The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic
Page 110
41.Rajak 2009, 125–175, with further references.
42.E.g., Geiger 1994; Tropper 2004, 136–156. Niehoff 2012 draws parallels between the classicizing of Homer in the Greek tradition and of the Bible in the Jewish; see esp. Furstenberg’s chapter (Furstenberg 2012) on analogies between rabbinical interpretative methods and those of Second Sophistic.
43.Dieleman and Moyer 2010, 433.
44.Rutherford 2013; Stephens 2013.
45.By “semi-autonomous agent” I mean an individual or group whose outlook is shaped but not wholly determined by historical forces.
CHAPTER 4
1.ἀττικισμός is used in this sense (of Lysias’s language) in the epitome of Dion. Hal. De imit. F 31.5.1 (originally written in the late first century BCE), but could very well be attributed to the epitomator rather than to Dionysius himself.
2.The numerous technical writings of the period are better characterized as “intermediate prose” (Rydbeck 1967: Zwischenschichtsprosa), occupying a loosely defined area “between” the spoken vernaculars and the literary, written standard.
3.Dionysius’s associate and contemporary, the rhetorician Caecilius of Caleacte, must also have been involved, judging from two of his surviving titles (Κατὰ Φρυγῶν: Against the Phrygians (i.e., Asianist orators) and Τίνιδιαφέρει ὁ Ἀττικὸςζῆλοςτοῦ Ἀσιανοῦ: How the Attic style differs from the Asian). The precise nature of his involvement, however, remains unclear due to uncertainty surrounding his date and the fragmentary nature of his surviving work (see O’Sullivan 1997; Woerther 2015).
4.The important study of Wahlgren 1995 has shown that the language of Dionysius, Strabo, Philo, and Nicolaus of Damascus is collectively more “Attic” than that of Polybius and Diodorus, but not consistently so, suggesting that this shift in usage was not a conscious choice.
5.Both authors are also models of linguistic versatility: Lucian wrote two texts in Ionic (On the Syrian Goddess, On Astrology), and Arrian not only did the same (his Indica is in Ionic), but also wrote in koinê (Epictetus’s Discourses).
6.The mention, in the late fourth-century CE biography of Aristides attributed to Sopater, of Polemon, Herodes, and Aristides as members of a “third crop” (φορά) of orators “coming from Asia” refers to geographical, not stylistic provenance (Proleg. Aristid. 1 = Lenz 1959, 111).
7.It is important to remember that the use of “Asian” in rhetorical contexts from the first century BCE onward does not refer to the continent of Asia, but to the Roman province Asia, established in 133 BCE and encompassing the regions of Ionia, Caria, Mysia, Phrygia, and other areas of Western Anatolia.
8.Norden 1898, 138–147, following Cicero Brut. 326, identifies a second type of Asian style in late Hellenistic inscriptions, most notably those of Antiochus I of Commagene at Nemrud Daği, dating from the mid-first century BCE (OGI 383; IGLSyr 1.1). But while the texts feature many of the same clausulae endings found in Hegesias, the style is quite different: prolix, circumlocuitous, and composed of long sentences (Dörrie 1964; Waldis 1920). This “bombastic” variety of Asian rhetoric may have been a late Hellenistic phenomenon, but we have no other evidence for it outside of inscriptions (cf. IG 5, 2.268, from Mantinea). See Kim forthcoming for further discussion of the relation between these texts and those of the Second Sophistic.
CHAPTER 5
1.Concerning the period of Fronto and Gellius, Smiley 1906, 261 calls the interest in precision of speech “almost . . . the disease of the age.”
2.See Fronto, Ep. 62–64; Holford-Strevens 2003 and Smiley 1906, 241–271. The scene of philological controversy as a literary set-piece would have a great literary future, on Macrobius’s Saturnalia most directly but also in the wrangles that permeate commentaries from Macrobius’s contemporary Servius down to our own.
3.Adams 2007, 19–20 and 28–29, describes the complex attitudes to rusticitas of speech (some approved as evidence of antiquitas but at times disapproved or even seen as comical).
4.The strangeness of including such comments was at times noted. Balbus in Cicero’s De Natura Deorum 2.91 disapproves that Pacuvius had put in a play “what we name caelum the Greeks call aethera.”
5.Adams 2007, xv.
6.Certain authors are approved as having pure Latinity, most famously Terence, whom Caesar named “puri sermonis amator” (Suet. Poet. fr. 11; see Goldberg 1986, 179–186). Terence’s ability at creating conversational scenes is being applauded here as well as his diction. On purity as an anthropological category for understanding Roman speech, see Short 2007, iv–x and 88–115. A more typical philological activity has been to point out failures of Latinity, see Vainio 1999.
7.Leeman 1963, 32: “Latinitas (a ‘translation’ of ἑλληνισμός) is adherence to sermo purus, free from the vitia of soloecismus, faulty grammatical construction, and barbarismus, the use of non-Latin words.”
8.On contempt for grammarians, see Kaster 1988, 51–60.
9.The text was published by Baehrens in 1922.
10.Taylor 1996 demonstrates that there were not in fact opposing schools of thought but different tendencies in the scholar’s toolchest. See Cavazza 1981, 106ff., and discussion and further bibliography in Holford-Strevens 2003, 173.
11.Aulus Gellius provides a number of examples of overzealous schoolmen advocating forms against consuetudo, which in his case means the republican writers. See the important discussion of Holford-Strevens 2003, 174–178.
12.On this passage, see Cousin 1935, 47–49, with bibliography.
13.Sedulius Scottus, In Eutychum 100.74, citing Boethius as his authority. Cf. Isidore of Seville, Etym. 11.1.1: “Natura dicta ab eo quod nasci aliquid faciat.” See the discussion of Morin 2001, 189–191.
14.See Charpin 1977, 512, cited and discussed by Morin 2001, 40.
CHAPTER 6
1.Hall 1997; Richter 2001, 55–86. There are several good starting points in the modern anthropological literature, esp. Barth 1969; Eriksen 1993; Fox 1967. See also Evans-Pritchard 1951 and Lévi-Strauss 1949.
2.Cf. F. Nietzsche, “Beyond Good and Evil” 1.9: “You want to live according to nature? Oh, you noble Stoics, what deceit lies in these words. . . . In your pride you want to dictate your morality, your ideals to nature, incorporate them into nature, of all things you demand that nature be ‘according to the Stoics.’ ”
3.Plut. De Stoic. Repug. 1054e–1055a (= SVF 2.550; Long and Sedley 1987–1989, 29d).
4.See Diog. Laert. 7.135 (= SVF 2.580).
5.Chrysippus is said to have used the metaphor of a cup of wine being poured into the ocean and becoming coextensive with it (Diog. Laert. 7.551; Plut. Comm. not. 1078e).
6.Alex. Aphr. De Mixt. 225.
7.This account follows Origen’s report of what Inwood takes to be Chrysippus’s formulation. Origen, de Principiis (= SVF 2.998); cf. Inwood 1985, 21.
8.Pol. 1252a–b.
9.Lact. Div. inst. 3.25.
10.Stob. Ecl. 2.244.10–11. Cf. Philodemus de Pietate col. 5.8–10. On this passage, see Schofield 1991, 43.
11.Cf. Singer 1997, 1, who has argued that “distance and nationality make no moral difference.” Cf. Singer 2002.
12.Anon. In Plat. Theaet. 5.18–6.31.
13.Hierocles (apud Stobaeus 4.671.7–673.11) = Long and Sedley 1987–1989, 57g. For text, commentary, and facing Italian translation, see Bastianani and Long 1992, 245–268; with Long 1996. See also Ramelli and Konstan, 2009.
14.The term was originally used in Ackerman 1994. Appiah has taken up the idea more recently (2005).
15.Diog. Laert. 7.32–34.
16.Diog. Laert. 7.34.
17.Diog. Laert. 7.32–34; 7.187–189. Cf. Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 3.245–249, M II.189–196.
18.Isoc. Paneg. 3.
19.Isoc. Paneg. 25.
20.Menex. 237c.
21.Panath. 225.
22.Livy Ab Urbe 1.9.
23.Tac. Ann. 11.24. On the varieties of Roman formulations of identity, see Dench
1995 and 2005.
24.Aristid. Or. 63.
25.Eur. Med. 645–653.
26.Cf. Plut. De Exil. 600e.
27.As Whitmarsh points out (2001, 270–271), the fact that these three philosopher-sophists make use of these ideas in remarkably similar language ought not to be surprising, given the fact that Dio was Musonius’s student and Favorinus Dio’s.
28.The evidence for the historicity of these exiles is discussed by Whitmarsh 2001 with bibliography. Plutarch’s friend seems to have been fairly wealthy and the subject of relegatio, a relatively lenient form of exile which allowed the Sardian to settle anywhere in the empire other than Sardis (cf. 604b). Plutarch recommends certain of the Aegean islands (602c–d).
29.ᾗ χρώμεθαπάντες ἄνθρωποιφύσειπρὸςπάντας ἀνθρώπους ὥσπερπολίτας. The repetition of the word ἄνθρωποι recalls Cato’s formulation of Stoic oikeiôsis in the De Finibus.
30.Plutarch dedicated De Primo Frigido to Favorinus.
31.This text is not very easily found. For the Greek text and an account of its relatively recent reappearance, see Barigazzi 1966. For an English translation, see Whitmarsh 2001, appendix I.
CHAPTER 7
1.See, in brief, Whitmarsh 2005, 6–10.
2.Dench 2005, esp. 306, 353.
3.For proto-globalization, see, e.g., Hingley 2005, Hitchner 2008, Witcher 2000; for the idea of empire as a single system, see the discussions of, e.g., Ando 2000, Woolf 1990; for networks and microworlds, see, e.g., Constantakopoulou 2007; Horden and Purcell 2000; Malkin 2011; Malkin, Constantakopoulou, and Panagopoulou 2009; Whitmarsh 2010.
4.For Second Sophistic as a habitus, see, e.g., Borg 2004, Schmitz 1997.
5.LSJ s.v. kaltios; the mistranslation is discussed in Jones 1971, appendix II, citing earlier scholarship, but is still widespread.
6.Sitting in judgment as iconic feature of Roman rule: Meyer 2006; Schäfer 1989; cf. Plutarch, Precepts of Statecraft 824e, 813e–f for the particular punishments that might be expected for stepping out of line: exile, banishment, or humiliation by edict of the proconsul; for the Roman occupation of Judaea, see Cotton 2007.
7.Compare Bowie 1970 and Whitmarsh 2005, 12, cf. 14; cf. De Blois 2004
8.For the extreme and countercultural oddness of Plutarch’s idealized political life in this piece, see Trapp 2004.
9.Cool Root 1985, Kurke 1992, Miller 1997, Raaflaub 2009.
10.Hall 1989, chap. 4.
11.Ptolemaic cultural capital: Erskine 1995; tax registers and dual identities: Clarysse and Thompson 2006; Moyer 2011, 29–32; Thompson 1997.
12.Atticism: Kim 2010; Kim, chapter 4 in this volume; Roman appropriation of Greek: Dubuisson 1981, Rochette 2010.
13.Polybius 26.1.5–7 = Athen. 5.193d; Diodorus 29.32; cf. Livy 41.20; Suet. Aug. 98; for the significance of dressing up stories such as these, see Dench 2005, 295–296; Wallace-Hadrill 1998.
14.Hallett 2005, 208–217; Kleiner 1983. Cf. Gleason 2010 for Herodes Atticus’s monumentalization of his own bicultural identity and that of his family.
15.Smith 1998.
16.E.g., 798f; 800e; 804c, f; 805a, c, e–f; 806a–b, d–e; 808e; 809e; 810a–c.
17.Cyrene Edicts: Oliver 1989, 8, 10, 11; Hadrian to Aphrodisias: SEG 50.1096; cf. Jones 2010, 111; the fiscus Iudaicus is an extreme example of Roman administrative appropriation.
18.For imperial reassignments, see Ando 2010; but cf. Strabo 12.4.6, C565 for a historical perspective that reflects on the change and loss involved; cf. also Spawforth 1999 for questions about the degree of enthusiasm with which imperial initiatives, e.g., the Panhellenion, were taken up at a local level.
19.QFr. 1.1; Plin. Ep. 10.40.2; cf. Woolf 1994.
20.Hatzfeld 1919, Purcell 2005.
21.Slaughter of Romans and Italians: App. Mithr. 22; Cic. Leg. Man. 5.11, 3.7; Dio Cass. fr. 101.1; Tac. Ann. 4.14; Plin. HN 2.209; Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 1, 35, 4.72, with Bowersock 2004.
22.Yildirim 2004; cf. Jones 2004, 2010; cf. Wallace-Hadrill 2008, chap. 3 for triangulation of identities in Hellenistic Italy.
23.Kleiner 1983, Smith 1998.
24.Despite new challenges to social constructionism, especially around gender and sexuality (cf. Davidson 2007, 163–204, for an interesting historical perspective on the postwar period), our commitment to identity as performance shows no sign of abating as we live our lives on Facebook, Twitter, and reality TV: see, e.g., Zhao, Grasmuch, and Martin 2008.
25.For Favorinus, see, e.g., Gleason 1995; Whitmarsh 2001, 90–130.
26.Whitmarsh 2011.
27.Cf. Späth 2005.
28.See, e.g., Harrison 2013 on George Rawlinson.
29.E.g., Hall 1989; Hartog 1980; Hodder 1982. It is interesting that these two conversations took place in parallel, with little or no cross-fertilization.
30.Banton 1977; Dench 2005, 222–297; cf. Krebs 2011 for shifting interpretations of Tacitus’s Germania; cf. Leonard 2005, 58 for the entangled ancient and modern discourses of structuralism.
31.Hall 1989, esp. ix and 172–181; contrast Isaac 2004 and Eliav-Feldon, Isaac, and Ziegler 2009 for fuzzier boundaries of race and racism.
32.Hall 1997, 2002.
33.For the notion of Athens as the paideusis of Greece, see Most 2006; for fifth- to fourth-century Athenian ideology, see Dench 2005, 240–245.
34.Lape 2010; Ogden 1996, chap. 1.
35.The question of the level at which such genealogical claims were believed is an extremely interesting and complex one: see Veyne 1988 for a classic discussion of questions of belief in Greek myth more generally.
36.Kinship in general: Curty 1995, Jones 1999; kinship with Rome or Hellenistic kings: Battistoni 2010; Erskine 2001; rights of asylum: Rigsby 1996; intercity and intercommunity networks: e.g. Spawforth and Walker 1986; the potential kudos of “barbarian” origins: e.g. Spawforth 2001; Yildirim 2004; Jones 2004, 2010.
37.Swain 2007, 2009.
38.Richter 2011, chap. 3.
39.Whitmarsh 2001, 116–121, 167–180.
40.Reynolds 1978, 117–121 = SEG 28.1566.8–12, with rereading of the inscription by Jones 1996; cf. Boatwright 2000, 182; Romeo 2002, 26–27; Spawforth 2012, 252–255.
41.Spawforth 1999; Spawforth and Walker 1985, 1986.
42.Bickerman 1952.
43.Price 2005; Woolf 2011.
44.Genos in the fourth century: Jones 1999, 15; “virtual heredity” in Rome: Dench 2005, 114–117, 253–254
45.E.g., Livy 1.8.5–7; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.15.3–4, with Dench 2005, 96–117.
46.Dench 2005, 136–143.
47.Dench 2005, 273–279.
48.Buell 2005; cf. Eshleman 2012; we might usefully compare and contrast the kind of essentialism to which Perpetua appeals when she likens the impossibility of calling herself anything other than Christian to the impossibility of calling a vase by any other name (Passio SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis 3.1–2 (van Beek): identity as profession is linked here to older, philosophical discourse about the relationship between names and things (cf. Heffernan 2012, 156–157).
49.The scope of traits that might be associated more narrowly with the first to third centuries CE self-defining Greek world is brought out well in Goldhill 2001.
50.E.g., Dench 2005, Johnston 2017, Millar 1983, Woolf 2011.
51.Internal and authorial arbitration: Eshleman 2012, esp. 125–139.
52.For the state of the question about “Gordian,” see Civiletti 2002 on VS 479.
53.Cf. VS 555 for Herodes laughing at his brother-in-law’s boasts of eugeneia (“nobility”).
54.The instability of group boundaries is a major theme of modern ethnographical studies: see, e.g., Ferguson 1999, Valentine 2007.
55.For different assessments how easy or difficult it is to distinguish philosophers from sophists, see, e.g., Bowersock 1969, 11–15; Flinterman 2004; Sidebottom 2009.
56.See especially Bowersock 1969, a fundamental study.
57.E.g., Zanker 1995, esp. ch
ap. 5; Borg 2004.
58.Eshleman 2012, chap. 4.
59.Eshleman 2012, 139–148; Whitmarsh 2005, 18–19.
60.For the plurality of Christianity and Judaism: Beard, North, and Price 1998, 236, 248, 284–285, 304, 307–308.
61.E.g., for questions about the targeted audience of the ancient novel, see Martzavou 2012; cf. Swain 2009 for the possibility of ideological factions; cf. Johnson 2010 for reading communities more generally.
CHAPTER 8
1.Many thanks to the editors, and to Thomas McGinn and Mario Telò for their help. For theoretical problems in writing the history of sexuality and an overview of the field as a whole, see Richlin 2013.
2.The word “retrosexuality” already exists to denote masculinity as it was before feminism; I will here be developing an alternate sense. On life in quotation marks, see Erik Gunderson on Gellius’s Attic Nights, for example on Gellius quoting Antonius Julianus: “What one wishes to say about a topic is, frequently, precisely the already-said about the topic, or, further, the already-said about the already-said about the topic” (2009, 258, cf. 268). Similarly, James Davidson on Athenaeus’s dinner party as a feast of words (2000).
3.Previous discussions: Holford-Strevens 2003, 22–23, 66–67, 219, 233–234, on the circulation of such Greek and Latin poetry in this period; Vardi 2000.
4.Richlin 2006b, 69, 147. On Apuleius as the author of this poem, see Holford-Strevens 2003, 22–26; Courtney 1993, 395–397; Holford-Strevens 2003, 22–26.
5.Space precludes discussion of astrology, dream analysis, and physiognomy, all of which concerned themselves with sexual issues; see Brooten 1996, 115–142, 175–187; Foucault 1986, 3–36; Gleason 1995, 55–81; Winkler 1990, 17–44. On love magic, attested by contemporary texts and by less datable material evidence, see Brooten 1996, 73–114; Winkler 1990, 71–98.
6.On this Sulpicia (not to be confused with the Augustan elegist), see Hallett 1992; Parker 1992a; Richlin 2014, 110–29; Stevenson 2005, 44–48, with discussion of contemporary women writers. On women’s desire in the ancient novel, see Morales 2008.