Not from such a point of view did the still later teachers, who set themselves to comment on the comment of Hermogenes [Sidenote: _The Commentaries on them._] and Aphthonius, regard their authorities. The second volume of Walz—a stout one of nearly seven hundred pages—is entirely occupied with scholia on Aphthonius alone, at the rate, that is to say, of about fourteen pages of margent to one of text. This flood of words about words has been too much for the patience even of the editor, who gives specimens only of some, and in just wrath labels one as “a futile opuscule botched together with utter stupidity.” Much, indeed, is of the usual kind which we associate with _scholia_—verbal interpretation, sometimes not useless, but as a rule singularly pedestrian and uninspired, introduced with a monotonous rattle of _clichés_ and catchwords. But there are also better things, and the so-called “Homilies” of Doxopater, besides being of very considerable bulk (they fill some four hundred pages, not of mere scrappy annotation but of substantive commentary), attest the intelligence as well as the industry of their author, a Byzantine of the eleventh century. But they are (necessarily, no doubt) cribbed and cabined by the circumscriptions of their text. In the third volume we return to comparatively original work, with Hermogenes once more at the head of the authors. [Sidenote: _The "Art" of Hermogenes._] We have left the vestibule—the Progymnasmata—and are now in the main courts of pure Rhetoric herself. Much more than half the volume is occupied by the four divisions of the master’s _Technic_: the first of “_Staseis_,” the second, in four parts, of “Inventions,” the third of “Ideas,” and the fourth of “Cleverness[136] of Method.” One synopsis of about a hundred pages, an anonymous epitome of fifty, with eleven shorter epitomes, and other tractates, scarcely averaging a dozen pages each, complete the volume. Footnote 136: δεινὸς and δεινότης are good examples of the difficulty of getting exact English equivalents for Greek rhetorical terms. Some prefer “vehemence” or “intensity,” but neither of these will suit universally. The word seems to refer to the orator’s power of suiting his method to his case, to alertness and fertility of resource.