^{page 76 note 1} Hermes, xii (1877), p. 328, n. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 76 note 2} Arisioteles und Athen, i. 99.

^{page 76 note 3} e.g. Mathieu, G., Revue de Philol. xlii (1918), pp. 122–9Google Scholar and Bodin, L.Mélanges Gustave Glotz, i. 93. ff.Google Scholar; Jaeger, WernerPaideia, iii, 1945Google Scholar, Passim, and Schmitz-Kahlmann, G., ‘Das Beispiel der Geschichte im politischen Denken des Isokrates’, Philol, Suppl.-Band XXXI, Heft 4, Leipzig (1918)Google Scholar, passim.

^{page 76 note 4} Cf. , Marcell.uita Thuc. 36Google Scholar ξλωσε θονκυδδης)… κα προδκου τοȖ κεον π τοȋς νμασιν κριβολογαν.

^{page 77 note 1} Phaedrus 267 a.

^{page 77 note 2} Paneg. 8. Both Plato and Isocr. must be alluding to a stock attribute of rhetoric, like, for example τν ττω λγον κρεἱττω ποιεȋν.

^{page 77 note 3} Phaedrus 235 a.

^{page 77 note 4} Ad Phil. 93.

^{page 77 note 5} Antid. 55–6 and 74.

^{page 77 note 6} Lamb, W. R. M., Clio Enthroned, pp. 119 ffGoogle Scholar., and Forbes, W. H., Introduction to Thucydides Book I, pp. lxvi ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 77 note 7} Finley, J. H., Euripides and Thucydides, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. xlix, 1938Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 8} e.g. Jaeger, Wemer, Paideia, iii, 1945, p. 77Google Scholar: “The stark lines of Thucydides’ portrayal here melt into the lavish curves of rhetorical decoration and yet not so fully but that they can be traced everywhere, shining gracefully through the overlay.’ Bodin, L. (Mélanges Gustave Glotz, i. 93 ff.)Google Scholar considers the earlier part of the Panegyricus to be closely modelled both on the Funeral Oration of Pericles and the speech of the Athenian ambassadors at Sparta (Thuc. 1. 73 ff.).

^{page 78 note 1} Cf. Antid. 295 and Pseudo-Xen. Ath. Resp. 2. 7.

^{page 78 note 2} Cf. Plato, , Menex. 241 cGoogle Scholar.

^{page 78 note 3} Plato, , Menex. 235 dGoogle Scholar.

^{page 78 note 4} Hubbel, H. M., The Influence of Isocrates on Cicero, Dionysius and Arts tides, Yale Univ. Press 1913, p. 7Google Scholar.However, Hubbel's appendix, pp. 67–72, where he analyses repeated ἰδαι in Isocrates, is unnecessarily elaborate. Isocrates in these is merely following the convention for which Socrates criticized Lysias, i.e. for ταὐτα τρως τε κα τρως λγων.

^{page 78 note 5} Contra Soph. 16.

^{page 78 note 6} Soph. El. 34. 183^b36.

^{page 78 note 7} Ep. ad Ias.fil. 8.

^{page 78 note 8} Paneg. 17.

^{page 78 note 9} Paneg. 74.

^{page 78 note 10} Paneg. 8.

^{page 79 note 1} 1. 22.1.

^{page 79 note 2} I agree with Gomme's comment on this passage in which he criticizes Grosskinsky's assertion that Thucydides makes no claim to objective accuracy in the speeches (Gomme, A. W., Commentary on Thucydides, Book I, 1945)Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 3} 7.69.

^{page 79 note 4} The point here is the meaning, not the syntax, of the passage. The syntax is irregular, judged by the standards of Lysias or Isocrates, but not unduly so for Thucydidean Greek, and it has been satisfactorily explained by editors.

^{page 80 note 1} This word appears to have escaped revision L. and S. (Jones), ἱστορα ρχαιολογουμνη in Dion. Hal. Rom. Ant. I. 74. 2 is translated ‘history treated in an antiquarian manner’, which at first sight supports the meaning I think it has in this passage of Thucydides (v. infra). But this is misleading; υἱατ ρχ here merely means ‘ancient history’. For the meaning given below cf. Lucīan, , Lexiph. 15Google Scholar.

^{page 80 note 2} e.g. ‘Obsoleta dicere’ (Poppo-Stahl), ‘talk commonplaces’ (Marchant in his edition of Book 7, Macmillan, 1910), etc.

^{page 80 note 3} e.g. ‘what does duty on all occasions to the same effect’ (Marchant), ‘nearly the same which’ (Jowett's commentary, 1881; his translation, 1881 and 1900, disregards the word).

^{page 80 note 4} Isocr.Ad Phil. 93 (v. supra).

^{page 80 note 5} The historical parallels drawn by Mathieu, G., Revue de Philol. xlii (1918), pp. 122 ff.Google Scholar, seem to me very unconvincing.

^{page 80 note 6} Contra Soph. 16.

^{page 80 note 7} Panath. 1.

^{page 81 note 1} Ad Nic. 35.

^{page 81 note 2} Paideia, iii, 1945, p. 101Google Scholar.

^{page 81 note 3} e.g. Soph, . O.T. 915—16Google Scholar; Andocides 3. 2; Lysias 25. 23; Aristotle, Rhet. 1368^a40; Polybius rots 12. 25^e6.

^{page 81 note 4} Archid. 59, Paneg. 141, Ad Dem. 34.

^{page 81 note 5} Or indeed between any two authors whatsoever if one uses the methods of G. Schmitz-Kahlmann; e.g. pp. 13–14, op. cit., she sees the influence of Thucydides and his conception αἰτα behind a perfectly innocent remark of Isocrates in De Pace ioi, χρ δ τς αἰτας πιϕρειν οὐ τοȋς κακοȋς τοȋς πιγιγνομνοις, λλ.

^{page 81 note 6} Gomperz, H., Sophistik und Rhetorik, 1912, pp. 9–11Google Scholar gives a good example of the dangers of such research. From a comparison of supposedly parallel passages the influence of one writer on another is, quite unjustifiably, deduced, and this deduction is used to support further theories.