^{page 150 note 1} A chapter in the History of Annotation, p. 28.

^{page 150 note 2} Diog. Laert. VI. 32.

^{page 150 note 3} Ibid. 91.

^{page 150 note 4} Quite possibly the derivation from ‘usefulness’ was evolved from this use in philosophical preaching.

^{page 151 note 1} Seneca, Ep. 33 § 7, ideo pueris et sententias ediscendas damus, et has quas Graeci Chrias vocant, quia complecti illas puerilis animus potest, qui plus adhuc non capit.’ Vide also Quin. I. 1, 36.

^{page 151 note 2} While the ‘Chria’ This, of course, is the ‘personis continetur’ of Q. It is curious, however, that he applies this only to the ‘ethology’ or ‘aetiology,’ and not to the ‘Chria.’ I believe we should read for ‘personis continetur. Chriarum’ ‘personis continetur’ <ut et> Chria, harum.

^{page 151 note 3} I am sure that no oneawho studies Q.'s use of ‘ratio’ will find any objection to this rendering, in the fact that he uses it in the same sentence in the rather different sense of ‘general principle.’

^{page 152 note 1} Q. never mentions the ‘grammatistes,’ but says a good deal in chapter I on that stage of teaching. This no doubt, because in his clientéle the almost invariable practice was to employ home teaching. In the second stage practice varied, and the famous discussion on the relative merits of home and school teaching in chapter 2 entirely applies to this stage. No one presumably employed a private ‘rhetor.’

^{page 152 note 2} We should perhaps include some element of the . In the Class. Rev. (May-June, 1919) I pointed out that the words ‘quia initium ex lectione ducunt’ must imply that the exercises were in many cases rather suggested by and illustrated from the reading than actually taken from it. Most of the ‘Chriae’ we know did not come from the poets, who alone were read in the Roman ‘grammatical’. schools.

^{page 152 note 3} Cf. Seneca, Ep. 95, 65, where ‘ethologia’ is said to be the name given by Posidonius to the ‘descriptio cuiusque virtutis.’

^{page 152 note 4} Q. II. 1, 2.

^{page 152 note 5} Although αἰτιολογία does not appear amongst the ‘progymnasmata’ it is regularly given as a ‘figure’—i.e. when we add a reason for what has been stated. Thus Cic. De Or. III. 202 we have among the figures ‘ad propositum subiecta ratio,’ which Q. IX. 3, 94 identifies with αἰτιολογία. So Auct. ap. Halm, Rhet. Lat. p. 73, αἰτιολογία ‘est cum causam alicuius rei et rationem subicimus.’ I think these passages confirm both amongst the reading ‘aetiologia’ and the rendering which I have given of ‘subiectis dictorum rationibus.’

I shall add that a full consideration of the word would require a discussion of ‘aetiologia’ in Sen. Ep. 95, 65, and ‘ethologia’ in Suet. De Gramm. 4. But exigencies of space forbid, and I can only say that the first seems to me to support my contention and the second not to weaken it.

^{page 152 note 6} He speaks, however, rather tentatively ‘in … factis esse Chriam putant.’ He then notes another variety, ‘quod eodem nomine appellare non audent, sed dicunt φρειδες ut Milo quern vitulum assueverunt ferre, taurum ferebat.’ This last Theon rightly diagnoses as the παθητική form of the ‘practical’ Chria, the ordinary one being ἐνεργητική, for the moral lies in what happens to the person rather ‘than what he does. Theon's doctrine is clearly more developed than Q.'s, and this I take as evidence that his date is not so early as some have thought possible.

^{page 152 note 7} So great was the influence of Q. in the early Middle Ages that I should be inclined to ascribe to this ‘Chria’ a practice noted by Rashdall (Univ. of Europe II., p. 610), as in use in the School of Rheims in the thirteenth (?) century. There it was laid down that the headmaster should examine the classes weekly, and if they did badly, ‘verberabit pueros sed magistros magis.’ The authors of this practice, which must have added greatly to the excitement and perhaps on the balance to the happiness of schoolboy life, could not rise to Q.'s view of the folly of chastising boys, but accepted willingly the idea of the guilt of the teacher. It may be noted here that it is a complete error to suppose that Q.'s influence on education only begins with Poggio's discovery of the complete text in 1416.

^{page 153 note 1} I may note here that the ‘Chria’ continued to be found useful in one country at any rate till modern times. Goethe says (Wahrheit und Dichtung I.), ‘in rhetorischen Dingen, Chrieen und dergleichen, that es mir niemand zuvor.’ He adds that his father used to give him money rewards for his success therein.

^{page 153 note 2} Class. Rev., May-June, 10.19. I did not then note a point, which I do not myself think fanciful, because I esteem so highly the richness of thought in this author. In v. II he does not use the phrase ‘bitter root,’ but in v. 15 he continues, ‘lest any root of bitterness … trouble you; lest there be any profane person as Esau, who … sold his birthright.’ It is true that the phrase ‘root of bitterness’ is used in allusion to Deut xxix. 18, but is it not also an allusion to the ‘Chria’? And may not the thought be ‘The severe discipline of our parents and teachers was the mark of our sonship. We used to be told it had “a bitter root,” but the true root of bitterness is the ἀπαίδευτος who has forfeited his sonship’ ?

^{page 153 note 3} So much so that our versions translate παιδεία by ‘chastening.’ The ‘disciplina’ of the Vulgate is better.

^{page 153 note 4} In the following remarks I include the ‘gnome’ under the ‘Chria.’

^{page 153 note 5} De Doctrina Christiana, Book IV.