SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

Photius on the Ten Orators 

Rebekah M. Smith 

T liE DIffERENCES between the two survIving versions of 
The Lives of the Ten Orators have given rise to various 
explanations for the history of the treatise. The original 

work of that title is no. 55 of Plutarch's Moralia (832B-52c: 
hereafter 'Ps.-Plutarch'), and a second version is presented in 
codices 259-68 of Photius' Bibliotheca. The differences be­
tween the two, some major, some minor, are many. In the 
Bibliotheca, for example, most of the lives have been rearranged 
to present a more chronological flow of narrative. The pinax in 
which Photius lists the works contained in the Bibliotheca gives 
the ten orators' lives in the traditional order, by birth, in which 
they occur in the Moralia. In the codices themselves, however, 
Isocrates appears second, not fourth, Lycurgus has been 
moved from seventh place to tenth, I and almost every life 
shows minor deletions and additions when compared with the 
corresponding life as given by Ps.-Plutarch. Four of the lives, 
however, are prefaced by extensive stylistic criticisms. These 
range from collections of brief comments to a twenty-five-line 
quotation of Caecilius of Calcacte on Antiphon's use of figures 
(485B 14-40). 

1 I have found no other example of such reordering. Whether or not it was 
Photius who reorganized this material, it is more likely that someone 
rearranging an already written work would put less organized items into 
better order than that the process of transmission could produce as many 
changes for the worse as these lives show. This contradicts the assumption 
basic to source criticism that the later order is a degraded version of the 
original. 

Both the Bibl. pinax and the traditional order of the Li'7Jes are firmly 
attested by the manuscripts. The Dinarchus life, codex 267, ends with the 
sentence, "In these sections is a record of the speeches that were read of the 
nine orators," and the first words of the Lycurgus codex continues, "But we 
did not have time to read the speeches of Lycurgus, who is the equal of any." 
Although Photius moved the life of Lycurgus because he did not read his 
speeches, the change in the case of [socrates and the discrepancy between the 
pinax order and the actual order remain puzzling; cf 185 infra. 

159 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

160 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

The differences presented by the Bibl. version have received 
much study, the results of which still embrace the verdict that 
the lives given by Photius are purely derivative texts to which 
no change has been made. This opinion lingers despite Photius' 
acknowledged role as an active editor and critic possessing a 
strong sense of style. In fact, comrarison of some of the 
material in 259-68 with examples 0 Photius' prose and his 
editing in other parts of the Bibl. suggests that here as else­
where he gave much attention to the question of literary style. I 
shall argue that Photius wrote more than the perfunctory 
comments placing the codices in the context of the Bibl.: 2 he 
also introduced and commented on some of the quoted stylistic 
criticism, and he seems to have offered a few critical remaks of 
his own. 

I 

Scholarly work has in general either dealt with these codices 
only in part 3 or, when it has actually examined them, drawn 
debatable conclusions. Most recently, Warren T. Treadgold has 
maintained that "They do not include any excerpts from the ora­
tions. Instead, they are made up of extracts from a lost work 
which Photius calls simply a 'history' and which was plagiarized 

2 These codices begin, as do many others in the Bibl., with a sentence 
reporting what work(s)-in this case how many speeches-were read. 

3 E.g. J. J. Bateman, "The Critiques of Isocrates' Style in Photius' 
Bibliotheca, " ICS 6 (1981) 182-96, gives the tradition behind the opinions of 
Isocrates' style but does not seek to investigate precisely whose they are. F. 
Leo, Die griechische-romische Biographie (Leipzig 1901) 33, viewed Caecilius 
as an agent in a stage of expansion of the Lives from an original KOtVTJ l.(J'toptU 
whose original form predated Ps.-Plutarch. L. Van Hook, "The Criticism of 
Photius on the Attic Orators, " TAPA 38 (1907) 41-47, following E. Of en loch, 
Caecilii Calactini Fragmenta (Leipzig 1907), assumed the criticisms in Photius' 
codices 259-68 originated with Caecilius. G. L. Kustas, "The Literary 
Criticism of Photius: A Christian Definition of Sty Ie," H ellenika 17 (1962) 
132-69 at 136 n.4, notes that the criticism of the orators "owes muc h to 

another source, either Ps.-Plutarch's Btot 'twv OEKU PTJ't6pwv or Caecilius of 
Caleacte." He does not, however, note two comments Photius makes in these 
codices using the first-person pronoun, which I discuss below. R. Henry's 
edition of the Bibl., Photius: Bibliotheca I-VIII (Paris 1959-77) at I 219, notes 
the problem in passing and remarks, "Je vois mal Photius 'picorant' dans 
toute une serie de critiques et de rheteurs pendant qu'il redigeait ses notices et 
qu'il a du prendre pour guide quelque manuel scolaire perdue dont il y aurait 
sans doute lieu de preciser la physionomie." E. Drerup, Demosthenes im 
Urteile des Altertums (Wurzburg 1923) 194, shared this opinion. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 161 

in an earlier version by the author of the Ps.-Plutarchan Lives 
of the Ten Orators.» 4 Treadgold cites A. Mayer and R. Ball­
heimer, who believed that Photius had not the time, interest or 
(in Mayer's opinion) ability to make any of the changes from 
the original version.5 Ballheimer, whose conclusion Mayer was 
citing, appears to be the originating force behind this assessment 
of codices 259-68. His arguments need to be re-examined, for 
he is cited as though he presented compelling evidence that 
Photius and Ps.-Plutarch were fundamentally different in a way 
that demanded the positing of an older source. His method, 
however, is typical of the source criticism of his time, and his 
conclusions are insupportable. 6 

~ W. Treadgold, The Nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius (=DumOSt 18 
[Washington, D.C., 1980]) 48. 

5 A. Mayer, rev. A. Vonach, "Die Berichte des Photius uber die funf altern 
attischen Redner," CommAenipont 5 (1910) 14-76, in BZ 20 (1911) 220-23. 
Mayer assumed that Photius was unable to make any of the changes that 
distinguish his from the M or. version. This is the only basis for Mayer's 
criticism of Vonach for minimizing these differences. Vonach's "complicated 
and unnecessary arguments" Cf readgold, supra n.4: 48 n.45) are actually a list 
of possible sources for the brief, unattributed stylistic criticisms in the section 
of the Lives that is common to both Ps.-Plutarch and Photius. Vonach's 
study, which covered the first five lives, produced no surprises, and he 
concluded that for these lives Photius was either drawing from the sources he 
named or simply commenting himself. Vonach is mistaken, however, in 
reporting that the Bib!. version contains no textual readings better than the 
corresponding passages in Ps.-Plutarch (cf n.13 infra). He claims (222£), citing 
Ballheimer (De Photi vitis decem oratorum [diss.Bonn 1877: hereafter 
, Ballheimer'J), 

daB die Vorlage des Photios nicht die uns erhaltenen Ps.-Plutarchischen Viten 
gewesen sein konnen, sondern eine (von Phot. cod. 268 mit den Worten we; i:i; 
lO'1:0PlW; flqtae~lCaflEv zitierte) noch nicht auf Plutarchs Namen getaufte altere 
und vollstandigere Fassung un serer Biographien, die sich vor der Abfassung 
des Lampriaskatalogs von der spater ins Corpus Plutarcheum geratenen 
Rezension abgetrennt haben muK Dieser schon von Ballheimer s.12ff fest­
gestellten Erkenntnis konnte V. nur durch falsche Interpretation der Tatschen 
aus dem Wege gehen. 

E. Orth, Photiana (Leipzig 1928), whom Treadgold notes was apparently 
unaware of Ballheimer's work, believed (89) the same of Photius, conjecturing 
that he found the contents of these codices in a compendium of critical 
commentary similar to those he believed Photius depended on for his know­
ledge of first-, second-, and third-century rhetorical writers. 

6 M. Cuvigny, ed., Plutarque, Oeuvres Morales XII.1 (Paris 1981) 35 n.l, 
notes that A. Prasse, De Plutarchi quae feruntur Vilis X ora/orum (diss.Mar­
burg 1891), 'disproved' Ballheimer's theory, but this is not actually true. The 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

162 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

Ballheimer based his conclusions about the sources for the 
lives on the biographical text common to both works, not the 
critical additions in Photius' version. His arguments concern 
three different groups of textual features: (1) several small 
additions and changes in the part of the text common to Photius 
and Ps.-Plutarch (some of phrasing only) that he believed 
Photius could not have made (4-11); (2) various minor 
omissions, likewise 'impossible' for Photius (11-29); and (3) 
comments in the Photius version that do not appear in Ps.­
Plutarch but which he nonetheless judged were not Photius' 
words. Regarding the separate and longer critical comments on 
style that appear in Photius and not in Ps.-Plutarch (the material 
upon which I base my own conclusions), Ballheimer shared the 
opinion, common to his time, that the authors Photius cited 
were so various that he could not have drawn them from his 
own knowledge or reading but must have been using a compen­
dium (33-36). 

Under headings (1) and (3), Ballheimer asserted that Photius 
could not have added from memory such things as Xeno­
phon's name to the list of Isocrates' pupils, or four words, 
which amount to a mere rephrasing, to the sword/spit story in 
the Demosthenes life. 7 He also isolated several phrases of the 
type "quae rhetoricam originem sapit"-for example in the life 
of Lysias (489B 29, added to 835D8): £1tOAt't£u£'to 'trov 1tOAArov 

four 'errors' Prasse (15-18) considered proof that Photius drew from Ps.­
Plutarch are either the kind of differences that may be expected in two such 
texts or are not errors at all. 

A possible exception to Ballheimer's influence seemed to be J. Schamp, 
Photios historien des leures. La Bibliotheque et ses notices biographiques 
(Liege 1987), who examined the biographical and bibliographical material 
that Photius added to several of his codices and gives Photius full credit for its 
inclusion. But in the case of codices 259-68, Schamp believes there were two 
versions, one circulating with the works of the orators, and therefore 
augmented with rhetorical criticism (the Photian version), and one consisting 
of lives culled from these editions and put together in the form of a 
biographical treatise and attributed to Plutarch (Mor. version), both ultimately 
deriving from an older common source. Schamp expressed this view by letter, 
17 May 1991, at which time his oral paper on the codices and subsequent 
article were forthcoming. 

7 Ballheimer 4f on Isocrates (Mor. 837c8; Bibl. 486B36) and Demosthenes 
(Mar. 844E6; Bib!. 493A11). 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 163 

OUK Ev8EEO'tEPOV. 8 In Ballheimer's view Photius could not have 
added these elements himself; and because they were not in Ps.­
Plutarch they must derive from a version older than both. 

Under heading (2) the arguments concerning omissions in 
Photius' version of items in the Mar. are similarly vitiated by 
Ballheimer's low estimation of Photius' abilities. The Ps.­
Plutarch life of Andocides (M or. 834 c6-3 D), for instance, con­
tains an explanation of Andocides' involvement in the profana­
tion of the mysteries that is omitted in Photius (Bibl. 488A27). 
Ballheimer thus explains the discrepancy: "aut consulto ab hoc 
omissos esse statuendum-qui quamvis multa falso securus e 
'Plutarcho' transcripserit, potuit nihilominus semel nimia 
sentcntiae pravitate ut earn omitteret moveri-aut ab eo cxem­
plari afuisse quod Photius exscripsit, ita ut duas quasi traditionis 
vias sumamus .... » From this point on Ballheimer simply as­
sumes that there were two lines of transmission, one in which 
the gloss entered the text and one, Photius', in which it did not. 9 

He argued similarly from examples in the Lycurgus life, where 
the list of Lycurgus' services performed for the city is edited in 
the Bibl. by removal of two small sections. 10 Ballheimer was 

8 "He was fairly active in public affairs." The other sentences of this type are 
Demosthenes (494 B15, added to 846E8), lW.taAt1tWV b p~'twp 'tilv 11110' i:ou'tilv 
OUVOIlEV11V offiom 1tOAW £<I)'\)Y£ (" Leaving a city that was unable to save even 
itself, the orator fled."); Demosthenes (493B11, added to 845B5), ol1Affiv IlEYO 
IlEPOS dvm TIlS EV 'tip O~Il'll 1tEtaOUS 'tilv 1J1tOKptOW ("demonstrating that a great 
part of his influence over the people was his skill in delivery"); Demosthenes 
(494Al1, added to 845F9), 'tllS IlEV OUIl~clOTJS 'tuX11S tOWS ouo£v EVO£EO't£pOV, 'tllS 
0' aAA11S OU'tOU 1t£P1. A6youS OUVclll£WS OUK oAiy'll EvOrECl"t£pOV ("perhaps not 
falling short of the events that had befallen, but not a little falling short of his 
usual power of speaking"). 

9 Ballheimer 14; Cuvigny (supra n.6) 199 n.3 thinks that this is a marginal 
gloss. 

10 A paraphrase translation indicates the omitted sections in brackets: 
"Lycurgus had a notable public career; was entrusted also with the public 
finances; was treasurer for three periods of four years in charge of 14,000 
talents [or as some say, and among them the man who proposed the vote of 
honors for him, Stratocles the orator, 18,650 talents; was elected the first time 
but afterwards ran under the name of a friend because of a law concerning 
the treasury; and was always devoted to public affairs, summer and winter]. 
When elected to provide war munitions, he restored many buildings in the 
city; provided 400 triremes; [constructed the gymnasium in the Lyceum and 
planted trees in it; built the palaestra and finished the Dionysiac theater when 
he was in charge of it; took care of 250 talents on private trust; provided gold 
and silver ornaments for use in procession and gold Victories 1; and fi nished 
many buildings, including the ship-sheds ana the arsenal. He put the 
foundation walls around the Panathenaic stadium and leveled the ravme." 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

164 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

prepared to grant that the first section was a spurious addition, 
but he still considered it one that Photius the "proto­
secretarius" would not have been "doctus" enough to have 
recognized and removed. Likewise he argued that the second 
fit too smoothly into the text for anyone to have removed it 
editorially; thus Photius did not receive these in the version of 
the life he copied, and they were therefore proof of two 
recensions from a single older source. 

Whether it was Photius or an unknown copier of the Lives 
who did the paring down, the deletions are no proof of the 
existence of a common source for Ps.-Plutarch and Photius. In 
fact, a single clear sign of editing in the Bibl. tells against 
Ballheimer's theory. It has been noticed more than once that 
whoever edited the Photian version of the life of Lycurgus did 
not retain all five of the laws that appear in M or. 841F5-42 A 10 
(Bibl. 497 A30-34). There the laws are spelled out and are 
followed by a story concerning the fifth, which L ycurgus' own 
wife is said to have been acquitted for violating. In the Bibl. 
version we find only the last law described, and it is introduced 
by the phrase: ErtOlf,aato bE Kat VOJlWV £lmpopas bla<pOPWV (bv 
fan 1t£Jl1t'tos. Whoever condensed the list lets us know what he 
was reading in full when he chose to preserve only the fifth 
i tern. 11 

These small differences in the biographical text of the two 
versions, both additions and subtractions, are not surprising, 
considering the separate traditions and the different ages of the 
Bibl. and Mor. versions. Such changes may have been made by 
Photius or may have come about in the long course of trans­
mission between the second and ninth centuries. But the 
question should be viewed in the light of Photius' style of ex­
cerpting, which often condenses and adds to original material. 
In either case, Ballheimer's investigation draws attention to the 
details of difference between the two versions without proving 
his claim. 12 

11 Henry's note to this section quotes Ballheimer's opinion but reminds us 
that this sort of trimming was typical of Photius' excerpting method. 

12 On the textual tradition cf C. G. Lowe, "The Manuscript Tradition of 
Pseudo-Plutarch's Vitae Decem Oratorurn," Uni7J.JlI.St.Lang. Lit 9 (1924) 4-53, 
and introductions to the editions of the M or. by J iirgen Mau (Leipzig 1971) 
i-viii, and Cuvigny (supra n.6) 35-38. Lowe (23f) deduced that the common 
archetype for all our manuscripts of the M or. containing the Li7Jes of the Ten 
Orators was an extremely corrupt minuscule text of the ninth century. While 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 165 

II 

We can see positive indications of Photius' own editing in the 
longer critical additions at the beginning of four of the lives. 
These substantial additions, clearly independent of the M or. 
version, have been attributed to a rhetorical reference book of 
some sort that Photius is assumed to have used. Since Orth's 
time, Photius has been recognized as an active editor and critic, 
if not in these codices, despite the resemblance in several 
sections to Photius' work as we see it in other parts of the Bibl. 
For even prior to detailed examination of these sections, a 
general similarity is evident. Although the codices on the 
orators are unique in the Bib!. in giving biographical material in 
place of a report on the material read, the critical additions to 
the lives of Demosthenes and Lysias have one partial parallel. 
Codex 176 of the Bibl. is a report on selections from Theo­
pompus' Philippica; following the report, Photius gives a 
patchwork of biographical and bibliographical information that 
looks to be drawn from several different sources. Unlike the 
stylistic commentary at the beginnings of the Demosthenes and 

warning against editing the Mar. lives by Photius' text unless the wording is 
almost identical, Cuvigny (35ff) states that Photius' text bears witness that 
errors common to all our manuscripts were present in the ninth century. 
Editions of the Mar. lives are full of readings supplied by Photius (e.g. Bib!. 
486A14: £V n£touvopcp. Mar. 833csf: ouv n£touvopcp; Bib!. 488A28: dOEv£,,(­
KUIlEVO~. Mar. 834010: £VEYKUIlEVO~; Bib!. 489B41: 8pao1Joa'iov, Mar. 83SF8: 
8paouAmov; Bib!. 488B28: <1TlIlTlyoptat. Mar. 836B5: <1TlIlTlyopta; Bib!. 486B13: 
'Epx.tEco~. Mar. 836E2: upx.tEpico~; Bib!. 487A6: Il£V a~; Mar. 83707: IlEV a~ 
1l6va~-Mau and Cuvigny do not make it clear how many Mss give this 
reading; Westermann moved 1l6va~ to improve the sense-Bib!. 487A6: 
EKlla8E'iv-cf Smythe 2279-Mor. 837El: EKIlu8n or -0 t; Bib!. 487B8: 
'tPtTlparxE'iv, Mar. 838A8: 'tptllpa~; Bib!. 487B9: Kat Ot~, Mar. 838A8: Kat 'to 
o~-all Mss. thus, but Mau gives Ktt'tOt; Bib!. 497B1: IlOt y€.yov£. ~oTl8o~, Mar. 
842 c2: ~oTl8Tloat. 1l6yt~ Ei<J11vEYKE -the scribe apparently saw the correct 
original, ~0T)8Tloa~ cf Mau 25-Bib!. 493B27: 1tOAElltJdj, Mar. 84506: 1tOIl1ttJdj; 
Bib!. 495B 16: KOAA\)'t£.U~, Mar. 8480 5: KOA1J't'tEu~-or l't't£.1J~ or 1J'tf.1J-Bib!. 
495 B24: <1Tlllv0a8ivEl, Mar. 848Fl <1Tlllo(J8ivo1J~), but I have found nothing in the 
textual readings that indicates that Photus' version is anything but a later 
version of the Ps.-Plutarch. 

For Photius' method of excerpting quoted text, cf Treadgold (supra n.4) 62f; 
J. Bompaire, "Photius et la Seconde Sophistique, d'apres la Bibliotheque," 
Tra7.lMem 8 (1981) 79-86; T. I-tigg, Photios a!s Vermittler antiker Literatur 
(Uppsala 1975) 131, 156£, and "Photius at Work: Evidence from the Text of 
the Bibliotheca," GRBS 14 (1973) 213-22. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

166 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

Lysias codices, this information is not strictly critical, nor does 
it actually replace the report on the history. It is, however, the 
same sort of commentary-in-pastiche that prefaces the lives of 
Lysias and Demosthenes. J. Schamp attempts to identify the 
various sources of this information, and although his analysis 
differs slightly from mine, his conclusion about the overall 
nature of the passage is the same: "En somme, on echappe 
difficilement a l'impression que Photios a utilise Ie bios comme 
un canevas qu'il a nourri des elements tires de ses lectures et de 
ses constatations personelles." 13 Photius quotes from several 
sources, whether directly or indirectly, including Theopompus, 
Duris of Samos, Cleochares of Smyrlea, and "they," and he also 
comments on Theopompus' claim that the historians of former 
times were inferior to those of his own age: "But who it is in 
earlier times he speaks of I am not able to conjecture clearly, 
since I do not assume that he dared to include Herodotus and 
Thucydides" (121 A 14ff, OUK fXU) aa<pro<; au ll~aA.£ly. ou yap of) 
y£ 'toA.ll11aa t au'toy U1tOA.all~6.yU)). Here and in the Bib!. 
generally Schamp concluded that Photius drew his bio­
graphical and bibliographical information from supplementary 
resources he found in the manuscripts of the authors he was 
reading. This is a substantial part of Photius' material contri­
bution to the Bib!., along with his occasional informed queries 
on matters of authenticity and the stylistic analyses. 14 

Turning to the specific, the stylistic criticisms in codices 
259-68-which are lengthy additions to the Ps.-Plutarch ver­
sion-show clear signs of Photius' personal involvement with 
the material. Four aspects of this critical commentary are similar 
to Photius' work in other parts of the Bibl. First, Photius here 
as elsewhere speaks in the first person and makes direct com­
ments. Second, two sentences, one in the life of Isocrates and 
one in that of Aeschines, resemble in style and vocabulary 
Photius' one hundred and thirty or so stylistic descriptions of 
authors with whom Photius was familiar; they are quoted in a 

IJ Schamp (supra n.6) 359; cf 353-68 for his analysis of the passage. 
14 Cf Schamp (supra n.6) and Treadgold (supra nA) 97-110 on Photius' 

literary interests; L. Van Hook "The Literary Criticism of Photius in the 
Bibliotheca of Photius," CP 4 (1909) 178-89, presents several examples and 
illustrates Photius' tastes and his expressive imagery in describing the effects of 
an author's style; Kustas (supra n.3) shows how the critical vocabulary of 
Hermogenes was employed by Photius in the structure of his own aesthetic, 
which was imbued with the ethical values of Christianity. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 167 

way that shows that they are being fitted into their present 
context. Finally, several general observations are made in the 
codices on Isocrates, Lysias, and Demosthenes that are similar 
in vocabulary and style not only to the prose of the introduc­
tion and postscript of the Bibl., but also to relevant passages in 
Photius' letters and treatises. When these four points are taken 
together and considered in light of Photius' work in general, the 
greater differences between the Ps.-Plutarch lives and the 
Photius' version are readily explainable as products of Photius' 
own method. 

Four times in codices 259-68 Photius speaks in the first per­
son, and although this was largely ignored in the assessments of 
those who did not believe in Photius' involvement here, all 
these occurrences have been noted at one time or another. The 
first is at the beginning of the codex on Isocrates. The text of 
Ps.-Plutarch text lists Isocrates' works, including a rhetorical 
handbook; Photius adds (468B8) that he has seen this work: Ttv 
Kat l)/lEt<;; La/lEV 'tou avopo<;; bnypa<po/l£vllV 'tep Qvo/lan. A 
second example occurs later in the same codex (487A11-17), 
also inserted into the Ps.-Plutarch text (at Mar. 83h4) that lists 
and describes the orator's work: 'rOV /lEV 0-0v 1tEP\. 'r11<;; av­
nOoaEW<;; Kat 'tOY 1taVllYUptKOV Kat nva<;; 'tWV aU!l~OUAEunKWV 
dpll'rat /lOt 01tW<;; 'tE Kat O'tE aUV£'ra~E .15 This probably refers to 
486B 19-26 just previous, where both Ps.-Plutarch and Photius 
have described the writing of the Antidasis, Panegyricus, and 
"some other deliberative speeches." Third, in the Demosthenes 
codex (265.491 Al2-21), following a quotation of Libanius' report 
on the authenticity of the speech On Halannesus, Photius 
remarks on the danger of using style as a criterion: EYW 8E d8w<;; 
1tOAAaKt<;; Kat AOyOU<;; ota<popwv YEVVll'tOpWV 1tOAA~V £xov'ta<;; 
't~V O/loto't1l'ta. 16 The fourth use of the first person is one of the 
statements by which Photius fits the lives of the orators into 

15 "I have spoken of the Antidosis, Panegyricus, and some of the sym­
bouletutic speeches, both how and when they were composed." Cf "fread­
gold, "The Recently Completed Edition of the Bibliutheca of Photius," 
Byzantinoslavica 41 (1980) 50-61 at 60. The reference is probably not to codex 
61.102 A 18-30, also on Isocrates. If it were, the words referred to would indeed 
be Photius' own, but their content would not be precisely what is decribed 
here. 

16 I shall argue (180ff infra) on the grounds of style that this passage is 
Photius'. Cf Kustas (supra 3) 139 n.l; N. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium 
(London 1983) 110; Henry (supra n.3) 222 (ad p.57): "Je puis avanccr que 
Photius parle rarement it la premiere personne, mais cela lui arrive." 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

168 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

the format of the Bibl. Codex 267 on Dinarchus ends with the 
sen tence, 'tWV IlEv 01)V 9' PTl'toprov Ot AoYOt, (bv £1totTlaaIlE9a 'tTtv 
avayvroatv, £V 'tOu'tOte; 1tEptypaCj>E'tat il IlvT)IlTl. The following 
Lycurgus codex begins: AUKOUPYOU DE OUOEVOe;. <Sao. yE 'tEAElV 
de; {>T)'to pac; Kal 0Tlllayroyouc;, 'to £Aa't'tov <pE po IlEVOU OU1tro 
1tapEaXEv illllv 6 xpovoc; Aoyoue; avayvwvat, <pEpEa9at DE au'tou 
£~ la'topiae; tE' IlElla9T) KallEv . Thus, Photius' own words appear 
in these ten codices no less than in other parts of his work, 
where short, introductory sentences like those of the lives of 
Isocrates, Dinarch us, and Lycurgus occur quite often. The 
longer comment on style in the Demosthenes life is characeris­
tic of Photius. 17 (Cf his remark on Theopompus' claim about 
differences among historians at 274.510n9 [supra 166]). A 
sermon bears the name of John Cyrysostom, but OUK £1l0t 
OOKEl O€' 'tOle; 'tE yap £V9ullT)llaat Kat 'tfl1tdp~ TTl<; ypaCj>ll<; 1tOAD 
'to £voEEe; 'twv aAArov au'tOu AOYrov a1to<pEpE'tat. 1tAT)V nva Kat £~ 
au'tou 1tapE~E~AT)9Tl. €an DE au'tou Kat il AE~t<; xuoaia Kat 'tlle; 
EKElVOU 1tapaAAa't'touaa. 18 Note too that the phrase beginning 
Photius' note concerning Lycurgus' speeches is very like those 
that Ballheimer isolated as "rhetoricam originem sapientes": 
AUKOUYPOU OE OUOEVOe;, <Sao. yE 'tEAElV de; {>T)'topae; Kat 
0Tlllaywyoue;, 'to £Aa't'tov Cj>£POIlEVOU. On grounds of sheer 
similarity, such a statement there suggests that this type of 
comment, dismissed by Ballheimer as derivative, may in fact 
originate with Photius. 

Photius wrote descriptions of the styles of some 130 of the 
authors he reported on in the Bibl., and these have a uniform 
critical vocabulary and simplicity of style. The second aspect of 
the orators' codices that is characteristic of Photius' work con­
sists of two sentences marked by this style and vocabulary. The 
first appears at the beginning of the second critical passage in 
the Isocrates life (487B26-40): 'tWV DE AOYWV au'tOu 'to EUKptVEe; 
Kat aa<pEe; Kat IlEIlEAE'tTlIlEVOV 1taaat ollAOV. Kat we; £1taV9El 
au'tole; OU 1l0VOV £1lCj>u'tOv aAAa Kat KOllllroHKOV KaAAOe;. Here, 

17 For statements in voce auctoris, cf Treadgold (supra n.4) 40 on Photius' 
use of the second person plural both as a general 'you' and in direct address to 
Tarasius. I have found over twenty occasions on which Photius uses the first 
person singular pronoun. Wilson (supra n.16) 110 also gives several examples 
of Photius' observations on his texts. 

18 "but I don't think it is his. In demonstrations and knowledge of scripture 
it is much lacking compared to his other writings. Except that some things in 
it were drawn from him (sci!. his genuine works). Its style is vulgar and not as 
good as his." 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAI I M. SMITH 169 

as in Photius' full-scale description of Isocrates' style in codex 
159, there is mention of Isocrates' EUKpivElcx (159.102B 5), 
crcxqnlVElCX (159.102B 13), and careful working of language (102n 5, 
8).19 The comment begins with the usual marker of his stylistic 
descriptions, "(wv o£ AOYWV cxuwu, and includes an image that 
Photius often applies to literary style, that of blooming or 
flowering. 20 Photius frequently employs the adjective £JlCPUWC;, 
and KOJlJlw'tlK6C;, used in the Bibl. only here, occurs twice in 
Photius' letters. 21 His style seems distinguishable again in codex 
264 on Aeschines, where a one-sentence description reads: EO''tl 
o£ A6yOlC; CXUWU YAUKUC; ,,(E KCXt Ka8cxpoc; KCXt EUKPlV~C; KCXt Tn 
,,(WY £y8UJlllJlci'twv craCPllyEiq. crEJlyuv6JlEYOC;.22 The evaluation of 
style here agrees with what Photius says of Aeschines in codex 
61 and is typical of Photi us in its use of Hermogenes' 
vocabulary-here stating a judgment quite unlike Hermogenes' 
own opinion of Aeschines. 23 The simple stringing together of 
terms is also typical in a description of style (K(xt ... KCXt ... 1£ 

Kat.. .. ).24 This resemblance to Photius' prose style stands out in 

19 In codex 159 Photius uses £1tq.uD .. £w. (J02ES) and 1il i:1tl).l!:ATj~ (102B8), here 
10 )..l£)..l£A£1rH.ltvov, which appears in various forms descriptively or in critical 
sections nine times: )..l£)..l£A£1T])..l£V()V, codex 51.12A38; (1f.LfA£1T]10V, 122.94 1\ 9 and 
182.127A20; £K)..l£A£1rPT], codex 141.98B18 and hf.LfA£~, codex 79.551\24; 
)..l£AC'tT]V, 160.103 A 11, 167.115B25, 259-68 (bis) here and 260.4871\32; i-WA[nWrl­
Gav, 167.1 07 B30. 

20 In the Bibl. Ctv8£t at codex 197.1611\ 14 in the description of a work and 
32.6E20 in a critical section; o.v8T]pa~ in 41.9A8, 69.34Jl3, 74.521\8, 78.5'}]\38, 
110.89B6, 127.95BI4, 165.107B28, 239.318B33; (J'.v8iOv at codex 657.33 ]\42,86.661\7; 
in general e.g. Ep. 201.63, 284.1083, 285.315. 

21 For £)..l<p"\no~(f Fp. 1.589,156.22,165.111; Bibl. 125.94B33; KO)..l)..lCU1tK();: l:"p. 
165.170, 283.6. 

22 "In his speeches he is sweet, pure, and distinct, and pridcs himsclf OIl thc 
clarity of his arguments." 

23 J. F. Kindstrand, The Stylistic Evaluation of Aeschines ill Anliquity 
(Uppsala 1982) 61ff, observes that Photius often mentions enthyrncrnc and 
epicheireme together, and that d)KPlVT]~ and Ka8apa~ often occur togethcr, for 
example in codex 47.11A24 on Josephus, 98.84B7 on Zosimus, and 223.2221\40 
on Diodorus of Tarsus. He also points out that this evaluation by Photius is 
similar to Hermogenes' evaluation of Aeschines the Socratic (On ''(ypcs of 
Style 406-407) and one by Photius in codex 178, suggesting that Photius may 
have confused the two. This is unlikely in light of Photius' carc in idcmifying 
both men and the attention he gave this topic. 

24 F.g. 57.1hI5, 70.35 A6, 90.67B11, 95.78BI0, 97.841\35,102.(\61\13,114.901\22, 
129.96B28, 140.98A32, 203.1641\20, 226.243B1, 167.112B4, and 168.1161\36 in the 
description of contents. For instance, 57.17 A 16 (Appian): "E01l 8;" 1Tlv <pp(xmv 
('mCplHo~ Ka\ l.Gxv6~, 1l]V 81: i.moptav, w~ olav l' l:mt, <ptA(XA110T1;, KG\. mp(HT1-



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

170 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

contrast to the surrounding quoted material, especially in the 
life of Isocrates, Photius' introduction is followed by a variety 
of remarks whose language changes noticeably from that of the 
first sentence, on Isocrates' use of figures, his suitability for 
contests, the organization of his subject matter, and his use of 
earlier models for eulogistic speech. 

III 

Rhetorical figures are, in fact, the subject of much of the 
stylistic criticism in the four codices undcr discussion. These 
discussion of figures, 0XTH1U'W" are uniform in stylc as well as 
subject, and they have been attributed to Caecilius of Caleacte. 
At the beginning of the Antiphon life in particular, Caecilius is 
cited by name in what is part paraphrase, part direct quotation. 25 

This is the most direct quotation of Caecilius that survives, and 
the manner in which it is quoted is, I believe, part of the third 
aspect of editing in codices 259-68 that should be attributed to 
Photius. Caecilius' opinion is quoted here as a reply to a pre­
ceding statement about Antiphon's cleverness: 6 !l£v'Wt LtKEA­
t(J.ytll~Kut1ciALO~(485B14); then the direct quotation is given, in 

ytKWV oux 't11r; iO''topiar; l·u:8oowv. d Kat 'ttr; aAA.or;. ll1toQlTl'tTJr;. £7tapat 't£ AoYOt<; 
'tE'ta1tEtvWI,tEVOV <ppovTlJla O"tpa'tOu Kill ota1tpauvat <pAEYJlalVOV Kat 7taeOr; 
OTlAWO'at Kat d'tt aAA.o A6yatr; £KJltJlTJO'acrBat aptO''tor;. or 90.67B14 (Libanius): 
'til yap 1toUn 1tEpt 'tour; aAA.o'Ur; <PtA.o1tOVl~ 'tE Kat 1tEPlEPYl~ 'tTJV IT £Jl<p'U":OV 'tou 
A6yo'U Kat a\noO'XEOWV (wr; av 'ttl; d1tot) xaptv £A'UJlTjVatO Kill 'tEPljltv. Kill Elr; 
'to aO'a<pEO''tEpOV 'tEptE'tPEIjIE. 1tOAAa JlEv £7tlO'KO'tt/;WV 7tapEvTjKar;. £V ta O· 
a<patpcO'Et Kat 'tou avay,ca'io'U. or, 226.243Bll (Eulogius): "EO''tl Jlrv ODV oinor; 0 
O''Uyypa<p£ur; Ka8apor; li..J!illl i,our;. Kill Ota O''UV'tOJlO'U Kill Ada; oOou 'tour; 
tAcuo'Ur; 1tOtOUJlLVOr;. Kat 1tpOr; JlTJOev 'troY £~w 'tou avaYKaio'U <p£pOJl£vor;. 

25 See Of en loch (supra n.3). His collection includes too much. Once a very 
conservative rule is applied, putting aside passages that precede or follow on 
phrases with Caecilius' name in them, rejecting entries that only show the 
'spirit' of Caecilius, and questioning what may be imitation, not quotation, we 
are left with: Of en loch fragment numbers 31 (testimonia to the title 7tEP't 
O'XTJJlO:'twv), 50, 50a, 61, 64-67, 71-76, 126, 136; among traces of Caecilius' 
lexicon, p.58 S.7). dO'ayy£Aia. £~OUATlr;. 8EWp698w'tTjr;. 7tpO~oATj; and fragments 
158, 163, and 168. Of en loch attributes sometimes too much, sometimes too 
little of the commentary on figures in the Bibl. to Caecilius. On the basis of 
subject and style, I believe he is quoted at 485BI6-27, 488B30-40, 488B25-36 
(=Ofenbach fr.l09), 488B37-489A9 (=fr.l09), 489AI4-35, 489B3-13 (=fr.110), 
491A40-491B7, 49IB12-17 (=fr.143), 491B8-22 (=fr.143), 491B23-28, 491B29-
492A5 (=fr.144). 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAI-I M. SMITH 171 

which Caecilius explains, Wa1tEp E1ttbtop8ou}.lEVOs Eau16v 
(485B829), that Antiphon does not avoid figures altogether but 
uses them without artificial methods or technique and in a way 
natural to the course of his argument. The critical section ends 
with a return to the words of the Ps.-Plutarch version: "There 
are sixty speeches, and Caecilius says twenty-five are spurious." 

Henry observes of the passage "II ne figure pas dans Ie Ps.­
Plutarque et il est difficile de preciser par quelle source Photius 
a pu Ie connaltre, s'il ne l'a pas utilise directement." The twenty­
five-line section certainly does not look like the material of a 
marginal gloss, nor is it similar to the condensed offerings of a 
rhetorical handbook. Further, the matter in which the q uota­
tion is presented is a lively one: "Caecilius says ... " followed by 
the summary of his opinion and then the direct quotation, 
marked by "he says, as if correcting himself." This looks like 
thoughtful excerpting, not hurried copying.26 

In the Lysias codex, the last rhetorical comment at the begin­
ning of the life concerns the orator's use of auxesis. Lines 
489B3-13 (ef Of en loch fr.llO) argue that Lysias' ability to ex­
pand and elaborate the content of his speeches is not to be 
challenged. Line 13, however, continues: KatKlAtO<; 6£ 
Cx}.lap'tuv£t EupEnKov }.lEV 10V o:vbpa, £l1tEP O:AAOV nyu, 
o .. uv 0 1.10 Aoywv , OlKOVO}.ll1Ciat 6£ 'ta EUPE8£v'tu oUX 01)'t0)<; bmvov. 
Kat yap KaV 'tau'tcp 10 }.l£pn 111s aPE'tl1<; 'tau AOYOU OU6EVO<; 
opu'tat cpauAQ-tEpO<; (13-17). This addition both suggests that the 
preceding is (as Of en loch thought) Caecilius' opinion and also 
voices an independent judgment. In the Antiphon codex 
Caecilius' opinion was introduced and described in words that 
reflected an awareness of what was quoted. Here it is both 
quoted and then corrected in words that express a critical 
authority of their ownP 

26 Photius omitted one citation of Caecilius that is contained in the 
Antiphon codex of Ps.-Plutarch: "Caecilius attached this decree to his work 
on Antiphon." Photius' lives of the orators include none of the four decrees 
given by Ps.-Plutarch. Photius also cites Caecilius by name three times ill 
addition to those in the Ps.-Plutarch version, one in codex 61 and twice in the 
critical material under discussion. These citations have been considered in the 
source criticism on these ten codices, without providing any grounds for 
conclusion. 

27 Judging only by similarity, this language is Photius'. He uses O"UVOIlOAOYWV 

only once (209.166B25 in the description of a work), but the expression, £l1tEP 
nAMv 'twa / d1tEP 'tte; nAMe; (" as much as anyone/if anyone else"), is one that 
Photius uses often in critical or descriptive comments (in critical sections: 
119.93 A40; in reports on the contents of various works: 146.991\ 16, 19 1.1531133, 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

172 PHOTlUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

Libanius IS another of Photius' sources of critical material on 
the orators, specifically on the speeches of Demosthenes.28 
Here too there are signs that Photius may have added critical 
material. Commentary from Libanius' Hypotheses appears 
several times,29 only once giving Libanius' name: "Some, 
especially Libanius the sophist, say that the speech was 
prepared but not delivered» (492 A 14-20). Several speeches are 
discussed in the critical material of this codex. The order in 
which these are treated is neither that of the Hypotheses nor of 
any known manuscript of Demosthenes. 3o Presumably it is the 
order in which Photius read the speeches. Not all the critical 
comment available in the Hypotheses is used in the Bib!., and 
Photius' reading seems to have included some of the speeches 
that Libanius did not summarize. 31 

Twice in the Hypotheses Libanius speaks in the first person. 
The quotation in Photius' codex (491A2-12, 492A14-20) re­
moves the first person, rephrasing to render the statement 
impersonal. Further, at the end of the life of Demosthenes (not 
in the critical section of the codex) Ps.-Plutarch' report of 
Demosthenes' nickname "Batalus" is augmented in Photius 
(495A35-44) by a passage that offers further explanation for the 

198.162A15, 224.222B 14, and 262.488B, which occurs in the biographical part of 
the life but is an addition, possibly Photius'). Kat yap Kat occurs forty-two 
times in the Bibl. and rarely in Attic models, namely twice in Herodotus, 
twice in Thucydides, once in Xenophon, twice in Plato, and once in 
Aeschines. 

28 In codex 90 Photius reviews Libanius' orations and describes his prose 
style, noting that Libanius' 1tAaO"fl.atlKOt (fictive discourses) and exercises were 
more useful than his other works and that Libanius wrote letters. Ep. 207 
shows that Photius read these, as he recommends Libanius as a model of 
epistolary prose. 

29 491 A2-12, On Halonnesus; 491A22-28, On the Treaty with Alexander; 
491 A31f, Against Aristogeiton; 492AI4-20, On the Peace; 492A23f, Against 
Neaera. 

30 Many manuscripts of Demosthenes contain the llypotheses, and of these, 
some give Libanius' work in one piece, some seraratcd, with each hypothesis 
placed before the speech it describes. I know 0 no manuscript that gives the 
speeches in the same order as Photius' (7, 17, 25, 5, 59). The only Ms. 
containing the hypotheses in an order different from the standard is S or 1:, 
Par. 2934, where the order is 7, 5, 25, 59, 17. 

31 Libanius' summaries of speeches 31 and 58, for example, contain some 
description of style or of type, and neither of these speeches is described in 
codex 265. For Satyrus, e.g., which is treated in the codex, is not treated by 
Libanius. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 173 

name. This comes from Libanius' life of Demosthenes, which is 
the preface of the Hypotheses, and Libanius is duly cited as its 
source. 

Photius knew Libanius' works well; their frequency in the 
surviving manuscripts of Demosthenes suggests that he very 
likely had the Hypotheses in his copy of the speeches. The 
order in which the speeches are presented in the codex 
suggests, however, that it was Photius' own order of reading 
and not a mechanical culling of material from Libanius. On the 
other hand, the suppression of the first person in quoted 
material and the additional use of Libanius' story about 
"Batalus" suggest that Photius drew on the Hypotheses for 
critical material as he read through the speeches. 

Aelius Aristides is among the orators whose style Photius 
admires. His Panegyricus and the four speeches Against Plato, 
for Rhetoric (codices 246-48) are represented in the Bib!. by 
extensive abstracts chosen, Photius explains, for their style and 
beauty of expression. Aristides is mentioned twice in the 
Demosthenic codex, in sentences that I shall argue are Photius' 
own (265. 491B 7-11, 492B9-17); once when two of Demos­
thenes' speeches are criticised for contradictory elements, and 
once when Demosthenes is said to have found it temperamen­
tally difficult to withstand attacks by his opponent. In the first 
instance, Photius (?) exclaims, "But what would these critics say 
of Aristides, who uses this particular device too much ... , » and 
in the second Aristides' character is described as similar to 
Demosthenes' in its sharp and passionate quality. These 
references to Aristides, together with the manner in which 
Caecilius and Libanius are quoted and paraphrased, are 
consistent with the possibility of Photius' editorial voice in the 
codices on the orators. 

IV 

My fourth and final point of argument concerns seven pass­
ages in the critical commentary that stand out in contrast-both 
in style and in content-to the simpler language surrounding 
them. These passages share vocabulary with Photius' other 
works and include literary devices also found in Photius' more 
ornate and rhetorical moments. All the passages comment less 
on specific points of style or argument (as in the rest of the 
collected commentary) than on the general nature of composi­
tion and criticism. As one of these very passages points out, 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

174 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

stylistic similarity is no positive proof of identity of authorship, 
and because I do not offer an analysis that distinguishes Photius' 
style from that of this contemporaries, the following argument 
cannot prove that these passages were indeed composed by 
Photius.32 I am, however, pointing to similarities of language 
that are significant, especially when taken along with the aspects 
of style and content discussed above. 

Photius' language varies greatly from one context to another. 
The simple, straightforward prose of his stylistic critiques in the 
Bibl. is an example of one extreme, while the complexity and 
rhetorical flair of the proem demonstrate the other. For the 
sake of providing evidence for the sake of comparison, it will be 
helpful to glance first at a number of Photius' observations on 
rhetoric that are couched in self-consciously rhetorical language 
and for that reason resemble Photius' more ornate and affected 
style. Even the vocabulary of this limited sample has much in 
common with the selection of Photius' prose that I shall 
present in order to illustrate both his ornate style and his 
language when analyzing literary style. This preliminary evi­
dence consists of the proem and epilogue of the Bibl. (44 lines) 
and nine letters or parts of letters (1,099 Ii nes). 33 

32 For a technical description of particular usages in Byzantine Greek, cl G. 
Bohling, Untersuchungen zum rhetorischen Sprachgebrauch der Byzantiner, 
mit besondere Berucksichtigung der Schriften des Michael PseLLos (Berlin 
1956). H. I-lunger, "On the Imitation (Mimesis) of Antiquity in Byzantine 
Literaure," DOP 23-24 (1969-70) 17-38, discusses figures, literary references, 
quotations, and the use of classical works and genres as literary models. 
Referring to Bohling, he lists a few specific points of Attic sytle that were 
imitated by educated Byzantine authors, some of which are noticeable in 
Photius: the observance of grammarians whose doctrines were formed during 
the Empire, and use of the dative more than the actual conditions of linguistic 
development required, of indefinite pronouns, especially shortened 'WI), 'tcp, 
the middle, optative, accumulation of negatives, pleonastic use of particles 
(especially Kal), and preference for abstracts over concrete expressions. 

The general Byzantine taste for the Hellenistic style, as reflected in Photius' 
excerpts from Philostratus (codex 241) and Aristides (246-48), produced in 
Photius' writing several characteristics of Hellenistic Greek: verbs with two 
adverbial prefixes, the redoubling of synonyms (el 177f infra), extended 
participles (cl 175f infra), and a penchant for abstract nouns. 

JJ Cf the Appendix (185 infra) for a comparison of vocabulary. My selection 
includes Epp. 1.516-628 to Boris-Michael on the purity of the Christian faith 
and the ruler as its exemplar, 163 on the utterance of the name of God, 164-66 
on Paul's style, 207 on epistolary writers, 234 the consolatio to Tarasius on the 
death of his daughter, and 235 to Nicephorus. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 175 

Photius' favorite stylistic devices involve symmetry. Simple 
parallelism is a constant in passages where Photius creates point. 
For example, 

1.538 £V j.lEV yap 'tat~ aKpt~Ecr'tU'tat~ Kat 'to ~paxu'ta'tOv 
'tON aj.lap'tllllU'tWV pq.cr'ta Ka'tU(j)Wpov YlVE'tat, 

£V 8£ 'tal~ 'tuxoucrat~ 1wt..:Aa 1tapopa'tal 
Kat oue' d<; aj.lup'tT\J.la KplVE'tat. 

or 1.575 oiJ-tw,:iu.I1!lY Ol1ta't£pE<; 1tapEtMwacrtv, 
fl f..... ,... ", s::: s:- I 34 

ou't W'!lJ!.QlY. 't 0 l <; J.l £'t EKE tv OU <; 7t(X P cw Co W K a cr l V . 

Antithesis invites parallelism, and Photius often presents ele­
ments in pairs, one word, phrase, or thought opposing another: 

163.6 OUK <XKoucrat 8£ J.lOVOV, 
a/../..a Kat 'tOt~ aPXlEpEUcrtV a1taYYELACXl, 

OUK a1taYYEl/"at 8£ J.l0VOV, 
aAAa Kat xp'Ucrip 1tE'taAcp ypa(j)Etv 1tapaeou­

vat.35 

Quite often two parallel or antithetical terms are set in chiastic 
order, as in Ep. 1.577, apnai, KOcrj.lElV :rUY.1tlonV Kat 1ft 1tlcr'tEl 
'ta<; apE'ta<; /..aJ.l1tpo't£pa~ a1tEpyaSEcrSal, or Ep. 165.23, ao<pla 
o-ov Swu n. 'tou aiwvo<; 'tou'tOU Kat 'tWV au'tou apxov'twv 
cro<pla. 36 

The effects of parallelism are often offset in longer sentences 
by the interweaving of connected or corresponding words, 
creating order as in a line of poetry. The entire preface and 
much of the postscript display this technique, and in a de­
scription of the effect of Paul's style on his readers, it artic­
ulates the structure of the sentence (Ep. 165.4): 

Ei 8£ (crE (j)l/..01tOvw't£pa) 1tEpt 'tOu<; EKElVOU AOYO'U<; 
/..a~ot J.lE/..£'tT\, 11k avwS£v crOt 8T\Aovon p oren <; de; 
d)j.l£vEtav opwcru<;, eauj.laatat~ av j.la/..Aov 01tw<; (aE) 

H CJ. also e.g. Proem, flaAAov O' Q 'to avufllWcVOV VOU1Swv a~l6AoyOV. 
uipoulJ£vo,; o£ lCUt 'to 1tOllCtAov; 163.6; 234.86. 

35 Cf also Proem, 'lV' £xou; ... lCUl. KOlVO't£pUV 'tilv £1tiyvw0lv; Procm, /-Liuv 
fl£V yap ... P9:0wv dvat; Postscript, £XOl:; ... a1tuPxilv KUl. 't£AClnT1V; and Procm, 
O'l'!: fl!:v l0w:; ... £lCOEOWlCUfl£V. 

36 Cf also Ep. 165.25,72; 234.34, II()8£v mAllCUU'tat lCUl.I000.U'tal nATlYut. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

176 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

'tocrO:\:)'tll~ croCjlia~ 8u:AaVeav£ xapl; Kat KaAAo~ 
£JlCjlU'tOV AOYou (e£PJlOV £pacr'tTlv) OUK £LX£V. Ot Jl£v 
aAAOt 'tou IlAa'trovo~ Mw 'tOu 1tOAtnKOu AOYOU 1t£Cjlu­
Kacrt yyrou.ov£,y 

Photius' more elaborate sentences often contain clements 
extended by a long genitive absolute, a participial phrase, or 
simply a long parenthetical expression. In the 1,140-line sample 
of Photius' prose, genitive absolutes occur fifteen times. Of this 
number one falls within the sentence: 

.... crou 8£ 'to AOt1tOV Jl1l8£v 1tpocre£v'to~, Jll1't£ on 
1tapay£v£creat 8£Ol, tva Kat yAwua A£ynv £X£tv aHa av 
Kat A£YOl, Jll1't£ d~ £1tt Jl£POU~ Kat WPlcrJl£VllV a~lrocrlv 
'tl)v KOlvo't£pav Kat aoplcr'tOv 1t£Pl£V£'(K6v'to~, Jl1l8£ 
craCjlw~ 8£81lAroKO'tO~ 'tlVroV £cr'tl crOl xpda ~l~Alrov Kat 
1toia~ 'tWV Pll'toPU(WV n:xvwv 1tpaYJlaT£ia~ Kat. TtvO; 
't£xvoypaCjlOU, 1t&~ av 8uvatJlllv .... (235.6) 

and three others extend the ends of sentcnces. 38 Parenthetical 
expressions are also quite frequent. Ten occur even within this 
small selection,39 and participial phrases create similar extensions, 
for example at 234.86: 

rocr't£ Kat 0 JlaKpO~ Kat 0 ~paxu~ 'tOU ~lOD Xpovo;, 'tep 
1tapov'tl Jlovov 'tl)v atcrellcrlv 'trov 'h8£rov 1t£PlKA£lrov, £i; 
tcrllV Kat oJlotav a1tOAaucrlv 'tOV 't£ d~ y11pa~ ~aeuvov­
'ta Kat 'tOY £VaKJla~OV'ta Tn V£OTll'tl cruvayn, EKaI£pou , \ "e ~ , , 8 "I ~ u.£v 'tUV alcr U<HV 'tn 1tapoucrn 't£PW£lW1tfl.avrov, 
,~ , ~\ ,,~ "I Ae' " ~ OUu£VO, u£ OUJE HQV 1tap£fl.U U 0IroV ODI£ 'trov 

Il£AAOV'trov OU8£lllUt; n80vfit; ou8£'t£pro 1l£I£X£lV 
£8l00Ut;.40 

37 Cf also Ep. 207.1: Proem, tOY oov wom:p ... (KO£8wKa).u:v; Proem, d 8£ oat 
1totE ... <ptAo1tOVOUj.1EVCP; Proem, Kat ouOI: tu:; au:; ... <ppovti8u; Postscr., au 8' c1 ... 
lWtaMipOt tCAo:;. 

38 165.270; 234.190, 257. The other genitive absolutes occur in Proem 161' and 
Ep. 164.46,92; 165.4, 67,134,151; 166.139, 157; 234.43,235.19. 

39 Proem, d Kat BtatU1tCtYtlK1lV nva ... tau oou Btarrupou rr6Bou KU\.; Fp. 1.526, 
529, 560; 165.69, 131 for example. 

40 Also Proem, Err£tBil IrQ IE KOlVrQ Ifi~ rrpm6Ela~ Kat t5 6a<HA£tcp IjIUWCP 
1tp£06(1)£tV nlla<; (1t' 'Acrcrupiou<; aip£8cvta<; ntf\oa:; tIl.:; urro8too:; CKrlVWV twv 
PtPAiwv; Postscr., EXOl:; tilv a'ttf\OtV t11:; £ArriBo:; ou Otajlaptoucmv ... erwptav 
aituoEwv tnV EK1tAUPWOlV; Ep. 1.603; 234.86. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 177 

In terms of content, Van Hook illustrates in his list of Photius' 
"trenchant and striking expressions in critical characterizations" 
(supra n.14: 186£) how many vivid descriptions are cast as 
metaphors. These range from brief images in the stylistic 
analyses to longer topoi in the letters, among them a comparison 
of death to the sickle-thrust of the grim reaper (Ep. 234.19), of 
envy as a personified enemy hurling shafts of misfortune (Ep. 
234.31), of personal disasters as the malevolent orchestration of a 
tragic chorus (Ep. 234.36), holy inspiration as a flowing stream 
(Ep. 165.288), or the trials of life as an athletic contest set by God 
(Ep. 134.234). 

Finally, Photius enjoys the devices of alliteration and rhyme. 
In the consolatio to Tarasius, a highly stylized genre piece, for 
example, play on sound is constant: of a serpant's hiss, we find 0 
novTlPoe; EKEtVOe; Kat crKOAtOe; O<jHe; (234.14), or in a description of 
force, noSEv 'tTlAtKa1rtat Kat wcra1J'tat nATlyat (234.34). And in 
the letter to Boris-Michael: 

1.538, EV Jl£V yap 'tate; aKpl~Ecr'tU'tale; Kat 'to ~paX{l'taWV 'tWV 
O:Jlap'tTlJlu'tWV pc,.cr'ta Ka'tU<pwpov YlV£1at, £V o£ 'tate; 'tU­
xoucrate; 1l0AAa llaPOP(i'tat Kat ouO' de; aJlup'tTlJla Kplv£'tal. 

1.557, Ka'ta nuV'twv Waxov 'to K p (hoC; Kat .a.i)HTlWV a va -
otx£'tat Kat KaAoic; Kat (JW(HKO<Jb10V; ()ta ncxnoe; SPlU~~ 
£YKaAAwniCncx t. 

1.564, crIilSt crIEPPW~ EV 'til llE1PC! 'tile; 1l 1(Jl£We;, EV n KcxAWC; uno 
.KUplOU 'tE8EJlEAlWcrat 

Photius' fondness for expressing a single thought in double 
terms 41 also creates frequent pairs of rhyming or alliterative 
words in, for example, 

1.534, aKocrJliae; Kat acrXTlJlocruVTle; 
165.202, 'to ~aeu Kat ~E~TlKOe; 
234.11, aKo<JJllCXI; Kat acrXTlJlocrUVTle; 

41 Cf Proem, ChatU1tWtlKl)V nva Kat KOlVOt£pav; Posrscr., Yt crITouolj Kat 
~l.!:A.£tTl; 1.522, Kat tOU op80u A.6you Kataq>atv£'tat t£ Kat o ll: A.cnrt at; 1.527, 
cruvopatat Kat 1t£q>wpatat; 1.531, 8PTlcrKEta<; KalITtcrt£w;. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

178 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

234.30, CPPlK'tT)V Kat CPO~EPa.V 
234.139, EV acp8ovol<; C£ Kat aVEKAaAil'tOt<; ayaSol<;. 

These are the more striking rhetorical devices Photius em­
ploys when writing for effect or embellishment. Keeping them 
in mind, let us turn to the seven passages in codices 259-68 that I 
suggest Photius wrote himself. The compositional clements in 
these few sentences reflect a self-consciousness in commenting 
on style, and they are not unlike the ornate prose just described. 

(1) Isocrates (260.487 A29-35): ~tO Kat 1tOAAOl<; 1tOAAa.<; 
1tap£aXE 'tOOv KPl'tlKOOV Cta'tpl~a.<; ~£V KaS' £amou<;, CWCPCDV la<; C£ 
1tPO<; aAAilAou<;, 'tOOv ~£V E~~aSuvo~£VCDV 'tTl ~EAE'tn Kat 
CtaaK£'I'£l 'tOU AOYOU, 'tOOv C£ Ka'ta. 'to E1tl1tOAmOV 'tilv avaYVCDatV 
1tOlOU~£V(J)V. Ean c' £l1tElV Kat cton 'tOl<; ~£v EVEan CPUat<; E-0 
Exoucra 1tpo<; 'ta.<; Kptcr£l<;, 'tous bE 6 o. .. a't'tou~EvO<; E1ttYlvcDcrK£t 
AoYO<;.42 

This first passage from the life of Isocrates opens with al­
literative word play and then continues, constructed on 
an ti theses, 

(a) bta'tPl~~ ~ KaS' £au't~ 
fuaCPCDVlQ& oc ~ aAAilAQ% 

(b) 'tOOv U£V eu~aSuvoblEvCDv 'tTl ~EAE'tn Kat clacrKE\jf£t 'tou 
AOYOU 
~ li Ka'ta. 'to E1tt1tOAalOV 'til V avayvCDcrlv 

1tOlOUU£VCDV 

(c) ~ U£V (VEcrn cpucrt<; £.-0 (xoucra 1tpo<; 'ta.s Kpla£l<; 
~ ill:. 6 .tAa't'tOu~EvO<; £'1ttYlvcDaK£l AOyO<;. 

The parallelism in pair (a) of grammatical construction and the 
play in rhyme is extremely close, and the third pair contains 
similar play on sound with E. At the beginning of the first 
sentence, the accusatives are interwoven with the indirect 
object, 1tOAAOl<; 1tOAAa.<; 1tapEcrx£ 'tOOv KptnKOOv 8W'tPl~a.<;, and 

42 "For this reason the speech has given many of the critics much labor by 
themselves and difference of opinion with each other, some of them delving 
into it with care and close examination of the speech, but others reading only 
superficially. One could certainly say that in some there is a nature well 
adapted to critical judgement, but others are marked by inferior ability." 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 179 

within the paired genitive absolutes, the CrItICS and their 
approach appear chiastically. A small joke is expressed: Isocrates 
spent much time writing the Panegyricus; critics spend much 
time arguing their differences of opinion about it. A similar 
witticism occurs in passage 6 below. 

(2) Isocrates (260.487B 35-40): 'AAA' ou8ev KWA:UH 1tapa-
1tATjO"tWV aVaKU1t'toV'tWv 1tpaYJlu'twv 'tat<; oJlOtal<; E~£pyaO"ial<; 
K£XPllO"Sal Kat. 'tOt<; EVSUJlT1J.,LCXO" tV , OUX U1tO~aAA6Jl£vov 'ta 
aAAo'tpw, aAAa 'tTt<; 'troY 1tpaYJlu'twv ava~AaO"'tavouO"Tj<; cpuO"£w<; 
'towu'ta ota Kat. 'tOtC; 1tpOAa~ouo"l 1tpO~aAAOJl£VTj E1tt8dKVu'tat. 43 

This sentence as a whole is balanced: first the "nothing pre­
vents" clause extending through "and enthymemes," containing 
'tat<; oJloiat<; E~EpyaO"iCXl<; and 'tOtC; EVSU/l'TwaO" lV, which are 
arranged one on each side of the infinitive KEXPTt0"8al. Then the 
phrase OUX U1tO~aAAOJlEVOV 'ta aAAo'tpw falls in the middle of 
the sentence, providing a brief four-word pivot between the 
two longer elements. The last part, which begins with aAAa as 
does the first, is a long genitive absolute that extends the 
sentence. The syntax here is as complex as any in the proem to 
the Bib!., and as in the previous passage from the same codex, 
there is artful arrangement of word order and alliteration: aAAa 
follows on UAAo'tpta, and 1tpO~aAAoJl£vTj on 1tpOAa~oUO"t. 44 

Alliteration is also sustained in the ~ and A of ~aAA-, Aa~-, and 
~AaO"-. The language of sprouting or putting forth suggests a 
metaphor of flowering or plant growth. 

(3) Lysias (262.489 A34-B2): IlauAOe; 8£ yE 0 £K MUO"lae; 'tOV 'tE 
1tEpt 'tou O"TjKOU AOYOV, ou8ev 'troY dpT\Jl£vwv O"UVl£lC;, 'tTtC; 'tE 
YVT\O"lO'tTj'tO<; 'troY AUO"WKroV EK~UAA£t AOYWV, Kat 1tOAAOUC; Kat 
KaAOUC; aAAOU<; d<; vo8oue; U1t0PPl\jlUJl£VOC; 1tOAATtC; Kat 
JlqUATjC; 'tOue; uv8pw1touc; wcp£Adae; U1t£O"'tEPT\O"£V, oux' 
£UPlO"KOJl£VWV En 'troy U1tO 8w~oAi1v 1tEo"OV'tWV. a1ta~ yap 
U1tOKP lS£V't£<; 1tap £wpu8T\O"av, E1tlKpa'tEO"'t£ p ac; 'tTtC; 8W~OA Tt C;, 
WO"1tEP Kat E1t' aAAWV 1tOAArov, 11 'tTte; uAT\8Elac; yqEVTjJlEVT\e;. 45 

43 "But nothing prevents the use of the same method of treatment and 
enthymemes when similar subject matter arises, not introducing extraneous 
elements, but rather the nature of the subject matter giving rise to such things 
as it showed one's predecessors when it was set before them." 

H For ava~Aao'tavO) as transitive, cf LS] (Philippus Epigrammaticus and 
Eunapius). 

45 "Paul of Mysia, understanding nothing of what has been said, excludes 
the speech On the Olive Stump from the list of Lysias' genuine speeches and, 
having cast out many other good speeches as well to be counted as spurious, 
he has deprived men of much great benefit, because the speeches that have 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

180 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

The general observation on truth recalls the tone of a homily. 
The thought that spurious works are declared false in the same 
way in which spurious children are separated from true children 
is common, and one that Photius uses elsewhere. 46 Here again, 
the syntax is complex. The first sentence contains subject + 
direct object, participial phrase (dependent on subject), verb + 
genitives (dependent on direct object), then participial phrase 
(modifying subject), object of verb + verb, then genitive 
absolute. The second sentence begins simply and ends in an 
extended genitive absolute interrupted by the adverbial phrase 
romtEp Kat E1t' o.AAWV 1tOAAroV. Subject and verb are in terwoven 
in the first sentence, and verb and objects in 'trov A:UcrtaJ(rov 
EK~aAA£t AOYWV and 1tOAAll<; Kat J..l£yaAll<; 't01><; av8pw1tou<; 
wcpEA£la<;. Another element of style in these passages has been 
the use of long genitive absolutes: the end of sentence two in the 
first passage above, the final words of the second passage, the 
shorter phrase in the passage above (oux' EUptcrKO~lEvWV Ell'tWV 
U1tO 8ta~OAilv 1tEcrOV'tWV), and the genitive absol ute that ends the 
last sentence above. 

(4) Demosthenes (265.491 A 12-21): 'Eyw 82 d8w<; TCoAAaKt<; Kat 
AOyOU<; 81acpopwv YEVVll'tOPWV TCOAA~V Exov'ta<; 't~V OJ..loto'tll'ta 
Kat 81acpopwv Epyacriav AOYWV 'tOY au'tov EYVWKO'tWV YEvvi)­
'topa-ou yap ad Ka8rcr'tllKEv o.'tPE1t'tO<; Kat avaAAoiw'tO<; Ka'ta 
1tav'ta, rocr1tEP ou8£ EV 'tOt<; o.AAOt<;, OU'tW<; ou8£ Ka'ta 't01><; 
AOyOU<; 'h av8pwTCtvll 8uvaJ..ll<;, o.AAW<; 'tE 8£ OU82 EV 1"Ot<; KatptW­
'ta't01<; 'trov i81WJ..la'twv 'to\) pi)'tOpo<;, aAAa Ka \. 'tau'tllv ETC' OA 1 yov 
oprov 't~v 8wcpopav, OUK EXW 8apPElv aTCocpi)vaa8at E'L't£ 
'HYllcriTCTCOU 1tovo<; 0 1tEP\. 'AAovvi)crou AOYO<; d'tE 't11<; ~1l~1O­
cr8EV1Kll<; EAanWJ..la Ka8rcr'tllKE cpUcrEW<;.47 

fallen under suspicion are no longer to be found; for once they were excluded, 
they were neglected since, as is the case with many other things, false 
accusation has prevailed over the truth." 

46 Cf codex 204.164B15-21, XPT]Oll.lOV E<; 'tU IlUAtO'tu 'to ~t~AtOV, KUt uu'tal<; 
,,(ovul<; 'tol<; EV't'UYXuvo'Ucrt 'to "(VT]OtOV E1ttO£tKVUIlEVOV UU'ttKU 'tOU Y£y£VVllKO'tOr; 
("The book is especially useful, and by means of its own offspring it 
demonstrates to those who encounter it the genuineness of their progenitor"). 

47 "But since I know in many cases speeches by different authors showing 
great similarity and the same style in speeches that recognize different authors 
(for human nature is not constantly fixed and unchanging in all respects, in 
speeches any more than in other areas), seeing this difference to a small degree, 
and not even in the most striking aspects of the orator's style, I cannot have 
the temerity to pronounce on whether the speech On the lIalonnesus is the 
work of Hegesippus or is a lesser example of Demosthenes' ability." 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 181 

The attribution of this passage to Photius is not disputed, 
although it has been often overlooked by scholars who insist 
that Photius merely copied the text of this codex without adding 
anything. The passage is characteristic of Photius' style, being a 
single sentence constructed as a very long period, with the 
subject of Ka9£crtTlKEV delayed within its own clause. Another 
example of this procedure can be seen in Ep. 165.115: on Jlt~ 
1tOAAaKU; 6J..ltAi~ Kat tOU~ cruv llJ..llv EKo:crtOtE Kat' autWV 
tcrtaJl£VOU~ Kat 1tOA£J..ltWtatoU~ Ovta~ VUV U1tTlKOWV £XEl Kat 
Jla9Tltwv E\)YVWJlOVWV ~ .48 The rumination on sty Ie in the 
Demosthenes codex offers a classic example of Photius' love of 
symmetry and carefully arranged word order. Note the balance 
of 

AOYOU, owq>opwv YEVVTltOpwv 1tOAAl)V hovta, tl)v OJlOlotTlta 
()l<xcpopov Epyacrtav AOYWV tOY a1.ltOV EYVWKOtWV y£vvl)topa, 

with six items to each phrase, each phrase ending with the same 
pattern: adjective modifying object + transitive verb + object of 
verb. In the first three terms, an accusative is followed by a 
genitive, and Olo:q>OpO~ and AOYO~ are arranged chiastically in 
each. The same type of symmetry governs the following pair, 
with the nouns/attributives in chiastic sequence with the 
prepositional phrases in each phrase. A sense of careful 
arrangement governs the word order: 

ouO£ Ev tOl~ KmplwtatOl~ tWV lOlwJlatWV tOU Pl)tOpO~, 
aAAa Kat taU'mv Ert' OAtyov apwv thv oWCj)opav, 

and in the last part of the sentence, where the orators' names 
come first and the verb (Ka9£crtTlKE) is delayed in the second 
phrase. Photius often expresses an added thought parenthetical­
ly; as an example we have here the major portion of the sen­
tence, ou yap ad Ka9£crtTlKEV ... apwv 'tl)v owq>opav. 

In general, the entire passage is constructed with one clement 
posed against another: 

'Eyffi O£ dow~ rtOAAaKl~ Kat .. , 

48 " ••• since often because of a single speech both those on our side then 
standing among them and those who were most hostile now the band of 
followers and gentle disciples contains." Cf also Epp. 163.6, 1.526. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

182 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

... Kat bUxcpopwv Epya<Jlav j"oywv 'tOY au'tov ... 

OU yap ad Ka8£<J'tT1KEV ... 

aAA~ 'tE b£ m'ili£ EV 'tOte;; KatPlW't(X'tOle;; ... 'tOU pfl'tOpoe;;, 
~ Kat 'tau'tT1V E1t' OAlYOV opWV 'tl)V 8wcpopav 

OUK EXW 8appEtV U1tocpflva<J8at £l'tE 'HYT1<Jl1t1tO'O 1tOVOe;; .. . 
£l'tE 'tT)e;; ~T\I . .lO<J8EVtKT)e;; EAaHw~a ... . 

And there is a touch of alliteration in 1tOAAaKle;;, 1tOAAflv, and 
lhpE1t'tOe;; Kat aVaAAOtW'tOe;;. 

(5) Demosthenes (265.49B17-11): 'AAA' o'l yE 'tOu'w'Oe;; alnw­
~EVOl, 'tt av cpatEv 1tEpt 'APl<J'tdbo'O, oe;; Kat Ka'taKopWe;; 'to 
i.blwJ.wn 'tou'tcp cpatVE'tat K£XPT\~EVOe;;, W<J1tEP Kat 'to 1tpOlEVal 
Kcx'ta 'tae;; Epya<Jlae;; 1tEpa 'tou ~£'tPlO'O, Kat 'to 1tEPlHCP ~aAAOV il 
'to jlE'tPcp 'tT)e;; xpdae;; <J'O~1tapEK'tdvE<J8at;49 

We mentioned above the reference here to Aelius Aristides, 
whose speeches Photius excerpted for the sake of their style. 
The construction of this sentence is basically antithetical. The 
second half is in two parts, W<J1tEP Kat. ... and Kat 'to 1tEptHcp .... 
The second part of this latter half is divided also between 'to 
1tEPl't'tcp and 'to jlE'tPcp ... , typical of Photius' fondness for ex­
pressing a single thought in double terms. The pattern Kat 'to 
1tEPl't'tcp lil 'to jlE'tPcp is repeated although the construction 
following the article varies. Tou jl£'tPlO'O and 'to ~E'tPcp, finally, 
also create a varied repetition. 

(6) Demosthenes (265.492A 38ff): Kat nOAAOte;; oil'we;; 0 Aoyoe;; 
ncxp£<JXEV ay&va KplvE<J8at 1tpo'tE8de;;, W<J1tEP Kat 'A<J1ta<Jlcp 'to 
pfl't0Pl, (hE ~T\b' UCPlY~EVCP 'tT)e;; 'tOu AOYO'O 8£wpi.ae;; de;; UKPi.­
~£tav.50 

49 "But those who find fault with these speeches, what would they say about 
Aristides, who clearly uses this particular device to the point of surfeit, going 
beyond measure in the working out of his speeches and stringing things out 
excessively rather than by measure of need?" 

50 "This speech, in presenting itself for judgment, provided a contest for 
many, for instance the rhetor Aspasius, since he did not even manage to be 
accurate in his study." 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 183 

Another small witticism: in the Isocrates life (passage 1 above) 
the Panegyricus provided (napEcrXEv) critics with work and 
disputes. Here, Demosthenes' agonistic speech has provided 
(napEcrXEv) the critics with the aywv of judging it. Word order is 
interwoven, with nOAAol~ separated from 'Acrreacricp 'to Pl)WPl, 
o-o'to~ 6 AOyO<; from repon:8Ei<;, aqnYIlEvcp from d<; aKpi~Elav. 
The indirect objects are distributed into each part of the 
sentence, the subject encloses reapEcrXEv aywva KplvEcr8al in the 
first part and is repeated in the enclosed section of the participial 
phrase, which extends the sentence. 

(7) Demosthenes (265.492B9-17): 'AAAa yE xaAErew'ta'tov fcrn 
AOYWV aywVLcr'tlKWV Epya'tTI Dux 'tEAOU<; cpuAa~at repo<; 'tOY ana­
YWVlcr'tl,V 'to ~8o<;, llaAlcr'ta DE Wt<; acrol CPUcrEW<; E'tUXOV relKpo­
'tEpa<; 'tE Kat na8Tl'tlKOHEpa<;, ~<; oux' TlKlcr'ta .6.TlJlocr8EVTl<; 'tE Kat 
'Apl<nEiDTl<; IlE'tEXEl. MonEp reoAAaKl~ £~ayonat 't1)<; repo8EcrEW<; 
£Aa'tWUJlEVTl<; ureo 't11<; cpUcrEW<;. ouDE yap ouD' Ecrnv lKavl, 'tEXVTl 
Ka'top8wcral 'to (3oUATlJla, Ill, cruvEPYOV £xoucra Kat 'tl,v 't11<; 
cpucr£w<; tDlO'tTl'ta. 51 

Here again Aristides is mentioned. Although this passage is 
less stylized than the six above, its elements are composed with 
care. There is deliberate repetition in aywvlcrnKwv/aywvtcrHKT,V, 
and alliteration in the pair of words, TClKpO't£pa<; 'tE Kat rea8Tl­
'tlKw'tEpa<;. The phrase cpuAa~al 'to ~8o<; encloses npo<; 'tOY 
anaywvlcr'tl)V, and the participial phrase Ill, crUVEPYOV £xoucra 
Kat 'tl,V 't11<; CPUcrEW<; U5lo'tTl'ta is, again, an extension of the 
sentence. 

These are the seven passages in the codices on the orators that, 
with the exception of (4), have been attributed to Caecilius, or to 

an older version of Ps.-Plutarch, or to marginal notes, but not to 
the author of the work in which they occur. They share com­
mon content, making general observations about style and 
criticism. They share vocabulary with writing known to be Pho­
tius', and there is some similarity of wording among the pass­
ages, brief as they are: Kat reoAAOl<; ... napEcrXE (1, 6, quite strik­
ing because the words occur in the course of making the same 

51 "For it is quite difficult for the practitioner of combative speeches to 

preserve his bearing throughout against his opponent, especially in the case of 
those who happen to have rather bitter and passionate temperaments, 
something that both Demosthenes and Aristides certainly share. This is why 
they are often drawn aside from their purpose, as it is overcome by their 
nature, for there is no art capable of correcting the will unless it has the aid of 
the particular person's nature as well." 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

184 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

type of witticism), £AanouIlEvo<; (1, 7), WaITEp Kat (3, 5, 6), and 
Epyaalav (4, 5). Style and vocabulary, to the extent that I have 
presented them here, cannot establish authorship, but to the 
degree that they indicate likeness to passages certainly com­
posed by Photius, they support the argument for Photius' 
involvement in these ten codices. 

To summarize, these are what I take to be the various signs of 
Photius' editorial activity: the comments he makes in his own 
voice, language that resembles that of his other works and other 
comments on style, and indications that even the quoted 
material may have come from sources Photius knew. Old 
arguments for the existence of a third and earliest version of the 
Lives do not hold up under re-examination. And although 
Photius may very well have had a text somewhat different from 
our present Mor., the larger differences between the versions of 
Ps.-Plutarch and Photius can be explained if we allow that 
Photius' interests and abilities were the same when he com­
posed these codices as they were elsewhere in the Bibl. In terms 
of our understanding of the Bib!. as a whole, this reassessment of 
codices 259-68 underscores that they are atypical for the half of 
the Bibl. in which they appear. Unlike the other codices after 
234, these do show editing and commentary and arc not mostly 
excerpts (Treadgold, supra n.4: 35-51). They are also unique to 
the work as a whole, for they present bibliographical and 
biographical material in place of a summary of or excerpt from 
the works and offer stylistic commentary in a combination of 
quoted material and occasional observation. 

Why, then, were these biographies included in the Bib!.? I 
suggest that their presence reflects Photius' interest in style, 
which depended ultimately on the canonical Attic orators. The 
composition of the biographies as they appear in Photius looks 
notelike. Photius reports on the speeches of Aeschines and 
Isocrates in codices 61 and 159. The duplication created by this 
set of ten lives leads me to think that Photius copied and 
annotated the Lives of the Ten Orators separately from his 
work on the Bib!. Treadgold's assessment of the second half of 
the Bibl. (that it consists of reading notes from a period earlier 
than that in which Photius wrote the first part) is based on the 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 185 

composItIOn of the codices in the second part. 52 I find codices 
259-68 on the orators consistent with this assessment. 

The pinax, as I mentioned at the outset, lists the orators in 
traditional order, but Photius' Isocrates is second, not fourth, 
and L ycurgus closes the set because none of his speeches were 
actually read. Photius' active editing of the codices on the 
orators may further explain the displacement of the life of 
Isocrates. Codex 260 is Photius' second treatment of Isocrates 
(cl codex 159); the original Isocrates life is unusually disordered, 
chronologically speaking, and the places in which I have argued 
that Photius added his critical commentary do nothing to 
improve the order but rather look like additions made in the 
course of excerpting. Again, Antiphon and [socrates arc 
numbers one and two of the orators, on whose lives I believe 
Photius took the time to comment. Either may explain why the 
Isocrates life follows immediately on that of Antiphon. 

In conclusion, although the Lives of the Ten Orators form a 
set of codices unique among the reading reports of Photius' 
Bibl., I hope to have shown that this uniqueness of form does 
not prove that Photius merely copied a ten-part biography of 
the orators into his work. Codices 259-68 are also a striking 
demonstration of Photius' literary interests and an example of 
his working method. 

ApPENDIX 

The following lists by section vocabulary from the seven passages 
above and gives citations to identical vocabulary used by Photius in 
the Bibl. (proem, postscript, and sections written by Photius, not 
paraphrase or quotation) and in the selection of letters (ef supra 
n.33). I include as well pertinent entries from Westerink's indices to 
the A mph ilo eh ia and Epistles-his "Index Grammaticus" and 
"Vocabula Sclecta"-that are marked with an asterisk. For the texts of 
the proem and postscript of the Bib!. I have followed Treadgold. Line 
citations are to the Laourdas and Westerink edition of Photius' 
works.53 

52 For Photius' habit of working with notes, cf Trcadgold (supra n.4) 38f, 
and 51-73 on the composition of the Bib!. 

53 "The Preface of the Bibliotheca of Photius: Text, Translation and 
Commentary," DOP 31 (1977) 343-49; W. Treadgold and T. Hagg, "The 
Preface of the Bibliotheca of Photius Once More," SymbOslo 61 (1986) 
133-38, and Treadgold (supra n.4) 18 n.4; L. G. Westerrink, cd., Photii Palri-



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

186 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

1. Isocrates (260.487 A29-35) 

OtO lCat:54 Ep. 165.227; 1.626. 
1tOAAOt~ 1tOAAit~: Ep. 165.711toAAot~ 1tOAAalCt~; 234.911toAAOt~ 1tOAAa­

lCt~; 234.172 1tOAAuXOU EV 1tOAAotS; Proem 1tOAAOlS 1tOAAalCt~. 
1tapEcrXf: Ep. 164.8 'tOY vouv TI}S 1tfptOOOU 1tapExoucra; 165.138 YEAro'tOS 

ai'tiav lCat XAe{),Tl~ 1tapEcrxn V; 165.9 lCpa'tos 'tf ... lCa l tcrxuv 
em)jla~fcreat 1tapExn; Postscr. 1tapfXOjlEvrov 'tTtV w<pEAnav; Ep. 
235.1 PTl'tOPtlCU~ a<popjl~ 1tapacrXftv. 

lCpt'ttlCroV: Ep. 166.184,207.7; Amph. 42.234*. 
ota'tpt~us: Amph. 78.227*. 
ota<provia: Bibl. 34.7A22, 91.68B36, 214.171B39, 222.203A25. 
1tpO~ ciAATtAOU~: Ep. 163.11. 
£jl~aeUVOjlEvroV: Ep. 234.20 OpE1taVOV Ejl~aeUVOjlEVOV; 165.302. 
£jl~aeUVOjlEVOS: Ep. 234.88 ~aeuvro; Bib!. 196.160A 35,222.181 B2,l92B23. 
'til jlfAE'tll ('tOu AOYOU): Ep. 165.5 1tfpt 'tOu~ AOYOUS jlfAE'tTl; 165.289 

jlfAE'tTlS lCap1t~; 165.308 lCa'tu jlEAE'tTlV 1tpOcrcrXEtV; 166.236 'tEXVll lCa t 
jlEAhn; 166.242 jlEAE'tat; Proem 'tu~ crus jlEAhas. 

lCa'tu 'to £1tt1tOAawv: Proem £1tt1tOAa~n; Bib!. 75.52A34; 181.126B19, 
215.173B29, 223.211A35, 230.282B18. 

£Aa't'toUjlEVOS: Bib!. 265.492B14; Ep. 135.62 (active)*; Amph. 1.718 
(active)*, 40.106 (active)*; Ep. 211.80, et a!. (passive)*; Bibl. 
159.102B4. 

II. Isocrates (260.487B35-40) 

(ouoev) lCroAun: Postscr. lCroAUOjlfVOV (as part of a number); Ep. 1.584 
lCroAun; ouBev lCroAun:55 Bib!. 96.83B 19 aAA' ouoev lCroAun 'tOUS ava­
yt vfficrlCov'ta~ £lCA£"(OjlEVOUS 'tu XPTtcrtjla; Bib!. 222.195A 36 ouoev 
lCroAUft; Bib!. 222.198B41 ouBev lCroAun. 

1tapa1tATlcrirov: Ep. 1.544 1tapa1tATlcriroS; 163.22 1tapa1tAllcriroS; 166.42 
1tapa1tATlcrtOV; 166.42 1tapa1tATlcrtOV; Postscr. 1tapa1tAllcrtOU 'tU1tou. 

archae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia Vr.l (Leipzig 1989) 
39-151 ("Index Grammaticus"), 66-138 ("Vocabula Selecta"). 

54 Used over 113 times, while it occurs with the following frequency in a 
sample of classical Attic models: Demosthenes 10 times, Plato 23, Xenophon 5, 
Isocrates 7, Libanius 11, Dionysius of Halicarnassus 3, "Longinus" 3, 
Hermogenes 24. 

55 The following occur in excerpted or paraphrased material in the Bibl. and 
may possibly be Photius' own wording: OUOEv lCWAUEt· 222.195 A37; 229.258 B32, 
261 B23; 230.280Bl1, 282A23, 282B23 284B34f; 247.418 A6. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 187 

UVUKun'tOV't(l)v: Bibl. 265.495A 12-15 npos 't~v uvuKumoucmv XpEtuv.56 

npunui't(l)v: Bib!. 35.7 A38, 40.8B39, 61.20B 19, 69.34B8, 86.66A10, 
94.74A 1, 213.171B4.51 

K£XPDcr9at: Ep. 165.260 K£XPDcr9ut; Bib!. 107.88A39, 144.9889, 189.146A 
18; (not infinitive: 41 times, e.g. codices 5. 14, 40, 42, 55, 60, etc.). 

EV9ull1lllucrlV: Bibl. 6.3B22, 47.11A 27, 61.20B22, 119.93A39, 172-74. 
119A34, 195.159B20, 209.165B14, 223.222A41, 233.292A31, 274.510B10; 
Ep. 165.306; 187.91 *, 105*, 166*; 249.70*; 284.795*; Amph. 42.238*; 
47.121*,123*; 54.39*; 72.75*; 181.60*. 

unol3uAAollEVOv (substituting as one's own): Ep. 165.260 £K£'ivu ... 
cr'tUAUYIlWV Aoytcrl101S uno~uAAnv (suggest). 

npo~uAAOIlEV1l: Ep. 1.571 Kupnous upnwv npo~uAA£tV; 166.200 
npo~uAAnUt KUt 't~v ... EAAE\jllV; Proem npo~uAol; Ep. 235.4 
npol3uAAOIlEVcr KUt unpocrowplcr'tcr P1lllun. 

III. Lysias (262.489 A34-489B2) 

unoppnjlull£VoS: Ep. 234.156 unoppi\jlUIl£V. 
nOAADS KUt IlQuA1lS ... ro<p£AduS: Ep. 207.16 nOAArov aAA(I)v KUt 

IlEYUA1lS cruAAE~at ro<p£AduS; Proem 'tl)V ro<pEAnuv. 
wcrnEp KUt: Ep. 164.36; 166.29, 119. 
ouoev 'trov eiP1lIlEV(I)V crWtetS: Ep. 166.131 'trov Il~ crUVtI~v't(l)V 't(l)V £V 

'til> ypullllun crX1lllu't(l)V; 165.20 crUVtEV't(l)V. 
'trov uno Otal3oAl)V nwoV't(l)v: Ep. 166.185 uno £nt'ttllllcrtv Enwov. 
e1ttKpu't£cr't1lS: Ep. 135.75*,284.1470*,3004*,3283*; Amph. 45.144*, 

71.22*,165.23*. 

56 This is an addition in Photius' version to the Ps.-Plutarch version of the 
life of Demosthenes. The text is: <pepov'tat OE mhou u1to<p8ty/lo.m 1tA£tCno. Ko.t 
yvwjloAoyio.t, U1tl:p a,l'to~ jlEV i:Kuo"'tO'tf 1tpO~ 't~v aVU10'l1t'tOUCwv Xp£wv 
apjlonojl£vo<; £AEY£V, oi OE aKouov't£~ jlvljvn 't£ Ko.t ypa<pu Ot[(Jw(Jo.v'tO. It is 
risky to offer a second passage only possibly written by Photius in arguing 
that a first one is written by him, but I point out that U1t£p o.\l't6~ /lEv 
EKUCHO'tf through the end of this sentence looks like Photius' addition to 
what he found in the text. <pepov'tat OE au'tou ("There are attributed to him") 
occurs only in these ten codices, and only in the text of the Ps.-Plutarch lives, 
formulaically reponing the number of speeches attributed to each orator. a1tEP, 
with a participle, however, is typical of Photius' language, and for a parallel to 
the last phrase, cf the preface to the Bib!.: o(Jo.~ au'twv ~ jlVl]/lTj Ot£(Jwt;£. 

57 These are all the references in the Bibl. that occur in Photius' descriptions 
of style or of content outside the codices on the ten orators. The word occurs 
more frequently in codices 259-68: 260.487 A24 (?), 487B35 (here); 262.488B41 
(Caecilius?), 489A31 (Caecilius?); 263.490A14 (Ps.-Plutarch), 265.491B34 
(Caecilius?). 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

188 PHOTIUS ON THE TEN ORATORS 

IV. Demasthenes (265.491 A 12-21) 

1tOAAOtS 1tOAAUKtS: cf supra I. 
but.cpoPOS: Ep. 166.228 buxcpopaS. 
epyaO'lav AOYOOV: Ep. 165.305 'to ev 'tatS epyaO'lall; yovtj.l.Ov. 
YEVV1l'tOpOOv: Ep. 228.167*; 245.22*, 94*; 284.2859*, 2996*. 
KaSEO''t1lK'EV + adjective: Ep. 1.588 E~<pu'toS 1toos 'tOtS uvSPW1tOtS ft 

yvroO'1S Ka8tO''t1lKEV. 
ii'tPE1t'tOS: (gramm.) Amph. 1.878*, (thea!.) 13.28*; (Christol.) Ep. 

284.273*,2809*; -ros: Ep. 284.455*, 1423*, 1488*. 
uvaAAolOO'tOS: Ep. 143.6*,227.13*,283.278*,284.274, etc.*; -oos: Ep. 

284.455*,219.3254*. 
Ka'ta 'tOUS AOyOUS: 58 Bib!. 160.130A 11. 
uv8poo1tlv1l buval.HS: Ep. 1.610 uv8poo1tlvoov 1tpoO''tay~a'toov; 1.627 0 

uv8pw1ttVoS vouS; 165.37 'ta uv8pw1ttva; 165.58 O'o<plas ... 'tl1S 
uv8poo1tlv1lS; 165.90 'to uv8promvov; 165.157 oO'a uvSpwmva; 166.241 
'to uv8pwmvov; Pastscr. 'to K01VOV Kat uv8pw1tLvov. 

UAAOOS 'tE bE: Ep. 1.516 uAAOOS 'tE bE 'ta ~EV uAAa; 164.27 uAAOOS 'tE 
bE Kat d'ttS; 1.516; Bib!. 97.84A37; 126.95A37; 222.183B38, 188A9, 
192B29, 197B2, 197B43; 230.279B3; 278.529 A4; (Westerink, s. v. "bE 
abundans": uAAOOS 'tE bE [Kat] Ep. 1.922, 10.9, 30.15, ct ita fere 
scmper*). 

bux<popav: Amph. 137.116*, 117*. 
EXOO + infinitive: Bib!. 88.66 B35 OUK EXOO O'a<pws fK~aSEtV; 89.67s9 

OU1too ~aeEtV EO'Xov; 176.121B18 OUX EXOO AEynv. 
8apPEtv:59 Bib!. 117.92A 9 oO'OtS l.tTj'tE O'uYKa'tuSEO'8m 'tou SappEtV 

1tp&paO'1V Exn. 
u1t0<pTjvaO'8m: Ep. 165.59 u1to<pTjvas, 165.235 u1to<patVEcrSm. 
eAa't'too~a: Bib!. 159.102B19. 

V. Demasthenes (265.491 B7-11) 

Ku'ta 'tas epyaO'las: Ep. 165.305 'to ev 'tUtS epyaO'tms yOV1~OV. 
wO'1tEP Kat: Ep. 164.36, 166.119. 

58 lCu'ta with accusative in critical sections in the Bibl. meaning 'with regard 
to' occurs eleven times: 4.3B1; 92.73A13; 126.95A22; 127.95B13; 160.130A11; 
169.116B9; 176.121A24, B19; 181.l26B20; 198.162A16; 201.l63B16; 202.163B35. 

59 186.141 A33, 209.167B35, and 250.452 A31 are within excerpts/summaries 
that are done fairly broadly and not verbatim. Perhaps the occurrence of 
9upp£tV in these passages is also due to Photius. 



SMITH, REBEKAH M., Photius on the Ten Orators , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 33:2 
(1992:Summer) p.159 

REBEKAH M. SMITH 189 

KC("t(H:Opro~:60 Ep. 166.182 d~ KOpOV; Bibl. 40.8A38, 102.86AI8, 
180.125A40; (Ka'taKopil~) Bibl. 65.27AI7. 

'til> 7tfpincp: Ep. 164.54 7tEptnOV Kat IlcX'tawv; Proem o.AAa 7tfPt'tTi1~ ... 
qnAO'ttll i~. 

VI. Demosthencs (265.492A 38ff) 

7tap£crXfV: Ep. 164.8 'tOY vouv 't11~ 7tfpio~ou 7tap£xoucra; 165.9 7tap£xn; 
165.138 7tapExnV; Postscr. 7tapfxoIlEvrov; Ep. 235.1 Pl1'toptKae; 

o.CPOPlla~ 7tapacrXf'iv. 
7tpo'tE8n~ + Kpivfcr8m: Ep. 165.212 KOtvOV ~E 7tucrt 'to OCPfAO~ 7tpon8rie;. 
wcr7tfP Kai: Ep. 164.36; 166.29, 119. 
o.CPtYIl£VCP ... d~ o.KpiBnav: Ep. 163.12 015'tf d~ o.KOa~ 015'tf d~ yvwcrw 

o.cp'ilC'tO; 165.131 d<; o.K011<; o.cp'iK'tO 7tf'ipav (But cf. Proem d <; 
o.VUIlVl1crtV Ilf'ta 'tou o.KptBou<; EcptK£cr8m). 

8froptav: Ep. 166.8 8fropiav Kat ~tUKPtcrW; 166.73 8E(J)pia~ Kat 't11~ 
'tWV A£~Erov o.Va7t'tUXfro<;. 

VII. Demosthenes (265 .492B 9-17) 

cpUAUsat 'to ~80e;: Ep. 1.598 'tae; x£'ipa~ Ka8apas cpuAuSn. 
Ilf'tExn: Ep. 234.91 Ilf'tExnV; 234.97 Ilf'tEcrXf; 166.77 1lE1£XOV'tfe;. 
~t67tfP: Ep. 164.89. 
7toAAU1Ct~: cf supra I. 
E~uyoV'tat: Bib!. 107.88A40. 
OU~E yap OU~E: Ep. 163.4; 165.270,288; 166.239; 234.6; Bib!. 230.274A 26, 

222.201B22,234.300B22. 
tKavil + infinitive: Bib!. 224.223B23. 
Ka'top8wcrm: Ep. 166.242 aAAo1<; ... Ka'tOp80ucrtv; 234.245 KCHOp8w8T]; 

1.904*, 1017*, 1106*, 1188, et passim*. 
EAanoUIl£vl1: if. supra I. 
i~to'tl1'ta: saepe (theo!.) Ep. 2.123*, 125*, 161*; 265.76; Amph. 28.12*, 

14*,21 *; 80.236*; 181.76*; 182.48*; 314.27*; (Christol.) Ep. 284.458*, 
1338*,1471*,3180-87*; (gramm.) Amph. 56.48*.61 

UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND 

January, 1993 

60 Variations: mro;. Proem, 97.84A40, 165.108B32; Kma KOpOV, 181.126 A12, 
Bll;203.164A29;7tpocrKoP'1~ 35.7A35, 159.102B15, 92.73A26. 

61 I would like to thank Professors Philip Stadter, George Kennedy, and 
Cecil Wooten for their review of this paper in an earlier form and for their 
very helpful comments. My thanks also to the reader for GRBS, whose 
thoughtful suggestions have been a welcome aid in revision.