own opinion, but reports that Philoxenus also agrees with the assessment, which in fact had originated with Theon: 'When I informed Philoxenus of your view, he began to be of the same opinion, declaring that it was on account of this shortage of sophists…,' lines 18-19.5

Three factors account for this shortage of sophists and places in their schools in the first century. Firstly, recent trends in Alexandrian education played a role, as noted by a first-century rhetorician from that city, Aelius Theon. In the preface to his Progymnasmata, Theon contrasts students of ancient times with his contemporaries.⁶ The ancients, especially those who studied under famous orators, could not commence studying rhetoric until they had gained some knowledge of philosophy, and, more importantly, had been inspired by it. In contrast, most young men of this Theon's day were 'far from the knowledge of philosophy', i.e., presumably they were not interested or had not been trained in it. They had not fully mastered the branches of primary learning. Instead, they had begun to attempt forensic and deliberative themes, and, 'worst of all',⁷ did so before 'they had been trained' (ἐγγυμνασαμένοι). Theon criticised this trend of beginning declaiming prior to undertaking any introductory training in it, and before receiving what G. A. Kennedy calls 'a

liberal education'.⁸ Students undertook actual declamations without the necessary instruction in literature, even before the traditional foundation study of Homer, and without any preliminary theoretical knowledge of the structure of a speech. Theon thus classified and explained in his book the various exercises which one needed to gain the requisite skills for declamation. His Progymnasmata on rhetoric represented one attempt to help make good the deficiencies of the present trend of circumventing essential educational foundations and engaging immediately in tertiary activities with the help of a sophist.

This first-century preoccupation with declamation was also the subject of comment by the Latin orator, Quintilian.⁹ He refers to students' fathers 'who think their sons are not really studying unless they are declaiming on every possible occasion', II.8.1. He further notes the attitude of the contemporary rhetorician who considers it his responsibility 'merely to declaim and to give instruction in the theory and practice of declamation and confines his activities to deliberative and judicial themes', II. 1.2. When teachers met this parental demand, grammarians began to encroach on the field of the orators by teaching declamation. Quintilian recognised that teachers needed to satisfy the demands of parents, and so he developed a compromise which aimed to fulfil both the aspirations of parents and the needs and desires of their sons: he proposed that young men should declaim occasionally, but only after having carefully prepared their speech under supervision. This should happen so 'that they may reap the rewards of their labours in the applause of a large audience, that most coveted of all prizes', II.7.5.¹⁰ He further suggested that rather than force rhetoricians to compete with grammarians, a better arrangement would be to allow students to engage in literary education concurrently with training in declamation.¹¹ As teachers, both Theon and Quintilian recognised the wisdom of responding to the current educational demands of fee-paying parents who required instruction in literature and training in rhetoric at the same time.

Secondly, a number of inducements made training in rhetoric financially attractive for those entering the legal and teaching professions and obtaining posts in the imperial administration. Claudius had revoked the 250-year-old law which proscribed the taking of fees by rhetoricians from clients in court cases. He set the maximum fee at ten thousand sesterces.¹²

In addition, on 27 December, a.d. 75, Vespasian issued a rescript granting immunity from municipal levies to grammarians and rhetoricians.¹³ According to Dio's Alexandrian oration, Or. 32.60, he sought to promote 'education and rhetoric' (παιδεία καὶ λόγος). Vespasian believed that the role of teachers was 'to train the souls of the young to gentleness and civic virtue'.¹⁴ This financial incentive was intended to attract more young men trained in forensic and political oratory into government service and to recruit more teachers for literary education and rhetoric. So successful was the concession that in a.d. 93-94 Domitian needed to issue a rescript of his own which threatened to withdraw the privilege from those who used their slaves to engage in the lucrative profession of teaching prospective grammarians and rhetoricians.

I have judged it necessary to curb by stringent measures the avarice of the physicians and teachers whose profession, which ought to be transmitted only to a limited number of freeborn young men, is being most shamelessly sold to many slave chamberlains, who are admitted to professional training, not out of humane sentiments but in order to augment their teachers' income. Therefore whoever shall derive pay from the instruction of slaves is to be deprived of the immunity granted by my deified father, just as if he were practising his profession in a foreign city.¹⁵

Forbes argues that Domitian took action because professional teachers resented 'having their ranks swollen by ill-trained and unworthy practitioners' and that the rescript was fundamentally against freedmen, as slaves would not be eligible for the exemption in any case. However, the rescript was intended to penalise the owners of slaves who reaped the financial rewards of their slaves functioning as teachers. Vespasian's considerable incentives had been enough to stimulate demand for teachers.

Thirdly, there was a preference for linking a student with a sophist's school, rather than allow a son to train under an orator. If the former was a virtuoso rhetorician with his own school who declaimed to a large public following, why would a rhetorician of lesser reputation not be sufficient? Quintilian comments on a debate in the first century as to whether one ought to seek the best teacher possible for one's son from the beginning of his training, or whether the engagement of a less able rhetorician sufficed for the preliminary stages. He himself counsels parents to seek 'the most eminent teacher' available, even if his expertise would be lost initially on the pupil. Bad habits would develop under an inferior master which would have to be corrected later at no insignificant cost, II.3.1.16 It is obvious that Theon desired for his son, Neilus, the best possible instructor, namely a sophist.

P.Oxy. 2190 does not simply note a shortage of sophists per se, but of suitable schools run by them in which students could enrol and learn to declaim. It was always possible to attend a public declamation by a sophist, as the papyrus notes, lines 34-35. That, however, would not satisfy parents. They wanted their sons to learn under the supervision of sophists, lines 33-34, and willingly paid the very considerable sums involved. When this letter was written the great demand for sophists had outstripped the supply, for the reasons outlined above. P.Oxy. 2190 thus reflects the known pressures on traditional education in this period.

If the Alexandrian schools of the sophists were full, what alternative was open to Neilus? He begins discussing the shortage of sophists with τὰ αὐτὰ μέν before indicating an alternative, δὲ τὸν Δίδυμον. This 'Didymus', who is de-

scribed as a καθηγητής, 'has a school', lines 20f. By Quintilian's time it could refer to a school of philosophy, rhetoric or grammar. In this papyrus it seems best to find reference to a school of Didymus for two reasons: firstly, σχολή used with ἔχειν is attested elsewhere in connection with the running of a school (Epictetus, III.21.11) and, secondly, Neilus notes that Philoxenus 'has persuaded others to enrol' with Didymus, παραβαλεῖν ἔπειθεν αὐτῷ.¹⁷ He seems to present a viable, if less than ideal, alternative for Neilus' educational needs.

What does 'tutor' (καθηγητής), which appears six times in this papyrus, mean?¹⁸ C. Preaux suggests that perhaps it referred to an itinerant teacher who sought out children of rich parents,¹⁹ while Μ. Η. Ibrahim incorrectly concludes that it was restricted to teachers of students of the 'third' stage of education, namely orators and sophists.²⁰ The standard lexicographic works overlook significant evidence, as J. Glucker notes.²¹ His comprehensive survey of both literary and non-literary sources reveals that the term refers to

'personal tutors', who were 'an extremely common species of teachers in the Hellenistic and Roman world'.²² It could describe a 'freelance teacher of philosophy', or 'a personal teacher'. Glucker concludes that the term means 'very strictly' a private tutor with no official standing whatsoever.²³ However, he concedes Ν. Ε. De Witt's observation that the term was used to describe those in charge of small groups, given the particular attitude taken by the Epicurean school to instructors.²⁴ De Witt's conclusion is based on Philodemus, De Ira, XIV. 1-14, and he sees the term καθηγητής as 'a synonym of less dignity'. For De Witt, 'It is manifest from the contexts that the term denotes teachers, though the latter word is to be avoided as being out of harmony with the spirit of Epicureanism, the adherents of which were not taught but led or guided', hence the appropriateness of the term καθηγητής.

In the early second century a.d. Pius is described as a rhetorician and the 'tutor' of Acharistus. The term here denotes a private tutor. This is confirmed by the use of instructors for the sons of the imperial household and great families. The inclusion of a professional designation is testified to in Strabo's comment on Athenodorus, a Stoic philosopher and 'tutor of Augustus' (Καίσορος καθηγήσατο), and Nestor, an Academic philosopher described as 'the tutor' of the nephew of Augustus (ὁ Μαρκέλλου καθηγησάμενος).²⁵ Two inscriptions from Italy and Gaul show that the tutor in a Roman household was a valued residential member of the familia.²⁶

This term was also used of relationships where some development in education had occurred.²⁷ Thus in the Epicurean school it described the rela-

tionship between one who guides but does not teach in the normally accepted use of the term 'teacher', and one who is guided by the tenets of Epicurean philosophy.²⁸

This pedagogical change was not restricted to the study of philosophy. What happened in Egypt, for example, when students who came from the country to Alexandria were instructed not by a member of the household but by an independent tutor? Feelings of familia towards the tutor were strong enough in this situation to motivate the sending of food and warm greetings.²⁹ In Athens in ca. 44 b.c. Cicero sent his son, Marcus, at the age of twenty-one, to study under orators and philosophers. He declaimed before separate orators in Latin or Greek, whereas at the age of eleven he had declaimed under an orator, Paeonius, who resided in his household. His relationship with Cassius, Bruttius and Cratippus in Athens was identical to the old one with Paeonius but now reflected a more advanced stage of education.³⁰ These responses to educational changes must inform our understanding of the term καθηγητής in P.Oxy. 2190, as we seek to read it in the light of the concept's evolution from the familia setting to a school context in this 'second Athens'. Because of Glucker's concern to demonstrate the use of the term in the case of Ammonius, his conclusions are a little too rigid. His discussion does not allow for nuances in educational or philosophical development such as education conducted away from one's home or on Epicurean tenets. There is reference to Plutarch as a private tutor but not as an Academic or Platonic philosopher.³¹ The term should therefore be regarded as functional rather than hierarchical, for it describes a relationship to a student or

students without in any way defining the level of education being provided. 'The word can apply to teachers of quite advanced pupils, see [P.Oxy.] 2190, and this appears to be the former letter, where the young man is old enough to supervise and take part in business if not to manage them [sic] quite alone.'³²

Neilus, in his comments on Didymus, explained what the tutor did. The latter had operated a school in the country, but more recently had opened one in Alexandria, lines 21, 29. He had enrolled pupils, one of whom was Didymus' friend, Philoxenus, who had in turn persuaded the sons of Apollonius to enrol with him, lines 22-23. Substantial fees were charged, which Neilus called 'useless and excessive', line 31. Didymus had promised to take proper care of his students by providing full supervision, and, in fact, to do it better than any other sophist in Alexandria, lines 21-22. P.Oxy. 930 is a good example of the lack of care and concern a καθηγητής might have for his pupil. He had literally 'sailed away' to seek his fortune, leaving his pupil at the sixth book of The Iliad after promising the mother that he would do the best he could for her son. She writes telling both her son and his καθηγητής to find a suitable καθηγητής with whom he can 'enrol' (παραβάλλειν).³³ The sons of Apollonius together with Philoxenus are now looking for a better tutor than Didymus, lines 25-27. The sons of Apollonius 'are searching [present tense] for a better καθηγητής until now', line 24. The phrase μετὰ τούτου, line 23, suggests that after enrolling with Didymus they all realised his limited ability and sought a better καθηγητής.³⁴ Neilus, however, had made private arrangements with him to gain the benefits of his tuition, but without having to pay the excessive fees demanded of full-time students. Rather than enrol with Didymus, he will learn by himself, but he still 'has Didymus', he informs his father, lines 31-34. In what sense would he be able to help Neilus? 'Having' Didymus is explained by the comment that he is always ready to spend time on him, and that Didymus will do 'everything within his capabilities'. The sentence which follows shows that Neilus will learn by listening to those who

declaim. Given the student's frequent use of καί it is possible that the text could read 'I have Didymus…and by listening to those who declaim…I shall, with the help of the gods, do well. 'As Epictetus' evidence shows, listening to orators and declaiming oneself were two separate activities. The next statement, 'I shall do well with the help of the gods', implies that Neilus has made the best possible arrangements under the circumstances, i.e., this ad hoc arrangement with Didymus and listening to public declamations by others.³⁵ It makes provision for Didymus to help him by criticising his own speeches. Epictetus observes the dichotomy of 'attending lectures of the orators and declaiming yourself (τῶν ῥητόρων ἤκουες καὶ αὐτὸς ἐμελέτας), III.9.8.36 Thus he will combine tutorial assistance from this teacher of rhetoric with attendance at public declamations. Presumably this arrangement would assist his own financial situation while also commending itself to his father as a sound educational arrangement. Quintilian observes that fathers do not regard their sons as learning anything unless they are actually declaiming themselves and not simply listening to professional declamations.³⁷ The word 'tutor' (καθηγητής) is thus used here to denote a private tutor in rhetoric who was paid to assist, on an ad hoc basis, an individual not enrolled in his school. P.Oxy. 2190 shows that this arrangement was one which would have made Didymus his καθηγητής, although he does not use the term specifically of him. In lines 7-8 he refers to 'Philologus' (in lines 24-25 this deceased person was a καθηγητής), 'Chaeremon ὁ καθηγητής' and 'Didymus'.³⁸

In the light of the above investigation into the meaning of καθηγητής, J. Rea's rendering of it as 'teacher' is rejected, as is his translation of φιλόλογος in lines 7 and 25 as 'tutor'. He offers no evidence to support these renderings. Certainly, φιλόλογος does not convey the duties understood in the first century of a tutor whose ad hoc role is explained in part of the letter itself. Rea helpfully points to evidence that φιλόλογος was a term used in funerary inscriptions for brilliant young men who died before they fulfilled their potential, and could be used of members of the Alexandrian Museum.³⁹ His view

that the word is not a personal name 'Philologos' as suggested by the original editor is accepted but not his translation. The word would be best rendered 'scholar', i.e., 'For now in my search for a scholar', line 7, and 'since the scholar whose classes they used to attend has died', line 25. The student is clearly searching for a person whom he can emulate and would see a sophist as such, but has been unable to secure entry into a school run by one. It is misleading to render καθηγητής as 'teacher' and φιλόλογος as 'tutor'.

In P.Oxy. 2190, then, the term 'tutor' (καθηγητής) is applied to a person qualified to assist a student in the art of declamation. In Didymus' case he may not have had a sufficient reputation or following to attract an audienceto a public performance, for he had only recently arrived from 'the country'. He may well have called himself a sophist, for his synkrisis must have been with sufficiently qualified orators to warrant the claim that he would care for his pupils better than any other sophist in Alexandria. It seems then that he was a teacher of rhetoric who called himself a σοφιστής and was also ὁ καθηγητής of Neilus. As such he would instruct this student in much the same way that private tutors in the households of the rich had done at a lower level of education. This would be done on an ad hoc basis for the purpose of improving his declamation skills. In P.Oxy. 2190, line 8, Didymus is designated the son of Aristocles. If he was the son of the forensic orator Aristocles, mentioned in P.Oxy. 37 (49 a.d.), then he would have followed generally in his father's footsteps. Indeed, he may well have changed from a career in forensic rhetoric to that of a teacher, for the Vespasian exemption provided sufficient financial reward for so doing.⁴⁰

Part of Neilus' plan, following his failure to gain entry into a sophist's school of his choice, was 'to listen to the orators declaiming, of whom one was Poseidonius', lines 34-36. ἀκροώμενος can mean either 'becoming a pupil' or 'listening to' a lecturer. Neilus is referring to the latter because he has already told his father he will not enrol in a school but depend upon himself, lines 31- 32, and will be listening to a number of sophists declaim and not any single one in his lecture room.⁴¹ His proposal is illuminating for a number of rea-

sons. Firstly, it shows that an education was available outside the sophist's classroom, namely listening to those who declaim. He could do this by attending a public display speech for an entrance fee.⁴²

Secondly, Neilus refers to those who engage in a 'declamation'. Ἐπίδειξις was a practice speech, originally a school exercise. It might be argued that 'those who declaim' could have been involved in philosophical discourse, epideictic rhetoric, lectures on grammatical topics rather than controversia and suasoria. The help Didymus gives is related to Neilus' need to learn how to declaim, and it is unlikely that there is anything but controversia or suasoria in his mind.⁴³ It intended to train students in controversia for careers as forensic orators, or in suasoria for deliberative rhetoric.⁴⁴ Forensic practice speeches normally dealt with fictitious legal cases. On the Roman side we possess both summaries and full-length forensic declamations from the first century,⁴⁵ while on the Greek side topics for suasoria are extant, as are controversia. Sources include both literary⁴⁶ and non-literary

texts.⁴⁷ Dio Chrysostom's Trojan Oration, Or. 11, well illustrates the skill with which a trained orator could declaim on an impossible proposition, namely that 'Troy was not captured' and the corollary that Homer deliberately aimed to mislead his readers.⁴⁸ A number of extant first-century papyri contain not public declamations but classroom exercises. P.Oxy. 156 (late first century b.c. or early first century a.d.) is a suasoria originating possibly from an Alexandrian school. 'The language shows some departure from the classical Attic standard; it is mostly devoid of periods, being composed of short questions and clauses strung together with the minimum of connecting particles.' It is part of a reply by an 'Athenian orator' who argues that a threatening letter, possibly from Philip of Macedon, should be ignored because the city of Athens gives commands and does not receive them.⁴⁹ P.Lond. 254 (verso) contains three examples of controversia, the first dealing with the question of legitimacy, the second with a charge and counter-charge of dishonesty, and the third on the wrongful assumption of citizenship.⁵⁰ P.Lit.Lond. 138 contains two or three forensic speeches with many corrections which, together with the absence of any names, lead to the conclusion that it probably comes from a school of rhetoric.⁵¹ P. Vindob. 26747, 29749 likewise recall a classroom setting with its labored writing and orthographic mistakes.⁵² P.Yale 105 is an important first-century-a.d. declamation in which the orator accuses an admiral of neglecting

to pick up or care for his wounded men following a battle (possibly Arginusae, 406 b.c., or a similar one). Its vigorous style is more sophisticated than those usually emanating from the classroom, but numerous corrections and abbreviations suggest that it too is the product of a student.⁵³ If that is the case, he was obviously advanced in his studies. These papyri reflect the type of work Neilus would have undertaken.

Thirdly, the movement of this original exercise from the classroom to the public lecture and indeed the lecture tour provided Neilus with an opportunity to learn not only from one declaimer but several.⁵⁴ Clarke suggests that the evolution began with the teacher himself declaiming before his students to provide them with a model presentation or a general outline of arguments which could be developed. The students would then write out their own declamation for presentation and criticism by the class and the teacher. He cites Quintilian II.4-6, X.2.39 and postulates that parents were allowed to visit the class and hear their sons or indeed teachers declaiming. The teacher aimed to impress upon the parents that their continued patronage of him was a justified expense. He set aside special days and on those occasions declaimed before 'large and cultivated' audiences. This led to lecture tours with enthusiastic paying audiences as an extension of the custom prevailing in their own city. One of these, Poseidonius, may have been known to Theon, the father of Neilus, for he mentions his name without comment.⁵⁵ If he was the Posei-

donius of Olbiopolis, a city on the joint estuary of the Bug and the Dnieper, he may have been in Alexandria on a lecture tour.⁵⁶ It could well be that in keeping with sophistic conventions he had come to the city and established himself as a public declaimer.⁵⁷ If this is so, then Neilus would have been exposed not only to local sophists but to one of international repute. He maybe name-dropping to impress his father.

Neilus believes that if he listens to orators or sophists declaiming publicly, especially Poseidonius, and makes use of Didymus as an ad hoc tutor to help him in his own declamations, then he will succeed. The original editor, C. H. Roberts, rearranged the sentence to read: 'Moreover, with any luck, I shall do well for myself by hearing the lectures', but ἐπιδεικνύμενοι refers to 'those who declaim'. Neilus is presenting a 'package' to his father which involves listening to declaimers in a public context and he cites one in particular. He mentions help from Didymus, lines 32-34, listening to public declamations, lines 34-36, and then adds literally that 'with the help of the gods' he expected to do well.⁵⁸ It is significant that such an alternative existed for an advanced student of rhetoric. It demonstrates both the central role declamations played in paideia in first-century Alexandria, and the prominence that teachers of rhetoric and sophists had secured for themselves through them.

gued, 'The social eminence of the sophists in their cities and provinces brought their families swiftly and inevitably into the Roman upper class.'⁶⁰ E. L. Bowie has examined the social origins of sophists and shown that they came from families of high rank who 'had long furnished their cities with magistrates, benefactors and diplomats'.⁶¹ He has further argued that membership in that class was the true key to their success; oratory was not the ladder on which Greek intellectuals scaled the heights of Roman society as Bowersock suggested.⁶² There was no swift and inevitable means for advancement. Furthermore, we find in Domitian's rescript the attempt to restrict social climbing with his insistence that instruction 'ought to be transmitted only to a limited number of free-born young men'.⁶³ In the first century, entry into the Greek aristocracy in the East, and even into positions of rank in one's home city, was through birth; and perhaps just as importantly, it was often only the high-born who could gain access to persons of rank.⁶⁴

We thus can locate Neilus' place on the social ladder if we attend to his access to the powerful. Because of an incident in the theatre in Alexandria, he appears to have sought the help of distinguished officials, lines 4-6.⁶⁵ Theon ap-

pears to have been unperturbed by this incident, which was obviously a relief to Neilus, lines 3-4. However, in a subsequent letter to his father, he again mentions the matter because Heraclas, the slave of Neilus, has felt 'no shame in gleefully spreading reports in the city about the incident in the theatre and telling lies such as would not come even from the mouth of an accuser', lines 45- 47. If Neilus' behaviour in the theatre was such as to provide his slave, Heraclas, with the opportunity to denounce him, lines 45-47, then it must have been a matter of some consequence. Neilus has written to a fellow student, Philoxenus, and his friends, telling them to leave this matter in the hands of a person of distinction, line 12. Given the proverbial behaviour of the Alexandrians in the theatre, described by Dio as 'uproar, buffoonery and scurrility',⁶⁶ it must have been the rumour mongering of his slave that worried Neilus most. This sent him back to Alexandria, 'to the esteemed […]' where he believed himself to have achieved 'something that repaid my eagerness', line 6. Neilus had written to his friend Philoxenus and others 'telling them that they too must leave the matter in the hands of the esteemed […]', lines 12-14.

Another sign that Neilus came from a wealthy background was his possession of his own slave, Heraclas, who was not the person designated to accompany him to school (i.e., his παιδαγωγός) but who worked in Alexandria 'to contribute some obols daily' towards the cost of his master's living expenses, lines 41-42.⁶⁷ Neilus expected Heraclas to earn two drachmas a day working under a carpenter, and this money would now need to be remitted to him by his father, lines 50-51. It was apparently the arrangement that Heraclas would provide some income for Neilus, and his father would send provisions to his son.68 When Heraclas was involved in some misdemeanours, he, unlike his master, was summarily apprehended. Lacking his master's

access to men of influence, his solution was to escape the jurisdiction of Alexandria and return to Oxyrhynchus and the security of Theon's household.

Neilus' attitude towards Didymus also reveals a sense of superiority bred by status. He expresses his disgust to his father because, although not competent enough to teach his students properly, Didymus has claimed superiority to all other teachers in Alexandria, lines 21-22. Forbes overlooks the content of the synkrisis of Didymus with his Alexandrian counterparts in P.Oxy. 2190, lines 21-22, citing only lines 23-29. He comments, 'Clearly, part of the unfortunate Didymus' advertising took the form of comparing himself with other teachers, and in Neilus's "humble opinion", he simply didn't measure up.' It was, however, Didymus' promise of better care than anyone else in Alexandria in order to attract pupils that angered Neilus, lines 21-22. This was particularly aggravating when he apparently could not fulfil his promise. This was not only Neilus' opinion, for Philoxenus and the sons of Apollonius seem to have reached the same conclusion.⁶⁹ What annoyed Neilus most was not that Didymus dared to involve himself in synkrisis with other sophists, but, he adds emphatically, οὗτος ὅς ('he is') 'a country one' at that! (lines 27-29). This is very much a pejorative comment.⁷⁰

Although nothing more can be learned concerning Neilus' status from P.Oxy. 2190, the sons of Apollonius mentioned in line 22 may illuminate it further. In P.Oxy. 1153 (dated to the first century) a father, Apollonius, writes, from Oxyrhynchus, to his son of the same name, who attends school in Alexandria along with Nicanor, who is apparently his brother. If these are the same students mentioned in P.Oxy. 2190, their father reflects the status-consciousness of Greek citizens.⁷¹ Another brother, Pausanias, has sent two

variegated wrist bands, one scarlet and the other purple, and the letter later mentions cloth made from 'local purple', lines 15-17, 26.⁷² Purple was certainly a status symbol in that day, and parents encouraged their sons to wear it. The use of this colour as a 'status display' was at its highest intensity in the ancient world in the second century. Apollonius was very keen to have the coat made for his son: Ά pattern of the colour of the dress that is being made is enclosed in this letter, give it to Nicanor to look at, in order that, if he likes it he may write to us, for it has not yet been given out. We are going to use local purple'.⁷³

Can we regard Neilus as a credible witness? It would seem that he accurately reflects the Alexandrian situation, for his father already knows of the difficulties pertaining to entry into the sophists' schools. This view is further confirmed by the references to a fellow student, Philoxenus, whom Theon knows. Too much knowledge is simply assumed throughout the correspondence for it to be based on a false representation. Although Neilus betrays his immaturity in the theatre incident, a certain degree of initiative and self-preservation shows through in crises created by his educational needs, his misdemeanor and his slave's rumours. Glucker, over-generously, assesses the character of Neilus positively — 'the style and manner of the letter betray a mature and intelligent young man, living on his own in the great city'. However, there is certainly no reason to doubt the accuracy of Neilus' comments on the educational situation in Alexandria, apart from his pejorative comments on the professional ability of Alexandrian teachers, which may reflect more on his shortage of money for his education — a shortage which may have been caused by his hedonistic life.⁷⁴ P.Oxy. 2190 is a valuable witness to the sophis-

tic movement in this major educational centre, and constitutes an important perspective for exploring paideia and the problems it created in first-century Alexandria, where Philo lived.

This non-literary source has provided a window on the first-century sophistic movement in Alexandria as it touched the life of an advanced student of paideia. The sophists emerge from P.Oxy. 2190 as an important group in the Alexandrian education system. In an age when declamation was deemed the best method for advanced education, the sophists were in great demand. The acute shortage of such teachers in the city expressed not their unimportance, but that demand outpaced supply.⁷⁵

The exorbitant costs further reflect a seller's market; Neilus' complaint that fees are so high is more than an exaggeration by a financially strapped young man. The sophists had always charged fees, which distinguished them from the philosophers.⁷⁶ It mattered little that philosophers denigrated their professional ability: parents who paid substantial amounts to sophists were acknowledging their primacy in paideia.

Furthermore, the papyrus demonstrates the high priority placed upon declaiming by students and possibly parents, a preoccupation also noted by Aelius Theon and Quintilian in the first century. The activity of orators who were not recognised by the public as sophists is also reflected in P.Oxy. 2190. The competitive desire for such recognition is shown in the synkrisis of Didymus, the country orator, who, with his own school and his activity as a tutor (καθηγητής) within an ad hoc tutorial system, shows that this level in the educational system was able to adapt to the needs of students. Finally, the tone of the letter with its reference to men of rank in Alexandria shows the circles in which the pupils of the orators and sophists at least hoped to secure influence in times of personal trouble.