^{page 47 note 1} Themistius, Or. 6. 81 refers to Ant.'s renown as a philosopher, not to this particular book.

^{page 47 note 2} Cf. at the end of this article.

^{page 47 note 3} The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, Oxford, 1944Google Scholar. I have used Farq.'s commentary as a repertorium of previous research. Gataker, of course, was indispensable, and so, for textual matters, is Schenkl's, editio maior of 1913Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 4} Journ. Theol. Stud, xlvii, 1946Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 5} I have had the privilege of discussing Antoniniana extensively with P. Maas. I shall indicate where I am quoting observations of his, but my debt to him goes far beyond these clearly definable limits.

^{page 47 note 6} The Darmstadt MS. D is a copy of A; see Maas, P., J. R. S. xxxv (1945) p. 145Google Scholar.

^{page 47 note 7} For details see Schenkl's preface.

^{page 47 note 8} Cf. the stemma drawn by P. Maas, l.c. He assumes the compilers of the Suda to have used an excerpt manuscript of the type C.

^{page 47 note 9} Also the late Munich excerpts M (text and margin). But I doubt whether their evidence has any independent value.

^{page 47 note 10} Farq., Introduction, p. xxxiii, line 4 bottom. However, he denies the bearing of this observation on the page immediately following (xxxiv. 3).

^{page 48 note 1} A, however, has another gloss, namely αὐτόν (for σαυτόν), referring to διεξάγῃς.

^{page 48 note 2} Stich, in his edition of 1882, omitted it.

^{page 48 note 3} See Farq. p. xxv n. 3.

^{page 48 note 4} Cf. Farq. p. 515, ad p. 24. 15.

^{page 48 note 5} Cf. above, p. 47, bottom.

^{page 48 note 6} Farq.'s conjecture ⋯θεωρητί I. 9. I, p. 8. 3, derives no support from the Suda s.v.: this gloss does not refer to Ant. (cf. Suda s.v. ⋯παθέστατα, quoted by Farq. ad p. 6. 22). There is a similar and even more serious error in Farq.'s note on p. 6. 11 (p. 446).

^{page 48 note 7} See P. Maas, l. c.

^{page 49 note 1} Cf. 7. 31.

^{page 49 note 2} Epictetus I. 29. 2; 3. 7. 14; Ant. 6. 51, p. 118. 20, 9. 41, p. 188. 7 (Epicurean); II. 16. p. 224. 2; cf. 11. 1, p. 214. 4 ff.

^{page 49 note 3} A comparable case in 5. 9, p. 82. 8, ought not to have misled Farq. Instead of μόνα (P) an ancestor of A had written μόνον. The corrector put the correct a on top of the faulty syllable. When this manuscript was copied, the correction produced the conflated reading μόνον ἂ. To give the resulting jumble the semblance of sense the following, original, ἂ was changed into γ⋯ρ. Here, then, P. preserves the true text.

^{page 49 note 4} Cf. P. Maas, l. c.

^{page 49 note 5} For the treatment of the article in P cf. also the instances collected by Schenkl, p. xxiii.

^{page 50 note 1} The relevant note is missing in Farq.'s apparatus ad loc.

^{page 50 note 2} The correct interpretation was given first by Gataker (it is, of course, quite immaterial whether τ⋯ αὐτά is spelt in two words or one: see Farq. ad loc). It is a matter of some surprise that the striking similarity between this passage and Matt. xxiv. 38, cf. Luke xvii. 27ff., should not, as far as I am aware, have been noted.

^{page 50 note 3} See his letter, partly reprinted Farq. p. xvii n. 1; complete in Schenkl, p. xxxix. The βιβλίον παλαιόν of course was written in majuscule letters. Hence, for instance, the error ἒτι for ⋯γ-(ETI–ET) in 1. 16. 10, p. 16. 5, corrected by Gataker. His ability equally to endure the absence of enjoyments and to keep sober in their presence is evidence of Socrates' strength of character. Its two aspects, endurance and sobriety, are co-ordinated by κα⋯–κα⋯. Ἰσχύειν is used with the popular connotation of ‘being able’. Gataker saw all this; Farq. missed it.

^{page 50 note 4} Farq. properly indicates corruption (e.g.) 1. 16. 2, p. 12. 9 and 3. 4. 1, p. 38. 5. In the relevant passages of his commentary he takes a different line.

^{page 51 note 1} It is similar in 1. 16. 8, p. 14. 21, on which see below, p. 54.

^{page 51 note 2} Rendall's ingenious suggestion ένώσει results in an inadmissible mode of expression; besides cf. Farq.'s criticism, p. 535.

^{page 51 note 3} 1. 16. 3, p. 12. 15; 5. 17, p. 88. 4; 6. 50, p. 118. 18; 7. 50, p. 136. 11; 9. 27. 1, p. 180. 20.

^{page 51 note 4} Meisterhans, K., Grammatik der attischen Inschrtften, 1900, 83Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 5} See Kenyon, F. G., Pap. of the Brit. Mus. ii, 1898, p. 298, no. 239 (A.D. 346)Google Scholar; Fayum Pap. 127. 12 (2nd–3rd cent.); Preisendanz, Sam. Griech. Urk. i, no. 5747; ib. iv (ed. Bilabel, 1931) 7449 (Christian, 5th cent.); Pap. Ox. 1655. 9.

^{page 51 note 6} διάστημα denotes any extension within space or time, with no necessary reference to its actual limitation. Cf. (e.g.) Chrysost. In Act. xxii. 183 A (Migne, Patr. Gr. lx. 176) μικρόν ⋯στι τ⋯ διάστημα τ⋯ς χειρός (‘the grasp’, ‘capacity’); Basil. Seleuc. Or. i. (Patr. Gr. lxxxv, 28 A) τ⋯ς ζω⋯ς διαστήματα (cf. ib. iv. 3, 73 c); Acta Philippi cii (p. 39. 32 Bonnet) ⋯κ πολλο⋯ διαστήματος ‘far and wide’.

^{page 51 note 7} And also, I suggest, in Epictetus ii. 23. 46, which is th e only other instance of καταληκτικός (apart from its use as a metrical term).

^{page 51 note 8} Cf. 4. 22, p. 60. 13; 11. 3, p. 224. 26.

^{page 51 note 9} Farq. ad loc. (p. 524).

^{page 51 note 10} ‘The construction is again awkward’, Farq. ad loc.

^{page 51 note 11} Similar exclamations, with π⋯ς 6. 27, p. 108. 7; 12. 13, p. 240. 21; with οίος 6. 18, p. 104. 21; ib. 59, p. 120. 10; 11. 3, p. 216. 3.

^{page 52 note 1} Retaining the traditional punctuation, Farq. in his translation actually repeats the rendering of this governing verb (‘to consider too’).—After εὐδοξίαν ‘supplendum παρέχουσι, χαρίζονται aut aliud ejusmodi’ (Gataker). Farq. superadded κα⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯δοξίαν. Had he put his supplement after instead of before Gataker's, the combination of both would have resulted in a wording suited to account for the lacuna: the omission would thus be ascribable to the homoeoteleuton εὐδοξίαν— ⋯δοξίαν.

^{page 52 note 2} Cf. also 1. 15. 3.

^{page 52 note 3} So Farq. transl. (after M. Casaubon and Gataker): but ‘the evidence for this interpretation is lacking’, Farq. ad loc.

^{page 52 note 4} Mass, E., Comment. in Aratum Reliquiae, 1898, p. 554Google Scholar, ad v. 1154.

^{page 53 note 1} See v. Arnim, Stoic, vet. fragm. iii, nos. 104 and 105 (Stob. Ecl. 2. 70. 21 W. and Diog. Laert. 7. 98). Chrysippus in fact applied a trichotomy, distinguishing between (a) the fundamental virtues and vices; (b) customs and proclivities; and (c) individual acts referable to either virtues or vices. Ant. was free, for the purpose of his argument, to disregard the second heading.

^{page 53 note 2} This form is frequent in Antoninus.

^{page 53 note 3} Cicero, , De not. deor. 3. 35, 86Google Scholar; cf. 2. 66, 167.

^{page 54 note 4} The text restored by Schultz and Rendall; cf. 6. 10, 9. 39. In 12. 14 Ant. pursues, by way of argument, also the alternative of the cosmic medley.

^{page 53 note 5} Dio Chrys. Or. 12. 37 is a good parallel.

^{page 53 note 6} Cf. above, p. 52, bottom.

^{page 53 note 7} In Hebr. Horn. vii. 76. 3 (Migne, Pair. Gr. lxiii. 64) ad Hebr. iv. 16, quoting 1 Cor. ix. 26.

^{page 54 note 1} Gardiner, E. N., Greek Athletic Sports, 1910, 278Google Scholar; cf, id.J. H. S. xxiii, 1903, 266.

^{page 54 note 2} Cf. 2. 2, p. 20. 18; 2. 5, p. 22. 21; 3. 12, p. 46. 17.

^{page 54 note 3} Quoted by Farq. 517.

^{page 54 note 4} The attempt, in A., to connect this clause, by ὡς, with what precedes it results in an absurdity (the ideal well-doer being as like the vine bearing grapes as is a horse running, etc.).