a defence of stage dancing or pantomime, may by some be reckoned to him as literary righteousness. In his wordy _Autobiography_[176] I can find nothing to our purpose: and though, in the difficulties of study of him referred to, I daresay I have not thoroughly sifted the huge haystack of the _Orations_, I think there is very little more there. The _For Aristophanes_[177] has nothing to do with the Aristophanes we know or with literature, except that it seems to have been the speech in which Julian (_v. infra_, p. 126) discovered such wonderful qualities. Footnote 171: Besides the difficulty of obtaining Reiske’s ed., there is the further one that it is not complete. The _Letters_ have to be sought in that of Wolf (Amsterdam, 1738), which is neither in the Library of the University of Edinburgh, nor in that of the Faculty of Advocates, nor in that of the Signet, so that it had to be run to earth in the British Museum, though I have since found a copy for sale. And even this combination is, I think, not exhaustive. The _Progymnasmata_, _Meletæ_, _Dissertationes_, &c., were published by Claude Morel, Paris, 1606; and there are many other editions of parts, but none of the whole. Footnote 172: See Photius on him, _infra_, p. 181. Footnote 173: De Quincey’s truculent attack on Greek rhetoricians generally (_Essay on Rhetoric_: _Works_, x. 31, 32) is less unjust to Libanius than to any one. Footnote 174: For mere completeness' sake I may refer here to other scholiastic _Lives_, of which the best known perhaps is that of Thucydides by Marcellinus. I do not think it rash to say that they all more or less bear out the contention put above as to the _scholia_ generally. Footnote 175: Not to the piece mentioned above (p. 115), but to a lost oration. His own is at iii. 334 (Reiske). Footnote 176: I. 1, Reiske. Footnote 177: I. 442, Reiske.