^{page 1 note 1} References are to the edition of Geffcken, J., zwei grieschische Apologeten, Leipzig-Berlin 1907.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 2} For the importance of the Judgment for Athenagoras, see Supplicatio xxxi–xxxvi, and De Resurrectione Cadaverum xviii ff. The authenticity of the latter work has recently been challenged by Keseling, P., in ‘Athenagoras’, R.A.C., i (1950), 881–8Google Scholar and Grant, R. M., ‘Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras’, H.T.R., 47 (1954), 121–9Google Scholar. The arguments advanced against its authenticity appear less than cogent. The edition used is that of Schwartz, E., Oratio de Resurrectione Cadaverum (T.U. iv), Leipzig 1888–93.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 3} Op. cit., 183 f.

^{page 1 note 4} Ubaldi, P., La Supplica per i Christiani, Turin 1920, 48.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 5} It should be noted that Athenagoras describes his royal readers as philosophers in xi p. 128, 19, a habit he regularly follows when he implicitly represents Christian doctrine as being philosophical. Cf. ii p. 121, 20 ff.; p. 122, 18 ff.; ix p. 126, 31 f.; p. 127, 20 ff.; xvii p. 132, 25 ff.; xviii p. 133, 32 ff.

^{page 1 note 6} Only the main lines of his argument will be traced here. His language betrays his philosophical background throughout. E.g. with the Christians' purification of themselves (xi p. 128, 24; xii p. 129, 4.22), compare Xenonophon, Symp. i, 4, 5; Epictetus, ii, 21, 15 f.; with the statement that they are escorted through life (xii p. 129, 17) compare M. Aur., ii, 17; with the proverb that tasting even a small portion of whey and honey will suffice to test the whole (xii p. 129, 28 f.) compare Lucian, Hermotimus 58 ff.

^{page 2 note 1} So reads the paraphrase by Barnard, L. W., ‘The Embassy of Athenagoras’, V.C., 21 (1967), 92Google Scholar. Barnard's criticism of other translations of ξακοστου μετ πολλς κραυγς is justified, but it is another matter as to whether his interpretation supports the view that Athenagoras addressed the emperors face to face.

^{page 2 note 2} Leg., 626D. Aristotle, An. Pr., 1, 32 uses νγειν for reducing a syllogism to one figure.

^{page 2 note 3} Cf., e.g. Philop., In Analyt. post, i, 2 (xiii. 3 p. 29, 22–30, 4 Wallies). Clem. Alex., Strom., viii, 2 (G.C.S., iii. 81, 18), passim.

^{page 2 note 4} It is regularly understood in this way by translators who do not do justice to π in the translation.

^{page 2 note 5} Cf. Philo, In Flaccum 4, where παρρησα describes someone who shows his mind by actions as well as speech.

^{page 2 note 6} For a development in the meaning of παρρησα, see H. Schlier, s.v., Theol. Wörterbuch z. N.T., v. 869–84; Peterson, E., ‘Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von παρρησα’, Reinhold Seeberg Festschrift, Leipzig 1929, 283–97Google Scholar; van Unnik, W. C., ‘Parrhesia dans les Homélies catéchétiques de Théodore de Mopsueste’, Melanges offerts à Mademoiselle Christine Mohrmam, Utrecht 1963, 12–22Google Scholar; Hunger, H., ‘Philanthropia. Eine griechische Wortpragung auf ihrem Wege von Aeschylos bis Theodoros Metrochites’, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Klasse, 100 (Jahrgang 1963) Nr. i, 1–20Google Scholar; Scarpat, Giuseppe, Parrhesia: Storia del termine e delle tradizioni in latino, Brescia 1964.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 7} Cf. Bernays, J., Lukian und die Kyniker, Berlin 1879, 101 f.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 8} E.g. Lucian, Demonax 3; Philo, Quis rer. div. heres., 14; De spec, leg., i, 321.

^{page 2 note 9} See Kaerst, J., Geschichte der hellenistischen Zeiltalters, Leipzig-Berlin 1909, 118 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 10} Cf. Gerhard, G. A., Phoinix von Kolophon, Leipzig-Berlin 1909, 33 f., 36, 39.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 11} See especially the case of Demonax in Lucian, Demonax 11 f.; Diog. Laert., vi, 39; Helm, R., Lucian und Menipp, Leipzig-Berlin 1906, 71Google Scholar; Scarpat, op. cit., 64 f.

^{page 3 note 1} Cf. Lucian, Menippus 21; Helm, op. cit., 37 f.

^{page 3 note 2} The criterion for judging a Cynic was the agreement between his teaching and his life: Lucian Hermotimus 18; Fug., 15; Plutarch, De Alex, magni fortuna aut virtute 328A ff. Cf. Funk, K., ‘Untersuchungen über die Lucianische Vita Demonactis’, Philologus, Supplementband x (1905–1907), 592.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 3} Cf. above, 2. n. 5.

^{page 3 note 4} Accepting Maran's reading, αυτοῖς.

^{page 3 note 5} Cf. also πιδεικνυμνους and πιδεικνουσιν (p. 128, 34).

^{page 3 note 6} ἆρα τονυν; Suppl. xii p. 129, 3.

^{page 3 note 7} On φιλανθρωπα, see Hirzel, R., Plutarch, Leipzig 1912, 23–32Google Scholar; Lorenz, S., De progressu rationis φιλανθρωπα, Diss. Leipzig 1914Google Scholar; Bolkestein, H., Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, Utrecht 1939Google Scholar; Festugière, A. J., La révélation d'Hermes Trismégiste, ii, Paris 1949, 301–9.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 8} On the Cynic attitude towards death and its relation to the Cynic way of life, see Funk, op. cit., 601 ff.

^{page 3 note 9} Geffcken, op. cit., 185.

^{page 3 note 10} For the tradition, see Geffcken, ibid.

^{page 4 note 1} E.g. Plato, Euthypkro 3D; Plutarch, De genio Soc., 593A; De comm. not., 32 1075E.

^{page 4 note 2} Plutarch, De. rep. Stoic., 38 1051E.

^{page 4 note 3} Cf. Sternbach, L., ‘De gnomologio Vaticano inedito’, Wiener Studien, ix (1887), 199 f.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 4} Non. posse suav. vivi sec. Epic., 17, 1098DE. For a different assessment of Epicurus's φιλανθρωπα, see Diog. Laert., x, 10.

^{page 4 note 5} De sera num. vindicta, 18, 560F. See also Atticus, ap. Eusebius, P.E., xv 798c, 799b.

^{page 4 note 6} De rep. Stoic., 38, 1051E.

^{page 4 note 7} De sera num. vindicta, 1, 548C ff. Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att., vii. 14. 5, also informs us that the reasons for punishment were a topic of concern among Platonists, and that Calvisius Taurus had treated the subject in his commentary on Plato's Gorgias.

^{page 4 note 8} De sera num. vindicta, 18, 560F.

^{page 4 note 9} See Malherbe, Abraham J., ‘The Beasts at Ephesus’, J.B.L., 87 (1968), 71–80.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} De Res., xviii p. 69; 30 ff.; xix p. 71, 21 ff. Cf. Fischer, J. A., Studien zum Todesgedanken in der alten Kirche, Munich 1954, 18Google Scholar; ‘Athenagoras discards the nihilistic view death, since continued life after death is for him a requirement of his belief in providence and morality, a basis which he also finds in Plato’.

^{page 5 note 2} Cf. also Plato, Apol., 40C.

^{page 5 note 3} See Puech, A., Les apologistes grecs du II^e siècle de notre ère, Paris 1912, 182 f.Google Scholar; Crehan, J. H., Athenagoras (A.C.W., xxiii), Westminster-London 1956, 7, 15–21.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 4} See Merki, H., Ὁμοωσις θɛῷ. Von der platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur Gottähnlichkeit bei Gregor von Nyssa, Freiburg 1952.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 5} See, for example, Albinus, Didask., xxviii, 4 ff.

^{page 5 note 6} Strom., iv. 14. The idea is developed further in Strom., vii. 3, where Clement describes the true Gnostic's assimilation to God.

^{page 5 note 7} Cf. Kabiersch, J., Untersuchungen zum Begriff φιλανθρωπα bei dem Kaiser Julian, Wiesbaden 1960.Google Scholar