The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic

by Daniel S. Richter

  Tonnet, H. 1988. Recherches sur Arrien: Sa personnalité et ses écrits atticistes. 2 vols. Amsterdam.

  Tucker, A. 2004. Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography. Cambridge.

  von Möllendorff, P. 2001. “Frigid Enthusiasts: Lucian on Writing History.” PCPS 47: 117–140.

  Welch, K., ed. 2015. Appian's Roman History: empire and civil war. Roman culture in an age of civil war. Swansea.

  Whitmarsh, T. 2001. Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation. Oxford.

  Whitmarsh, T. 2007. “Prose Literature and the Severan Dynasty.” In Severan Culture, edited by S. Swain, S. Harrison, and J. Elsner, 29–51. Cambridge.

  Woodman, A. J. 1988. Rhetoric in Classical Historiography. London.

  Woolf, G. 2011. Tales of the Barbarians: Ethnography and Empire in the Roman West. Chichester and Malden, MA.

  Zimmerman, M. 1999. “Enkomion und Historiographie: Entwicklungslinien der kaiserzeitlichen Geschichtschreibung vom 1. bis zum frühen 3. Jh. n. Chr.” In Geschichtsschreibung und politischer Wandel im 3. Jh. n.Chr., edited by M. Zimmermann, 17–56. Stuttgart.

  CHAPTER 31

  POETS AND POETRY

  MANUEL BAUMBACH

  31.1 POETRY IN THE SECOND SOPHISTIC

  ALTHOUGH most literary remains from the period of the Second Sophistic are prose texts, authors continued to produce and consume Greek poetry at a high level. Apart from the extant works, we find fragments of poetry written in almost all previously established poetic genres (see Heitsch 1963) and numerous references to poets whose works are completely lost. Furthermore, poetic inscriptions, including epigrams, as well as performances of hymns, drama, epic, fable, encomia, and various forms of lyrical poetry point to the continuing presence of poetry in public contexts. Many representatives of the educated elite (pepaideumenoi) frequently quote or refer to poetry in order to illustrate their exceptional education (paideia), and a number of sophists were themselves poets (see Philost. VS 518 on Scopelian; Bowie 1989 and König 2009, 99), which suggests that poetry played an important role in the Greek literary culture of the Second Sophistic. Poetry remained an essential part of the school curriculum and was at the core of Greek paideia (see Cribiore 2001, 194–204 and 226–230). The fact that educated Greeks from all parts of the Roman Empire shared more or less the same knowledge of the Greek literary tradition regardless of their different cultural backgrounds was a function of the uniform Greek educational system and was based upon literary canons, which had been established for many genres (Hägg 2010; Most 1990). By way of creative reception of the poetic tradition and in order to demonstrate their specific learnedness within the elite, pepaideumenoi frequently put the authority of canonical texts to the test, as can be seen, for instance, in the corrections and criticism of Homer in sophistic speeches and prose narrations like Dio’s Troikos, Philostratus’s Heroicus, or Lucian’s Verae Historiae 1.1 (see Kim 2010). They quote noncanonical authors and constantly extend their field of reference by alluding to Hellenistic or even contemporary poetry, a phenomenon that can be frequently observed in Athenaeus’s Deipnosophistae (early third century CE). In any case, the reference to Greek poetry in public speech and written prose from encomia to novels (cf. Chariton) was part of a code used by the elite as a means of displaying their own paideia, both within and outside the inner circle of educated Greeks.

  Second, Greek poetry was an important source and means of displaying expert knowledge of the Greek past and history, which provided the foundation for a new cultural identity of the Greeks under Roman rule (see Bowie 1974; Goldhill 2001). In this regard, not only the two Homeric epics but also Greek tragedies and lyrical texts on mythological and historical deeds of the past could be regarded as a shared cultural heritage of the glorious Greek past, which was preserved in poetic texts as literary lieux de mémoire.

  Third, poetry was regarded as an essential element of rhetoric. The representatives of Greek education, the sophists, did not only discuss and propagate the high value of Greek poetry by including countless quotations and allusions to poetry in their speeches (Anderson 1993, 69–85; North 1952); in the context of language, style, and rhetorical techniques they regarded the three classical genres of poetry (drama, epos, and lyric) as “father, mother, and breath” of the sophists (see Philostr. VS 620: μητέρασοφιστῶντὴντραγῳδίαν . . . πατέρα Ὅμηρον . . . Ἀρχίλοχονπνεῦμα).

  A fourth aspect is the “setting in life” (Sitz im Leben) of many poetic genres, which shows that poetry was not only written for educated readers but could also address a wider audience. The tradition of the symposium continued and the epigraphical record points to a number of poetic contests, religious festivals, and other public performances of poetry in the Greek-speaking world. Whereas traditional hymns, Homeric epic (see Gangloff 2010), and classical tragedies were performed at religious (local and Panhellenic) festivals, we know of a number of poetic contests, which included both recitals of the poetic tradition and the presentation of new poetry (see Easterling and Miles 1999). Contemporary political or military success could be memorialized in encomia or epic, and new scientific findings celebrated in the established form of didactic epos. We find wandering poets who performed on different stages similar to traveling sophists, and original poetic production was necessitated by the ongoing need for inscribed grave, dedicatory, and memorial epigrams (see Merkelbach and Stauber 1998–2002 for the Greek East). Although it remains difficult to distinguish specific poetic tendencies or generic developments in the period because of the scantiness of the material, poetry in the Second Sophistic seems to adhere to established generic traditions; metrical rules were strictly kept and only a few innovations can be observed.

  A fifth aspect concerns patronage. There is evidence that some poets belonged to the imperial court, where—in the tradition of Hellenistic court societies (see Herman 1997 and Weber 1993)—the production and presentation of literature was strongly linked with propaganda and the individual praise of the emperor. The poet Mesomedes, for instance, composed encomia for Hadrian, whose imperial cult was celebrated in hymns by Aelius Paion, another poet of the emperor’s inner circle (see Fein 1994, 115–126). As in Hellenistic times, the relation between poetry and court is Janus-faced: while the poets enhanced the reputation of the emperor by spreading and memorializing his glorious deeds, the authority of the court in turn supported the poet’s fame and helped to spread and establish his poetry in society.

  31.2 EPIC

  In the Second Sophistic, the production of hexameter poetry continues (see Carvounis and Hunter 2008; Heitsch 1963, 51–152; Miguélez Cavero 2008, 3–105). A great number of fragments of various hexameter poems is preserved: the longest comprises 343 hexameters of the so-called visio Dorothei, a Christian narration (late third or fourth century CE) about a doorkeeper of heaven, who claims to be the son of Quintus (Bremmer 1993; Kessels and van der Horst 1987). Furthermore, we know of many lost epics, such as Scopelian’s Gigantias (early third century CE); Pisander of Laranda’s Ἡρωϊκαὶ θεογαμίαι (third century CE); and Nestor of Laranda’s Lipogrammatic Iliad (third century CE), which was a free adaptation of the Homeric Iliad avoiding the usage of one particular letter in each of the twenty-four books (the first book did not use alpha, the second avoided beta, etc.). Some fragments of the Bassarica (an epic on Dionysus’s Indian campaign) and the Gigantias of a poet called Dionysius, who is probably not identical with Dionysius Periegeta but belongs to the first century CE, have been preserved (PLond. Lit. 40; see Benaissa 2013). Although Scopelian is the only example that Philostratus mentions of a sophist who composed epic poetry (VS 518; see Anderson 1993, 70), it cannot be ruled out that there were other sophists who not only used the epic tradition as a crucial part of their rhetorical repertoire but were epic poets themselves (see Bär 2009, 17). Due to the importance of the Homeric epics for shaping Greek identity and their exceptional status at all levels of education (see Dio Chrys. O
r. 18.8), there were numerous imitations and adaptations of the Iliad and the Odyssey in content, style, and meter (see Bowie 1990, 66–80; Kindstrand 1973; Zeitlin 2001). However, as only two mythological and three didactic epics have survived from the period of the Second Sophistic, it is difficult to pinpoint specific generic developments. Furthermore, the exact dating of these epics is still a matter of dispute and a relative chronology is hard to define as linguistic, stylistic, and metrical criteria often prove to be circular.

  The several examples of Second Sophistic epic poetry share two key features. First is the reception of Latin poetry, especially Vergil and Ovid. This kind of translingual intertextuality cannot be found in any other poetic genre nor in prose texts of this period, where Latin texts seemed to be widely ignored—be it for programmatic or practical reasons, that is to distance themselves from Roman culture or because all relevant models and texts of reference were found in the Greek tradition. It is disputable, however, whether similarities in structure, narration, and content derive from a direct reception of Latin literature or whether they were the result of an independent usage of a Greek literary tradition which is no longer extant. Second, Second Sophistic epic is in close dialogue with Hellenistic poetry in terms of language and style as well as content. We find the Alexandrine technique of imitatio cum variatione as a kind of ars allusiva (see Bär 2009, 61–69, for Quintus’s Posthomerica). In terms of versification, Second Sophistic epic is characterized by a close imitation of the Homeric model with only moderate alternations in rhythm (see West 1982, 177–179).

  31.2.1 Mythological Epic: Quintus and Triphiodorus

  The two extant mythological epics, Quintus of Smyrna’s Posthomerica and Triphiodorus’s Haliosis Troias most likely date to the third century CE. Their relative chronology remains a matter of scholarly debate, although it seems likely that Quintus’s epic came first. The fact that both deal with themes of the epic cycle has led to the assumption that this kind of epic (re)production was boosted by the contemporary loss of the epic cycle (Davies 1989, 6–8). However, John Philoponus’s remark that the cycle was no longer available at the time of Pisander of Laranda (i.e., third century CE; cf. EGF test. 2, p. 14.16–21) neither implies that the epic cycle completely disappeared at all places at the same period of time nor helps explain the production of the two epics of Quintus and Triphiodorus. As the poems of the Epic cycle were not as highly regarded as the Homeric epics, ambitious poets might have been inspired to write more refined versions of the events (see Bär 2009, 69–91 on Quintus; Minguélez-Cavero 2013, 52–56 on Triphiodorus). In any case, the reception of both epics flourished in Late Antiquity and Byzantine times, when the epic cycle was definitively lost and the two epics filled the gap between the extant Iliad and Odyssey. As regards later epic tradition, both epics were known to and used by Nonnus in his Dionysiaca (see Shorrok 2007)

  The Posthomerica (Τὰ μεθ᾿ Ὅμηρον / Τὰ μετὰ τὸν Ὅμηρον, “The events after Homer”) probably dates back to the third century CE (see James and Lee 2000, 4–9; and Baumbach and Bär 2007, 1–8, with a discussion of the relation between the Posthomerica and the visio Dorothei). Little is known about its author; the name Κόιντος is attested in Byzantine texts and scholia on Homer; his origin from Smyrna is taken from the poetological remarks in the Binnenproömium (12.308–13), where the author, fashioning himself as a Hesiodic initiate to poetry, claims to originate from Smyrna (for further poetological reflections, see Bär 2007).

  The poem starts in medias res purporting to continue the narration of the Iliad. It tells the events after the death of Hector, covering the two aristeia of Penthesileia and Memnon, the death of Achilleus, the contest over his armour, Odysseus’s trick with the wooden horse, and some nostoi of Greek heroes. Thus, the Posthomerica cover the content found in the cyclic epics Aethiopis, Little Iliad, Sack of Troy, and Nostoi. Compared to the epic cycle tradition, however, “new” material seems to be included: the episode of Oenone and Paris, which is first attested in the literary tradition in the fifth century BCE (Hellanicus FGrH 4 F 29), might be inspired by a Hellenistic epyllion, and a number of dissimilarities to the cyclic epics (so far as their content is known to us), such as the unique narration of Neoptolemus’s arrival (see James 2004, 301) or the torture of Sinon (12.353–394), can be observed. Thus, the Posthomerica seem to be competing with the tradition of the epic cycle and in doing so, they show a great affinity to some of the main characteristics of Second Sophistic literary tradition (see Baumbach and Bär 2007, 8–15). There is emphasis on rhetoric (cf. especially the rhetorical contest between Odysseus and Ajas about Achilleus’s armor in book 5), and we find frequent usage of simile and ekphrasis (see 5.6–101), which are used as a code for the educated readership. Furthermore, traces of stoic philosophy (Maciver 2007) and intertextual references to Hellenistic poetry underline the claim for learned poetry. Further characteristics of the Posthomerica include its usage of didactic poetry, especially Oppian’s Halieutica (see James and Lee 2000, 6; Kneebone 2007; Ozbek 2007), the changes of the role of the gods, who are less involved in the action than in Homer, the dominance of fate, and the possible reception of Latin poetry, especially Vergil (see Gärtner 2005).

  Triphiodorus’s Capture of Troy (Ἰλίου ἅλωσις) also dates to the third century CE (cf. POxy. 2946; Dubielzig 1996, 7–11; Miguélez-Cavero 2013, 4–6). The poet, whose name suggests an upper Egyptian background (see Dubielzig 1996, 2–4; and Suda s.v. = T 111 Adler) is said to have composed a number of other epics which are all lost: an epic about the events at Marathon (Μαραθωνιακά), which might have been either a historical epos about the battle of Marathon or a version of Theseus’s fight against the Marathonian bull, which could have been influenced by Callimachus’s Hecale (Dubielzig 1996, 11–12); a mythological poem Story of Hippodamia; a Lipogrammatic Odyssey that might have been inspired by Nestor of Laranda’s Lipogrammatic Iliad; and a Paraphrase of Homer’s Comparisons, which was most probably written in prose (Dubielzig 1996, 14–15).

  The Capture of Troy is a short epos of 691 verses and might be regarded as a generic synthesis between the long epic in Homeric tradition and the epic subgenre of epyllion (D’Ippolito 1976, 15–26). In terms of epic tradition, it cannot be ruled out that Triphiodorus tried to challenge both Homer and Quintus by writing a short epos in Homeric style (Tomasso 2012). The poem opens with a short invocation to Calliope in Homeric tradition and covers the final days of the Trojan war starting with the Helenus’s predictions (vv. 43–50) and the construction of the wooden horse (vv. 57–107), followed by the events known from the two cyclic epics Little Iliad and Sack of Troy. As in Quintus, however, it is unclear to what extent Triphiodorus modeled his epos on the epic cycle. Similarities and possible influences have been discussed especially with regard to Lesches’s Little Iliad (see Gerlaud 1982). Although Homer was the principal model of the text (Orsini 1974) and Triphiodorus does not follow the Alexandrean tendency to correct Homer (Dubielzig 1996, 16–17), we find a number of linguistic innovations (see Miguélez-Cavero 2013, 44–46).

  31.2.2 Didactic Epic: Oppian of Apamea, Oppian of Cilicia, and Dionysius of Alexandria

  Didactic poetry was popular in the Second Sophistic, both in its formal and practical types. With regard to the extant works, the poems by the two Oppians are written in the tradition of the “formal” type of didactic poetry, which puts the focus on the art of poetry, whereas Dionysius of Alexandria’s Periegesis (ca. 130 CE) can be numbered among the “practical” type, which concentrates on the content (see Effe 1977 on these categories). All three poems have rather long proems (see Brioso 1996) with biographical information and contain dedications to rulers, which points to a political interest in didactic poetry and patronage. This is especially evident in the case of Marcellus of Side (second century CE), whose grave inscription (Anth. Pal. 7.158) gives insight into the poet’s support by the emperors Hadrian and Antonius Pius, who installed copies of his didactic poetry in public l
ibraries. In terms of language and meter, Second Sophistic didactic poetry is greatly influenced by Hellenistic poetry. The existence of a strong biographical tradition for the three extant poems (see Mair 1928, xiii–xxiii; and Hamblenne 1968 for the Oppians) points to their popularity and broad reception.

  Oppian of Cilicia’s Halieutica (ca. 178 CE; ed. Fajen 1999) is dedicated to Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. It describes the habits and nature of fish (books 1–2) and the ways to catch them (books 3–5). With regard to content the poem relies upon prose treatises by Aristotle (Richmond 1973) and Leonidas of Byzantium; the influence of the Halieutica of Ovid and other Latin literature (Keydell 1937) is a matter of dispute. What is particularly noteworthy is its anthropomorphic approach. The world of the animals is paralleled to the world of human beings by ascribing human emotions and actions (love, jealousy, hunting) to the sea creatures. This effect is supported by the frequent usage of similes (Bartley 2003). There are traces of Stoic philosophy especially in the philosophical digressions, but there is no systematic approach to Stoicism. Stylistically, the Halieutica show more Homeric features than didactic poems of the Hellenistic period (James 1970, 257–266). The poem, which has been transmitted in fifty-eight copies (Fajen 1999), was very popular in imperial times: it had influenced the epic technique of Quintus and Nonnos, its content was spread by a prose paraphrasis from a fifth-century CE manuscript (the ascription to Eutecnius is speculative; see Gualandri 1968), and the existence of scholia proves that it entered the school curriculum.

  Oppian of Apamea’s Cynegetica (On Hunting) was written in the early third century CE. The poem is dedicated to the emperor Caracalla. Four books are extant and a fifth book might have been lost. Like the Halieutica, an anonymous paraphrasis is preserved (Tüselmann 1900) and the large number of manuscripts as well as scholia suggest a widespread reception. The poem belongs to the formal type of didactic poetry in that it uses prose treatises of Aristotle, Xenophon, and Arrian and is enriched with many fantastic and mythical digressions (see Bartley 2003; Englhofer 1995). The Cynegetica not only imitate the Halieutica in style, structure, and language, but also show a similar tendency to anthropomorphic similes. In terms of meter we find many inconsistencies (Schmitt 1969, 25–33). The proem is modeled upon the tradition of the Homeric Hymns and Callimachus’s Aitia (Costanza 1991); the high level of learnedness and intertextuality—together with the abundant rhetorical features (Schmitt 1969, 14–24)—makes the poem attractive for a Second Sophistic readership.