to Libanius' hypotheses (8.607.3-6 Foerster) is the 
source of the judgements on the Eroticus and Epitaphios. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 

proem expresses character. (a38) This speech has caused many 
people to struggle when it has been put before them for critical 
evaluation-for example, the rhetor Aspasius, since he failed 
to achieve precision in his analysis of the speech. (a40) 

289 

The reference to Longinus may be read as an oblique 
acknowledgement of the source, like the reference to Libanius 
shortly before. The parenthetic biographical notice (a30-35) is 
probably due to Photius.20 Smith (1992, 182-183) also assigns 
a38-40 to Photius. This is, again, plausible, but as with Paul of 
Mysia (489a34-b2, in §3 above) we have to ask where the name 
Aspasius comes from. If Photius has transferred the name of a 
target of criticism in his source to his own following comment, 
as I have suggested he did with Paul of Mysia, then that source 
advanced an analysis of the speech's proem and named 
Aspasius as the proponent of the alternative view which he 
rejects. There is some reason to believe that a pupil of Apsines 
of Gadara named Aspasius (possibly Aspasius of Tyre) wrote 
on Against Leptines.21 Apsines' birth is generally dated around 
190; his pupil would therefore probably be younger than 
Longinus (born between 200 and 213),22 but still sufficiently 
contemporary for Longinus to have engaged in debate with his 
views. 
(492a41) (ocrau'tro; DE lmt (} Kata Mnoiou· Kat yap Kat 0{)'t0~ 

OUK 6AiyOt~ YEyovEv EV cr1tOUOf1. Kat 't1l~ 1tPO~ aAA"Aou~ 
all<ptcr~ll't"crEro~ a<poPlla~ 1tapEcrXE. (b 1) Kat oi IlEV 'tOU 1ta91ln­
KOU xapaK'tllpO~ €ivai <pacrty au'tov, IlE'ta OEtVWcrEro~ E1tE~npyacr­
IlEvov, oi DE 'tOU 1tpaYllanKOU· Kat cmAW~ 'trov 'tE Pllll<X-rrov 
au'tou to cr<poopOV Kat Kata 'tllV crUV9Ecrty Evapllovwv, Kat (o~ 

tot~ 1ta91lnKOt~ IlEV 'tWV Elttxnpllll(X-rrov Kat Ev9uIl1l'.uX-rrov 1ta91l­
tlKi,v Kat 'tllV a1taYYEAiav 1tEpUX1t'tEt, 'tOt~ 1tpaYllanKOt~ DE, ocra 
tou'tOt~ EvapIlOt'tEt. (b8) £XEtcx.t IlEV O;)V Ked 'tou Tl90u~ OUK EV 

20Smith (1994a) 526 n.7 cites parallels in Photius. 
21 Heath (supra n.7) 99-102. 

22Brisson and Patillon I (supra n.2) 5219-5220; for Apsines' chronology 
see J. Brzoska, "Apsines," RE 2 (1896) 277-283. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

290 CAECILIUS, LONGlNUS, AND PHOTIUS 

'tounp 1l0VOV 'tip AOYcp, aAAa Kat EV 1tOAAOt<; aAAot<;. (b9) aAAa 
YE xaAE1tcO'ta'tOV Ea'tt AOyrov ayroVta'ttKWV Epya'tD 8ta 'tEAOU<; 

q),\)Aa~at 1tpo<; 'tOY av'tayroVta't~v 'to ~80<;, llaAta'ta 8£ 'tOt<; Qaot 

cpuaEro<; huxov 1ttKpo'tEpa<; 'tE Kat 1ta811'ttKo)'tEpa<;, ~<; OUX 

llKta'ta L111lloa8Evll<; 'tE Kat 'Apta'tci811<; IlE'tEXCt. 8t01tEP 1toAAaKt<; 

E~ayoV'tat 'tTt<; 1tp08EaEro<; EAanoUIlEvll<; U1tO 'tTt<; cpuaEro<;' ou8£ 

yap ou8' Ea'tlV 1Kav~ 'tEXVll Ka'top8waat 'to ~ouAlllla, Il~ 
aUVEpyoV Exouaa Kat 't~V 'tTt<; cpuaEro<; i8to'tll'ta. (b 17) 

(492a4I) Similarly the speech Against Meidias: not a few 
have concerned themselves with it, and it has occasioned 
mutual controversy. (bl) Some say that it is of the emotional 
kind, worked out with expressions of strong emotion; others 
that it is of the practical kind. In fact, it is intense in its 
vocabulary and harmonious in its composition; he provides 
emotional epicheiremes and enthymemes with a form of 
expression that is itself emotional, and factual ones with 
what is appropriate to them. (b8) He also pays attention to 
character, not only in this speech, but also in many others. (b9) 
But it is very difficult for someone working on a combative 
speech to maintain character towards the opponent all the 
way through, and especially for those who are of a somewhat 
bitter and emotional nature-something of which Demos­
thenes and Aristides especially had their share. So they are 
frequently led astray, their purpose being overcome by their 
nature. Technique is not enough to keep intention on the right 
track when it does not have the cooperation of natural traits. 
(bI7) 

The concluding remarks on the necessity of combining 
technique and nature are similar to Longinus, excerpt 10 
(215.1-2}:23 

o'tt 1toAAaKt<; Ev8ci<f cpuaEro<; Kat 01 E1tta'tr,llovE<; Ka'ta 't~v Epya­
alav a1tO'tuyxavouat v. 

Often natural deficiency makes even those who are experts in 
respect of craftsmanship fail. 

Demosthenes' limited capacity for character is obviously rele-

23Compare, too, the assessment of Demosthenes in Subl. 34.3-5, which also 
recognises how Demosthenes' temperament limits the range of techniques 
which he can use effectively. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MALCOLM HEATH 291 

vant to Longinus' rejection of the view that the proem of Against 
Leptines is expressive of character, reported in 492a27-40 
(above).24 Smith (1992, 183) assigns the comparison of Demos­
thenes and Aristides in b9-17 to Photius; however, she notes 
that this passage is "less stylized" than the others which she 
assigns to Photius. Demosthenes and Aristides appear together 
in Longinus, excerpt 5 (214.4-6) and in a testimonium to 
Longinus in Sopater's Prolegomena to Aristides (118.1-4 Lenz = 
Longinus FI8); excerpt 12 (215.9-11) also makes approving 
reference to Aristides.25 There is therefore no intrinsic difficulty 
in seeing Longinus as the source of this comparison of Demos­
thenes and Aristides; the hostile view of Aristides in 491b7-11 
(§5) may be due to Photius. 

An intermediate source? 

For the substance of 492a27-38 (§6), on the prologue of 
Against Leptines, Photius is using either Longinus or a source 
that names Longinus. The former is improbable: Psellus had 
access to Longinus' Art of Rhetoric (of which he made an 
epitome),26 but there is no evidence that other works of 
Longinus were still available at this date, and Photius does not 
mention him elsewhere. We must, therefore, reckon with the 
possibility (at the very least) of an intermediary source. Tread­
gold attractively conjectured that in these codices Photius made 

24Keil (supra n.8) argues that the identification of Photius' source as 
Longinus excludes the attribution of On Sublimity to Longinus, contrasting 
"without character" (UVT\901totT\'tO<;, Sub/. 34.3) with the acknowledgement of 
Demosthenic character in b8-9. But one should note the adversative that 
follows (Demosthenes does have character but his temperament makes it 
difficult for him to sustain it), and heed the advice in 485b36-40 (§1) on the 
interpretation of negative terms like "unfigured" or "without character." 

25I; Ael. Arist. Pan. 185.18-19 (= F21c) may be evidence that Longinus 
discussed Aristides in book 3 of the Philological Discourses. 

26p. Gautier, "Michel Psellos et la rhetorique de Longin," Prometheus 3 
(1977) 193-199. 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.  Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

292 CAECILIUS, LONGINUS, AND PHOTIUS 

use of books 3 and 4 of Proclus' Chrestomathy.27 This, if correct, 
would readily explain the presence of material derived from 
Longinus. There is ample evidence for the influence of Longinus 
on Syrianus and his pupils Hermias and Proclus;28 Lachares, 
another of Syrianus' pupils, preserves a fragment of Longinus' 
Philological Discourses (F21a = Lachares 294.14-35 Graeven). 

If we assume that there was an intermediary source, then 
that source may be following Longinus faithfully, or he may 
combine material from Longinus (at least sometimes attributed) 
with material from other sources or his own contributions. The 
parallels with the excerpts perhaps suggest that the intermedi­
ary's borrowings from Longinus were extensive; but we cannot 
gauge the degree of adaptation and contamination with any cer­
tainty. Moreover, there is (as we have seen) sometimes room for 
doubt in diagnosing Photius' interventions. Therefore, while the 
sections of Photius discussed here offer the attractive prospect 
of an enhancement of our knowledge of Longinus' critical 
writings, a measure of caution is still needed. 

March, 2000 The School of Classics 
University of Leeds 
Leeds LS2 9JT u.K. 
m.f.hea th@leeds.ac.uk 

27W. T. Treadgold, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius (DOStud. 18 
[Washington 1980]) 50 n.53. On the attribution of the Chrestomathy to the 
fifth-century Platonist see now A. Longo, "Sull'attribuzione della Crestomazia 
a Prado neoplatonico," StIt III 13 (1995) 109-124; but the question remains 
open. 

28See Heath (supra n.2), and "Echoes of Longinus in Gregory of Nyssa," 
VigChr 53 (1999) 395-400.