The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic

by Daniel S. Richter

  Though he was sometimes seen as backward-looking, Aristides’s interest in the past was quite specifically orientated. The quotations and references with which his work is strewn are indicative of the pleasure he took in the cultural heritage he shared with his audience of listeners and readers. And it is clear that the past was something he made use of in constructing an ideal image of Hellenism, for example in his encomiums to Athens, or his defense of the statesmen pilloried by Plato. But these references, far from being colored by denial or nostalgia, were prisms through which he looked at his own world. Thus, the history of Athens was the materialization of Hellenism. Rome had no past. And Plato, unbeknown to himself, had been an orator of an “imperial” age.

  In the end, it was his own world that Aristides exalted. He celebrated the grandeur of Greece, and of the provinces that had been Hellenized, with their religious festivals and hymns, the beauty of their architecture, their language and literature. He imagined the cities of Asia Minor coming together to bury their rivalries. But he was also on familiar terms with the Romans. And he gave a running account of his dealings with gods and humans.

  For him, rhetoric was the mode of writing and thinking that connected the world as he knew it to the classical period as he viewed it.

  Though pedantic and prickly, Aristides was lavish in his praise of the peace and prosperity the Roman Empire had brought into being. War having been relegated to the past as myths (Or. 26.70), this was a time for festivals (Or. 26.97–99) and for travel, which was facilitated by maritime corridors rendered safe from depredation (e.g., Or. 1.9–12; 26.101–106). His work is a ringing endorsement of urban civilization during the Antonine era.67 But in his celebration of the Aegean sea and the Cyclades, he also talks about the opulence and unity of that region in a way that denotes a certain eastward shift in the center of gravity of the world. Among the cities that “shine with radiance and grace,” so that “the whole earth has been adorned like a pleasure garden” (Or. 26.99),68 he talks in particular about those to which he is most attached: Smyrna, a seat of culture and beauty (Or. 17.13; Or. 29.2 and 33);69 Pergamum, which at that time was experiencing a regeneration of its intellectual and religious life, centered on the Asclepieum, with its library, theater, and new temple; and Corinth, whose wealth and splendor he so admired (Or. 46). In a world like this, it is clear that if rhetoric was to further common values then it had to be epideictic (Or. 2.411).

  Over time, there have been significant changes in attitudes to Aristides’s work.70 That he was no stranger to success in his own lifetime can be seen not only from the official recognition he achieved, but also, if indirectly, from the types of attack that were leveled at him. Early on, he won favor with the theorists and exponents of oratory (Pseudo-Aristides’s The Art of Rhetoric, Menander Rhetor, and Sopater who, in the fourth century, wrote the Prolegomena to Aristides), along with the grammarians and lexicographers who saw his work as the acme of Atticism (Pseudo-Longinus,71 Thomas Magister in the fourteenth century). Libanius was so fascinated by his work and opinions that he modeled his own oratorical output on that of his predecessor, whom he admired so much.72 Somewhat more surprisingly, he was a subject of interest to exegetes of Plato: up to the time of Michael Psellos in the eleventh century, at least, the Platonic discourses featured in philosophical discussions.

  In Late Antiquity and the Byzantine Middle Ages, it was the Panathenaikos and the major epideictic and moral orations73 that shone most brightly. But there were other works—e.g., the Platonic discourses, notably To Plato: In Defense of the Four, Or. 3, and the Sacred Tales—which, while standing outside the traditional typology of rhetorical genres, attracted attention.74

  During the Renaissance, Aristides faded into the shadows, being rediscovered only in the twentieth century by W. Schmid, U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, A. Boulanger, F. W. Lenz, and C. A. Behr. This rediscovery was, however, often accompanied by pejorative judgments which limned Aristides as a representative of a scholastic, artificial form of literature, often cut off from the real, contemporary world, and which introduced serious misreadings inspired by outdated prejudices.

  Since the 1970s, Aristides has been the subject of a fresh evaluation. He is now seen as a source of material for new institutional, social, and religious approaches to history—that of the Antonine period, that of rhetoric, that of worldviews. In sum, he has recovered something of the reputation for which, as an orator-writer, he worked so hard.

  As he himself said, it was also with future generations that he wanted to converse (Or. 51.52).

  FURTHER READING

  For overall studies of Aristides, see Behr 1968, Boulanger 1923, Bowie 1996, Cortés Copete 1995, Harris-Holmes 2008, Pernot, Abbamonte, and Lamagna 2016.

  Essential work on Aristides’s historical and intellectual context include Anderson 1993, Bowersock 1969, Pernot 1993a, Swain 1996, and Whitmarsh 2005.

  More specifically, on Aristides’s relationship with Asclepius, see Jones 1998, Nicosia 1979, and Petsalis-Diomidis 2010. On his posterity of Aristides, see Robert 2009.

  On some particular discourses: Oration 1 (The Panathenaic Oration), see Oliver 1968, Oudot 2006a, 2006b; Orationes 2–4 (The Platonic Discourses), see Flinterman, 2002a and 2002b, Milazzo 2002, and Pernot 1993b; Orationes 17–21 (Smyrnaean Orations), see Franco 2005 and Quet 2006; Oration 26 (Regarding Rome), see Oliver 1953; Oration 28 (Concerning a Remark in Passing), see Miletti 2011, Rutherford 1995; Orationes 30–34, see Vix 2010; Orationes 37–46 (Hymns), see Goeken 2012; Orationes 47–52 (Sacred Tales), see Downie 2013, Pernot 2002, Quet 1993; on his lost work, Robert 2012. English translations in Behr 1981–1986.

  A regularly updated bibliography concerning Aelius Aristides can be found at www.classicalsace.unistra.fr. See also Harris and Holmes 2008 for all the contributions and bibliography.

  Boulanger 1923 is ancient and in French, but was the real first monograph upon this author.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Anderson, G. 1993. The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire. London and New York.

  Behr, C. A. 1968. Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales. Amsterdam.

  Behr, C. A. 1981–1986. P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works. 2 vols. Leiden.

  Behr, C. A. 1994. “Studies on the Biography of Aelius Aristides.” ANRW 2.34.2: 1140–1233.

  Boulanger, A. 1923. Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d’Asie au IIe siècle de notre ère. Paris.

  Bowersock, G. W. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford.

  Bowie, E. L. 1989. “Greek Sophists and Greek Poetry in the Second Sophistic” ANRW 2.33.1: 209-258.

  Bowie, E. L. 1996. “Aristeides [3, P. Ailios],” DNP I, cc. 1096–1100.

  Cortés Copete, J. M. 1995. Elio Aristides: Un sofista griego en el Imperio Romano. Madrid.

  Cribiore, R. 2008. “Vying with Aristides in the Fourth Century: Libanius and His Friends.” In Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome and the Gods, edited by W. V Harris and B. Holmes, 263–278. Leiden and Boston.

  Downie, J. 2013. At the Limits of Art: A Literary Study of Aelius Aristides’ “Hieroi Logoi”. Oxford.

  Flinterman, J.-J. 2002a. “‘. . . Largely Fictions . . .’: Aelius Aristides on Plato’s Dialogues.” Ancient Narrative 1: 32–54.

  Flinterman, J.-J. 2002b. “The Self-Portrait of an Antonine Orator: Aristides, or. 2, 429sqq.” In Greek Romans and Roman Greeks: Studies in Cultural Interaction, edited by E. N. Ostenfeld, 198–211. Aarhus.

  Franco, C. 2005. “Elio Aristide e Smirne.” Mem. dei Lincei 9.19.3: 345–584.

  Gigli, D, 1977. “Stile e linguaggio onirico nei Discorsi Sacri di Elio Aristide.” Cultura e Scuola 61: 214–224.

  Goeken, J. 2012. Aelius Aristide et la rhétorique de l’hymne en prose. Turnhout.

  Harris, W. V., and B. Holmes. 2008. Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome and the Gods. Leiden and Boston.

  Jones, C. P. 1998. “Aelius Aristides and the Asclepieion.” In Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods,
edited by H. Koester, 63–76. Harrisburg, PA.

  Jones, C. P. 2008. “The Survival of the Sophists.” In East and West: Papers in Ancient History Presented to G. W. Bowersock, edited by T. C. Brennan and H. I. Flower, 113–125. Cambridge, MA, and London.

  Karadimas, D. 1996. Sextus Empiricus against Aelius Aristides: The Conflict between Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Second CenturyAD. Lund.

  Milazzo, A. M. 2002. Un dialogo difficile: La retorica in conflitto nei Discorsi Platonici di Elio Aristide. Hildesheim.

  Miletti, L. 2011. L’arte dell’autoelogio: Studio sull’orazione 28 K di Elio Aristide, con testo, traduzione e commento. Pisa.

  Nicosia, S. 1979. Elio Aristide nell’Asclepieio di Pergamo e la retorica recuperata. Palermo.

  Nicosia, S. 1988. “L’autobiografia onirica di Elio Aristide” In Il sogno in Grecia, edited by G. Guidorizzi, 173–189, Bari.

  Oliver, J. H. 1953. “The Ruling Power: A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century after Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristides.” TAPhS 43: 871–1003.

  Oliver, J. H. 1968. The Civilizing Power: A Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides against the Background of Literature and Cultural Conflict, with Text and Translation and Commentary. TAPhS, NS, vol. 58, pt. 1. Philadelphia, PA.

  Oudot, E. 2006a. “Au commencement était Athènes: Le Panathénaïque d’Aelius Aristide ou l’histoire abolie.” Ktèma 31: 247–261.

  Oudot, E. 2006b. “L’Athènes primitive sous l’empire romain: L’exemple du Panathénaïque d’Aelius Aristide.” Anabases 3: 195–212.

  Pearcy, L. T. 1988, “Theme, Dream and Narrative: Reading the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides.” TAPhA 118: 377–391.

  Pernot, L. 1993a. La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romain. 2 vols. Paris.

  Pernot, L. 1993b. “Platon contre Platon: Le problème de la rhétorique dans les Discours platoniciens d’Aelius Aristide.” In Contre Platon. Vol. 1, Le platonisme dévoilé, edited by M. Dixsaut, 315–338. Paris.

  Pernot, L. 1997. Éloges grecs de Rome: Discours traduits et commentés. Paris.

  Pernot, L. 1998. “Periautologia: Problèmes et méthodes de l’éloge de soi-même dans la tradition éthique et rhétorique gréco-romaine.” Rev. Ét. Grec. 111: 101–124.

  Pernot, L. 2002. “Les Discours sacrés d’Aelius Aristide entre médecine, religion et rhétorique.” Atti della Accademia Pontaniana 6: 369–383.

  Pernot, L. 2003. “L’art du sophiste à l’époque romaine: Entre savoir et pouvoir.” In Ars et ratio: Sciences, art et métiers dans la philosophie hellénistique et romaine, edited by C. Lévy, B. Besnier, and A. Gigandet, 126–142. Brussels.

  Pernot, L. 2007. “Hymne en vers ou hymne en prose? L’usage de la prose dans l’hymnographie grecque.” In L’Hymne antique et son public, edited by Y. Lehmann, 169–188. Turnhout.

  Pernot, L. 2008. “Aelius Aristides and Rome.” In Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome and the Gods, edited by W. V. Harris and B. Holmes, 175–201. Leiden and Boston.

  Pernot L., Abbamonte G., Lamagna M. 2016. Aelius Aristide écrivain, Turnhout.

  Petsalis-Diomidis, A. 2010. Truly beyond Wonders: Aelius Aristides and the Cult of Asklepios. Oxford.

  Puech, B. 2002. Orateurs et sophistes grecs dans les inscriptions d’époque impériale. Paris.

  Quet, M.-H. 1992. “L’inscription de Vérone en l’honneur d’Aelius Aristide et le rayonnement de la seconde sophistique chez les Grecs d’Egypte.” Rev. Ét. Anc. 94: 379–401.

  Quet, M.-H. 1993. “Parler de soi pour louer son dieu: Le cas d’Aelius Aristide (du journal intime de ses nuits aux Discours sacrés en l’honneur du dieu Asklépios).” In L’invention de l’autobiographie d’Hésiode à saint Augustin, edited by M.-F. Baslez, P. Hoffmann, and L. Pernot, 211–221. Paris.

  Quet, M.-H. 2001. “Athéna, inspiratrice onirique d’un orateur aimé des dieux au IIe siècle de notre ère.” In Dieux, héros et médecins grecs: Hommage à Fernand Robert, edited by M. Woronoff, S. Follet, and J. Jouanna, 211–225. Paris.

  Quet, M.-H. 2006. “Appel d’Aelius Aristide à Marc Aurèle et Commode après la destruction de Smyrne (177/8 après J.-C.).” In La “crise” de l’Empire romain de Marc Aurèle à Constantin: Mutations, continuités, ruptures, edited by M.-H. Quet, 237–278. Paris.

  Robert, F. 2009. “Enquête sur la présence d’Aelius Aristide et de son œuvre dans la littérature grecque du IIe au XVe siècle de notre ère.” Anabase 10: 141–160.

  Robert, F., ed. 2012. Les œuvres perdues d’Aelius Aristide: Fragments et témoignages. Édition, traduction et commentaire. Paris.

  Rutherford, I. C. 1995. “The Poetics of the Paraphthegma: Aelius Aristides and the Decorum of Self-Praise.” In Ethics and Rhetoric: classical essays for Donald Russell, edited by D. Innes, H. Hine, and C. Pelling, 195–204. Oxford.

  Saïd, S. 2008. “Aristides’ Uses of Myths.” In Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome and the Gods, edited by W. V. Harris and B. Holmes, 51–68. Leiden and Boston.

  Sartre, M. 1991. L’Orient romain: Provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (31 avant J.-C.–235 après J.-C.). Paris.

  Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World,AD50–250. Oxford.

  Vix, J.-L. 2010. L’enseignement de la rhétorique au IIe siècle ap. J.-C. à travers les discours 30–34 d’Ælius Aristide. Turnhout.

  Whitmarsh, T. 2005. The Second Sophistic. Oxford.

  Wissmann, J. 1999. “Zur Rezeption des ‘Protagoras-Mythos’ durch Aelius Aristides.” Philologus 143: 135–147.

  P A R TV

  LITERATURE AND CULTURE

  CHAPTER 18

  PHILOSTRATUS

  GRAEME MILES

  FLAVIUS Philostratus is increasingly recognized as a towering presence in the Greek literature written under the Roman Empire. His is an astonishingly varied corpus, of real subtlety and finesse. The scholarly consensus is now that one Philostratus was the author of almost the whole of the Corpus Philostrateum; though some doubt must remain regarding the old questions of authorship, a growing agreement has emerged along with the recent reassessment of Philostratus as a writer. A new vibrancy has come into Philostratean studies in recent years, due both to the intrinsic interest of the texts themselves and to the light they can shed on a wide range of topics in the culture of their time.

  Despite the current tendency to attribute most of these works to one Philostratus, we know that there was a literary family employing the name for several generations. The entry regarding these Philostrati in the Suda, a Byzantine encyclopaedia, does almost as much to muddy as to clear the waters.1 There are, at least, some stable points: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana was certainly written by the author of the Lives of the Sophists, as he tells us himself in the latter work (VS 570). Most would now agree that the Heroicus, a dialogue regarding the cult of heroes and the correction of Homer, is almost certainly by the same author.2 Regarding the Imagines, it is somewhat more difficult to be certain: here too, however, despite differences of genre there are numerous similarities in thought and expression to the other works.3 The author of the second series of Imagines, however, identifies himself in the work’s opening as the grandson of the Elder Philostratus (proem 2), author of the first series. The Letters of Philostratus also appear to be by the author of the Life of Apollonius: the speaking voice in one of these presents himself, at any rate, as on friendly terms with Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus, who also prompted the writing of the Life, and there are numerous overlaps of motif and expression. The Gymnasticus, a work on the proper training of athletes, shares characteristic interests with the Heroicus and Life. The brief dialogue Nero, which survives among the works of Lucian, again shows close similarities of interest to these same works.4 Finally a short piece on the relation of nomos and physis survives, normally entitled a Dialexis (or Dialexis 2); the other so-called Dialexis is in fact a letter on epistolary style by Philostratus o
f Lemnos.5 The chronology and circumstances of composition of these works are largely unknown.6 The statements regarding Julia Domna in the introduction to the Life of Apollonius, expressed as they are in the imperfect tense, indicate a date at some point after her death in 217 CE.7 The interest of the Heroicus in hero cult has sometimes been taken to indicate the influence of Caracalla;8 this is an unnecessary supposition, but the close connections between this text and the Life of Apollonius do suggest dates of composition not far from each other.9

  Given the range of topics from athletics to art, and from holy men to the pleasure of being trodden on by an attractive pair of feet, it is no surprise that scholarship on Philostratus tends to emphasize the variety of his output, his polymathic learning, his Protean character.10 Does anything relatively constant emerge from this group of texts taken as a whole? Or as Billault asked, “Is there a universe of Philostratus?”11 There is indeed a central bundle of cultural concerns and authorial tendencies which inform all of these works: for all of the metamorphic quality of Philostratus’s writing and the avoidance of repetition, either of his own or other people’s earlier developments, there remains a consistent interest in the nature of Hellenism, including traditional religion, in the nature of wisdom or intelligence (sophia), and relatedly a concern with acts of interpretation.

  For all that the newer scholarship is almost unanimous in asserting the great interest of Philostratus, his skill as a writer, and the light that his works can shed on the culture of his time, the various portraits of him that we find in the secondary literature are far from uniform. Each thematic strand in the Philostratean texts turns out, on closer inspection, to come with its own set of knots, and readers are presented with difficult choices in the unpicking of them. All of the works which survive are concerned in their own ways with Hellenism, but determining the exact nature of this Hellenism is far from simple. Philostratus is often described as stridently insistent on the superiority of Greek culture, and on occasion this is certainly the case, but what of the critique of this same culture by outside voices (the Brahmans) who are clearly privileged by the text in which they appear? Equally clear is Philostratus’s interest in religion, especially in the Life of Apollonius and Heroicus, but how serious is this interest? One image of Philostratus which has recently come to prominence, especially in the German-language scholarship, is as an essentially ironic writer, undermining the ostensibly serious statements of the characters in his texts.12 At the opposite end of the spectrum appears Philostratus the promoter and reviver of traditional cult.13