Aelius Aristides Between Greece Rome, And the Gods

INTRODUCTIONwv. lIARRrs Aelius Aristides' Embassy Speech to Achilles (Oration XVI) seems at first reading a ham-fisted piece of work. It takes the form of a speech aimed at assuaging the wrath of Achilles with Agamemnon, like the speeches that Homer gives to Odysseus, Phoenix and Ajax in Iliad IX. I But unlike the clever speeches of Odysseus and Phoenix, it would have been much more likely to inflame Achilles than win him over: 'you seem to hate your fellow-countrymen', says the fictitious orator, 'and fear battle too' (sect. 6). Aristides, however, was not attempting to put himself in the place of a Bronze-Age prince or an archaic poet-though he was attempting as so often to live in the past and to take his audience there with him-, but to demonstrate with maximum cleverness the lack of logic, from his own point of view; in Achilles' behaviour; and in this aim he more or less succeeded. The subtle understanding of furious anger that was demonstrated by Aristides' contemporary Galen was not the sophist's forte, but it was not his interest either. The Embassy Speech to Achilles can serve rather well as an introduction to some of the investigations that are carried forward in this book. In the first place, it shows Aristides in his literary context. The speech displays of course an intimate knowledge of Homer-and no overt interest in anything that had been written since Homer's time about the wrath of Achilles or about anger more generally (between the lines, however, one can see that Aristides, though he avoids anachronism, was familiar with the cliches about moderate anger that were part of the Greek and Roman cultural patrimony). So what was Aristides' relationship to archaic and classical Greek literature? Not simple, for while it is obvious that knowledge of the poetry of that era was a cultural marker, in fact the cultural marker, of an educated Greek, there I As to how Aristides came to be writing on such a theme, see Kindstrand 1973, 215---216. According to Behr 1968, 95, the 'substance' of this declamation is 'the impor- tance of fame', but that is an eccentric judgement. 2 W.V. HARRIS was emulation involved ('modesty', as Raffaella Cribiore observes later in this volume, 'was not an attribute of Aristides'), and individual taste too. The studies grouped in the first part of the book are concerned above all with the sophist's intimate mental connection with the literary and mythical traditions of the Greeks. What does the pattern of Aris- tides' citation of the archaic poets mean, and what in particular does it mean that he so generously cites Pindar (Ewen Bowie's culminating question)? How, in flattering the Athenians, is he to deal with the truth- loving and unavoidable Thucydides, who was willing to show them at their worst (Estelle Oudot's theme)? Were the great classical myths still important, still viable, in the world of the Second Sophistic, and how could they be adapted for contemporary use (the questions answered here by Suzanne Said)? In this context too we can place Glen Bower- sock's discussion of Aristides' detestation of the pantomimes, those solo performers who brought much of the repertoire of the classical theatre before the Antonine public. Another striking feature of the Embassy Speech to Achilles, especially if you come to it fresh from Homer, is its repeated reference to the Trojan War as a conflict between the Greeks and the 'barbarians': 'if you must be permanently angry, I would say that it should be with the barbarians, our natural enemies' (sect. 4) (the latter trope reappears in sect. 26). 2 In the Iliad Odysseus and Phoenix speak of the harm that Achilles has done the Achaeans by his withdrawal, but Homer never of course calls the Trojans barbarians;" Aristides applies the term to them seven times in a few pages and concludes his speech on this note. That will seem banal. But there is more: it will have been a sleepy Greek listener or reader who never for a moment thought that Aristides might be alluding to the Romans in the guise of their Trojan 'ancestors', especially since, as Laurent Pernot points out in detail in his contribution to this book, both Aristides and his public were accustomed to the practice of 'figured speech'. At all events, Aristides' thoughts and feelings about Rome and its empire were more complex than used to be realized when 70Rome (Or. 2 The 'barbarians' had been the 'natural enemies' of the Greeks, at least for many, since Pi. Rep. V.47oc, if not earlier. 3 The Carians are barbarophonoi in ii.867. This difference between Homer and Aristides has often been noticed: see for instance Boulanger 1923, 274. INTRODUCTION 3 XXVI) was taken at face value. The third part of this volume-the papers by Pernot, Francesca Fontanella and Carlo Franco-accordingly considers the political aspects of his writings. 300 years after the annex- ation ofprovincia Asiathe Greeks were still not wholly reconciled to their subordinate though privileged role." Plutarch had warned a young man elected to office in a Greek city that for crossing their Roman rulers, 'many' had suffered 'that terrible chastiser, the axe that cuts the neck' (Praecepta rei gerendae 17 = Mor. 813£). Who could be at ease in such a situation? But Greek attitudes gradually changed: every individual had his point of view; but Celsus Polemaeanus represents one stage, Plutarch another, Aristides yet another, Lucian and Cassius Dio still others. There are two other important elements in Aristides' identity (and here I leave behind the Embassy Speech to Achilles), apart of course from his main identity as an orator and a sophist.' These two elements, closely connected with each other, are his religiosity and his status as an invalid." We have mainly concentrated both of these topics in the second part of the book, holding that with Aristides the personal is to some extent prior to the political. We have called this whole collection Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods in part because the clearest element in Aristides' personality is his religiosity, and an important part of his preferred identity consisted of his devotion to Asclepius. Pernot, in the footsteps of Bowersock, reminds us how Aristides used this identity as a means of squirming out of office-holding, but no reader of the Sacred Tales could doubt that the devotion was real as well as convenient. It suited both Aristides' narcissistic personality'<-well brought out by Dana Fields, though she avoids the term-to believe that he was a favourite of the gods and of Asclepius in particular. No better indication of his 4 Going against a recent trend, C.P. Jones 2004 has, however, argued with respect to the cultured Greek intellectuals of this age that their 'supposed Hellenic patriotism, sometimes assumed to be equivalent to Hellenism, is a chimaera', Hellenes being only one of their identities (14). 5 On the propriety of calling Aristides a sophist, a label he would have rejected, see among others Flinterman 2002, 199. 6 In fact Aristides' religiosity comes out in xvi.ze. 7 For a justification of the use of this concept with respect to Aristides see Andersson and Roos 1997, 31-38. For some further quite adventurous discussion of narcissism in second-century Asia Minor see Kent 2007. 4 W.V. HARRIS religiosity could be found than his conviction that Asclepius constantly sent him messages in his dreams, even when the god did not appear in his own person.B Aristides was evidently led to Asclepius by his preoccupation with his health, a preoccupation that has been variously diagnosed. He is customarily spoken of as a hypochondriac, but without knowing more than we can really know about his actual health such a judgement is scarcely possible." Galen saw Aristides as physically weak. 10 Many have speculated about his ailments and their possible psychological origins. In recent times this interest has recast itself in the language of the body. Brooke Holmes observes that 'biographical-diagnostic approaches to Aristides have given way to studies that situate him within his cul- tural and historical milieu', and that trend, which gathered strength in the 1960s (Behr, Bowersock), continues. To some extent, however, her paper, and also those of Janet Downie and Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis, combine the two approaches. It is certainly a challenge to know how to interpret Aristides' writing about his own physical condition, given the complexity of the cultural traditions that were at work and the author's own idiosyncrasies. Holmes turns a sceptical eye to modish 1990S chatter about 'bodies becoming texts', seeking-as I understand it-to show how Aristides tried to use his dreams to interpret his med- ical condition, and how he thought that 'archiving' an immense num- ber of dreams would help him. 'The body is... written into stories that are first staged in dreams then recorded in the archive. By interpreting these stories, Aristides is able to act on the body in such a way as to restore it to a primeval state of harmony'. No reader of the Sacred Tales can fail to be struck by the author's deep interest in one particular physical activity, namely bathing. Where does this tendentially luxurious interest fit in the austere life and complex self-presentation of the hard-working rhetor? Janet Downie's paper on this subject brings out, perhaps more than any other in this volume, the complexity of Aristides' personality. A central feature of that personality was overweening conceit. Fields's paper, by means of a contrast with Plutarch, shows us the depth B On this practice of his see Harris 2009, chapter I. 9 'He was not merely a hypochondriac. However, he treated his illnesses with the same care as a hypochondriac', Andersson and Roos 1997, 37. 10 See the Arabic text cited by Behr 1968, 162, Bowersock 1969, 62, and byJones at the beginning of his paper. INTRODUCTION 5 and the significance of this conceit, and serves as a transition from his self-presentation to his views about and position (or non-position) in politics. We come back, as always, to the world of competitive oratory. And it was to Aristides the orator that most contemporaries, and most later readers until the twentieth century, reacted. The last part of this volume concerns itself with some of these reactions, from the contemporary admirer Phrynichus (Christopher Jones), via his greatest late-antique emulator Libanius (Raffaella Cribiore), down to Byzantine times when, as Luana Quattrocelli shows in our final chapter, the only objection to him seems to have been his devotion to the wrong god. There is much more to investigate. Swain, for example, has written that Aristides 'enjoyed enormous popularity for his rhetorical prow- ess',11 and it would be worth enquiring further into what such pop- ularity meant in Greece in the second century, with large auditoria in vogue but no democracy in the old sense in sight. More should also be said about Aristides' religious experience (another concept that is contested)-and on this we look forward to the forthcoming book by Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis. But as for actually empathizing with the humourless rhetor;" that may be beyond us. 11 1996, 254. 12 Janet Downie detects 'ironic humor' in the dream description in Or. xlvii.rq. But see on the other hand xxviii.qg and the whole ofxxix Concerning the Prohibition rifComedy, among other passages. CHAPTER ONE ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY EWEN BOWIE This paper investigates Aristides' quotations of and allusions to early Greek lyric, elegiac and iambic poetry. One reason for its restriction to these poets is that I have been looking at their citation and other ways they are drawn upon in a number of imperial Greek texts.' But an equally important reason for the exclusion of other early poetry, above all of Homer, Hesiod and other hexameter poetry, is because its inclu- sion would undoubtedly have raised issues that would have required a much longer paper. The London doctorate of 'T.K. Gkourogiannis, entitled Pindaric Qyotations in Aelius Aristides, completed in 1999, regis- tered the presence in Aristides of 253 citations of the Iliad and 93 of the 04Jssey.2 This is a far larger number than Aristides' quotations of tragedy or comedy, where Gkourogiannis documented 45 for Aristo- phanes; 26 for Euripides; 16 for Sophocles; IO for Aeschylus; and five each for Eupolis, Cratinus and Menander. In some respects the pro- portion of these quotations between Homer, tragedy and comedy show Aristides to be not dissimilar to other authors writing in this period, or to what we know of readers' habits from papyri," though the frequency of Aristides' citation of Menander is rather low, and of Aristophanes rather high: this is partly because of his extensive exploitation of Aristo- phanes for Athenian history in Oration 3 (which has some 16 citations), partly, I suspect, because Aristides was drawn, or was made by his tutor Alexander of Cotiaeum, to read Aristophanes with due care and atten- tion in order to beefup his Atticism.' ! In Athenaeus, Bowie 2000; in Plutarch, Bowie 1997 and forthcoming (b); in Philostratus' Apollonius in Bowie forthcoming (a); in Stobaeus in Bowie forthcoming (c). 2 Gkourogiannis 1999. 3 Kruger 1990. 4 For Aristophanes in other authors of the period, see Bowie 2007. 10 EWENBOWIE What, then, emerges from an examination of this relatively narrow range of poets? On the one hand there is a huge preponderance of citations of Pindar, a phenomenon to which I shall return. Pindar apart, however, Aristides' citations of early lyric, elegiac and iambic poetry are perhaps surprisingly few. They are set out in my Table, and it is on the basis of the evidence presented there that I offer the following observations. Aristides undoubtedly knows the names of Sappho and Alcaeus (Or. 32.24).5 Of Alcaeus, however, he cites only two phrases: one is an apparently well-known gnome yag fro II2.1O Voigt) at Or. 3.298 and Or. 23.68 (cf Or. 25.64);6 the other is the idea of shooting arrows in the dark, EX 'tou xa't' 'AAxaLov (fr. 437 Voigt) at Or. 2.264 (our only source for this fragment). It is possible that Sappho fro 34 Voigt is cited at Or. 1.II in the phrase OEATJv'r]v EyxAeLo'UOLv, but since Aristides ascribes it to 'some poet' o.v et:ltOL he may not be citing Sappho at all, or he may not realise that it is she whom he is citing. That makes it hard to assess his claim at Or. 18.{ to cite Sappho in the phrase 'destroying the gaze' (ou ()LaqJ'fteLgov EqJ'r] La:ltqJw): editors have created Sappho fro 196 Voigt from this, but as Campbell noted it may be some sort of recollection offr. 31.II Voigt.' Fr. 193Voigt may also not deserve the status of a separate fragment, since the reference at Or. 28.51 to Sappho boasting to some women thought to be fortunate, that the Muses had made her really fortunate and that it was she who would be remembered after her death, may be a reference to either fro 55 Voigt, fro 65 Voigt or fro 147 Voigt. Whatever the intended reference of Or. 28.51, however, these three places do yield at least two citations of Sappho. There are also what seem to be several citations of Aleman. At least three of these are at Or. 28.51-54, where he is simply called 'the Laconian poet', as he is also at Or. 41.7 in the citation of fro 56 Page, and in the citation of a hexameter, fro 107 Page, at Or. 2.129 (though here the description 0 'tWV :ltag'frEvwv xat ... 0 makes it quite certain that Aristides believed 5 Aristides' works are cited from the edition of Lenz-Behr 1976-1980 for Orations 1-16and from the edition ofKeil 1898for Orations 17-53. 6 Our other sources for this poem are papyrus fragments of the first century A.D., the scholia on Aes. Pers. 352and Soph. Oed.Tyr. 56, and the Suda s.v. UQT]'LOL A 3843. 7 Campbell 1982, 185 n. 2, on fro 196. ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY II himself to be citing Aleman, despite the metre of the line). For two citations in Oration 3 (fr. ro8 Page at Or. 3.294 and fro 164 Page at Or. 3.82) we have only the scholiast's evidence that the poet is Aleman, Overall, however, it is clear that Aristides has some recollection of and use for Aleman, and in this he is comparable, for example, to Plutarch. In his citation of other poets, however, I have been struck by the difference between Aristides and some other writers of this period. There are indeed some references to the Palinode of Stesichorus, which was clearly quite widely known, but only one phrase which might be a quotation, fro 241 Davies at Or. 33.2 f-tE'tELI.u be btl ihEQOV :ltQOOLf-tLOV xu'ta L'tT)OLX,oQOV. 8 As for Simonides, there are two citations in Oration 28 which may be from his melic poetry, and at Or. 31.2 Aristides shows knowledge of, but does not quote, a presumably melic for a dead Thessalian patron Antiochus (fr. 582 Page), but there is nothing from Simonides' melic or elegiac poetry associated with the Persian wars, despite the exploitation in Oration 28 of Persian war epigrams, to which I shall shortly turn. But of other melic poets there is hardly a trace: no Ibycus, no Anacreon, no citation or even mention of Bacchylides, and although Timocreon is named (Or. 3.612) his poetry is not cited. Of the elegists no use is made of Theognis, and although Tyrtaeus' role in early Spartan history is twice mentioned (Or. 8.18; Or. 11.65), there is no clear indication that Aristides knew his poetry. 9 One case, however, may point to the issue simply being one of citation rather than of knowledge. That is the case of Archilochus. Although there is nothing that is certainly a verbatim citation, Aristides mentions Archilochus several times by name, and the reference at Or. 3.6II to the various people whom he vilified (EAEyE friend Pericles, his enemy Lycambes and a man perhaps called Charilaus- suggests that Aristides knew a number of Archilochus' iambic poems 8 As I shall argue elsewhere the phrase ll.UTU TOV seems to be a reference to a poetic trope and not to be a way of marking the expression lIE btl ETEQOV as a quotation. 9 Other early poets named but not quoted are Philoxenus (in connection with Dionysius at Or. 3.391) and (less remarkably!) Arion (Or. 2.336 and 376) and Terpander (Or. 2.336; Or. 3.231 and 242; Or. 24.3). It is just possible that Semonides of Amorgos is the source for Or. 2.166, where Aristides quotes two iambic lines, to illuminate which the scholiast cites Eur. fro IIIO Nauck, though cf Semonides fro 1.1---2 West. 12 EWENBOWIE (i.e. the poems from which fro 124 West, fro 167 West and fro 172 West are drawn, or other poems involving Lycambes now entirely lost). So, too, the reference a little later in the same speech to 'the apes of Archilochus' ('AQXLAOXOlJ :lti:tl'T]XOL, 3.664), points to knowledge of at least one of Archilochus' animal fables, perhaps of the fable told in frr. 185- 187 West (which almost certainly provided him with the cunning little vixen, ... of 3.676).10 It would therefore certainly be unwise to infer from Aristides' failure to quote an archaic poet that he did not know any of that poet's work, or indeed from his failure to mention a poet by name that neither poet nor poetry were known to him. Moreover it is probably inappropriate to think, as I initially did, in terms of comparison with the whole range of writers of this period. Each of these writers has his own agenda, and the two texts that are our most prolific sources of poetic quotation, Plutarch and Athenaeus, can each be explained differently. Plutarch uses poetry to reinforce various types of argument in the so-called Moralia, but Plutarch's citation is at its most frequent in Oy,aestiones Convivates, largely, I would guess, because of their sympotic frame. The frequency of citation is much lower in the Lines." Athenaeus in his Deipnosophistae has invented a gathering in which he and his personae loquentes---or indeed loquaces-are keen to adduce evidence for their arguments from an ostentatiously wide and sometimes recondite range ofpoetry. A quite different agenda drives Pausanias the periegete, hence the remarkable range of his poetic quotation, which includes some very rare figures. If Aristides is compared only with those second- and third- century figures to whom his rhetorical activity brings him closer, Dio of Prusa, Maximus of Tyre and Philostratus of Athens, he begins to look less odd. The following paragraphs set out some aspects of these three writers' habits of quotation for comparison. 10 'Almost' certainly, because the lion, UVtL of Or. 3.676 cannot easily be accommodated in the poem of frr. 185-187West. Note that Dio contrasted Archilochus' vixen with Homer's lions at 55.IO. 11 See Bowie forthcoming (b). ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 13 Dio qf Prusa Dio mentions Sappho twice in the second Kingship Oration, at 2.28 and 64.3, but he never quotes her poetry. 12 The passage at 2.28 is that where Alexander, in dialogue with Philip, pronounces the poetry of Sappho and Anacreon unsuitable for princes, and commends instead Stesi- chorus and Pindar, and above all Homer, whom he judges preferable to Tyrtaeus. Later in this work (2.59) Dio has his character Alexan- der quote six lines of a Spartan embaterum which the scholiast plausibly identifies as a poem of Tyrtaeus; and at 2.62 Dio presents him as quot- ing, albeit with disapproval, Anacreon's I I -line prayer to Dionysus, the Nymphs and Aphrodite to secure him the current object of his desire, Cleobulus, fro 357 Page." Alcaeus, Aleman and Ibycus are not men- tioned at all by Dio. Stesichorus' Palinode is referred to at 2.13 and in the Trojan Oration, 11.41 (arguably merely paraphrasing Plato Phaedrus 243a); his widely cited 'IALO'll 3tEQOL£ is commended at 2.33 aAwow oux E3tOLrjOE 't'fi£ TQoLa£) in support of his claim to a prince's attention;" the point there made that he imitated Homer is repeated in Oration 55, OnHomer andSocrates, 55.6-7. The same point is made there about Archilochus, and Archilochus does indeed do rather better at Dio's hands than the poets I have so far mentioned. Later in Oration 55 Dio refers to the vixen of Archilochus (55.ro: 'AQXLA.OXO'll aAo>JtExa), presumably a reference either to frr. 172-181 West or to frr. 185-187 West. In the first Tarsian oration, Oration 33, Dio picks out Archilochus as a paradigm of an outspoken critic, the role that he himself is adopting towards the people of Tarsus. He shows knowledge of the secondary tradition about Archilochus' poetic gifts and his death (33.12), comparing and contrasting him with the praise- poet Homer. A little later, at 33.17, he cites the first two lines of four tetrameters, fro 114 West, on the better type of general, O't'Qa't'T]y6£, then paraphrases lines 3 and 4 in a way that suggests he had a text slightly different from that cited by Galen. Finally he invokes Archilochus again near the end of the speech (33.61). 12 [Dio] 37.47 quotes a line of Sappho, fro 147 Voigt, which may indeed be the reference of Aristides Or. 28.51 (see above), but this speech is generally agreed to be by Favorinus, not by Dio. 13 Dio is indeed our only source for the full text of this fragment, which may be a complete poem. 14 For citation of this poem in imperial Greek sources see frr. 196-204 Davies, and for its highlighting on Tabulae Iliacae, Horsfall 1979. EWENBOWIE Oration 60, Nessus or Deianeira, opens with a report of criticism of Archilochus for having his Deianeira deliver an almost epic narrative (Qa'ljJw60uouv) of her wooing by Achelous at the very point at which she is the victim of sexual assault by Nessus (fr. 286 West). Dio seems to know this poem and discussions of it, and his remarks are a valuable clue to its identification as one of Archilochus' now well-documented narrative elegies.15 Dio Oration 74, On Mistrust, also seems to know fro 173 West, though I suspect that his relation of it to Archilochus' prospective marriage to a member of Lycambes' family arises from his familiarity with the secondary tradition and not from a careful reading of the poem. Maximus ofTyre Maximus has an especially large number of citations of Anacreon and Sappho, concentrated in and prompted by his four Dialexeis on Eros (18-21 Trapp). Some 15 fragments of Sappho are cited in one para- graph of Dialexis 18, viz. 18.9, and these are Maximus' only citations of Sappho. The same paragraph has four of Maximus' citations of Anacreon. Anacreon is also mentioned in Maximus' list at Dialexis 37.5 of poets whose poetry either calmed or excited their audiences- Pindar, Tyrtaeus, Telesilla, Alcaeus and Anacreon. He has no citation of Alcaeus, and neither citation nor even mention of Aleman and Iby- cus, or of the elegists Callinus, Mimnermus and Theognis. Solon is mentioned several times, but not for his poetry. The one citation of Stesichorus, opening Dialexis 21.1, OUX E01;' E't1)!!O£ Myo£, ascribed by Maximus to the poet of Himera, 6 'I!!EQuto£ 'toLTJ'tT]£, in words that assign it to his Palinode, may well be taken from Plato Phaedrus 243a. The Palinode is, of course, the only poem of Stesichorus of which Aristides shows knowledge. Simonides also gets only one citation, the phrase XUAE:1tOV Eo{}A6v E!!!!EVaL, i.e. fro 542.13 Page, at Dialexis 30.1, where Max- imus ascribes it to an old song, XaLa :n:UAUWV ~ o ! ! u : this too may well come from Plato, in this case from Protagoras 339c. There is no men- tion of Bacchylides, but as with Aristides, albeit to a much lesser extent, there is some use of Pindar: perhaps the reference to Etna in Pythian 1.20 at Dialexis 5.4 and Dialexis 41.1; perhaps Pythian 3.1ff. for Chiron at 15 See Bowie 2001. ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY IS Dialexis 28.1. But there is only one verbatim citation, that of fro 213 Snell-Maehler, as the introductory text of Dialexis 12, the subject of which is whether it is right to commit injustice against somebody who has done so to onesel£ In this case Maximus seems very likely to have used a text of Pindar, since the earlier quotation which may have drawn the passage to his attention, by Plato in Republic 36Sb, constitutes only two of the four lines cited by Maximus. Like any author, of course, Maximus can come up with surprises: in his case the surprise is the citation of the first two lines of Ariphron's Paean to Hygieia, PMG fro 813 Page, described as an uQXaLov {lolla and not attributed nominatim to Ariphron." Philostratus ifAthens' Apollonius In his Apollonius Philostratus' chief poetic intertext is Homer, and there are also several citations of or allusions to Attic tragedy, especially to Euripides. Again lyric and elegiac poetry is rare. Archilochus figures twice: a reference to his 'shield' elegy, fro S West, at 2.7.2, and to his elegy addressed to Pericles on the occasion of the death of friends at sea, fro 13 West, at 7.26.2: in both cases the poet is named. Sappho's poetry is mentioned at 1.30, but nothing is quoted, nor is there any verbatim allusion. Pindar is twice cited: at 7.12.4, Pythian 1.10-13 is paraphrased (the lyre charms Ares), and at 6.26.2 Philostratus refers to a poem mentioning a i'laLIlOlv that watches over the source of the Nile (fr. 282 Snell-Maehler), Again, as with Archilochus, Pindar is named each time. The same locus, 6.26.2, has the only certain mention of Stesichorus, predictably of his Palinode, referred to by precisely this title: Stesichorus himself is called simply u V ~ Q 'IIlEQaLo£.17 The final lyric intertext of the Apollonius, as in the case of Maximus, is a surprise: at 3.17.2, Sophocles' Paean to Asclepius (PMGfro 737a Page)." 16 For the resurrection of Ariphron's Paean in the second century A.D. see Bowie 2006, 85--86. 17 4.II.S may also derive from the Palinode. 18 For a fuller discussion of the citations in Philostratus' Apollonius see Bowie forth- coming (a); for discussion of Sophocles' Paean in the second century A.D. see Bowie 2006, 84-85' 16 EWENBOWIE Aristides After these comparisons the thinness of the harvest from Aristides looks less surprising. Moreover it seems that one category of his compositions, I-tEAE'taL, is one in which citation of the poets was unusual. Aristides of course makes extensive use of the Iliadfor his Embassy to Achilles (Oration 16), but understandably he does not cite any of Book g-Book 9 had not been composed at the dramatic date of Oration 16! Or. 8.18 and Or. 11.65 refer to Tyrtaeus as a poet sent by Athens to help Sparta, but none of his poetry is quoted. Appeals to Athenians never cite Solon; those to Thebes never cite Pindar. I take this to be a feature of the genre, and think that this view is supported by the absence of poetic quotation in Polemo's two surviving I-tEAE't'aL. Where, then, does Aristides quote early poetry, and what is the basis of his choices? The speeches in which quotation abounds are Orations 2, 3, 28 and 45. 19 Oration 28is a special case to which I shall return. Orations 2 and 3 are attacking Plato and philosophers in defense of rhetoric, and it might be suggested that Aristides' habit of citation is something he has caught from philosophical writing. Oration 45, to Sarapis, may be Aristides' earliest extant work, perhaps from April 142A.D. 20 Here too a special explanation can be offered. In this Oration Aristides is setting out his case that prose has as strong a claim as poetry to be used for hymns to the gods: as has been well argued by Vassilaki, Aristides tackles this task first by citing poetry, and prominently Pindar's poetry, in order to criticize it, and then moves on to use allusion to the poets to achieve mimesis of poetry" In each case, however, we see the phenomenon that stands out in Aristides' citation of early poetry; his preference for citing Pindar. Often Pindar is the only early poet to be cited. Only twice are there speeches where another poet is cited and Pindar is not: in Or. 18.4, the monody for Smyrna, Aristides names Sappho and seems to paraphrase her (see 19 Perhaps Oration 20 should be added, but the presence of three Pindaric citations is hardly enough. 20 For the date of Oration 45 see Behr 1981,419. Behr's notes there (op. cit., 420-422), show how much citation from Homer is also to be found in this speech (and, at Or. 45.18, an allusion to Ariphron PMC fro 813 Page; cf above on Maximus of Tyre). Our other candidate for Aristides' earliest surviving work is The Rlwdian Oration 25, for whose Aristidean authorship see]ones 1990. For an analysis of Aristides' procedures in Oration 45 see Russell 1990, 201-209; Pernot 1993a, II, 642-645; Vassilaki 2005. 21 Vassilaki 2005, unfortunately unaware of Russell 1990. ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 17 above); the speech's only other poetic allusion is to Odyssey 6.231, which follows closely in Or. 18.4 and is not signalled. In the very short Oration to Heracles, at 40.6, Aristides' phrase 'tOUi; vouou; 'tOLi; O:ltAOLi; oUY'KEQavvui; mqy allude to the expression in Solon fro 36.15 West, 0J-t0ii re 'Kat bL'KTjV ;uvaQJ-tooai;, a line that it is clear from Or. 28.138 that he knew; but that there is an allusion here is far from certain. The big question, then, is 'Why Pindar?' It is a question to which there can be no certain answer." The citations attest Aristides' good knowledge and admiration not only for the epinicia but for several works of Pindar in other genres too. And within the epinicia he shows no knowledge of the Nemeans. To me the most persuasive explanation is that Aristides responded to Pindar's praise of the importance of outstanding natural capacities, which Aristides was convinced that he himself had, and of the importance of sustained effort in realizing these capacities, something Aristides was also more than ready to apply. Such praise could also be found in Bacchylides and, doubtless, already in epinicia of Simonides that we have lost: but no ancient critic questioned Pindar's poetic superiority. Dio in his second Kingship Oration picked out his AaJ-t:ltQo'tTj'ta 'tiii; cpuOEWi; (2.33), and his supremacy was affirmed unhesitatingly by Longinus' On the Sublime: 'tL M; EV JlEAEm JlUMOV av Elvm EAOLO Tl XUL EV 0 Xtoc Tl vi] dLa EJtEL()i] ol JlEV (i()LCX:7t'tOl'tOL xaL EV 't<p yAUqJlJQ<p miv'tT] XEXUMLYQUqJT]JlEVOL, 0 be XUL 0 o'tE JlEV olov :n:uV'tU E:n:L<pAEyoum 'tfj qJoQQ., ()' xaL:n:L:n:'toumv u'tuxEO'ta'tu. Take lyric poetry: would you rather be Bacchylides or Pindar? Take tragedy: would you rather be Ion of Chios or Sophocles? Ion and Bac- chylides are impeccable, uniformly beautiful writers in the polished man- ner; but it is Pindar and Sophocles who sometimes set the world on fire with their vehemence, for all that their flame often goes out without reason and they collapse dismally. (Longinus, On the Sublime 33.5, Trans. D.A. Russell) The last comment of Longinus also gives us a hint of why Pindar might seem an especially kindred spirit to Aristides. The phrase 'their flame often goes out without reason and they collapse dismally' could well have been spoken of the early part of Aristides' own career. 22 For other respects in which Aristides shared the outlooks and ideas of Pindar cf Vassilaki 2005, 331-335. 18 EWENBOWIE This may, or may not, be a satisfactory account of why in citing lyric poetry Aristides often looked no further than Pindar. The speech where he clearly does look much further is Oration 28, :7tEQL 'tOu :7tuQuqJt}eYllu'tO!;, Concerning a Digression (usually translated Concerning a Remark in Passing). The speech purports to have been provoked by a criticism made of an incident when Aristides, in the middle of delivering an oration in praise ofAthena (our Oration 37, in Keil's view), departed from his text to voice some praise of himself and his own eloquence. His aim in Oration 28 is to amass canonical classical precedents for self-praise. In doing so he moves fairly systematically through Greek literature: Homer the poet at section 19; Hesiod at 20-24; gods and heroes as presented in Homer at 25 to 48; Apollo's oracles at 48; Sappho at 51; Aleman at 51 to 54. Then at 55 to 58 he offers five quotations from Pindar (see my Table). These quotations are followed by several citations of which the first are explicitly ascribed to Simonides, and the following six are presented as if Aristides believes that they are also from Simonides. The problems raised by this sequence may be of more interest to the investigators of the transmission of Simonides' epigrams, and of the existence of a Sylloge Simonidea, than they are to scholars working on Aristides, but the problem casts light on how Aristides may have operated in seeking out appropriate poetic quotations, so I shall review it briefly. At Or. 28.60, after reminding his audience of the 'moderation of Simonides' ('ttlV yE 'tOu oWqJQomJV'I]V, Or. 28.59), Aristides cites two fragments of elegiac poetry that could be either from an elegy or from an elegiac epigram (Simonides fro 89 West2), and must have been thought by Aristides to be by Simonides: I-tvtil-t!l b' oihLVU qJTJI-tL and then 6ybW'ltoV'tUEtEL:rrmbl This pentameter also appears as the sixth line of Further Greek Epigrams 'Simonides' 28, part of a couplet quoted by Plutarch On Whether Old Men Should Engage in Politics 3 (Mor. 78sA):23 the full six lines of this poem are cited first by Syrianus on Hermogenes (Rabe, 86), where their author is not named. 23 Page adloe. does not note the appearance of 28.6 at fro 89.2 West. ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 19 Then at Or. 28.63 Aristides cites Further Greek Epigrams 'Simonides' 21 and 38. His citation of ,Simonides' 21 is a version of the two-liner on the batde of Marathon quoted by Lycurgus at lO8-lO9: the first line is the same, :7tQ0!1Uxo'iivtEi; 'A'frTjVULOL MUQU'fr&VL. In Aristides, however, the second line, the pentameter, runs EX'tELVUV EWEU whereas in Lycurgus it is XQ'UooqJoQwv EOLOQEOUV MVU!1LV. Page (1981, 229) was surely right to argue that Lycurgus' version is to be preferred, and that it may have been inscribed beside the Soros on the plain of Marathon. 'Simonides' 38 is a couplet on the fallen at Byzantium (for the problem of its date see Page 1981, 253): Aristides is the only source for this epigram. Next, at Or. 28.64, Aristides cites the eight lines of ,Simonides' 45, a poem he was to quote again almost twenty years later, at Or. 3.140- 141. These eight lines are also known from Diodorus Siculus 11.62.3 and Anthologia Palatina 7.296: among other indications that the epigram is indeed from the fifth century E.G. is its imitation in an epigram inscribed at Xanthus in Lycia at the end of that century" The next citation follows immediately, at Or. 28.64: it is of the first line and the opening of the second line of the four-line version of 'Simonides' 3 that was current throughout antiquity, from IG I 334 and IG 1 2 394 through Herodotus 5.77.2 to Diodorus Siculus lO.24.3 and Anthologia Palatina 6.343 (see Page 1981, 191-193):25 l!tIvw Bouordrv xaL XaAXLMwv 'A'Ih]vaLwv At Or. 28.65 Aristides moves from Attic examples, which he concedes might be overheated, to Doric: first he cites 'Simonides' 22a, known from Herodotus 7.228.1 and also found in Diodorus 11.33 and Antholo- gia Palatina 7.248; then 'Simonides' 12, of which the first couplet is known from Plutarch On the Meanness ofHerodotus 39 (Mor. 870E) and Anthologia Palatina 7.250. Aristides, however, is our only source for lines 3-6. This substantial sequence concludes with a taunt by Aristides to his critic: 'So this is the right time for you mock these men as loqua- cious corpses who do not know how to remain calm' (WOLE wQu om OXW:7tLELV uii'tovi; Wi; MoMOXUi; 'tLVai; VEXQOVi; 'Kat OUX etM'tai; 24 TAM 1.44.1 =Kaibel Ep.Gr. 768 =CEG 888. 25 IG 1 2 394 has the line order 3-2-1-4. ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 21 were grouped according to their metrical category (as for example in editions of Archilochusj." Conclusions Conclusions can be briefly stated. Aristides' knowledge of early Greek lyric, elegiac and iambic poetry cannot be demonstrated to range as widely as that of some of his contemporaries, but he probably knew much more than he chose to quote, and it was only for particular purposes that he quoted these (or other) poets liberally in his work. Of the poets of this and indeed oflater periods it is above all Pindar whom he cites most often, partly, I argue, because he saw a kindred spirit in his occasionally flawed brilliance. When it was needed, however, he could amass citations from poets whom he hardly mentions elsewhere, like Simonides and Solon in Oration 28, apparently enjoying access to a collection of Simonides' poetry comprising elegiac, epigrammatic and perhaps lyric poetry, and to an edition of Solon's poetry that had at least trochaic tetrameter and iambic trimeter poems. 26 Note too that the iambics quoted in Ath. Pol. 12.5 (= fro 37 West) would also have suited Aristides' purpose but are not quoted by him here, though he does quote fro 37.9- IO West at Or. 3.547. 22 EWENBOWIE Citations by speeches in the numerical order of the editions of Lenz-Behr and Keil: an asterisk indicates that Aristides is our only source for the fragment: Orn. Alcaeus Aleman Archilochus Pindar fro 76.2 (DithAth.3) @401, also?@9 & 124 27 [also @Or. 8.21, Or. 20.13] 2 437V@*464 107P@*129 259W@406 01.2.94-96 @109 (a shot in the 01. 9.27-29 & dark) 100-102 @11OPy. 2. 94-96 @230 Py. 8.95 @148 fro 38 (?Persephone hymn) @*1l2 [also @ Or. 3.466] fro31 (?Zeus hymn) @ *420 fro 81 (Dith. 2)+fr.169.16-17 @229--230 fro 169 1--6 @26 28 3 112V 29@298 108P@294 3o 124W, 167W & fro37 @*37 ( + ~ 164P@82 31 172W or an-other fro38 (?Persephone Lycambes poem hymn) @* 466 [also @611 185-187W @Or. 2.112] fr.32 @664&?676 (Zeus hymn) @ 620 32 fro95 @191 [also @Or. 42.12] fr.260 @478 33 4 Is. 4.48 (66) @27 8 fro 76.2 (DithAthen.3) @21 [also @ Or. 1.401, Or. 20.13] 17 01.1.37 @3 Py. 3.43@4 27 EQUJ.lU not EQELOJ.lU. 28 Extent and form are those of the citation in PI. Gorg. 484b, but lines 16-17 are cited by Aristides at 229. 29 Also known from ~ Aes. Pets. 352 and Soph. O.T. 56, P. Berolin. 9569 (first century A.D.) 30 Aristides in the first instance is quoting Plato (whom he names) Laws 705a: the scholiast on Aristides cites Aleman I08P in comparison, as does Arsenius for the similar proverb (Apostol. Cent. 2.23 (ii 271L-S)). 31 Aleman, according to the scholiast, but not named by Aristides. 32 Also Plut, de I}th. or. 6 (Mor. 397A), animo procr. 33 (Mor. I030A). 33 P. Harris 21=1113SM. ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 23 Sappho 34V@1l Simonides 582P at 97 34 45FGE@140, [also @Or. 28.64] Solon lW @ 549 35 5W@ 547 36 37.9-10W @ 547 cf. 548 Stesichorus Pal @128, 166 Pal@234 Pal@557 Pal@8 34 Widely known, e.g [Plut] reg. et imp. apoph. 207C, IG 14.2136. 35 The Salamis, cited Pluto Solon 8.2. 36 Cited Pluto Solon 18.5, Popl. 25.6, cf. Solon 25; [Ar.] Ath.Pol. 12.1. 24 EWENBOWIE Orn. Alcaeus Aleman Archilochus Pindar 18 20 01. 1.26-27@? 19 fro 75. 14-15 (Ditk. Athen. 2) @ 21 [also @ Or. 46.25] fro 76.2 (DitkJ1then. 3) @13 [also @401, Or. 8.21] 21 01. 1.26-27 & 49 @10 23 112V@68 37 Py. 9.95 +~ @36 24 01.7.58-68?@50 25 112 V@64 38 01.7.54-68 @29 01. 7.49-50 @ 30 26 fro 329@p9 27 fr.l08al (Hyporchemata) @2 [also @Or. 33.1] 28 30P@*51 01. 2.94-96 @55 106P & 148P fro 52£. 1-6 (Delph. @*54 Paean 6) @58 fro 194.1-3 & 4-6 @*57 fro 237 @*56 37 Also known from ~ Aes. Pers. 352 and Soph. O.T. 56, P. Berolin. 9569 (first century A.D.) 38 Also known from ~ Aes. Pers. 352 and Soph. O.T. 56, P.Berolin. 9569 (first century A.D.). 39 C£ ~ cod. Paris. 2995, Hermes 48 (1913) 319. ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 25 Sappho 196V@4 40 193V at 51 (?= 55,65 or 147) Simonides 89W2 @* 60 42 21 FGE@63 4338 FGE@*6345 FGE@ 64, also @ Or. 3.140-141]44 3.2-3FGE@64 45 22a FGE @65 46 12 FGE [= Plut.de rnaHdt. 39, AP 7.250] @66 47 PMG 947a&b @67. 48 34.6-7W and 36.3- 27W extensively @ 137-140 49 Solon 5W@14 41 Stesichorus 40 IILaljYlh;LQov or is this a recollection of 3UI and lO5(a)? 41 Cited Pluto Solon 18.5, Popl. 25.6, cf Solon 25; [Ar.] Ath.Pol. 12.1. 42 Line 2 = 28.6 FGE. 43 But Aristides cites a different pentameter from Lycurgus inLeoer. lO8-lO9: E'K'tELvav EVVEU instead of XQuompoQwv EO'toQEoav For the problem, FGE, 225-231. 44 = AP 7.296= Diod. Sic. II.62.3. 45 = Hdt. 5.77-4- 46 = Hdt. 7.228; cf Page 1981, 228. 47 Aristides offers two couplets following the single couplet in Plutarch and AP. 48 Stesichorus: Wilamowitz 1913, 150ff. with n. 3; Orsini and Bergk thought Simoni- dean, contra Boas 1905, 95. 49 Citing explicitly from the Tetrameters and from the Iamboi. 26 EWENBOWIE Orn. Aleaeus Aleman Archiloehus 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 56P@7 42 43 44 45 50 The first of three lines quoted by Strabo 17.1.19, 802C. 51 Also P1ut. QC 1.2.4(Mor. 617C), ~ THorn. Il. lOO. Pindar 01.9.27@16 fro 136a (?Threnoz) @*12 fro 129.7 (Threnoz) @34 fr.l08al-3 (Hyporchemata) @1 [also Or. 27.2] 01. 1.25, 44 @25 Py. 3.83 @8 fro 182 @* 5 fro 226 @*5 fro 201.1 @112 50 fr.146 51 ?fr. 33e-d @12 01.7.7@16 fro 99 @*6 fro 283 @?6 fro 95 @12 [also @Or. 3.191] fro 35a@*30 ?fr. 33c5 @ 14 01.3.11-14 & 26,52 01. 6.43 & 50 @3 01.6.99,7.44 @25 01. 8.47 @3 Py 6.11 @13Py 8.2, 9.39 @24 Py 9.39 @24 Py 9.68,12.1 @33 Isth, 3.70, Isth, 4.52 @3 fro 52£.5-6 (Delphi Paean 6) @3 fro 52h (Delos Paean 7).13-14 or Isth, 8.62 @13 fro 150.1 @3 fr.dub 350-353 @*3 fr.dub 354-355 @*13 ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 27 Sappho Simonides 528@*2 Solon ?36.15-16W @6 Stesichorus Pal @ 2=* fro 24lP Or n. Alcaeus 46 50 Aleman EWENBOWIE Archilochus Pindar fro 75.14-15 (Ditk. Athen. 2) @ 25 [also @Or. 20.21] 01.2.1 @ 31 ?fr. 52.35 (Abdera Paean) @42 Is. 8.92 @45, cf Or. 45.13 52 For a list of Pindaric reminiscences in Oration 45 (arranged by section and includ- ing her own proposals, which I accept here) see Vassilaki 2005, 336-337. ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 29 Sappho Simonides (ref. to Dioscuri story) 510P @36 Solon Stesichorus CHAPTER TWO AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES: SOME REMARKS ABOUT THE PANATHENAIC ORATION* ESTELLE OunOT 'We did not choose the task of writing a jejune history, of narrating the deeds of the city (...). But we chose to mention its most famous actions in war, and as far as possible to omit none of the city's good qualities. This cannot be, if we discuss each point fully, but only if we omit no category of praise'. 1 This assertion comes in the middle of the Panathenaic Discourse ofAris- tides. If Plato is clearly, for this orator, the most debated author from the classical Greek past, as is clear from the three Discourses where he defends rhetoric-especially against the criticisms of the Gorgias2- history too really falls into his field of thought. His relation to history was shaped by his rhetorical training which, especially thanks to the progymnasmata, gave him a very precise and deep knowledge of historians," above all Herodotus, Thucydides, Ephorus, Diodorus, and led him finally to write meletai like the Leuctran Orations and the Sicilian Orations:' I have chosen to focus this paper on the way Aristides reads, uses and rewrites the History of Thucydides- Thucydides who, according to the rhetor, 'seems to excel by far the other writers of history not only in the power and dignity of his expres- sion, but also in factual accuracy' (... o£ ou f.LOVOV 'tfi 'tWV Mywv bUVUf.LEL • I should like to thank Professors Ruth Webb and William Harris for improving the English translation of this paper. 1 Panathenaic Oration 230; cf. also sect. 90. We follow the structure drawn up by F.W Lenz and CA. Behr (Leiden, 1976-1980). We generally followBehr's translation, sometimes slightlychanged. 2 Or. II (To Plato: inDifence ofOratory), Or. III (To Plato: inDefence cfthe Four); Or. IV (To C a p i t ~ . Pernot 1993b,322-327. 3 Nicolai 1992, 297-339. On the use of history in the progym:nasmata themselves. Bompaire 1976; Anderson 1993, 47-51; Webb 2001, 301-303. 4 More exactly On Sending Reinforcements to Those in Sicil;y (pernot 1981). See for example Russell 1983, 112-115; Gasca 1992a and 1992b. ESTElLE OUDOT xul osuvomn, u'A.M xul 'tft 'twv :1tQuy!-t<i'twv :1t'A.EL<TtOV :1tQOEXELV 'tWV OVYYQUqJEWV 60xEi:).5 The best way to evaluate the relationship between the rhetor of the Second Sophistic and this very significant intellectual figure" is probably to examine it through the Panathenaic Oration. Indeed, this work stands out for several reasons. Firstly, this long celebration of Athens-a speech delivered in the city, during the Panathenaic festival, probably during the reign of Antoninus Pius or of the joint rulers Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus 7-is, for the most part, a historical narrative." Aristides plans to prove the essential qualities of Athens (her UQELaL), which appear to be original (they pre-existed the birth of the Athenians) through the city's actions EQYU).9 By choosing this way (which is a manner of adjusting the topic),'? Aristides gives a real history of the city, from the mythical autochthony up to Macedonian conquest, and therefore it is not surprising that Thucydides' narrative (including remembrance of the Persian Wars, the 'Fifty-Years' period and the Peloponnesian War) corresponds in many ways to Aristides' Panathenaic Oration. 11 5 Or. III (To Plato: in Difence qfthe Four). 20. Cf also section 23, on the reliability of the historian's portrait of Pericles: 'He reports this, not to press a personal quarrel, nor are all these references for the use of his argument, nor for a single proposition, but in his history and narrative he simply thus reports the truth, as when he narrates the invasion of the Peloponnesians or any other event of his time.' 6 C£ for instance Sacred Tales Iv. 14-15, one of the many occasions where the god Asclepios encourages Aristides to practice oratory: 'While I rested in Pergamum because of a divine summons and my supplication, I received from the god a command and exhortation not to abandon oratory. It is impossible to say through the length of time whatever dream came first, or the nature of each or the whole. It bifitsyou tospeak in the manner qf Socrates, Demosthenes, andThucydides... '. See, for example, Schmitz 1999. 7 Behr (1968,87-88 and 1994, §8) suggests the year AD 155,while Oliver (1968,32- 34) comes down to the year 167, basing his conviction both on Eleusis' destruction by the Costoboci in 170('the tone in which Aristides discusses the wars and festivalswould have been irritatingly false soon after the shocking sack of Eleusis', p. 33) and on the significance of the word VLKyJ which could reflect the military successes of Lucius Verus over the Parthians in 164-165. Follet (1976, 331--333) implicidy agrees with the overall argumentation of Oliver, but corrects the date to 168 (333n. 2): it must be an even year, given the changes in the calendar introduced by Hadrian. 8 Sections 75-321 (out of 404 sections) are devoted to historical deeds of Athens: mythical times (78--91), Persian Wars (92-209), wars in defence of the Greeks (210-227), Peloponnesian war (228--263), wars against the Greeks (264-313), war against Philip of Macedon (314-316), epilogue of the deeds performed in war (317-321). 9 Oudot 2006. 10 Pernot 1993b, 325. 11 Two scholars have investigated the historical sources of Aristides' Panathenaic Ora- tion: Haury (1888), wishing to improve A. Haas' conclusions, according to which Aris- AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 33 But the reason why this particular discourse is to be studied is deeper. Indeed we may wonder how such an encomium of Athens, which is based on the continuity of the Athenian virtues, can deal with Thucy- dides' historical analysis describing the development of Athens' hege- mony. How to deal with all the debates in Thucydides about the nature of Athenian Moreover, this question cannot fail to take another element into account: in Thucydides' work, Pericles' funeral oration clearly serves as an archetype for Aristides-a text to which he alludes several times in his discourse." Pericles' oration is significant, first, by setting a topic and a division into three periods which Aristides takes up again and adapts. But above all, this is significant because, in some way, Pericles and Aristides intend to do the same thing-that is to explain Athens' excellence--in Pericles' case on the basis of the char- acter ('CQO:ltOL) and the behaviour of the inhabitants," in Aristides' case on the basis of the original which is embodied in the city's char- acter and can be seen through its actions. In other words, both mean to explain the sense of the history of a city through its people's national character. So we read, on the one hand, of the controversial hegemony of Athens, which Thucydides deals with at length, on the other hand, a structural model for praise. Such are the two conflicting aspects of what the historian's work means for the Panathenaic Oration of Aristides. To begin with, I would like to consider sections 322-329, which represent a turning point in the oration." In general, we can note that tides would draw his historical knowledge only from the works of authors who have come down to us, concluded that Aristides' main source of information was Ephorus- a conclusion which was convincingly disputed by Beecke 1905. 12 See for example the cutting remark in section 4, where Aristides, reviewing the writers who in the past claimed to speak properly of Athens, mentions the authors of funeral orations: ol /)f; EV 'tWV aJ'to1'}aVOvtooV J'tQoOELQT]Xamv. Blot {)E ot xav OUX {)ul 'twv J'tQa;Eoov aM' E'tEQav hQaJ'tovto, E!LOt {)OXELV, YEvEcr1'}m'twv J'tQaY!La'toov, oux E;oo !LEV nou ljJo13ov, aM' oiitrn J'tOAAOii EMTloav J'tEQt J'tav'toov yE'twv uJ'taQXov'toov 'tfj J'tOAEL {)te;EA1'}ELv ('others, in their funeral orations, saluted some of the dead. And among these some did not carry their narrative through the deeds of the city as is customary, but went another way, in fear, as it seems to me, of being inferior to their theme, but in this way they were far from recounting all of the city's attributes'). C£ Thucydides 11.36.4: 'The military exploits whereby our several possessions were acquired, whether in any case it were we ourselves or our fathers that valiantly repelled the onset of war, Barbarian or Hellenic, 1 will not recall, for 1 have no desire to speak at length among those who know' (transl, C.F. Smith). 13 Thuc. 11.36.4. 14 See the structure of the discourse (a draft whose grounds are the kephalaia) in Pernot 1993b,324. 34 ESTElLE OUDOT the speech is divided into two main parts---deeds in peacetime and deeds in wartime-which are both meant to illustrate the boundless philanthropia of the Athenian people. But now we come to a transition from this historical part to the praise of the Attic language. This passage is a real turning point in the oration, and certainly, as].H. Oliver said, 'the key passage of the whole oration':" Athens' superiority, as Aristides suddenly says, is not one of a historical kind, which would be based upon her political and military rule. Therefore, all that takes place before in the speech-namely the first two thirds of the discourse- is, somehow, entirely erased. No, Athens' real superiority is actually based on her dialect, and on everything that is connected with the Attic tongue, that is eloquence, literature, education, a form of life «HaL'ta) and a set of specific values. This text is all the more interesting, in that it appears to be a real manifesto against Thucydides, and I would like to show that Aristides distinguishes himself from the historian on two levels. Firstly, the ora- tor plans to define Athens' dunamis in contrast with Thucydides, and secondly, broadly speaking, while bringing history and encomium face to face, Aristides implicitly ponders over the right literary form to deal with Athens in the imperial era. In other words, how is Athens' mem- ory to be dealt with within the Roman Empire? At section 322 Aristides explicitly puts an end to the strictly historical part of his work: And enough about these matters. But I shall not stop before I discuss a subject which, as far as we know, no one has mentioned up to this time in these public recitals of praise. 16 For it seems to me as it were improper to praise actions with speech and then to omit mentioning the part of speech itself (Kol ya.Q WO:n:EQ ou ttqJ.L'tov J-tOL qJULVE'taL 'to.\; :n:QU!;EL\; KOOJ-tOUV'tu 'tOU KU't' uu'tOU\; 'tOU\; A6you\; J-tEQOU\; :n:UQEAttELV 'tT]V J-tVELUV)Y You alone of mankind have erected 'a bloodless trophy' (UVULJ-tUK'tOV 'tQo:n:mov), as the expression goes, not by defeating the Boeotians, or Lacedaemonians, or Corinthians, ... but the whole human race---and you have won an honoured and great victory for all time, not like 15 Oliver 1968, 14. 16 See sections 4-5 of the Proem where Aristides evokes the different kinds of works that failed to speak worthily of the city. 17 This sentence again echoes the Proem (section 2), where Aristides claims that there cannot be a more fitting way to honour Athens, which provides the right 'foster- ing of studies and oratory' KUt avi}Qum:ou, EV !!u'lh1!!um KUt than by using eloquence itself AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 35 the disputed battle at Tanagra.l" nor, by Zeus, like that at Marathon, which was an outstanding success, but a victory truly suited to mankind, continuous 'tT]V :n:QE:n:ouauv avtl'Qwmp %UL I)LT]VE%i'j) ... For all the cities and the races of mankind turned to you and your form of life, and dialect ('i\:n:uam yaQ ut %UL :n:av'ta 'to. 'tOOV avtl'Qw:n:wv yEVT] %UL 'tT]V U!J.E'tEQUV I)Lm'taV%UL qJWVT]V a:n:E%ALvE). [323] And the power of the city is not contained in the establishment of garrisons, but in the fact that all men of their own accord have chosen your ways and enrolled themselves as far as possible into the city, praying that their sons and they themselves may have a share in the beauty which is yours (%UL ou auvEXE'tm, aAM :n:aV'twv 'to. U!J.E1:EQU TIQT]!J.EVWV %UL da:n:mouV'twv I)uvu'tov'tti :n:OAEL, auVEUXO!J.EVWV %UL :n:maL %UL 'tOil :n:uQ' U!J.LV %UAoil And a little further on he writes: [326] You Lacedaemonians and all other Greeks, I say that every day this proof of the city's victory is still confirmed by you yourselves and especiallyby the first men among you; they have abandoned their native dialects and would be ashamed to speak in the old way even among themselves with witnesses present. And all men have come to accept this dialect, in the belief that it is as it were a mark of education. [327] This I call the great empire of the Athenians, not two hundred triremes, or more, not Ionia, or the Hellespont, or the regions in Thrace, which have changed their rulers countless times (Tuu'tT]v eyw 'tT]V !J.EyaAT]V aQXT]v %UAOO 'tT]v 'Atl'T]VULWV, OU oM' 'lwvLuv, oM' oMe 'to. e:n:L a According to Aristides, the real dunamis of Athens is by no means based on a geographically limited area, gained through a small-scale victory over three of her nearby neighbours. Her empire is not a military one, one which could be quantified through the number of triremes and which would be maintained by garrisons, an empire subject to changes (metabolaz) and, finally, a time-limited one. In fact, this picture is completely reversed: Athens' victory is no longer a limited one, but is now universal, both in time (it is permanent and unceasing) and in space (all peoples are concerned). Moreover this new kind of rule settled down peacefully-with 'bloodless trophies'-and acts upon the whole human race as a gravitational force does, without constraint. 18 C£ section 220. See Thuc. 1.107-109 and Diodorus XI.80.2-6. Haury based himself on the discrepancy between Aristides and Thucydides on the battle ofTanagra, among others, to state that the rhetor uses Ephorus (Haury 1888, 22). This thesis overlooks the conscious rewriting Aristides undertakes of Thucydides' historical work, which we attempt to demonstrate in this article. ESTElLE OUDOT In the perspective of this paper, what matters is the expression M- VUI1LI; 'tfjl; :n:aAEwl;, as it is used in section 329: 1\ll of your oratory in all of its forms and that which others have written in your tradition is excellent; and almost all orators, who have been fully successful among the Greeks, have been successful through the power of the Athenians' (UA:n:UV'tEI; M ol MyOL mrvnov 'tWV ol :n:ug' UI1LV agLO'tOL xut oUI; ol :n:ug' UI1WV E:n:OLTJOUV, oXEMv ol :n:uV'tWV EV "EAATJOL VLXtlOUV'tEI; <i:n:uV'tEI; 'tfi 'tWV 'Ath)VULWV VEVLXtlXUOLV). Athens' 'power' clearly stands out as a central point of Pericles' famous argument in Thucy- dides' Book II. Concluding a first step of his argument, the Athenian statesman declares that Athens is 'the school of Hellas', that the Athe- nians are a sort of a comprehensive person able to perform all kinds of actions, 'with versatility' (EU'tgU:n:EAWI;), and he goes on to say: 'That this is no mere boast inspired by the occasion, but actual truth, is attested by the very power of your city, a power which we have acquired in consequence of these qualities' (Ked WI; ou Mywv EV 't<p :n:ugaV'tL xal1- :n:OI; l1iiAAOV 11 Egywv aAtll'tELU, uu'tf] MVUf.LLI; 'tfjl; :n:aAEwl;, ilv a:n:o 'tWV 'tga:n:wv EX'tTJOUI1El'tu, OTJI1ULVEL).19 The dunarnis of Athens is then clearly portrayed as a military and political one;" it is power over allied peoples, and it has to resist the enemy. This power is above all based on Athens' naval forces," it has 'compelled every sea and every land to grant access to the daring [sc. of the Athenians]', and has 'ev- erywhere planted everlasting memorials (I1VTJI1ELU both of evil and of good'," Now in Pericles' oration, the power of Athens illustrates a definite Athenian virtue-audacity (tolrna): 'Nay rather you must daily fix your gaze upon the power of Athens ('tf]V 'tfjl; :n:6A.Ewl; MVUI1LV xul't' Egycp l'tEWI1EVO'UI;) and become lovers of her, and when the vision of her greatness has inspired you, reflect that all this has been acquired by men of courage ('tOAI1WV'tEI;) .. .'.23 19 Thuc. 11.41.2. 20 Cf also 11.41.4 and 43.1, and besides, for example, 1.72.1; 1.93.3; I.II8.2; 1.121.3; 11.62·3; 11.64.3; 11.65·5; V.44· 1; V.95· 1; VI·7 6.1; VI·92·5; VII-42.2; VII.77-7· 21 Thuc. 1.121.3. See also 11.62.2-3. 22 Thuc. 11.414- 23 Thuc. 11.43.1. C£ also 1.144.4: Pericles recalls to his fellow-citizens that their fathers 'by their resolution more than by good fortune and with a courage greater than their strength beat back the Barbarian and advanced our fortunes to their present state' (yvOOf.lTI re ltA.EOVL 'tUXTI 'Kut 'tOA.f.lTI c'\lJVUf.lEL 'tOV re UltEOOauV'to 'Kut E'; 'tUc'\E uiJ'tu) (transl, C.F. Smith). AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 37 Boldness ('tOA.!J.u) is one of the main virtues praised by Pericles in his funeral oration. He dwells on the remarkable way his fellow citizens put this quality into practice. As their bravery ('to EihlJ1JXOV) is innate, they can be bold, while avoiding tiring physical training (Q<;t{}U!J.L<;t !J.UA- AOV t) novcov!J.EAE-tU),24 living instead unconstrained (avEL!J.EvWl; ()LaL'tW!J.E- VOL),25 because they are able to think and argue (AoyLO!J.ol;) and decide (XQLOLl;).26 Such a portrayal of the Athenians is both foretold and confirmed in the speech delivered by the Corinthians in front of the Spartan Apella in Book I-this text is well-known to Aristides, who quotes it verbatim in the second Leuctran Discourse," The Corinthians depict Athenian activism and vigour as dangerous to other peoples. Pericles' speech is thus mirrored in this famous antithetical presentation, where the Athenians are depicted in contrast with the idle and procrastinating Lacedaemonians. According to the Corinthian envoys, the Athenians are fundamentally aggressive and innovative (they are VEw'tEQonOLoL),28 they are prone to imagine new projects (EnLVOijOaL 01;ELl;)29 and high- risk actions, they are not reluctant to move (ano()1]!J.1]'tUL).30 And the Corinthians conclude thus: 'Therefore if a man should sum up and say that they were born neither to have peace themselves nor to let other men have it, he would simply speak the truth' (... wmE EL 'tLl; UU'tO'Ul; 1;UVEAWV qJUL1] nEqJuxEVaL Ent 't{fl !J.tl'tE UULOUl; EXELV ~ O U X L U V !J.tl'tE LOUl; aAAoul; aV{}Qwnoul; Eav, OQ{}Wl; av dnOL),31 The issue at stake now is whether the new meaning of Athenian dunamis in the Panathenaic Oration (that is, the dunamis of the logoi, the cultural empire of Athens) corresponds to a new interpretation of the behaviour of the Athenian people." 24 Thuc. 11.3904- 25 Thuc. 11.39.1. Cf. also 1.6.3. 26 On the development of Pericles' analysis through his discourses, cf. de Romilly 1947,9g- 136. 27 Or. XI1.60. 28 Thuc. 1.70.; cf. also I.I02.3. 29 Ibid. 30 Thuc. 1.70.4. 31 Thuc. 1.70.9. See also the arguments used by the Corinthians to urge their allies to bring help to the Potidaeans: 'Vote for the war, not fearing the immediate danger, but coveting the more enduring peace which will result from the war. For peace is more firmly established when it follows war, but to refuse to go to war from a desire for tranquillity is by no means so free from danger' (1.124.2) (transl. C.F. Smith). 32 In the Panathenaic Oration, the Athenian people is generally viewed as one person, with a unity of character and endowed with a consistency both of acts and convic- ESTElLE OUDOT Boldness and bravery (av6QEtu, EU'IjJUXLu, xUQ'tEQLu, 'tOAJ-tU)33 can be found throughout Aristides' discourse, but these virtues are in a way always neutralised," for they are systematically linked with terms falling within the semantic field of kindness, clemency (emEtxELu),35 even tem- per (:n:Q<;lO'tTji;),36 piety generosity (J-tEYUAO'IlruxLu),38 andjustice (6LXaLOOUVTj).39 All these virtues are both crowned and summed up by philanthropia (a term which Thucydides does not use). In fact, in the whole Panathenaic Oration, the nature of the city and her inhabitants is twofold and, far from cancelling one another out, these two aspects complete each other in order to form a full and perfect wisdom (oorptc). I would like to consider, by way of illustration, the account of an event which took place during the year 48r Be, when the Athenians, in the congress at the Isthmus, yielded the naval leadership to the Peloponnesians: 'When the Athenians had shown such great enthusiasm for the safety of all men, and made such a great contribution to the common need, and were all-important (...), [they added] such even temper (:n:Qc;,xo'tTji;) and nobility (J-tEyuAo'IjJuXLu), so that they conceded to others a formal leadership, and did not argue the matter (...). How can such conduct fail to prove that they tions (for example, Pa:nathenaic Oration 308: 'It will be obvious that the Athenian people in their remarkable decisions has taken up the character of one man, the best one'- lpuvt']aE'taL yaQ, a IlEV 'tou rtorou), In a general way, the city of Athens is endowed by Aristides with an (for example 138, 223) and a lpvau; (8-10, 15, and 255-when Athens had to face the maOLa: in the nature of mankind the city was diseased, but it was cured by its own nature; see also 301-306 'tWV 3tQUYlla'twv lpVOLV), 3II). 33 f\V6QEla: 81-82 (where Aristides says that he just showed 'proofs, chosen from ancient examples, both of courage and of generosity', 'tUll'tL IlEV ovv XOLVU 6ElYIlU'tU, 03tEQ E'GtOV, rs XUL 1J3tUQXE'tW 'tWV aQxulwv E!;ELAEYIlEVU), 107 (av6Quyuttla), 196, 203, 213, 222, 257, 345, 393· Ell1jJllXla: 89, 133, 134, 160, 244, 257· KUQ'tEQlu: 145, 154, 233, 317. TOAIlU and related terms: II4, 127, 133, 138, 159, 223, 250, 254, 25 6, 3 17. 34 See for instance sect. 89 (lpLAuvftQw3tlu and E1J'ljJllXlu), sect. 196 (the actions of the city are the 'demonstration of justice and true courage' ... xUL E3tl6EL!;LV ...); 213 ((}WIlT] and IlEyuAO'IVllXlu), 257 (E1J'ljJ1lXla and E3tLElxELU), 345 (av6QEluand lpLAuvttQw3tlu). 35 Sections 8, 81, 136, 257, 303, 308, 390, 392. This is precisely one of the three feelings, along with pity and delight in eloquence, identified by Thucydides' Cleon as being the most dangerous to Empire: see 111.40.2-3; Rengakos 1984, 58-65. 36 Sections 8, 137, 149, 372, 396. There is only one occurrence in Thucydides, in Iv.108.3, describing the Spartan Brasidas at Amphipolis. 37 Sections 154-155, 192, 372. 38 Sections 23, 67, 77, 92, 137, 142, 154, 179, 213. 39 Sections 45, 48, 81, 177, 195, 196, 227, 282, 293, 306--308, 313, 348, 361, 388. AELIUS AR1STIDES AND THUCYDIDES 39 already possessed every kind of wisdom and were the best of all men ... ?' (137).40 Another example is provided by the way Aristides alters one of Thucydides' explanations of how the Athenian empire reached its highest point. In an answer to the Corinthians, the Athenians of Thucydides justify their power successively by reference to fear (MOI;), honour ('U!!tl) and later self-interest (wqJEALa)Y In the Panathenaic Oration, the Athenians, acting like a single man, likewise, 'have followed the imperatives of empire' ('rfi 'tfjl; uQXfjl; uxoAou{h1aal; uvuyxU), but as soon as possible they 'in generosity, have voluntarily dispensed with the fear of empire' be 'to 'tfjl; uQXT)1; ()E()OLXOI; EXWV !!EttElI;...) and behaved with the greatest equity and moderation toward all (:ltAELO'tcp 'tep XOLVep xat !!E'tQLCP :ltQOI; a:ltav'tal; XQT)au!!Evol;).42 Moreover, their military dunamis is even supplanted by a force of a different kind. After Athens' defeat before Syracuse, Aristides downplays the heavy losses of the Athenian army, speaking instead of a renewed force, consisting of a set of moral qualities: 'It was not like a city deprived of its power, but one which now had acquired more. The calmness of their behaviour, their moderation, and the disciplined life which they chose so as not to make any shameful concessions could not be convincingly described' (...Kat !!EV 'tQO:ltWV dixOALav xat aWqJQolJ'livT)V xat 'tUSLV ()LaL'tT)I;, ijv V:ltEQ 'to'u !!T)()EV atOXQov auyxwQfjaaL :ltQOELAOV'tO, oM' av eLI; uSLWI; EIJtm).43 In fact, what is left of the portrait which Thucydides draws of the Athenians, in the Panathenaic Oration of Aristides? What has become of Pericles' fellow citizens? 40 See for instance sects. 174-176, 196, 213, and especially 252-256 (where Aristides makes use both o[,;oA.I-lu and OOOljlQOmJVIl to rewrite the episode of the Thirty in 404- 403BC-oudot 2003)' Cf also sects. 344-345: 'Consider also matters of warfare, the city's personal struggles, and those in defence of others; and again the successes at home and further those abroad, both in Greek and barbarian territory. And will you speak of the courage or the generosity which is inherent in the wars themselves? For just as all the segments of a single spring, no matter how many the parts into which you divide it, flow back to one another and are combined, so the wars fought through the need of those who asked for help and the advantages deriving from knowledge combine with the city's benefactions, and the city's activity on behalf of itself as those who asked for help combine with the wars'. 41 Thuc. 1.75.3and 76.2. 42 Panathenaic Oration 308 (drawing upon Thuc. 1.77.3-4). On this text see Sard 2006: the way in which Aristides deals with Melos and Skione is influenced by the portrait of the 'enemies of the Roman order' (MacMullen 1966). Aristides emphasizes the responsibility of the rebels and blames for their hubris 'those who made the action necessary' . 43 Panathenaic Oration 234. 4 0 ESTElLE OUDOT The Athenians of the Panathenaic Oration are no longer the vigorous and conquering nation which is depicted in Thucydides' historical work. If the Athenian people is of course the most sharp-minded (o;{rtEQol;),44 Aris- tides immediately adds that this people is also the most even-tempered (:n:QUO'tEQOl;, sect. 396).45 And how could Aristides speak about the Athe- nians as an innovative people, when the whole oration emphasizes the permanence of their national character throughout their whole history? The word VEW'tEQO:n:OLOl; naturally does not appear, and Aristides even reverses an event reported by Thucydides in Book I. This event took place in 46SBC when the rebels on Ithome tried to rise up against Sparta. The historian relates how the Lacedemo- nians first called on the Athenians for help, but dismissed them at once, 'fearing their audacity and their revolutionary spirit ()eLOuV'tEl; 'tow 'A:61'JVULWV 'to 'tOA.I-"TjQov xut VEW'tEQO:n:OLLUV) ... They thought that if the Athenians remained, they might be persuaded by the rebels on Ithome to change sides' (1-"'1'] n, ilv :n:uQUI-"eLVWVOLV, u:n:o 'tow EV 'Hho- I-"n :n:ELO'frEV'tEl; VEW'tEQLOWOL). Then Thucydides adds: 'It was in conse- quence of this expedition that a lack of harmony in the relations of the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians first became manifest'.46 Aristides, however, relates this event in a completely different way and rewrites Thucydides' text: we are told that the reason why the Lacedaemoni- ans no longer fear the rebels on Ithome is that the people were present under arms, confident in their courage and fearful for the Lacedaemonians as if for their own safety... This action put an end to the current fears of Lacedaemonia, and enabled the Lacedaemonians later to punish the Perioeci' Y 44 The rhetor is well acquainted with the Thucydidean portrait of the Athenians as an active people which rejects every kind of idleness or inertia (Thuc. 1.70 and 11-40), as we can read in Or. XII, one of the Leuctran Orations: 'There is an old saying that you (sc. the Athenians) are the quickest of all to decide upon and to carry out what is best. And this is clear both from your decrees and from the contests in which you have always engaged. And you alone, as I believe, have a law which has provided an indictment for inertia, so that no one may indulge in untimely idleness or neglect, or call slothfulness a case of minding one's own business' (XII. 60). 45 Panathenaic Oration 396; see also section 348: 'And I shall add, the wisest, cleverest, soundest, and most just generals also are from this city ... ' (:n:Qocrlh]ow I'lE lIui :n:uQa. 't'ij(1)e lIui <TtQu'tT]yoi ooqxirmrot lIui lIui UmpUAE<Ttu'tOL lIui 1)LlIaLO'ta'tOL...). 46 Thuc. 1.102.3 (transl, C.F. Smith). 47 Panathenaic Oration 222. Aristides also keeps silent over what follows: the Athenians felt so offended that they broke the alliance they had entered into with the Spartans against the Persians (Thuc. 1.102). See also Diodorus XI.63-64.3 and Plutarch, Gimon 16-17· AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES Finally, Aristides agrees that the Athenians are unable to be calm, just as in Thucydides' history, but according to him this is not 'because they regard untroubled peace as a far greater calamity than laborious activity', but on the contrary because they care for general peace: 'Athens realized that the Greeks had no safety and security (uacpuAELuV xut aw'tTlQLuV) if it should shut them up and keep them at home, or if it should ask nothing of them, or they should do nothing in their own behalf But if they should drive the barbarians as far as possible from Greece, in this way Athens thought that all would have the best and fullest peace qlE'tO UQLO'tTjV xut xutl'uQav a:7tUOLV eawtl'm), and it judged well and with a regard for how matters stood. For it is generally true that they alone are most fully at peace who show that they do not desire to remain entirely at peace' (f,tOVOL yaQ O)(.EMv O-o'tOL o.v ()EL;WOL f,t1) ayELv ()EOf,tEVOL).48 It is natural therefore that Aristides' narrative of the Pentakontaetia period and the Peloponnesian War is strongly opposed to the histo- rian's. The Athens of Aristides never appears aggressive or repressive; it never acts out of revenge. Thus Athens is reluctant to intervene mili- tarily against the Greeks, although they are both ungrateful and jealous of her 'extraordinary actions'. It only tries to keep their rebellion under control ('tq> XU'tUO)(.EtV) and, when compelled to wage war against them ('tq> :7tOAEf,tElV uvuyxuatl'Elau), 'seeks no advantage when she is victorious' (O'tE EVLXTjaE, f,tTj()Ev :7tAEOV Such is the overall pattern of the relations between Athens and its allies throughout Aris- tides' celebration of the city. Athens is above all a nation that helps victims and when the ora- tor cannot avoid speaking of Athenian attacks, he explains that the city's behaviour is beyond the simple dichotomy between attacker and defender, since it is able to invent a new kind of war ('tQhov :7tOAEf,tOU O)(.fJf,tU):50 'a counter-attack against those who first plotted hostilities, with the freedom of action of the aggressor and the just cause of the 48 Panathenaic Oration 197. 49 Panathenaic Oration 228. C£ also a litde before, sect. 225: 'It presented one piece of evidence as an equal proof of its superiority both in war and in native goodness, its belief drat it must wage total war against the barbarians, but against the Greeks must fight simply to the point of attaining superiority'. 50 Panathenaic Oration 194. See, on the opposite, Thuc. 11.36.4, where Pericles clearly mentions two kinds of wars, the one waged to acquire possessions, and the others waged to repel attacks. ESTElLE OUDOT defender' (ro 'WLI; :1t:QO'tEQOLI; UV'tE:1t:EA.{tEi:V alJ'tOUI;, EAEV- tl'EQL<;1 J.LEv 'tft 'tWV uQ)(.6V'twv, chxmooUvTI 6E 'tft 'tWV UJ.LVVOJ.LEVWV XQWJ.LE- VOVI;).51 Aristides even goes a step further. Paradoxically, Athens in the Pana- thenaic Oration uses wars to give advice about peace and concord, be- cause she constantly acts out of philanthropia. 52 In fact, that is precisely how she is a true model (paradeigma) for others. Consider for example how Aristides deals with the government of the Thirty Tyrants and the return of the democrats." This text is particularly significant, because it presents Athens' deeds as part of a pattern of behaviour. Aristides here praises Athens for the specific way she overcame the crisis and got out of these times of troubles by decreeing the amnesty: 'She not only bore more gracefully her defeats in war than others their suc- cesses, but she also settled her troubles at home in such a way that all mankind had a definition of moderation (oQov oWqJQooUVTjI;) and no one later could discover a better arrangement than theirs'. 54 As a proof both of moderation and daring (aJ.La oWqJQOOUVTjI; rs xat 'tOAJ.LTjI; ... ()EL- YJ.Lam),55 Aristides reports as an extraordinary fact that 'when they had struggled against those in the city, and had opposed the Lacedaemoni- ans, and held the Piraeus (...), the assembled democrats at once came ready for battle and almost at the same time to make terms, as if each side were going to wage war on behalf of one another, and not them- selves alone'.56 What follows in Aristides' text recalls Pericles' funeral 51 Panatlzenaic Oration 195. See also sect. 318: 'The city has waged four kinds of war, to define them generically: its own personal wars; wars on behalf of the general welfare of Greece; wars on behalf of those who in particular desired aid; and among those who desired aid are people by whom the city had been wronged and against whose former conduct it could complain'. 52 Gasca 1992. 53 See also the discrepancy between Thucydides and Aristides in the accounts they give of the Sphacteria episode. According to the orator (sect. 277), 'the city made peace and sent back the Lacedaemonians, whom it had captured, without harming them, as if it were enough to have conquered in virtue (... W<J:1tEQ uQxouv uQE"tfi VEVLXTjXEvm). But those of the Lacedaemonians who were in the Hellespont (...) slaughtered on the spot the Athenians whom they had captured by the ruse of the naval batde-and I say no more-, although they had an example from home of the city's behaviour toward unfortunates (... xaL "tau"ta UltUQX0V1:01; "tou au"toi£; OLXO'frEV, OLa ltEQL "tOi!l; ()u<TtuxiJaaV1:al; 1] ltOALI; E<TtLv)'. But Thucydides puts forward other reasons: the Athenians acted in this way 'for bargaining purposes', to use ].H. Oliver's words (Thuc. IV:4I.I). 54 Panatlzenaic Oration 253. 55 Panatlzenaic Oration 254. 56 Panatlzenaic Oration 255. See also Or. XXIII (Concerning Concorrf): 'When they reached AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 43 oration: 'Indeed', Aristides says, mentioning the money the Lacedae- monians lent to the Thirty, 'we could not discuss the internal affairs of the Lacedaemonians. For they kept these concealed.57 But the city, beside arranging its own affairs in this way in the presence of many witnesses, also became a model for other people'," that is to say the famous paradeigma to which Pericles alludes in II.37.!. This then enables Aristides to show the Athenian model spreading abroad and the city teaching its own history as an example of homonoia: 'Later she cured by her actions and counsel the masses of the Argives when they were sick with faction. For she reconciled them by sending to them and remind- ing them of her own history'. 59 'Clearly the Athenians alone among all have administered both the private and the public affairs of the Greeks. For they not only thought that they must save the Greeks from their enemies, but also that they must reconcile them when they were sick with faction at home'. 60 We must of course read this work within the contemporary politi- cal framework of the Roman Empire. Through Athens' history, Aris- tides offers two patterns of political behaviour. On the one hand, he uses the city as a paradigm of the perfect ruling power, a power which avoids being aggressive, but works through gentle attraction.s'Athens cares for general freedom and peace, as the Romans do in the Roman this point offortune, that the popular party went off in exile because of the faction, then they were in the worst condition. Again when upon the return of that party they voted an amnesty, they enjoyed the best reputation and once more were almost as they were in the beginning'. 57 C£ Thuc. 11.39.I. 58 Panathenaic Oration 260: AmtE/)aL!-lOVLOL !-lEv W!-lo..ouv oux uv EXOL!-lEV El.:n:ELV· EXQUJt1;OV YUQ' I)E 'tip 'ta mpE'tEQa oihw i}EO'fraL !-lE'ta JtOMIDV !-laQ'tuQwv xal JtaQu/)ELY!-la xa'tEO'tI']. 59 Panathenaic Oration 261: To youv vooonv UO'tEQOV taaa'tO xal EQYcp xal Mycp. IIE!-l\jJaaa yaQ xal 'tIDV This allusion remains obscure, but Aristides may refer here (as later in section 271 and in Or. XXIY.27) to what is called the clubbing of aristocrats at Argos by the mob, which took place in 370. On these events, see Diodorus XV.57.3 - 58 and Plutarch, Precepts of Statecrafl 814B. 60 Panathenaic Oration 262: <I>aLvoV'taL 'tOLVUV 'tu re OLXELa xal 'ta XOLVa 'tIDV JtoAL'tEuaU!-lEVOL !-lOVOL 'tIDV UAAWV. re yaQ ou !-lOVOV EX 'tIDV JtOAE!-lLWV .poV'to /)ELV QUEO'fraL, aMa xal EV aJtaMu't'tELV, au'tOL'tE xal El;w xal OLXOL JtaQEaxEUaa!-lEVOL XQELTIOV EWQIDV'tO. 61 For example Panathenaic Oration 56 (cf. Thuc. 1.2.6). Compare Roman Oration 60-61 ('All come together as into a common civic center, in order to receive each man his due'). 44 ESTElLE OUDOT Oration:" But on the other hand, for the rhetor, Athens is also the model of the Greek subject city within the Empire, because it is able to cure its domestic troubles and therefore Roman forces do not have to be brought in. This means that Aristides here, leaving Thucydides aside, meets Plutarch, particularly his Precepts qf Statecraft. In this work, Plutarch gives the young Menemachos advice about the way to keep his city peaceful and obedient: the officials in the cities must not 'foolishly urge the people to imitate the deeds, ideals and actions of their ances- tors', if they are 'unsuitable to the present times and conditions' (8I¢). But, as Plutarch says, 'there are many acts ofthe Greeks offormer times by recounting which the statesman can mould and correct the charac- ters of our contemporaries, for example, at Athens by calling to mind, not deeds in war, but such things as the decree of amnesty after the downfall of the Thirty Tyrants' (and, as another example) 'how; when they heard of the clubbing at Argos, in which the Argives killed fifteen hundred of their own citizens, they decreed that an expiatory sacrifice be carried about in the assembly' (8I4B). Thus, to come back to Thucydides, we see that Aristides reverses the historical picture of Athens in two ways. Firstly, its real power resides in its language and culture and, secondly, when Aristides deals with its 'hegemonic' past, Athens is put forward as a model of concord. And therefore we may, I think, to some extent imagine the Panathenaic Oration as a reply to Thucydides' historical work. This seems all the more likely when we consider another way in which Aristides takes a different stand from that of Thucydides. To illustrate this, I would like to come back briefly to the text with which I began this paper. According to Aristides, earlier encomia of Athens were a failure, because, whereas orators praised 'actions with speech' (A6yOL£ ,;a£ JtgaSEL£ xocuouvrc), they omitted mentioning the topic of speech itself." Pericles, in the funeral oration, is not concerned-at least, not at first sight-with the praise of Athens' oratory. Indeed, he begins by asserting the inferiority of words (logoz) compared to actions (erga). According to him, what counts is that the glory of the celebrated men is based on two external criteria: the orator's ability to speak and the knowledge and wishes of the audience." This is not the place, of 62 C£ for instance Panathenaic Oration 227 (contra: Thuc. 111.10.3-6) and the Roman Oration, especially 6g-71; 97; 103. 63 Panathenaic Oration 322. Cf also section 2. 64 11.35.2 • AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 45 course, to examine the very subtle use Pericles makes of this opposition throughout his oration before finally dismissing it. But what matters is that Aristides, here too, makes a complete reversal: by asserting that the power of Athens lies in her logoi (her language, her literature, her culture), he goes beyond Pericles' position. The logos now represents the best deed (ergon) of Athens and it is precisely this that he plans to celebrate. From now on, there exists the perfect identity between form and subject which Pericles longed for. And thus a part of the prooemium of the Panathenaic Oration becomes clearer: 'It is reasonable to present here a speech on this subject and to honour the city in a fitting way. For it has chanced that other means of showing gratitude are just, yet not directly proper to the matter, but that this alone can be called a genuine means of expressing thanks for your kindness. For the expression of thanks for oratory delivered by means of oratory is right in itself but also first of all confirms the name given to this kind of speech. For it alone is, in the literal sense, the eulogy' ('H yaQimEQ Mywv MyQ.l YLYVOf.tEVTj ou f.tOVOV 'to OLxmov eXEL f.tE'fr' aAM xat a:7to 'tov Myo'lJ :7tQ6nov E:7tWV'Uf.tLUV f.tOVTj YUQ EO'tLV 65 Thus oratory is really revalued against history. According to Aris- tides, history is not relevant when dealing with Athens. Indeed it is unequal to what is essential in Athens' soul, because, according to the rhetor, it is only concerned with the accurate narrative of actions." In fact true accuracy is reached by making a selection from among the deeds of the past and by choosing those which are suitable to illustrate a quality peculiar to the object. The main thing is to 'omit no category of praise' (f.tTjOEv :7tuQuAd:7tELV)Y 65 Panathenaic Oration 2. See also sect. 329: 'As if nature had foreseen from the start how far in its actions the city would excel all the others, it created for it an oratory of commensurate value, so that it might be praised by means of its own advantages .. .' (XU'tElJ%EUliou'tO uu'tfi :n:Qor; u!;lav 'to'ur; Myour;, tVU uu'ti] re xoouotro u:n:o 'twv euu'ti'jr; uym'}wv...). Loraux 1993, 268-269; Cassin 1991- 66 See for example sect. 229: 'Further, as we have said, we did not choose the task of writing a jejune history, of narrating the deeds of the city (ou auYYQucpi'jr; EQYOV 'Il'LAi'jr; :n:QOELAOIlEftu uqJllYELai}m 'tu :n:E:n:QUYIlEVU 'tfi :n:OA.EL), for even that speech would extend into the following penteterid. But we chose to mention its most famous actions in war, and as far as possible to omit none of the city's good qualities (uMu'twv IlEv xu'tU'to'ur; :n:OAEIlOUr; :n:QU!;ElllV 'tur; YVlllQLlllll'tU'tUr; El.1tELV, 'tWV b' u:n:UQX0V1:111V uyuftwv 'tfj :n:OAEL, xuft' OOOV buvu'tov, Illll)Ev :n:UQUAI.1tELV). This cannot be, ifwe discuss each point fully, but only if we omit no category of praise' (Tuii'tu b' EmLV oux o.v btU :n:UV1:111V Exumu AEYlllIlEV, uM' o.v IlllbEv E1'Ior; EUCPlllllar; :n:UQUAEl.n:lllIlEV). 67 Panathenaic Oration 229. ESTElLE OUDOT So oratory alone has the legitimacy to speak about Athens, and Aristides, on this point too, wants to reply to Thucydides. As the historian says, it is impossible 'as to the events of a still earlier date' (than the Persian wars) to get 'clear information on account of lapse of time' (aa<pwl; EUQELV <'lux XQovou :n:A:fj'frol; u6'UvU'tOV),68 and, 'to describe the state of affairs of early times, it is difficult to credit any and every piece of testimony' (:n:uvrl 'tEXI-tTJQLq> :7tLO'tEiiam).69 Thucydides accordingly dismisses the poets and logographoi-a term Aristides could apply to himself-who have composed accounts 'with a view rather of pleasing the ear than of telling the truth' (e:n:l 'to :n:Qoauywyo'tEQOV 'tfi uXQouaEL UATJ'frEO'tEQOV).7 o Thucydides wants his historical method to be 'adjudged profitable' (WqJEALI-tU XQLVELV) and not thought of as 'a prize-essay to be heard for the moment' (uywvLal-tU el; 'to :n:uQUXQfjl-tu UXOVELV).7 1 The Panathenaic Oration of Aristides attempts to reply to these two main points. First, it is because the beginnings of the city are not clear or easily comprehensible that Aristides can make use of the topos that he does not know where to begin. 72 Furthermore, speaking about Athens, Aristides aims at pleasing the ear as well as telling the truth. In other words, he plans to reconcile the two criteria which Thucydides contrasted. That is what he explains in a text which is part of what is called the 'second prooemium' within the long account of the Persian wars." Here Aristides clearly plays with Thucydides' words: 'I see indeed that my speech is becoming long and that it is no longer easy after what has already been said to speak to please or to win my audience (ou Q<;l<'lLOV QV :n:QOl; TJ<'lOVf]V 01hEuu'tOV ihL ElJtELV 01hE'tUXELV uxouovrwv), just like a second contestant who enters after the first has distinguished himself However, I did not undertake these arguments to entertain (ou 'ljJuXUYWYLal; XUQLV), but to show truth- fully the worth of the city (I-tE'ta UATJ'frelul; 'tf]V 'tfjl; :n:OAEWl; so that I shall do more wrong by slackening than I shall cause annoyance by speaking'." The word uYWVLO'tT]l; clearly recalls the Thucydidean word uywVLl-taU, just as 'ljJUXUyWyLU recalls 'to :n:Qoauywyo'tEQOV. In this way he 68 Thuc. 1.1.2. 69 Thuc. 1.20.1. Marincola 1997, 95-117 (esp. 95--g7). 70 Thuc. 1.21.1. 71 Thuc. 1.22.4. 72 Panathenaic Oration 7. 73 Panathenaic Oration 185-188. 74 Panathenaic Oration 185. AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 47 rehabilitates the Athenians, whom Thucydides' Cleon had described as 'overcome by the pleasure of hearing, like the audience of the sophists' (... uxoi'j\; xaL oorpurrdrv 'frEa'taL\; EOLXO'tE\;).75 Thus Aristides' Panathenaic Oration attempts a double reversal ofThu- cydides' work: imperial Athens of the fifth century-which is depicted by the historian as an increasing power-is now the model of a pacifism aimed at universal concord. The Panathenaic Oration offers the structured vision of the relations between the ruling power and the ruled cities, which is precisely the one promoted by Rome. Besides, while offering a new definition of Athens' dunamis, Aristides first excludes Athens from history, using the empire described by Thucydides as a metaphor. Being an essence, Athens exists before coming into historical times. In fact for Aristides Athens has no beginnings: because it is by herself an it serves as a first principle." Therefore the history of Athens cannot be a chronological one, for its function is to illustrate values which always recur and are continuously confirmed. Thus it is not surprising that Aristides does not mention any evolution in Athens' supremacy-neither decline nor progress. And when the city, in the Panathenaic Oration, finally comes into the historical frame, Aristides makes clear that this chronology is provided by Rome, presented as the last of the five world empires: 'Under the empire at present existing, which is in every way the best and greatest, Athens has precedence over all the Greek race, and has fared in such a way that no one would readily wish for its old state instead of its present one' ('E:JtL M 'ti'j\; :JtClv'ta UQLO't11\; xaL !-tEYLO't11\; 'ti'j\; VUVL xa'frEO't11xULa\; 'tu :Jtav'to\; EXEL 'tau 'EAA11VLXOU xaL :JtE:JtQaYEv olhw\;, roO'tE !-ttl QQ.6LW\; av 'tLva aiJ'tfj 'tuQxaLa UV'tL'tWV :JtaQov'twv O1JVE";aa'frm).77 Therefore, in the unit made up of the Panathenaic Oration and the Roman Oration, Aristides works out an overall view: Athens' history is now fixed as a logical whole and her values are to be 'historicized' by Rome. In the Roman Oration, Greeks are shown as foster-fathers, whom the Romans take 75 Thuc.11.38.7. 76 Oudot 2006. 77 Panathenaic Oration 335. See also section 332: 'The present empire of both land and sea-and may it be immortal-is not unwilling to adorn Athens as a teacher and foster- father, but so great are its honours that now the only difference in the city's condition is that it does not engage in serious affairs (ou 3tQUYJ,lUTEUETaL). But for the rest, it is almost as fortunate as in those times when it held the empire of Greece, in respect to revenues, precedence, and the privileges conceded by all'. ESTElLE OUDOT good care 0£7 8 But meanwhile they take over from the Greeks, putting into practice the very values brought forward by the Athenians of the Panathenaic Oration. There is one last issue I would like to emphasize briefly. From a more general viewpoint, the Panathenaic Oration is likely to be read as one of those works of the Second Sophistic period that meditate on the most suitable literary form to deal with Athens. Thus, in some ways, Aris- tides' thought comes close to Strabo's own questions about the right way to describe the space and the stones of Athens. In Book 9 of his Geograplry, he states that the city cannot be depicted because she is too famous and too celebrated (u!1vou!1evwv re 'Kat He is therefore afraid of making a real digression (E'K:7teoELV :7tQotl'eoE- 79 The Acropolis, he says, needs either the mention of one of its monuments or the exhaustive description made by a periegete, but in no case a geographical account." Later, Dionysius Periegetes, in his Description ofthe T#Jrld, even brings this picture to the highest point of abstraction. For a topographical or architectural mention, he substi- tutes a literary locus." referring to the discussion between Socrates and Phaedrus, and more exactly to the mythological event which, in Plato's dialogue, prompts the discussion of the respective powers of talking and writing," Athens is no longer a geographical place, but a weighty cul- tural reference. And Plutarch's declamation upon the glory of Athens," questioning whether the city's fame is due to her statesmen and gener- als or to her historians, poets or orators, also comes into this discussion. Through the Panathenaic Oration, both by itself and in connection with the Roman Oration, Aristides takes part in the hotly debated question of Athens' essence. For him, the city's identity is now purely a cul- tural one and her past is now a rhetorical matter. Thus historiogra- phy's hegemony falls away, as if it were no longer of any use. The true mirror of Athens is not that of the historian any longer-and 78 Roman Oration 96. See, for example, Swain 1996, 274---284; Pernot 1997,33-40. 79 IX.I.I6 C396: 'However, if I once began to describe the multitude of things in this city that are lauded and proclaimed far and wide, I fear that I should go too far, and that my work would depart from the purpose I have in view' ('Allu YUQ TWV JtEQL TE OltVW EltJtElJELV YQuqJT]v) (transl. H.L. Jones). 80 Ibid. 81 Namely the Ilissos river 'where Boreas carried offOreithyia' (v. 423-425). 82 Oudot 2004. 83 On the Fame ofthe Athenians (IIoTEQov ltUTU ltUTU lJOqJLUV EV- 1l0;6TEQOL) (345C-351C). AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 49 there, Aristides may address the contemporary issue about the worth of the relationship between history and rhetorical praise" which is reflected in Lucian's treatise How to Write History. In the part of the treatise devoted to advice, after recalling Thucydides' famous asser- tions" and setting the historian's concern against the orator's, Lucian describes the ideal historian's mind through a striking comparison: 'Let him bring a mind like a mirror (... xa't6:lt'tQq> EOLxu'iav :ltaQaoxecrf}w yVW!1TJv...), clear, gleaming-bright, accurately centred, displaying the shape of things just as he receives them, free from distortion, false colouring, and misrepresentation'.86 Aristides uses the same image at the end of the Panathenaic Oration, but now the mirror which is perfectly suitable to Athens is of course eloquence itself: 'Men anywhere on earth must of necessity think of oratory and of the Athenians simultaneously and they would never expel from their soul the city's image (xat !1TJM- nors av EX 'to EL()WAOV, WO:ltEQ EV xa't6:lt'tQq> A.6- perceiving it in oratory as it were in a mirror'." 84 See for example Marincola 1997, 75-76; Zimmermann 1999; Pernot 2oo5c. 85 How to Write History 42: 'Thucydides says he is writing a possession for evermore rather than a prize-essay for the occasion, that he does not welcome fiction but is leaving to posterity the true account of what happened. He brings in, too, the question of usefulness and what is, surely, the purpose of sound history: that if ever again men find themselves in a like situation they may be able, he says, from a consideration of the records of the past to handle rightly what now confronts them' (transl. Kilburn). 86 Howto Write History 50 (transl. Kilburn). 87 Panathenaic Oration 397. CHAPTER THREE ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS SUZANNE SAiD An exhaustive study of Aristides' mythology' would require a full book, such as S. Gotteland's Mythe et rhetorique on the mythical examples in Attic orators or A. GanglofPs Dion Chrysostome et les mythes. For myths appear not only in full narratives but also in passing allusions, com- parisons, examples. They may be criticized or interpreted allegorically. They serve as mere ornaments or may be drastically recast to suit the needs of the time. In this paper, I will only be content with merely giving some sense of Aristides' various ways of handling myths. I start with an examination of the occurrences of muthos, muthologema, mutheomai and muthodes, which suggest a rather critical attitude towards mythology. Then I focus on the Heracles myth, distinguishing between its rhetorical uses and the transformation of its content according to imperial ideology. This myth is indeed the most prominent in Aristides' speeches. Heracles is not only celebrated in a hymn, he also appears in other settings: hymns celebrating other gods (Athena, the sons of Asclepios, Sarapis) or sanctuaries (Eleusis), the panegyric of Athens and the celebration of the reconstruction of Smyrna, meletai (Orations 5 to 16: OnMaking Peace with the Athenians [8], 70 the Thebans [9 and 10], Leuctrian Speeches [II and 12]), sumbouleutic speeches (70 the Cities on Concord), self-defense (Concerning a Remark in Passing [28]), and a scathing attack (Against those who Burlesque the Mysteries ifEloquence [34]). This exceptional presence may be explained not only by the popularity of the hero in the Greek world, but also by his place in imperial propaganda. In the kingship speeches of Dio, the appeals to the precedent of Heracles have justly been regarded as complimentary to Trajan, who made him into his favorite hero." This may also be the case for Aristides, since the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius was also fond of the hero and 1 On Aristides and myths, see Pernot 1993a, II, 762-772. 2 Durry 1938, 108, Desideri 1978, 356 n. 61,Jones 1978, II7-II8,Jaczynowska 1981, 636; Moles 1983, 270, Moles 1990, 323 n. 86. SUZANNE SAID had himself portrayed as Heracles." To conclude, I analyze Aristides' rewriting of the Prometheus myth. For it provides the best illustration of an ideological recycling of a classical myth. I. Muthos In Aristides' speeches muthos is not always the antonym of logos.' The two words may be associated.' It is not only used for what we call 'myths' such as 'the tale of the Pamphylian Er' and the myth of the Gorgias,6 but also for fables? or reports of impossible phenomena by a geographer such as the Mas- salian Euthymenes," reports which are like 'the tales told by the nurses to their children when it is bedtime." 'Myth' may be praised as a cryptic discourse that prevents the unini- tiated from understanding a sacred truth.'? But usually Aristides uses muthos, muthologema, and muthodes in order to remind his audience that the characters" or the events" which he mentions are 'fabulous' or 'wonderful'." He contrasts the making of 'myths', that is the stories concerning the gods, with the narratives of human deeds and wars." Like the historians, he may also use muthos in opposition to history. In the Panathenaic Oration he opposes 'the Erichthonii, the Cecropes', that is 'the fabulous element (-ta f.Lut}w6T])' to 'the trophies on land and sea', that is to historical victories." In the Letter to the Emperors concerning 3 Lenz 1964, 228. 4 E.g. 4. 23: mutlws is the equivalent of logos. 5 21.$ 36.9$ 46.17. 6 26.69 and 2.348. 7 34.3. 8 3 6.85' 9 36.96. 10 28.II3. In the Hymn toDioT£YsOS the story of Dionysos bringing Hephaistos up to heaven is interpreted as a 'riddle' (U'LvLyItU) whose point is clear: 'that the power of the gods is great and invincible, and that he could give wings even to asses, not only to horses' (4I.7). 11 The Phaeacians (25. 40) or the Gorgon (1. 128), lasos, Kriasos, Crotonos and Phoroneus (2.7). 12 27.18: the tale (ltui}oAOYTlItU) about the Trojan wall; 21.5: the tale (ltiii}ov) about the Theban wall; 25.29: the tales (ItUi}OAOYliItU"tU) about the birth of Rhodes raised by the gods as a gift to the Sun; 2.207: the tale ( l t i i i } o ~ ) of the Sown-men. 13 22.2. 14 45-4- 15 1.354. ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS 53 Smyrna, he distinguishes between Theseus, the mythical founder of Smyrna, and its historical founders, Lysimachus and Alexander," In the Eleusinian Oration, he sets the return of the Heraclidae as the beginning of historical times, when he opposes 'the things which go back to myth' to 'what happened later on, after the Heraclidae have returned to the Peloponnesus'," as did Ephorus, who began his universal history with the return of the Heraclidae." In the second Smyrnean Oration,19 after comparing what happened to Smyrna, which, once destroyed, is now superior to itself, to what happened to Pelops, who, once taken from the cauldron and put together anew; became even more beautiful, he completes the mythical simile with another one, which must be believed since it belongs to history, for Athens, after its destruction by the Persians, became even larger and 'expanded on every side'. In agreement with rhetorical treatises," Aristides often indicates his distancing from the myths by introducing them with 8 lpaOL,21 M- yO'UOLv,22 MYE'taL,23 f.L'Ul'toAoyOUOL,24 or But once he validates a 'myth' by quoting the poets as reliable witnesses and pointing out their consensus.P In the Panathenaic Oration, he dismisses with the adjec- tive muthodes the most ancient Athenians myths." In his speech 70 Plato in Difense if Oratory, he not only puts the tale of the Sown-men into inverted commas ('just as they say the Sown-men did'), he also adds a skeptical comment, 'if the myth hints at this'," and then introduces the myth of Prometheus by way of an excuse: 'if a myth must be told'. 29 Even in the hymns, where myths are a given in the pars epica, Aris- 16 19-4- 17 22.4-5: xul 'til !-lEv avf]xoV'tu 'tOLUU'tU. 'til II' UO'tEQOV 'HQuxAELllwv IIEA01tOVV1]OOV XU'tEA'frOV'tOOV. 18 Diod.Sic. 4.1.3. 19 21.l(}-II: !-lV1JO''!h100!-lm II' ou aAA' 1tLO'tEUom. 20 Menander Rhetor I. 339, 2-IO, and Ps-Aristid. Rhet. 2. 13. I 1tEQl'twv !-lu'froollwv. OUl( IhL l\yEvEm. aM' on AEyE'tm yEvEa'frm. See johrens 1981, 52, and Pernot 1993a, II, 763 n. 189. 21 37.3; 38.12; 40.2; 41.4. 22 41.6,8. 23 1.87; 37.9; 14; 38.IO. 24 34.59; cf johrens 1981,52. 25 38.II; 41.1. 26 46.7-8. 27 1.354: 'The Erichthonii, the Cecropes, the fabulous stories ('til !-lu'frwll1]), the shar- ing of the crops'. 28 2.207: EL c'iQu xul 6 mum uLvL't'tE'tm. 29 2.394: EL liE IIEi: xul!-lu'frov AEyELV. 54 SUZANNE SAID tides sometimes expresses some reluctance to use them. In the Hymn to Athena, he introduces the usual mythical part with a cautious sentence: 'If these matters must be mentioned in detail and the myths must not be neglected (Et M bEL 'Kat 'tmv EV !J.EQEL !J.VT]<rllijVaL 'Kat LOUe; !J.v{toue; !J.T] a'tL!J.UOaL), let us attribute to her olive oil, a health-giving drug, which appeared through her agency"? and concludes by opposing the elusive language of the myths to what can be said openly." In the Hymn to Her- acles, he concludes his narrative of ancient myths with a dismissal: 'But why should one speak of ancient stories?'32 In the Isthmian Oration regard- ingPoseidon he uses a rhetorical question to dismiss the most famous leg- ends of Corinth: 'Why should I mention Sisyphus, Corinthus the son of Zeus or Bellerophon the son of Poseidon or any other of the heroes or demigods? Or again those who afterwards invented weights, scales, measures, and the justice inherent in these, and the story of how this city built the first ship, not only the trireme, but even Argo itself... Or again the deeds on land, the so-called wings of Pegasus ... and he who first dared to ride him, the flying knight?'33 For 'these are old and fabu- lous stories'. 34 Later on in the same hymn, he introduces the story of the two gods, the child and his mother, with a cautious warning 'whether this part of the speech should be called a tale or a myth'. 35 The suffer- ings of Ino Leucothea and her son, as well as the ordeals of the gods and the stories which portray Ares in chains, Apollo as a hired servant or Hephaistos cast into the sea are also quickly dismissed, since 'this is neither a holy or a pious story, especially when one is speaking about the gods. We must banish this tale (Myov) not only from the Isthmus and the Peloponnesus, but also from all Greece'." The tales portraying Heracles dancing among the Lydians or killing his wife and his children are denied any plausibility" as well. The hymns to Sarapis, to Athena and to Heracles also criticize poetic myths in nearly identical terms. In the hymn 70 Sarapis the orator makes fun of the privileges of the poets who are allowed to 'put to use on each occasion whatever sort of subjects they wish, although 30 37.11; C£]ohrens 1981, 85. 3l 37.27: El yae IIEi x.u-raMcruvtu Ei.n:Eiv 'to !-lEcrOV 'to. 'frEOU. 32 40 . 12. 33 46.29. 34 46.3°: aUa 'tUU'tu !-lEV :n:ut..ma x.ui !-lu'friiillT]. 35 46.32: EL'tE Myov EL'tE !-lu'frov cpavm. 36 46.33. See Kindstrand 1973, 213. 37 34.59: &. av :n:EL'frOL'tO EQ cpeoviiiv;. ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS 55 they are untrue and sometimes implausible and without substance at all ... , oihe oihe EVL<rte if one should wish to view it properly'. 38 He proposes a definition of poetic topics which is indeed very close to the rhetorical definition of muthos as a tale which is neither true nor plausible, as opposed to historia which is true, and to plasma which is a plausible fiction." In the Hymnto Athena, the help given by the goddess to Odysseus, Bellerophon, Perseus, and Heracles in his two descents into the underworld (first to fetch Cerberus and second to freed Theseus) as well as in his fights against the gods are also presented as additions invented by poets who wanted to make the impracticable (ta. a:n:oQorta-ra) practicable and possible (:n:6QL!1U 'Xut ()'UVU'ta.).40 The same goes for the 'myth' of Orpheus attracting wood and stones, which is interpreted as an exaggerated ()L' description of his ability to move men with his music." This criticism of myths comes together with a criticism of the poets who 'composed' them ('twv <J'UV'frEV'tWV)42 in the Isthmian Oration. In the Egyptian Discourse, the poets again come under attack because they 'compose fabulous tales ... (J'Uv'freLvm)' and use these forgeries as embellishments: they cannot be reliable witnesses." So it comes as no surprise if the Massalian geographer who told muthoi about Libya and was both charming and unreliable is said to be like a poet." 'Myth' even becomes, like 'dream', a metaphor for anything non- existant such as the daily and nightly amusements of young men of his age for the serious Eteoneus," or the wars for those who enjoy the Pax Ramona." After an earthquake, Smyrna and Rhodes, which were utterly destroyed, are said to have become mere 'myths'." This is the reason why Aristides, who introduced the story of Prometheus as a muthos,48 concludes it by saying, 'Let our myth end with a conclusion I think in no way dishonorable. From the matter itself it is clear that this is no 38 45.1. 39 See the texts collected by Barwick 1928. 40 37.23. 41 34.45. 42 46.33. 43 36.II2. See Kindstrand 1973, 212. 44 36.96. 45 31.9. 46 26.70: EV I-lu{}wv 47 20.6 and 25.31. 48 2.394: eL I'lE I'lei: Kat l-lu{}OV AEyeLv. SUZANNE SAID vain myth or dream, but factual reality (oux mu'ta oM' ovaQ, UAA' v:ltaQ),.49 In the same way Dio, after introducing in the first Kingship Oration the story of Heracles as a muthos, corrects himself and calls it a sacred and sound tale which has only the form of a myth." However Aristides, while often giving a plainly negative value to muthos,51 makes lavish use of mythical allusions in his speeches, for myth was a necessary adornment of a figured style. Moreover its flexibility, which is far superior to that of history, makes it into an indispensable tool for the orator, as demonstrated by the various explanations of the deification of Heracles. In the Hymn to Athena, it is of course Athena 'who clearly enrolled Heracles as a god among the gods'." But in the Panathenaic Oration, it is Athens alone which is said to be the first 'to establish for Heracles temples and altars'" (a version also adopted by the meletai delivered by Athenian orators)," whereas in the Hymn to Heracles the Athenians are preceded by Apollo, who 'immediately proclaimed the establishment of temples to Heracles and that sacrifices be made to him as a god' and 'revealed it to Athens'. 55 Aristides may also give a new twist to an old myth in order to make it more appropriate to his purpose. The Athenian hero Theseus was usually said to have modeled himself on Heracles." But in his praise of Athens, Aristides makes Athens into a role model (:ltaQui'lELYl-ta 'tou for 49 2.40 0 ; see also 48-42. 50 1.49: el 6' uQu ltiHI'Ov EthiAOL; 'tLVa axoucraL. ltuUov 6£ LEQov xul UyLfj Myov OX'l']ItU'tL ltui}O'IJ AEy0ItEVOV. 51 Kindstrand 1973, 204. 52 37.25. 53 1.5D-51; 52: 'all the gratitude which Heracles received from other men came from the city. For all men, in imitation of her, agreed upon what was just'; 360: 'The Athenians were the first Greeks to regard [Heracles] as a god' and 374 'they [Heracles and the Dioscuri] were the first strangers to whom the city revealed its sacred ceremonies, while they still lived among mankind, so that it clearly deified those to whom we now sacrifice'. 54 9. 30: 'we shall omit... how Heracles was the first stranger to be initiated in the mysteries and how we were the first to establish a temple for him'. IO.36: 'How is this conduct worthy of Dionysos and Heracles who, although being natives of your country, were first admired by us'. 11.65: 'when he [Heracles] departed from mankind, he received first among us [the Athenians] the same honors as the gods'. 55 40 . II: Elrfl-u; E;TJyEL'tO VErn; re 'HQUXAEO'IJ; t6QuEcri}aL xul i}UELV w; i}Eip. See also Isocrates, Philippus 33. Athens is said to be 'HQUXAEL It£V (J'\JVaL'tLaV YEvecri}aL 'tfj; ai}uvucr[- u;. 56 E.g. Isocrates, Helen 23. Cf. Gotteland 200I, 254-255. ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS 57 Heracles 'when he formed that resolve on behalf of all mankind', and his association with the Athenian Theseus becomes a 'clear sign"? of it. II. The Heracles Myth andRhetoric In his speeches, Aristides displays his rhetorical expertise by exploiting all the possibilities of myth, which may be interpreted literally or sym- bolically and used as direct argument or as an indirect reference term in comparisons. It is only in the meletai that various episodes in the Heracles myth are used as arguments or examples to be followed by speakers who capitalize on the archaizing taste of the audience" and hark back to the most ancient past, while sometimes using the well known rhetorical device of praeteritio and announcing their intention to leave the myths out." In the oration On behalfifMaking Peace withthe Athenians, the Lacedae- monian who favors showing mercy to the defeated Athenians reminds his fellow-citizens of their former behavior, how they welcomed the Heraclidae, who were the ancestors of the Spartan kings, and how Her- acles, together with the Dioscuri, who were especially worshipped at Sparta, were the first strangers to be initiated by the Athenians." In the speech 70 the Thebans concerning the Alliance I, in order to obtain the Thebans' help against Philip, the Athenians similarly evoke 'all [their] acts which bear on friendship and trust, which cover so long a period and are so numerous'J" Beginning with the myths, they recall first the ties of friendship between Athens and Theban gods and heroes: 'We shall omit how we received Oedipus and how Dionysus came from you and met with Icarius and the gift which he gave him and how Heracles was the first stranger to be initiated in the mysteries and how we were the first to establish a temple for him',62 then the personal friendships which are the strongest: 'For what is more glorious than the fellowship of Heracles and Theseus, or what 57 1.35. 58 Bowie 1974. 59 8.18: Em A.EyELV; 9. 30: EUOOfLEV. 60 8.18. 61 9.30 • 62 9.30 • SUZANNE SAID more opportune for the Greeks?'63 They conclude by using this former friendship, also demonstrated by the common campaign waged by Heracles and Theseus against the Amazons, as an example to be followed." In a second speech on the same topic, the same argument is used and reinforced by a reference to the honors given by the Athenians to the Theban Heracles and Dionysos 'who, although being natives ofyour country, were first admired (e'ftaul-tu<J'tl1')oav) by US'.65 The Leuctrian debate, with its five successive speeches pro and con- tra, provides the best illustration of the flexibility of myth, since the same episode can be used by two orators to promote two opposite policies. On the one hand Heracles, as a descendant of Pelops and an ancestor of the Spartan kings, may be considered as a Spartan. So the Athenian who speaks in favor of the Lacedaemonian alliance and reminds his audience of 'many old and more recent deeds' which the cities share in common beside their joining against the barbarian, tells how the Athenians shared the mysteries with Heracles before all other foreigners, and were the first to grant him the same honors as the gods, when he departed from mankind.P On the other hand, Her- acles, who was born at Thebes and closely associated with the Theban Iolaos, may be considered as Theban. Thus, the same argument is used (together with the reception of the Theban Oedipus) by the Athenian who pleads for siding with the Thebans, given the ancient connections between Athens and Thebes." Myth may be interpreted metaphorically. Accordingly in the Hymn to Athena, Aristides offers a translation of the tales concerning the help given by Athena to the most extraordinary exploits of Heracles: 'From these actions', he says, 'it seems to me that nothing other is signified than Athena's declaration of her opinion to the gods that they should decree Heracles a god'. 68 But myth is above all used by Aristides, according to the rules of epideictic rhetoric," as an appropriate reference in comparisons, and 63 9.32 • 64 9.33: 'tL ofivou I-lLI-l0UI-lE'3a 65 10.36. 66 11. 65. 67 12.67. 68 37.25. 69 Pernot 1993a, II, 768: 'les encomiastes aiment a comparer l'objet et les circon- stances du discours a des figures ou des situations tirees de la mythologie, afin de trans- ferer a l'objet compare le prestige qui s'attache ala mythologie.' ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS 59 thus it serves as 'a means for ornatus and pathos'." Thus in the speech 10 Plato: in Defense if the Four, 'some utterly worthless men' (usually identified as the Cynics) who slander oratory are compared to 'a cer- tain stage satyr who cursed Heracles, and next hung his head when he approached'," while Plato, who ranked Callicles and Pericles or Themistocles together, is like someone who would put on the same level Iphicles, the mortal son of Alcmene, and his divine brother Heracles." Conversely, an inappropriate mythical comparison is harshly criticized. For the anger of a comic poet cannot be likened to the wrath of a great hero: 'Is it not terrible, 0 earth and gods, for Aristophanes to attempt to compare his jokes to the deeds of Heracles?'73 Myth may also be used as minus, 'since it is surpassed by the matter under examination'. 74 When the Athenian orator of the melete 9 wants to demonstrate to his Theban audience how dangerous Philip is, he is not content with echoing the commonplace of Athenian rhetoric at the time of the Persian Wars and assimilating him to the Amazons, he goes as far as saying that Philip is even more dangerous: 'I think', he says, 'that they [Heracles and Theseus] would not have chosen the campaign against the Amazons or any other war, before they had jointly destroyed this one person, of whom neither the Isthmus nor any race is inexperienced, but both the earth and the sea are failing as a source of plunder'.75 Aristides also displays his virtuosity by capping a first mythical com- parison with another one that is more surprising. Because Plato unfairly accused Pericles of 'making the Athenians babblers instead of orderly, he who prevented them from babbling as far as he could', Aristides in his speech 10 Plato: in Defense if the Four compares him to someone who would say that 'Heracles accustomed men to be brazen and bold because he went about using his bow and club, he who in quite the opposite way ... accustomed all men to be orderly'.76 In fact, according to Aristides, Pericles himself, if not like Heracles, was at any rate like 70 Lausberg 1998, 197. 71 3.672 • 72 3.644. 73 28.93. 74 Lausberg 1998, 191, quotes Quint. Inst. 8-4-9 (amplijicatio ... , quae fit per compara- tionem, incrementum exminoribus petit). 75 9.33. In the same way the helmet and the shield of Diomedes which emitted fire serve as a foil for the true orators 'from whose very head the goddess [Athena] emits fire'. 76 3.66-67. 60 SUZANNE SAID his henchman, 'Iolaos who burnt the heads of the mass, to quote the comic poet'," a comparison which also vividly bears out the dreadful character of the mob assimilated to the hydra." In the speech To Plato: in Defense qf Oratory, the traditional mythi- cal simile is but a starting point for the elaboration of a surprisingly baroque comparison. Plato, who assimilates the orators to tyrants- an assimilation which, according to Aristides, is 'a combination of the uncombinable' eta U!1LX'tU is compared to a Heracles, who 'when ordered to slay the Nemean lion, instead wrestled with an ass, and choking it, thought that he was strangling the lion and that he was doing what he intended'. 79 In the speech Against those who Burlesque the lvIysteries, in which Aristides pours out abuses against 'those servile fellows, the dancers, the pan- tomimes, and other charlatans'J? he shows the full extent of his talent. An imaginary objection based on a mythical precedent, 'Yes, by Zeus, but Heracles also danced among the Lydians"! becomes the pretext of a display ofvirtuosity. The objection is first dismissed because after all, the story of Heracles dancing among the Lydians is but a 'myth': 'The same writers [who report this story] also tell the following tale (!1u'froAoyovm) about Heracles, that he murdered his wife and sons when he was in a condition which is not proper to mention. What sen- sible person would believe this (&. o.v :7teL'frOL'tO di <jJQoVWV)?'82 Then, Aristides proposes a dazzling succession of alternative versions which all give a positive image of the hero. First, he minimizes the importance of this dancing and gives a positive view of Heracles' motives: 'I cannot say whether Heracles danced among the Lydians. But if he did, still it was a single day, out of playfulness and at the same time perhaps in mockery of the Lydians', then he adds, 'as a fourth argument', that 'he became no worse a man in the circumstances of his dancing, but he remained who he was' in order to emphasize the gap between the hero and these fellows whose burlesque dances (E1;oQXELa'frE) take place 'not 77 3.69. 78 See also 1.128 where a first original simile, just as some of the poets say that Alexandros took a shadow of Helen, but could not take her, so Xerxes also held the ground, but did not find the city' is capped first with a bon mot 'but he found it well at Artemisium and Salamis', and then by a second mythical simile 'and he did not endure the sight, as it were of some mythical Gorgon, but he was terrified'. 79 2.30 7. 80 34.55. 81 34.59. 82 34.59. AR1STIDES' USES OF MYTHS 61 among the Lydians, nor for a single time, nor in mockery, nor while internally sound, but before all mankind, every day'. He caps his criti- cism with a new mythological comparison of their dances, 'which, not to mention Heracles, it was not even proper to praise in Omphale'." III. The Heracles Myth and Ideology Like his contemporaries, Aristides attempts to recycle the myth of Heracles and make it into a valid paradigm for his contemporaries. In his Hymn to Heracles, he suppresses every suggestion of a conflict among the gods or improper behavior by the hero. He mentions Hera- cles' first exploit, the killing of the serpents which came up to his swad- dling clothes," but these serpents are no longer sent by Hera." The release of Prometheus," as well as the tales of how Heracles relieved Atlas, brought Cerberus from Hades and Theseus along with him, wounded Pluto and Hera, and subdued the Giants when he aided the gods, become a figure of speech invented by poets" and 'a hyperbolic (OL' way of saying that Heracles has searched through every land and every sea and has gone to every boundary and every limit and has neglected nothing beneath the earth nor as far as the heav- ens'.88 The pyre and what comes before disappear as well. They are replaced with a more acceptable 'purification'.89 Some famous episodes are reinterpreted and moralized. The excep- tional length of the night spent by Zeus with Alcmene is no longer explained by sexual passion, but by his wish 'to infuse into his offspring the largest and purest possible amount of his nature'." 83 34. 60. 84 40.3. 85 Diod.Sic. 4.10.1; Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 2.4.8. 86 Similarly Diodorus 4.15.2 suppresses any allusion to Prometheus' disobedience: his Heracles releases Prometheus by persuading Zeus to put an end to his wrath. 87 4°.7: E'X. I'lE 't01J1;IDV ltOLTJ'taL re 1m' au'tOu OlJVE{}Eoav. See Lenz 1964b,226. 88 40 .8. Significantly, Diodorus (4.15.2) as well as Dio (8.33) suppress any allusion to a possible rebellion (See Pernot 1993a, 766). In the Panathenaic Oration the tale about the winged chariot of Triptolemos is also presented as a metaphor: 'Tradition told that the chariot was winged, because he went everywhere faster than anticipated' (36). 89 4o. lI: EltEI1\i] YUQ UltfjA{}EV E1; uv{}QomIDv DV AEYE'taL 'tQOltOV. 90 40 . 2. See also Diod.Sic. 4.9.2: 'By the magnitude of time he expanded on the procreation, he presaged the exceptional might of the child who would be begotten. And in general he did not effect this union from erotic desire (ou'X. SUZANNE SAID The labors are reinterpreted in order to accommodate the needs of a contemporary audience, as is demonstrated by a comparison with former rhetorical versions." The mythical Heracles was right from the beginning a destroyer of monsters. But between the Attic orators and the historians (Diodorus of Sicily) and orators (Dio Chrysostom and Aristides) who lived under the Roman Empire the emphasis changes. When Isocrates in his praise of Helen alluded to Heracles' labors, he stressed that these feats were 'of no use'" and contrasts them with the exploits of Theseus, who became a 'benefactor of the Greeks as well as of his homeland'93 by putting an end to the damages caused by the Marathonian bull, killing the Minotaur and brigands such as Skiron and Cercyon, and stopping the violence of the Centaurs." On the con- trary, Aristides, like Diodorus of Sicily" and Dio Chrysostom'" before him, displaces from Theseus to Heracles the theme of usefulness and stresses the civilizing role of Heracles:" 'he found a means of expelling the Stymphalian birds who were damaging much of Arcadia, as if it were his duty to liberate (EAEV'ltEQOVV) not only the earth and the sea, but also the air'.98 He also 'subdued the wild beasts whose multitude and hugeness prevented most of the countryside from being inhabit- ed', an achievement closely associated by the conjunction rs... xaL to the extermination of the tyrants and the annihilation of robbers on land and sea." This is complemented by his drainage of the lands EVE%U) as he did in the case of other women but rather only for the sake of procreation ('ti'j<; :n:mlio:n:OLLa<; XUQLV)'. 91 C£ Gotteland 200I, 235-244, on Heracles in Attic orators. 92 Isocrates 10.24: :n:ovou<;, E1; tilv TlIJ-EAAEV ou 'tou<; aAAou<; WqJEAt]OELV. 93 Isocrates 10.25. 94 Isocrates 10.25-29. 95 Diod.Sic. 4. 17.3: 'To show his gratitude to the Cretans, he cleansed the island of the wild beasts which infested it'; and 4.17-4: 'he subdued Libya which was full of wild animals, and large parts of the adjoining desert, and brought it all under cultivation (E1;T]IJ-EQWOEV) ... Libya which before that time had been uninhabitable because of the multitude of wild beasts which infested the whole land, was brought under cultivation (E1;T]IJ-EQIDOU<;) by him and made inferior to no other country in point of prosperity'. 96 Dio 5.23; 17+ In 75.8, Dio compares the civilizing power of the law (ou'tO<; 6 Ti]v i}UAUUUV %Ui}ULQWV. 6 'tl]V yfivTiIJ-EQOV :n:OLmv) to Heracles the civilizer (The true king in the third oration is also portrayed as a civilizer,XIDQUV T]IJ-EQWOEV [127]). 97 T]IJ-EQowlE1;T]IJ-EQOW: Diod.Sic. 4.8.5; 17.4 (2 ex.); 2q; 29.6 (Iolaus); Dio 1. 84: [Heracles] 'tOu<; UVT]IJ-EQOU<; %ul :n:OVT]Qou<; UVi}QID:n:OU<; E % O A U ~ E . 98 40.5. C£ Diod.Sic. 4.13.2: 'the extraordinary multitude of birds which destroyed the fruits of the country roundabout'; and Dio 47.4: Heracles chased the birds 'to keep them from being a nuisance for the farmers in Stymphalus'. 99 40.4. See Dio 5.21, 8. 34. ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS that were 'oppressed by rivers or lakes (oou !-tEv :lto'ta!-tO>v QEU!-tUOLV Tj AL- !-tVaLi; and his transformation of dry soils into fertile ones by irrigation. 101 This portrait of Heracles as a destroyer of both monsters and tyrants, who cares for justice and punishes the unjust is echoed in other speeches of Aristides!" and before him in the Universal History of Diodorus!" and the speeches ofDio Chrysostom.'?' But in Aristides' Hymn as well as in Dio,105 as opposed to Isocrates and to the declamation 10 the Thebans I, where the orator plays the part of a contemporary of Demosthenes and praises the hero for the help given to the Greeks,106 the setting of Heracles' exploits is enormously enlarged and becomes coextensive with the universal Empire of Rome. When Isocrates celebrated Heracles in his Philip, he extolled his phi- lanthropy and his goodwill towards the Greeks"? and made him into the first champion of panhellenism. By making an expedition against Troy, which was in those days the strongest power of Asia, his Heracles had put an end to wars and factions among the Greeks and brought the cities together. lOB In Aristides, Greece is but a starting point: The hero moves from Thebes, where he killed the serpents and relieved the Thebans from the tribute paid to the Orchomenians, and Greece, which he 'purified' (E%(HhlQE),109 to the whole human race."? In other speeches as well, Heracles' philanthropy is no longer directed only toward the Greeks,1l1 but also toward barbarians and mankind in gen- eral.!" At the same time, Aristides recasts his Heracles into a world emperor through the use of a vocabulary permeated with precise allusions to 100 See also Diod.Sic. 4.18.6 (the draining of the region called Tempe). 101 40.5. 102 2.227; 38.II, 17. 103 Diod.Sic. 4.17.5: II' ulJ"tov lIuI ronro lIUt TO yEVOr:; TIDV UYQLmV ih]QLlOV lIUt uvlIQIDv. Diodorus' narrative systematically empha- sizes the injustice and the hubris of Heracles' adversaries: 4.ro.3; 12.5; 15.3; 17.5; 19.1; 21.5· 104 Dio 1.84; 8.31. 105 E.g. Dio 1.60. 106 9.32. 107 Isocrates 5. II4: IjJIAUVi}QlOltLUV lIUt EUVOLUV i]v ELXEV ELr:; "tOur:; "EMT]VUr:;. lOB Isocrates 5.1II-II 2. See Gotteland 2001, 239-244. 109 40.3. 110 40.5. 111 E.g. Isocrates 5. II4. 112 1.52; 3. 68, 276. See also Dio 1.60, 63, 84; 5.21, 23. SUZANNE SAID contemporary political values. This transformation was already well on the way before Aristides. In his history Diodorus described Her- acles campaigning like a Roman general, Il3 and in the first Kingship Oration, Dio rejected the mythical Heracles destroyer of monsters in favor of the political destroyer of tyrants,"! called him a 'king'115 and gave him an army, 'for it was not possible to sack cities, over- throw tyrants and give orders to everyone everywhere without mili- tary force' .116 Similarly Aristides, in the Hymn, alludes to the univer- sal 'empire' ()'UvumELu) of Heracles established 'by blending law with the force of the arms'!" and portrays it elsewhere as a 'protection' given to all men. liB The tragic hero, who rid the world of destructive monsters and matched crude violence with greater violence, has been tamed and transformed into a government official: Aristides calls him a 'prefect of the region beneath the lunar sphere'j!'? assim- ilating him to the governor appointed by the emperor to rule over a region."? The portrait of Heracles as an embodiment of restraint, pro- created by Zeus 'so that human affairs might be properly ordered', 121 put in charge of restraining the behavior of the cities either by laws or by force of arms.!" and accustoming all men to be orderly and to abide by the laws'" clearly conveys the same message and demonstrates the integration of the mythical hero into a Roman order guaranteed by an emperor who is accordingly given by Aristides the title of %00""1]- 113 Diod.Sic. 4.17.1. 114 Dio 1.84. See Moles 1990, 330. 1151.59,60,84;47-4- 116 Dio 1.59, 63. 117 40 . 6: roO"tE E%ELVOtJ J.lTjliEV EIVUL AUJ.l:ltQO"tEQOV AtJO"L"tEAEO"tEQOV liB 3.276: 'HQU%AEL "tip %OLVip :ltUV"tlOV :ltQoO"tu"t"[j (see also 1.52, :ltQoO"tuO"la). The same word is applied to Zeus in 43.29, whereas :ltQoO"tuO"la is applied to Rome (26.36, ro8). 119 40.2. In 30.27 Dio, borrowing a metaphor from Spartan institutions, makes Hera- des (together with Dionysos and Perseus) into a harmost appointed by Zeus. 120 Aristides 50.75: 'prefect of Egypt'. The same word, associated with 'satrap,' is also applied to the gods appointed by Zeus to rule over the four regions of the universe in Aristides 43.18, as well as to Athens (1.404). 121 40.2: %oO"J.lTj{}ELTj "ta"tiiiv av{}QW:ltlOV :ltQUYJ.lU"tU. 122 40.4: ilE:ltOAEI.,; J.lEv liE 123 3.68: ... EIVUL %ul EJ.lJ.lEVELV. In the Hymn he is also portrayed as a 'legislator' (40.5: EVOJ.lO{}E"tTjO"EV). 124 26.6: "tip aQLO"t!p aQxov"tL %ul %oO"J.lTj"tfi. ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS rv The Prometheus Myth A reading of the Prometheus myth in Aristides 10Plato: inDefense ofOra- tory confirms the conclusions drawn about Heracles. It best illustrates how Aristides succeeds in transforming the Protagoras myth, which was the charter myth of democratic Athens, into a justification of the Roman Empire and the power of the civic elite.125 According to Aristides, there was in the beginning 'a great distur- bance and confusion ('taQaxi]) upon the earth. Men nei- ther knew what to do with themselves-for there was nothing which brought them all together, but the bigger led the smaller-nor could they maintain themselves against the other animals' .126 This descrip- tion echoes Plato's Protagoras,127 but also Aristides' description of the world before the invention of oratory, 'when human affairs were falling into utter ruin'. 128 Accordingly, the impossibility of survival is no longer explained, as in Plato, by the absence of political science and the art of war, which is part of political science.l" but by the absence of rhetoric, as suggested by the emphasis on the silence of men as they perish.P" A significant echo of this description is also to be found in the Roman Oration in the portrait of the world before the rule of Zeus, when 'ev- erything was filled with faction, uproar, and disorder (lbtaV'ta xat xat dVaL f.tEO'ta)' and before the Roman Empire: 'before your empire everything was in confusion, topsy-turvy, and com- pletely disorganized (:7tQo f.tEv av«) xat %a't«) OUVE'tE- 'taQa%'tO %at d%fj eqJEQE'to ['ta :7tQaYf.taLaJ)'.131 Moreover Aristides completely transforms the role of Prometheus. As in Aeschylus.!" the Titan remains a 'friend of mankind', 133 but he is no longer a trickster and a thief who gave men either the fire from which they learnt all the arts or the knowledge of the arts that ensure a liv- 125 See Cassin 1991; Pernot 1993a; and WISsmann 1999. 126 2.395. 127 322b: 'they were killed by the wild beasts since they were in every way inferior to them ... they harmed each other'. 128 2.208. 129 Plato, Prot. 322b-c: YUQ 'tEXVT]V OVltlll ELXOV ltOA.EIlL%1] ... ,hE OU% 'tEXVT]V. 130 2.395: rocn:E nltlIJMvV'to <nYii. 131 26.103. See also To the Cities concerning Concord (23) 31: bELVQV YUQ ltuV'tuxii %ut 132 C£ Prom Vmct. II, 58: 133 Aristides 2.396: nEL rov 66 SUZANNE SAID ing. 134 He becomes a self-appointed ambassador on mankind's behalf'!" and goes up to heaven to inform Zeus about the desperate situation of men, prefiguring contemporary sophists who serve as mediators between the provincial cities and the imperial center. Thus he becomes a precursor of Aristides, who many years later moved Marcus Aurelius to tears with his description of Smyrna's destruction and succeeded in securing imperial funding for the reconstruction of the city. As for Zeus, he behaves like a good emperor: 'full of admiration for Prometheus' just speech'i!" he sends Hermes to mankind with a remedy. But this rem- edy is no longer, as in the Protagoras myth, 'mutual respect and justice' (aL()W re xat ()LXTJV), that is politics, the supreme 'tEX,vTJ, which teaches men how to behave as members of a community, acknowledging the legitimate claims of others and setting themselves limits. It is replaced as a <pUQI.tUXOV I37 by oratory, which holds together the cities and orders (XOO!J.EL) them both by maintaining order and introducing adornment.!" However this <puQ!J.axov is not given to all, but only to 'the best, the noblest, and those with the strongest natures', 139 that is, the members of the elite who are in charge of saving themselves and others."? So the Prometheus myth that was made by Protagoras into the charter for participatory democracy has become a justification of the power of the educated elite. Oratory, which was defined by Isocrates (a major source for Aristides' rewriting of the Prometheus myth, as amply demonstrated byJ. Wissmann)!" in democratic terms as the capacity to persuade each other.!" is now working from the top to the bottom with orators who prefer law and order to confusion.!" preach internal as well as external concord, and prevent uproar, disorder, and faction. This last example sufficiently demonstrates the vitality of myth under the Empire, a vitality to be explained first and foremost by its inherited cultural value and its plasticity. Like Dio, Aristides knows how to 'turn 134 Plato, Prot. 321d: ri]v EV'tEl(VOV OOlp[UV, 'tl]V ... ltEQL rov 13[ov oorpinv; 322b: /l1']I-lLOlJQyLXl] 'tEl(V1']. 135 2.397: UltEQ 'tWV uvf}Qomwv, OUl( UltO'tWV uvf}Qomwv ... uM' u«p' eUlJ'tO'u. 136 2.396: 'tOure /l[xmu 137 2. 2 0 9. 138 2.4 0 I. 139 2.397: XUL XUL 140 2.397: LV' 01-l0U re XUL El(OLEV. 141 Wissmann 1999, 139-143. 142 Nicocles 5: 'tOU ltE[ftELV 143 2.235: EltEL 'tov EV x6ol-lCfl 13lov ltQo uLQouV'tm. ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS the myths in the right direction and make them into a parable of the real and the true'!" and mold them so that they will become a mirror of contemporary reality. True, one has to say, paraphrasing L. Pernot, that 'la position adoptee par le genre epidictique [en general et Aristide en particulier] n'est ni neuve ni originale ... [Mais] il ne s'ensuit pas que ce message soit depourvu de force ni de subtilite'.145 144 Dio 5.1: EAXOfJ.EVa lIn lIQO<;; 'to Mov xaL 'toL<;; oiim xaLUATJitEmv. 145 Pernot 1993, 760. CHAPTER FOUR ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES G.W BOWERSOCK In 361 Libanius sent a letter to Demetrius of Tarsus to accompany the texts of two speeches he had recently written. In one of these he claims to have launched a polemic against Aelius Aristides: : l t Q o ~ 'AQLO't'EL{)T]V I-LaX0I-LaL.1 The sixty-fourth oration in the surviving corpus of Libanius seems to correspond with this description, and scholars are generally agreed that this is the work Libanius sent to Demetrius. It is a vigorous and lengthy assault on a lost speech of Aristides that had prudishly denounced the dancers known as pantomimes for corrupting their viewers. The pantomimes were individual dancers of balletic virtuosity who in solo performances enacted familiar myths with the aid of masks, costumes, and music. They enjoyed enormous popularity throughout the Roman Empire, as did their more ordinary colleagues, the mimes, who spoke lines and acted together with one another. Both mimes and pantomimes were important transmitters of Hellenic mythology and culture. As some of the more austere Christian preachers complained, they appealed to a diverse audience and linked together persons of different religion and ethnic background in theatrical pleasure." Libanius confined himself exclusively to the pantomimes, who were the great virtuosi of the stage, although he says that Aristides had tried to denigrate them by linking them with the mimes." The debate between these two great sophists, two centuries apart, is full of paradox. In his austere preaching against corruption from watching lubricious entertainments, Aristides sounds more like a Father of the Christian church than the dedicated polytheist he was, the author of resplendent prose hymns to Olympian gods. Libanius, by contrast, espouses with 1 Lib. Epist. 615Foerster. 2 See, for example, Moss 1935: Jacob of Sarug on the spectacles of the theater. 3 Lib. Orat. 64.ro. Behr 1986, 416-419 (with notes on 50l-503) presents excerpts from Libanius as probable fragments of Aristides' original speech. 7 0 G.W. BOWERSOCK particular warmth a form of entertainment that we know he openly disliked and avoided. Subsequently he even undertook to terminate it in his native city of Antioch. Furthermore, Aristides was, as he states explicitly and emphatically, an orator for whose achievement he had unbounded admiration. If 361 was the date of the speech against Aristides, it would have fallen in the early part of the usurpation of the emperor Julian, whose cause Libanius strongly supported and whose memory he eloquently cultivated. YetJulian, like Libanius, disliked the dancers.' So how does it happen that Libanius took issue with an admired predecessor over an art-form for which neither he nor the apostate emperor had any sympathy? And why had Aristides himself shown such hatred for those popular mediators of Hellenism? To be sure, arguing against an impeccable model such as Aristides would be in itself a feat of sophistic brilliance, and Libanius perhaps relished the challenge. He certainly managed to reduce Aristides' argu- ments to nonsense by showing that a few corrupt or effeminate per- formers could no more impugn the art of the pantomime than a mur- derous doctor could impugn the medical profession. Audiences are no more corrupted by what they see in the dances than they are by the vicious and bloody competitions of boxers and pancratiasts.' Further- more, Libanius asks, are the pantomimes more criminal than those who overturn altars, steal votive offerings, destroy shrines, and burn statues?" This curious register of miscreants actually seems to allude to Christians, since pagans and Jews were not known to have committed misdeeds of that kind. Christians did indeed go on such rampages, con- spicuously at Daphne, near Antioch, when Julian's brother, the Caesar Gallus, had undone the oracle of Apollo by importing into the temple precinct the earthly remains of St. Babylas. If the pagan Aristides in his puritanical mode of denouncing the pantomimes sounded rather like a Christian, it seems as if Libanius attacked him in his response almost as if he were. To some extent, the Syrian origins of many famous dancers roused Libanius to defend himself as a Syrian. In his speech Aristides had been 4 C£ Wiemer 1995, 6g-'71 (Die Rede 'FUr die Tanzer'). 5 For murderous doctors, Lib. Orat. 64. 44, for boxers and pancratiasts, ibid. 61 and II9. On the speech and its arguments see Mesk 1909 and Molloy 1996. 6 Lib. Orat.64.33. ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES 7 1 rude about Syrians.' But, even so, the motivation for Libanius' curious defense of an entertainment he despised can only be left to speculation. Yet, with the help of his abundant references to Aristides' lost work and his occasional quotations from it, we can reasonably deduce the provocation that led Aristides himself to condemn the pantomimes. This deduction opens up issues of sophistic competition and jealousy- issues that we have long known were fundamental to the so-called Second Sophistic. Aristides' sense of his high calling as a rhetor did not easily accept any comparison with less grandiose professions. In his day the popularity of the pantomimes clearly vexed him." This paper seeks to find out why. We know that Aristides' speech was addressed to the Spartans, al- though it is clear, from the citations and from Libanius' commentary, that he did not actually go to Sparta to deliver it." Libanius assumes that to some extent Aristides chose that city as his addressee in order to invoke the high-minded austerity of the legendary regime of Lycurgus. But, as Libanius points out, and Aristides himself must have been well aware, the Sparta of the second century AD was an utterly different place from the city of Lycurgus. Besides, as Libanius observes, Aristides himself had never declaimed by the banks of the Eurotas and therefore had no attachment to Sparta. So why did Aristides turn to that city, out of all those major cities that welcomed pantomimes, when he undertook to denounce them? Libanius offers a perceptive analysis: 'You claim to be giving advice to the Spartans alone because you know that the others would be annoyed by your speech. Where was it that you customarily worked up your numerous and splendid declamations? In what cities did you orate? Whose applause made you a star? I note that you did not choose Sparta as a workshop for your art, nor did you release your words to flow alongside the river Eurotas. But you used to go to the Hellespont, to Ionia, Pergamum, Smyrna, Ephesus, and to Egypt, the land which, as you say yourself, first brought forth the evil. You even went to Rome, where the dancing profession is highly esteemed'. 10 This means that in declaiming about the pantomimes Aristides had deliberately chosen to avoid all the important cities where he had him- 7 Lib. Drat. 64.9. B For the whole topic, see the still fundamental study of Robert 1930. 9 Lib. Drat. 64.IO-II, cf 80. 10 Lib. Drat. 64.80. G.W. BOWERSOCK self enjoyed great success-Pergamum, Smyrna, Ephesus, Rome itsel£ These were all places that cultivated and admired the pantomimes. And yet they admired Aristides too. In denouncing the tastes of the Spartans, Aristides would not be offending a constituency that had ardently supported him. He was safe with Sparta, since he had no con- nection with it. A master of rhetoric would have readily savored the potential of castigating the descendants of Lycurgus for watching pan- tomimes. In his speech Aristides charged that pantomime dancing had changed over time for the worse, that by his day performers were little more than prostitutes on public view. He claimed that their sinuous, even contorted movement was an abomination that would lead viewers into bad habits." It proved easy for Libanius to contest these assertions: in rhetoric itself, change and innovation over time was fruitful." There were even paragons of virtue among the famous pantomimes, and no one was known to have become corrupt or criminal from watching a show. Yet Aristides had inveighed against one of his sophistic rivals for using his rhetorical prowess in honor of a deceased pantomime, a famous dancer called Paris. According to Libanius, 'Even the man who was once conspicuous among us with the same name as the ancient herdsman in whose presence the goddesses were judged for their beauty was so lamented on his bier by the sophist of Tyre ... that no greater tribute could have been devised to honor a departed sophist. For he did in fact call the dancer precisely that. Did he choose to disgrace himself utterly by the encomium of a prostitutei''" As scholars have readily perceived, that eulogist was none other than Aristides's distinguished second-century contemporary, Hadrian of Tyre.'! It is obvious that Aristides had protested bitterly because his eminent rival had treated Paris just as if he were a deceased sophist and even called him that. As far as Aristides was concerned, Hadrian had sullied his reputation by an encomium of a whore. This treatment of a pantomime as a sophist by the great rhetor whose reputation was at the time easily the equal of Aristides' evidently 11 Lib. Orat. 64.28 and 43 (noQvOL). 12 Lib. Orat.64.22 . 13 Lib. Orat. 64.41: ... 0001:' oux oI/)' 8 'tL UV EL OLXOflEVOV E'tLfla. yE xat 'to;:;'t' au'to nQOOELltELV 'tOV ltIIW YUQ au'tov Ert..E'tO xa'taQQlJnaLVELv EV 'to;:; nOQvolJ. 14 PIR2 H 4. See especially Philostr. Vit. Sopko 2.10 (pp. 585-590 Olearius). ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES 73 opened up a deep vein of resentment, both against Hadrian of Tyre himself and against the whole profession of dancers, who appeared to be usurping the high prestige of public speakers. This appears to have been at least one of the sparks that ignited the flame of Aristides' rage against the pantomimes. In his view they were contemptible panders to public pleasure, and-worse still-were hailed as equal in artistic talent to sophists and rhetors. The case of Hadrian of Tyre's eulogy for the deceased Paris clearly reflected the heightened prestige of pantomimes in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and it was no less clearly this prestige that bothered Aristides. During the reign of Lucius Verus, probably during his sojourn in Syrian Antioch, Lucian wrote a famous essay in defense of theatrical dancing.'> The authorship of this work, once doubted, has now been generally vindicated as authentically Lucianic, and the essay may well have been known to Libanius in writing his reply to Aristides. We have no way of telling whether it was known to Aristides himself and served as some kind of irritant, but Lucian's opinion was as positive as it was well informed. For the relation of pantomime to rhetoric, the essay provides precious testimony. In general, there were no competitions (aywvE£) for pantomimes although the dancers performed a repertoire of tragic themes, and they were sometimes known as 'tQayuwL. But, says Lucian, there was one exception to the lack of thymelic crowns for them. In Italy there were competitions for dancers." We may surmise that this happened at the Sebasta in hellenophone Naples, and perhaps also at the Capitolia in Rome or the Eusebeia in Puteoli. The conjunction of the word tragic with a pantomime is reinforced by Lucian's observation that tragedy and tragic dance were almost indis- tinguishable: at U:JtOi}EOEL£ zorvcl a!J.<flO'tEQOL£, xat oUbEv 'tL bLaxExQL!J.EVaL 'tWV 'tQaYLxwv at OQXTJO"tLxaL, :JtAT]V O'tL :JtOLXLAO>'tEQaL a-omL ('The themes for both were the same, and the ones for dancers differed from tragedy only in that they were more ornamented'.) As Louis Robert demon- strated brilliantly in one of his earliest articles and one of his very few in German, the epigraphy of pantomimes in the later second century perfectly displays the technical diction of the trade." 15 Lucian, De Saltatume. For an important discussion of this work see]ones 1986, 68- 77 ('The court of Lucius Verus'). 16 Lucian, De Salt. 31-32. 17 Robert 1930. 74 G.W. BOWERSOCK Let us observe some examples. The movement (xLvT]<JLe;) of a dancer is regularly qualified as rhythmic (evQv{}J10e; or EiJQv{}J10e;, both forms appear)." It is also described as tragic ('tQUYLXi)). On one inscription from Heraclea Pontica pantomime dancing appears as 'rhythmic trag- edy' ('tfie; EVQU{}J10V O"tElpOe;), and a pantomime dancer can sometimes be called simply a 'tQuycpMC;.19 A dancer, such as the great Apolaustus or Paris of Apamea can be called an actor (UJtOXQL'ti)C;), albeit one with rhythmic movement.t" This technical language turns up significantly in Libanius in contexts that appear clearly to paraphrase or echo Aristides' original. There is a whole section on xLvT]<JLC;, as well as a treatment of the dancer's gestures (veuJ1u'tu).21 Towards the end of his speech Libanius, probably echoing Aristides, calls the pantomimes It is evident that in his speech Aristides had resorted to the standard diction that was deployed in praise of the dancers of his day. What the epigraphy also reveals, in addition to the characteristic language by which pantomimes were honored, is precious informa- tion about the place of pantomimes in the international aywvec; of the Graeco-Roman world. It now appears that soon after Lucian wrote his essay on dancing the great agonistic festivals added dancing to the com- petitions. Rhetoric, poetry, kithara-playing, trumpet-playing had long since secured a firm place in the thymelic aywvec; of the Roman empire, but, as Louis Robert already pointed out eighty years ago, the addi- tion of dancing as a crown event came as an innovation in the second century outside of Italy (Naples, as we have seen, and possibly Rome or Puteoli, or both). The innovation in the eastern empire must have come between 165, which is the latest date for Lucian's treatise, and the reign of Commodus, during which the celebrated Tiberius Iulius Apolaustus boasted of being the first pantomime to win a crown at 18 For see Lib. Orat. 64.28. On rhythmic movement, see Fouilles de Delphes 111.1, 55r: Tib. lul. Apolaustos, eV]Qu{}1l0U U:n:O%QL't'!][V]. L Magnesia (Kern) 165 eVQu{}1l0U, 192 e]vQu{}[IlOU. fCR 4. 1272 and TAM V.wI6 (Thyateira): eVQu- {}Ilou. SEC 1.529 (Syrian Apamea) eVQu{}ll[ou]. Sahin 1975 (Heraclea Pontica, with pho- to), cf. BulLEp 1976. 687: eVQu{}llou. Blume! 2004, 20-22: EUQU{}IlLa. Observe Herodian 5.2.4 EUQU{}1l0U. 19 Sahin 1975, SEC XI. 838 ('tQuyrpl\ip 20 Fouilles de Delphes 111.1, 551: Tib. Iul, Apolaustos. Cf. BullEp1976. 721 (citing Rey- Coquais 1973, no. ro): honors toJulius Paris of Apamea U:n:O%QL't'!]V. 21 For see note 18 above. For VEUIlU'tU, Lib. Orat.64'59. ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES 75 Pergamum and in Thebes." His other victories in great cities, including Ephesus, Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Laodicea, and Sardis, were evidendy not the first for a pantomime." Hence it would be reasonable to assign the introduction of pantomime competitions either to the later years of Marcus or the early years of Commodus. This chronology fits well with Aristides' intemperate judgment of both pantomimes and mimes in his extant speech XU'tll 'trov el;oQXou- I-tEVWV (no. 34 the Betrayers of the Mysteries'). This is a work that can be assigned to Smyrna in early 170.24 Towards the end Aris- tides contrasts rhetors, philosophers, and all others in liberal education with dancers, mimes, and magicians who please the crowds but are held in low regard." The dancers are clearly the pantomimes, as they are in the lost speech, whereas the mimes are, as indeed they were, speaking performers." Aristides even asks, 'Who would allow a mime to speak off stage?' in order to empha- size the lowly status of such a person. Aristides' prejudice is evident in this passage, but there is nothing here to suggest that pantomimes had yet been elevated to the level of agonistic competitions with honors that were accorded to the greatest rhetors of the age. This provides a slighdy later terminus post quem than Lucian for the innovation that so outraged Aristides. It came after 170. It is obviously relevant to understanding Aristides' lost speech that one of the first documented examples of a pantomime in the interna- tional thymelic competitions comes precisely from Sparta, on a mid- to-late second-century inscription detailing the accounts for prizes to contestants." Among the winners are a pantomime from Sidon, a 'tQU- (observe that this is yet another such performer from 22 Fouilles deDelphes 111.1, 551, cf IK Ephesus 6. 2070-2071: first in Thebes. Strasser 2004 discusses but does not add to the dossier on the introduction of dancers into the eastern agonistic festivals. 23 For another inscription of Apolaustos, Robert 1966b, 756-759 and BullEp 1967. 251, reviewing Corinth 8. 3 (Kent), nos. 370+693. 24 For the date, see Behr 1981, 398 n. 1. The speech is described in the Fifth Sacred Discourse, 38--40. 25 Aristid., Orat. 34.55and 57. 26 Behr 1981, 183, in his translation of Aristides' speech, misunderstands the three nouns in Orat. 34.55 and wrongly turns the mimes into pantomimes. He compounds the error when he translates the question in 34.57 uv "tip flLfllp ljJl'}eYYEO'f}aL;) 'Who would permit the pantomime to speak off stage?' One might also add that the article in this question is generic. 27 SEC XI. 838. G.W. BOWERSOCK greater Syria), a trumpeter, kithara-player, encomiast, painter, as well as the traditional runners and pentathletes. One of the winners is Aelius Granianus from Sicyon, a pentathlete and runner whom Pausanias mentions as honored with a bronze statue near Sicyon for his Olympic victories." So this suggests a probable date for the Spartan inscrip- tion in the last decade of Marcus." Louis Robert had emphasized long ago the proliferation of contests in later second-century Sparta, with its three festivals of the Kaisareia, Eurykleia, and Ourania. He was explaining the role of the presiding magistrate, who was called a xystarch there. 30 We should note that the late-second-century star Apolaustos included Sparta among the cities where he took the crown." Artemidorus, author of our one surviving book of dream interpreta- tions, was, to judge from various chronological indications, working in the later second century. Hence it is instructive to observe that he reg- isters pantomime dancing, to which he evidently alludes by the phrase 'dancing with writhing (OQXTJOL£ f.tE'tCt O'CQoqJi'j£)', as among the crown contests." Similarly the inscription from Heraclea Pontica, which we have cited earlier, refers to taking the 'the wreath of rhythmic tragedy', in other words pantomime, for the first time (ro :7tQ(inov). This is prob- ably another sign of the recent introduction of tragic dance into Greek thymelic competitions. The language reappears in the third-century historian Herodian, who refers to 'rhythmic movement'. 33 In arguing against Aristides, Libanius resorts frequently to compar- isons with athletes and Greek competitions." His remarks clearly pre- suppose that Aristides took a highly positive view of boxers, pancrati- asts, and pentathletes. Hence he michievously conjures up a male ath- 28 Pausan. 2.11.8. See Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 188 (Spawforth) with 264 n. 16, and Appendix Iv, 'Foreign agonistai at Sparta' (Spawforth) (232-233). There is little to be said for Spawforth's inclination to identify Granianus with Cranaus in Julius Africanus: cf. Moretti, 1957, 163, no. 848. 29 Pausanias was writing in the middle 170's: Corinth founded 217 years before (s.1.2), and the Costoboci, who invaded in the early years of the decade (IO.34.5). His first book was written earlier (7.20.6, on his omission of Herodes' odeion for Regilla), but the reference to Granianus occurs in the Konnthiaka. 30 Robert 1966, I02-I04 (;uO"tuQXlJ<; "tliiv EV UyWVlOV). 31 Robert 1930, 114(where 'Tib. Claudios Apolaustos' is erroneously written for 'Tib. Iulios Apolaustos'). Spawforth, in his list of foreign competitors at Sparta (n. 28 above), evidendy missed Apolaustos. 32 Artemid., Oneir. 1.56 (p. 64 Pack): JtEQL M JtUQQLXlJ<; KaL OQXi]OElO<; IlE"tu O"tQoqJfj<; EV "tOT<; JtEQL O"tEqJUVlOV. 33 See n. 18 above. 34 E.g., Lib. Orat. 64.61 and II9. ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES 77 lete, duly oiled and garbed, who plays the female role in sexual activ- ity.35 This is one of Libanius' many illustrations to show that one mis- creant does not impugn an entire category. Similarly, in response to the supposedly bad influence of dancers upon their viewers, Libanius asks whether those who watch a bloody pancration or a fierce boxing match are inspired to go out and do likewise." Again the presupposi- tion of Libanius' comment is that from Aristides' perspective viewing such activities would be wholly acceptable. Consequently Libanius can cunningly strengthen his argument by adducing the athletic prowess of pantomimes in accomplishing their formidable leaps on the stage, far beyond (as he points out) the ability of any pentathlete." Yet clearly Aristides approved of the pentathlon. And finally, Libanius links pan- tomimes with trumpeters, who had long enjoyed a privileged place in Greek festivals." Accordingly, Libanius' numerous comparisons with agonistic festivals may be taken to imply that Aristides had responded with particular indignation to the recent incorporation of the pantomimes in thymelic competitions. For him this public institutionalization of the dancers in the Greek festivals would have effectively constituted the elevation of a pantomime to the level of a sophist or rhetor, precisely as Hadrian of Tyre had proposed in his eulogy of Paris. On present epigraphic evidence, Sparta was among the first to wel- come this innovation in its festivals, and so Aristides' choice of the Spar- tans as his target may well reflect more than a simple desire to invoke old-fashioned austerity, such as that associated with Lycurgus. Libanius shrewdly observed that Aristides was in no position to denounce the audiences who had heard and admired him in Pergamum or Smyrna, and so, to make his point, he had to fix on a pantomime-loving city where he had not actually declaimed. Hence an address to Sparta, ren- dered in absence, allowed Aristides the luxury of venting his spleen at what he perceived to be a debasement of traditional Greek aywver; without insulting his enthusiasts in Asia Minor, in Athens, or in Rome. But a little less than two hundred years later another of his enthusi- asts called his bluff. 35 Lib. Drat. 64.54: 'tu yuVaLXWV E c ' \ O ~ E :ltOLELV. 36 Lib. Drat. 64.II9. 37 Lib. Drat. 64.68-6g: ... :ltEc'\WV'tU 'tWV :ltEv'tuiH..mv f.lUXQO'tEQU. 38 Lib. Drat. 64.98. CHAPTER FIVE AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY BROOKE HOLMES Many modern readers have found it improbable that the Hieroi Logoi are the product of literary ambition. Their author, however, who traf- ficked professionally in the great Greek writers of the past, leaves little room for ambiguity about his aspirations, declaring in the first sentence: 'I see myself creating an account in the manner of Homer's Helen' (Or. XLVI!'I).l Aristides' framework, then, is epic, and more specifically that of the Otfyssry--that much is clear. 2 Yet in what respects is the Otfyssey a model for Aristides' undertaking? The most obvious point of contact is the resemblance of Aristides' sufferings to those of Odysseus, long buffeted on stormy seas. In both cases, moreover, those countless evasions of death attest the presence of a tutelary deity-Athena and Asclepius respectively" But why Helen? In Otfyssey IV; we can recall, it is Helen who selects a tale from 'all the toils of stout-hearted Odysseus' to tell his son Telemachus. She is thus like an epic narrator faced with a vast archive of stories.' Yet Helen, 1 1I0xoo f.lOL XU'to. ri]v 'EAEVT]V 'tOV Myov I have used Keil's edition, in which the six books of the Hieroi liJgoi are Orationes XLVII-ill. Translations from Aristides are my own unless noted. Numbers preceded by a T correspond to the testimonia in Edelstein and Edelstein 1945, whose translations I have used. 2 On the Odysseus theme, see Schroder 1987. For the importance of Aristides' travels to his understanding of the body, see the contribution of Petsalis-Diomidis in this volume. 3 EXamT] yo.Q 'toov I\i; XUL VUX'toov, EXEL EL ltUQWV 'to. OUf.lltLlt'toV'tU alt0YQaqJELV 'tou t}EOU ltQOVOLUV IILT]ydO'frUL. ('for each of our days, just as each of our nights, had a story if someone who was there wished either to record what happened or recount the providence of the god', Or. XLVII.3). I follow Wilamowitz, Festugiere, Behr, and Schroder in retaining the ltuQwv of the manuscripts. Keil proposed emending to ltuQ' EV, arguing that the line was corrupted under the influence of the ltuQwvin the following line. Wilamowitz ably defended the manuscript reading by citing Or. XLVIII.56 and Or. L.2o, cases where Aristides uses the plural (ol to refer to those who were present at an event in question (the onset of an attack and an oratorical performance) and can corroborate Aristides' account. 4 Aristides in fact cues the locus classicus of unspeakable epic magnitude, II. 2.489, in the first lines (oUII' EL f.lOL IlExu f.lEv yAooOOUL, IlExuliEmof.lu,;' dEV, Or. XLVII.I). BROOKE HOLMES as Aristides would have surely known, is not simply Homer's double. In the story she chooses to tell, she recounts a time that she herself, when she was at Troy, met Odysseus, who had infiltrated the city in disguise; she alone discovers his identity and compels him to reveal the secret plans of the Greeks (Od. 4.250-264). Helen, then, is a narrator whose credentials rest in part on her ability to match the mitis of her subject with her own cunning intelligence like some dark Penelope. This skill turns out to be apposite to Aristides' task. He, too, is faced with a subject that is not only long-suffering but also uncommonly polymorphous: a body whose constantly changing face of disease :ltOLXLA.LUV vooou, Or. XLVIII.6g) is the occasion for ongoing divine attention. The prologue to the Hieroi Logoi gives every indication that we are dealing not with an artless collection of dreams and everyday minutiae but rather with a deliberate attempt to tell an epic story that requires all of the narrator's resources. In this paper, I argue that by analyzing how Aristides represents the difficulty of both interpreting and memorializing the body's suffering we can better understand his epic aspirations. In fact, I suggest that his struggle to communicate what has happened to him draws atten- tion to a tension within those aspirations between his identity as the author of the Hieroi Logoi and his identity as a devotee of Asclepius. For although he wishes to give a public account of his remarkable life, albeit in response to a command from Asclepius,' he is also interest- ing in preserving, or at least preserving the impression of, a uniquely heroic and unfathomable intimacy with the divine. In what follows, I focus on the two principal occasions for the expression of this tension: Aristides' dreams, through which he gains a privileged perspective on his symptoms, and his translation of suffering into a legible text capable of commemorating Asclepius's benefaction. In both of these areas, we might expect the body, since it is where suffering takes place, to play an important role in interpretation and commemoration. In fact, I will argue that the body is significant to Aristides precisely because it evades these practices. In this respect, the approach adopted here diverges from recent work on the role of 5 vuvl lIE ihElJL lIUt UlTtEQOV OVELQIl'tIDV aYELv Ul)'tu fLElJOV (,Now, after so many years and so much time later, dream visions compel us to make these things public', Or. XLVIII.2). Asclepius is preparing for this text from the beginning: ltQoEmEv (, Ult0YQUlpELV 'tUoVEiQU'tU. lIUt 'tou't' 'tIDV EltL'tUYfLU'tIDV ltQID'tOV ('Right from the beginning, the god ordered me to record my dreams. And this was the first of his commands', Or. XLVIII.2). AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY Aristides' body in the Hieroi Logoi. Much of this work has been spurred, at least in part, by rising interest in the corporeal codes of identity in imperial-age ethics, medicine, rhetoric, and physiognomy" At the same time, scholars have become more aware of Aristides' literary self- consciousness, as well as the relationship of the Hieroi Logoi to other Greco-Roman first-person writing.' In this climate, the equation of Aristides' body with a text has become something of a commonplace. That text is often understood as a 'script' of divine favor that is then copied into the archive and, eventually, the Hieroi Logoi. 8 It has also been described as a 'psychic text' of Aristides' struggles against cultural codes of masculinity, an interpretation that combines the tradition of seeing Aristides' symptoms and dreams as evidence of his troubled unconscious with the equally prominent tradition of treating them as evidence of his culture's anxieties." These scholars have done much 6 On the body and elite (masculine) identity in the imperial period, see Gleason 1995; Gunderson 2000; Connolly 2007. The increased interest in the day-to-day life of the body in the Second Sophistic was identified early on by Bowersock (1969, 69-73). For Aristides' relationship to what P. Hadot has called 'exercices spirituels' (1981) and M. Foucault 'techniques du soi' (1986; 1997b), see Perkins 1992(= 1995, 173-199); Miller 1994, 184-204; Shaw 1996, 300; Pernot 2002, 383. 7 On the literary and rhetorical character of the Hieroi Logoi, see Pearcy 1988; Pigeaud 1991; Quet 1993; Castelli 1999; and the contribution of Downie in this volume. Others (Michenaud and Dierkens 1972; Gigli 1977) have argued that the text is ordered by the logic of the dream. On Aristides' relationship to contemporary autobiographical writing, see Bompaire 1993; see also Harrison 2002, arguing that Apuleius is a critical response to Aristides' model of religious autobiography. On first-person writing as a 'technique du soi': Foucault 1997a. 8 See Pearcy 1988, 391: 'But the Sacred Tales record also the creation of a second text.. .It is the body of Aristides himself In its illnesses and recoveries, the medical history of Aristides makes up a narrative of Asclepius' providence and favor. Physical existence is transitory... The Sacred Tales, themselves, however, might endure, to present the complex interpenetration of reality by the word of the god and the transformation of the diseased and imperfect text of Aristides' body into the lasting text of the Sacred Tales'. See also Perkins 1992, 261 (= 1995, 187): 'In Aristides' representation, bodies become texts on which the god's purposes and intentions are written'; King 1999, 282: 'the creation of a story from the minute details of [the body's] physicality paradoxically seeks to transcend its materiality and make it into a sign of divine favor'. Pearcy, op. cit., 377-378 and Gasparro 1998place the Hieroi Logoi alongside works by other imperial-age devotees of Asclepius. 9 Miller 1994, who finds in Aristides' ceuvre 'an insistent thematic move whereby oratorical writing and the symptomatic 'writing' of the body function as signs of each other, all under the aegis of Asclepian oneiric practice' (189), looks beyond the 'text' of divine favor to 'the symptoms of a rebellion against [Aristides'] culture's construction of masculinity', symptoms that articulate a desire for 'the intimacy and privacy that cul- tural codes denied to men of his standing and profession' (200). See also Brown 1978, 4 on 'the unremitting discipline imposed on the actors of the small and unbearably well BROOKE HOLMES to bring the different layers of the Hieroi Logoi to light. They have also happily succeeded in shifting discussion from Aristides' alleged hypochondria to the historical meanings of the body and disease in both the cult of Asclepius and Greco-Roman elite culture; indeed, this work has made clear the very importance of the physical body as a vehicle of meaning in those contexts. Nevertheless, the conflation of Aristides' body with a text needs to be questioned for the reason that within the Hieroi Logoi themselves, signs and stories are systematically displaced from that body's surface. As Aristides recounts in the second book, the origins of this displace- ment lie in the failure of even the best physicians at Rome to make sense of his symptoms within the semiotic framework of contemporary medicine (Or. XLVIII.5-6, 62-64, 69).10 It is at this moment that Ascle- pius begins to offer Aristides another conduit of interpretation in the form of the dream, through which bodily symptoms are transformed into symbolic narrative. By restoring meaning to Aristides' sufferings, the dream allows Aristides to interpret and to overcome them, albeit lit stage of an ancient city'. For retrospective diagnoses of Aristides' psychological con- dition, see Gourevitch and Gourevitch 1968; Michenaud and Dierkens 1972; Hazard- Guillon 1983; and esp. Gourevitch 1984, 22-47, recounting a long history of such diag- noses by both medical professionals and philologists. Cf. the remarks in Pigeaud 1991 and Andersson and Roos 1997 on the limitations of this retrospective diagnosis. For readings of Aristides as an exemplar of his era, see Festugiere 1954, 85-104; Dodds 1965, 3g-45; Bowersock 1969, 71-75; Reardon 197$ Brown 1978,41-45; Horstmanshoff 2004,332-334; andsupra,nn. 6-8. 10 That is, medicine that explains diseases and remedies primarily in terms of phys- ical causes inside the body and external factors such as diet or environmental condi- tions. The relationship between secular physicians and Asclepian priests was often sym- biotic: see Edelstein and Edelstein 1945II, 13g-140; Horstmanshoff 2004; Gorrini 2005, with nos. 18-19 [IGII/lIP 3798 and 3799]. Ancient sources saw continuity between Asclepius and the human physician, often casting the god as the inventor of mod- ern medicine (Edelstein and Edelstein, op. cit., II, 140-141), and indeed, Aristides has high esteem for the historical figure of Hippocrates (King 2006, 261-262). Moreover, many scholars have detected similarities between Asclepian therapies and those devel- oped in secular medicine, particularly as time wore on (Oberhelman 1993, 153-155; Boudon 1994, 165-168; Chaniotis 1995, 334-335; LiDonnici 1995, 48), and the two tra- ditions shared disease terminology (Chaniotis, op. cit., 330 n. 38). It is also the case that Aristides was surrounded by physicians both in the temple precinct and away from it. Nevertheless, as far as he was concerned, Asclepius was always the true doctor (Or. XLVII.4, 57), and the theme of medicine's limits is a Leitmotif in the Hieroi liJgoi; for references, see Behr 1968, 169 nn. 23-24. For another example of an elite patient who resists being 'read' by the physician (though in this case the physician comes out on top), see the case of Sextus in Galen's On Prognosis (10.1-16, 14.650-656 Ktihn=120, 16-124, 22 Nutton). AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY temporarily, a process that creates a story (Ollyygmpi], Or. XLVII.3) to be recorded in the archive. No trace of this story remains, however, on the body itself: its ability to 'forget' appears synonymous with its recovery of health. Recognizing both the forgetfulness of the body and the shift of signs from its surface to the dream can clarify its role within Aristides' epic project. The central argument of this paper is that the body, and particularly embodied experience, is metonymic of all that Aristides wishes to represent as beyond the public record and sometimes beyond words altogether." The tension within Aristides' double identity as exegete-narrator and divine protege is thus realized through the elusive figure of the body. I begin by examining how, as a result of a shift from the theater of the sickbed to the theater of the dream space, Aristides ceases to be equated with a body that serves as the passive object of medical interpretation and becomes a privileged interpreter of his mysterious sufferings." Yet if information gained from the dream must be mapped back onto the lived body, there is always room for error. Aristides quite naturally assumes that the body is fully transparent to the god; at times, he refers to found texts that imply the existence of another, complete divine text. Thus despite his advantage over other interpreters of his body, he often remains uncertain about how to interpret his dreams. Built into the Hieroi Logoi, then, is a sense that the body itself remains in shadow. In the second half of the essay, I approach the complex relationship of the living body to its story from the perspective of commemoration. Drawing on motifs that were important over half a millennium of the cult of Asclepius, Aristides appears to see the scarred or inscribed body as petrified in time without hope of renewal. This is not to say that he does not represent the body as marked in sickness; quite the contrary. Rather, insofar as the miracle of Asclepian healing involves 11 In addition to Or. XLVII.I, cited in n. 4, see also e.g. Or. XLVII.59 Or. XLVIII.56 (%u[,;m 1:'liv ELY) AOyL<JJ.lC!J AUf3ELV EV 1:01:E;); Or. XLVIII.58 (citing Od. 3.113-114, %EV E%ELVU mlV1:U yE J.luihjOaL1:O %U1:ut}vy)1:WV avt}Q<ll1twv); Or. IL.30 (dUu 1:OLVUV J.luQLa liv E'LY) MyELV cpuQJ.la%wv EXOJ.lEVU...). For the topos in the aretological tradition, see Festugiere 1960, 132-134. On EUt}UJ.lLU, see Or. XLVIII.22, cited below. 12 Theater should be understood in literal terms here. We have evidence of regular public anatomical demonstrations and rhetorical performances by physicians in the sec- ond century CE (von Staden 1994; Debru 1995; Perkins 1995, 158--159), and Aristides, as a rhetor, was well acquainted with the theater. 86 BROOKE HOLMES the body's regeneration, that body is a poor site for commemoration. Writing happens elsewhere: in letters discovered in dreams, in the dream archive and the public tales, on votive offerings, and, most extraordinarily, on the bodies of other people. Aristides' body evades its stories, I suggest, not because it is subject to death, as is sometimes said, but because it resists death. The Odyssean slipperiness of the body in the Hieroi Logoi poses challenges of interpretation for both Aristides and his readers. Those challenges are important to understanding not only the relationship of the Hieroi Logoi to their putative epic model, but also Aristides' divided position as both that epic's preternaturally perceptive narrator and its elusive hero. The tension that results from that position may, in turn, help us understand why Aristides, whether we adopt a traditional biographical-diagnostic approach or the more recent approaches that situate him within his cultural and historical milieu, remains so difficult to pin down. He seems to display the familiar persona of an elite Greek of the Roman period while, at the same time, undermining all attempts to turn him into an example. Aristides has been called many names; he has been given many diagnoses. He turns out to satisfy all of them, and then some. Interpreting the disease Dreams anddecipherment The chronological arcM of the Hieroi Logoi, as we have just seen, lies in the failure of the doctors first at Rome, then at Smyrna, to under- stand or to alleviate Aristides' polymorphous pain." No amount of purging or bleeding provides relie£ In the end, the bedside scene of ingenious decipherment of which Galen, a generation after Aristides, is so fond never occurs. The physicians are left in an aporia. It is at this point in Aristides' life, when medicine's trust in the body as revela- tory of hidden truths-a trust shared by physiognomy and ethical self- fashioning-proves misplaced, that the god steps in to open up another 13 On the literary tapas of being derelictus a medicis, see Horstmanshoff 2004, 328-329 n. ro. AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY means of understanding symptoms: the dream.'! The dream transforms not only the semiotics of bodily suffering but also the conditions of interpretation. We can begin to understand these transformations by looking at a dream recounted in connection with Aristides' near-death experience during the Antonine plague. That dream also raises the question of the relationship between interpretation and salvation. Aristides reports that as he was lying sick in bed, 'I was aware of myselfjust as though I were somebody else, and I perceived my body ever failing until I came to the last moment' (oih;w :ltaQTptoAouttovv el-tav'tq>, WO:ltEQ av UAAq> 'tLVL, 'Xat Uottav6l-tT]v olel 'toli 'tOuOXa'tov Or. XLVIII.39). At this point, Aristides turns towards the wall and falls to dreaming that he is an actor at the end of a play who is about to turn in his buskins. Asclepius suddenly makes him turn over so that he is again facing outwards; the dream seems to end. That abortive final act appears to signal that death has been averted. Translated into the terms of the theater, Aristides' brush with death suggests a relationship between the alienation from the self character- istic of illness and the self-interpretation that dreams make possible while also demonstrating his capacity, qua dreamer, to move between the roles of sufferer and interpreter. In the first phase, when Aristides is still awake, the body drifts away from the first-person speaker, an indication of impending death. In the second phase, however, Aristides dreams himself into the position of the departing player. Nevertheless, the dream's dramatic setting ('I seemed to be at the end of the play') still leaves a formal place for the subject of the earlier verbs 'I was con- scious of' (:ltaQT]'XoAouttovv el-tav'tq» and 'I perceived' (Uottav6l-tT]v). That is to say, even as Aristides identifies with the disappearing body, the waking person who had been conscious of the body being left behind 14 Medicine's commitment to the idea that the symptom reveals truths of the phys- ical body dates from the classical period (Holmes, forthcoming). This commitment is strengthened, at least in some quarters, by the anatomical investigations of the Hellenis- tic period. This period, however, also sees the eruption of debates about the physician's ability to know what is hidden and the therapeutic usefulnessof anatomical and physio- logical knowledge. A useful overviewof the consequences of these debates for medicine in the early Roman Empire can be found in Nutton 2004, 157-170, 187-247. Despite the epistemological debates among the medical sects, the interpretation of symptoms as expressions of an inner bodily truth continues to be the dominant model in the early imperial period, reaching its pinnacle with Galen (Barton 1994, 133-168; Perkins 1995, 142-172). Although dreams were used alongside symptoms in medical diagnosis, in Aristides they are opposed to the physicians' tactics of decipherment. 88 BROOKE HOLMES now becomes the implied spectator of the dream performance and its imminent close. Finally, upon waking, Aristides again explicitly assumes the position of the spectator in order to recount both this dream and the following one, in which Athena appears and exhorts him to perse- vere. The dream thus translates the split self of the near-death experi- ence into the relationship between performer and audience within the theater while shifting the weight of the'!' away from the audience to the performer. After the dream ends, the'!' again migrates back to the position of the watcher, who reflects upon the visions in which he himself appeared. 15 What is perhaps most remarkable here is that the situation drama- tized by this dream, namely the actor's moment of passage from the stage into the 'real' world, implies that oneiric performance is crucial to life. For the actor's exit paradoxically signals not the reunification of the self-reflexive pronoun (E!!UV'tl'p) with the first-person subject of the verb, but impending death. We might ask, then, why the stage is so vital to Aristides. The buskins dream gives us the beginning of an answer to this question. In this dream Aristides already has a sense that he is on the brink of death, a sense to which the dream gives metaphorical expression by equating life with dramatic performance and staging its final scene ('I had come to the end', 'toiioxu'tov Aristides says just before the dream begins). Even though the dream shows Aristides something he presumably already knows ('I am dying'), the very act of showing seems to release him from the crisis staged in the dream: the body left on stage remains in play, i.e. remains alive. The therapeutic value of the dream-stage makes even more sense when we consider that in a far more common scenario Aristides' suffer- ings are unintelligible, not only to the physicians, but also to Aristides himself For one of the basic premises of the Hieroi Logoi is that the body is besieged by invisible or mysterious threats: Aristides' sense that he has been violated is almost always belated; even then, he is usually in the dark about what has caused his symptoms. Since the tempests of Aristides' abdomen or his asthmatic attacks abruptly sever the reflex- ive pronoun (E!!UV'tl'p) from the first-person speaker, thereby bringing the body to conscious awareness as a mysterious, alien entity, they can be seen as variations on his near-death experience during the plague. 15 Dreaming is treated by ancient authors as a kind of seeing (Oberhelman 1987,48). AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 89 Like the buskins dream, the dreams that comment on these tempests or attacks enable the body to be saved. Yet they do so not by simply stag- ing the crisis of illness. In most cases, the dramatic format of the dream generates interpretation that gives rise in turn to therapeutic action. Aristides' projection of the self into the imaginative and dramatic space of the dream is consistent with his more general sense of the body as strange or alien in cases of disease. In fact, symptoms like dramatic pain or stomach trouble may simply exaggerate Aristides' more persistent sense of the inside of the body as a mysterious and strange place, vulnerable to violations that are not always immediately felt: even before symptoms, then, there would be a need for dreams to provide a window onto this hidden space. Aristides' perception of his body in these terms participates in wider Greco-Roman attitudes. Over the last century, the Freudian unconscious has powerfully shaped how we understand the part of the self that is submerged below our everyday perceptions, although the priority of psychoanalysis in this regard has been challenged in recent decades by genetics, medical imaging, and the flourishing of neuroscience and cognitive psychology. That the soul has its own hidden recesses is an idea found in some Greek sources." Yet perhaps the most opaque and most daemonic part of the self was the inside of the physical body, at least from the fifth century BeE when that body definitively takes shape as a place where disease silently develops." The trust of laypersons and physicians alike in diagnostic and prescriptive dreams suggests that anxious uncertainty about the hidden body was widespread, as was the desire to access this concealed space. 18 16 See Plato's remarks about the flourishing of repressed desires in dreams at R. IX, 57IC3----<4, although I would argue that the non-transparency of the soul here is developed on analogy with the non-transparency of the physical body. At the same time Greek ethical philosophy becomes increasingly interested in the opaque parts of the soul in the Hellenistic period. 17 See Holmes, forthcoming. 18 On the ancient diagnostic or prescriptive dream, see Oberhelman 1993; Holow- chak 2001. Notice that ancient dream interpretation has typically been distinguished from modern (psychoanalytic) interpretation on the grounds that the ancients cared about the future, while we care about the past (Price 1990). The diagnostic dream (eVU1tVLOV) can be accommodated within this opposition, insofar as it sheds light on a disease before it breaks into the patient's conscious awareness (Oberhelman 1987, 47). Nevertheless, in the case of such dreams the opposition that I describe above between different kinds of unseen spaces in the self, i.e. the opposition between the modern unconscious and the (non-conscious) innards of the ancient material body; is go BROOKE HOLMES Concern about the hidden life of the body is fostered by the rise and dissemination of naturalizing medicine. Despite the impasse of the doctors at Rome, access to the hidden life of the body-typically imagined along the very broad lines of the body described by humoral medicine-remains central to the Hieroi Logoi, as in the cult of Ascle- pius more generally in the imperial period. Thus at one point, shortly into the first book, Aristides recounts a dream in which the trans- parency of the body is literalized. Sitting in a warm bath, he bends forward and sees that the lower part of his stomach is in a rather strange state be 'to :7tQaO'frEv oQcPTJv 'tu xu'tw u'tO- :7tW'tEQOV ()LUXELl-tEVU, Or. XLVII.8). The difference is that, in the cult, information about the body comes not from the body but from the god. Dreams help the patient see into his or her body by creating contexts through which its experiences and states become visible. The vague or imprecise feeling of the body as something strange is transformed into the perception of a concrete object, a visible anomaly, or an invasive act-that is, something that can be seen and understood by the dreamer. Aristides might dream that a bone is troubling him, for example, and that it needs to be expelled (Or. XLVII.28). A dream may make Aristides aware of the fact that he has been defiled (l-t0A:uvl}fjvm) even before he.feels violated (Or. XLVII.7). In one dream, Aristides is offered figs, but learns from the prophet Corns that they are poisonous; he becomes suspicious and vomits, while still worrying that he has not vomited enough and that there are other, unidentified poisonous figs as important as the past-future opposition. Indeed, just as the twentieth century saw an enormous investment of cultural imagination in the idea that our secrets about our neuroses lie in our dreams, the popularity of diagnostic dreams in antiquity may suggest a similar cultural investment in the idea that the secrets of our suffering bodies lie in our dreams. w.v. Harris has pointed out that the widespread interest in medical- anxiety dreams in antiquity can be correlated with the far greater number of health problems that the average person would have faced (2005, 260). It may also be true that it was precisely because physicians validated the meaning of dreams as medical that so many dreams seemed to dreamers to be about the body. In recent centuries, this validation has no longer been forthcoming: compare to Aristides' interaction with his doctors the following exchange between the nineteenth-century belle-lettrist Alphonse Daudet, who suffered from syphilis, and his physician: 'Daudet told us this evening that for a long time he had dreamed that he was a boat whose keel caused him pain; in the dream, he would turn on his side. The persistence of this dream caused him to ask [Dr.] Potain if this meant his spine was rotting. Potain's response was to laugh' (Daudet 2002,6). AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY (Or. XLVII.54). The message of the dream, Aristides thinks when he wakes up, is to fast, although he suspects that some vomiting might be in order. Here, then, we begin to glimpse how the splitting of the self in the dream can counteract the alienation from the body most visibly real- ized in disease. The dream, where the 'I' is both actor and spectator, unlocks the mysteries of embodiment by bringing to light, at least dimly, the web of relationships and events in which the lived body is invisibly and treacherously embedded. Moreover, by situating embodied expe- rience within a thicket of symbols, the dreams also show Aristides the remedies (UA,EsupuQ!!uxu) to counter the threats that he is constantly facing." It is precisely because the body, like Odysseus, is always beset by danger that 'each of our days as well as our nights has a story' (Or. XLVII. 3). With the transformation of the embodied self into a theatrical player within a dream, then, Aristides' sense of distance from that self becomes the condition of his understanding of it. Like Helen remembering the toils of Odysseus, he is reporting in the Hieroi Logoi on the troubles of someone, or rather something, else. Indeed, although he is ostensibly narrating his own epic adventures, he sets out by announcing that he wants to talk about his abdomen (vliv bE EOXEV 'to 'toli bTJA,wam Or. XLVII.4). And just as Helen remembers cut- ting through Odysseus's disguise, Aristides recalls how he deciphered the mysterious suffering of the abdomen, albeit through the medium of the dream. Knowledge confers power: once dreams are interpreted, they lead Aristides to the appropriate therapeutic response. Dreaming of the trapped bone, for example, carries with it a sense of bloodletting; the fig dream prescribes vomiting or fasting," By determining how to act 19 :rtOAAU IlEV YUQ KUt UAAU E:rtEotiIlTlVEV 0 itEO'; EK 'tillv EqJEO'tT]Km:lOV UIEt KLVMvlOV ot mixvol VUK'tO'; EKUO'tTl'; KUt UMO'tE UMOL 'to'tE /)E E:rtUVLOV'tE'; ol UU'tOL, KUt O:rtm:E U:rtUMUYELTl 'tL';, E'tEQOL' KUt :rtQo,; EKUO'tU 'tOU'tlOV UAESLqJUQIlUKU nEL :rtuQu 'to'ii itEO'ii KUt :rtUQulluitLm:rtuV'toLm KUt EQYCP KUt Mycp('For the god signifiedmany other things in the course of snatching me away from the threats always besetting me, which came thickly every day and every night, some assailing me at one time, some at another, and sometimes the same ones resurging, and whenever one was freed from them, others attacking in turn. For each of these things antidotes came from the god, and manifold consolations both in word and in deed', Or. XLVIII. 25). 20 'For Aristides, dreams were basically staging areas for physical treatments... ' (Perkins 1992, 251; id. 1995, 178). Yet the dreams must almost always be interpreted. BROOKE HOLMES on the sick body, Aristides, not unlike his contemporaries committed to elaborate regimens of self-care underwritten by physicians, gains control over it. At one point, in fact, Aristides believes he could have expelled his disease entirely (nuauv 'tT]V vooov, Or. XLVIII.72) had he not been led astray by the 'evil council' of his companions, who persuaded him to adopt their own misguided explanations of the dreams." These companions, as competitive interpreters of Aristides' suffering (via the dreams), are not unlike physicians, and their failure of understanding reconfirms Aristides' identity as the expert interpreter of his own body. His capacity to perform this role is directly created by the shift from symptoms to dreams: Aristides alone, after all, has the claim to autopsy; he is the one 'trained in divine visions' ... EV (>-tlmOLv, Or. XLVII.38). These skills, it is worth noting, also establish his authority as the narrator of the Hieroi Logoi. Yet the 'evil council' episode also reminds us that Aristides' decipher- ment of a mysterious body, unlike the physician's, is mediated by divine signs that themselves require interpretation. Let us consider, then, how the substitution of a divine sign for a bodily one complicates Aristides' access to the truth about his body and the translation of that truth into the Hieroi Logoi. Dreams andobscurity Aristides' dreams grant meaning to the sick body, yet they are also objects of interpretation. What this means is that his situation is even more complex than Helen's. For one thing, whereas Helen relies on her own intuition in the (direct) encounter with Odysseus, the information that dreams provide Aristides about his body's condition, and indeed the dreams themselves, come from a place as foreign as the disease itself In the warm bath dream, where Aristides observes the strange state of his abdomen, it is an unnamed person who has to tell him that there is no need to guard against bathing, because the aition of On the interpretation of Asclepian dreams through puns and wordplay, verbal and visual imagery, and analogy, see Oberhehnan Ig8I; on Aristides' interpretations of his own dreams, see Nicosia Ig88, 183-185. 21 The scene and language are Odyssean, recalling the episode in Book 10 where the companions open Aeolus's bag of winds. Although practices of dream interpretation were codified, as Artemidorus's dream book makes clear, and although Artemidorus makes a point of stressing how easy divine prescriptive dreams are to decipher (IY.22), Aristides regularly asserts his unique ability to uncover oneiric meaning. AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 93 his problems has nothing to do with bathing. In another remarkable dream, Aristides imagines that some barbarians gain control over him; one of them approaches and makes as though he is going to tattoo him (M;uv :ltUgUOXELV Wi; mi,;ovtu).22 Yet rather than doing so, E:7tEL'ta 'Katl-Ei:VaL 'tOV ()U'K't1JAOV ofJ'twot !-LEXQL 'tOii AaL!-Loii 'KaL 'tL EYXEaL 'Ka'ta ()TJ rwc E:7tLXWQLOV VO!-LOV, OVO!-LUOaL ()E au'to 'taii'ta ()E umEQov ovaQ ()LT)YELattaL 'Kat xat MYELV aQa 'toii'to a'i:'tLOV ELT) 'tOii ()L'ljJfjV !-LEV, !-LT] MvaattaL M :7tLELV, 't<p 'tQE:7tEattaL 'ta ortlc, E'K ()T] 'tOu't01J re E()EL'KV1J'tO 'Kat 0 A01J'tQoii rs a:7toO)(.EottaL 'Kat ()LU'KOVOV Eva :7taQamTJoaattaL 'to'tTJ!-LEQov ELVaL. aA01JOLa 'Kat !-LE'ta (Or. XLVII.g) ...he put his finger all the way into my throat and poured in something according to a kind of local custom, and he called this 'oxusitia'. Later on [I dreamed] that I narrated these things as a dream and the listeners were amazed and said that this, then, was the cause of my thirst, on the one hand, and my inability to drink, on the other, namely that my food was turning sour. From this [dream] vomiting was indicated, and the barbarian ordered me to abstain from bathing and that today I produce one witness to this. No bathing and vomiting with relie£ Confronted with both the barbarian and his invasive gesture, we are led to see the origins of the disease as external to Aristides. More inter- esting is the fact that the diagnosis-oxusitia, "indigestion" or "food- turning-sour," as the later gloss shows-is of equally foreign prove- nance. In fact, it is the barbarian who delivers the presumably god- sanctioned command to abstain from bathing. Etiological clues and treatment prescriptions are delivered by an 'attending someone' ('tLi; :ltugwv) with a better grasp of what has happened than Aristides him- self." Given that the dreams arrive from a place outside of Aristides and given, too, that they are populated with shadowy informants, the reader of the Hieroi Logoi has the impression of a strange symbiosis between the invasive object and the divine message. I do not mean to imply that Asclepius is somehow responsible for the disease. Admittedly, there is litde question that a drama of salvation requires the continual breach of the body's defenses, and Aristides has been accused (or celebrated) more than once-including by his contemporaries (Or. L.27)-of stay- 22 For the translation of as 'to tattoo' (rather than 'to brand'), seeJones 1987; id.2000. 23 See also e.g. Or. XLVII.S6; Or. IL.I1. The :n:UQIDV is first mentioned at Or. XLVII.3· 94 BROOKE HOLMES ing sick for the benefits that sickness brings." What I want to stress here, however, is simply that the story of Aristides' suffering, which eventually becomes the text of the Hieroi Logoi, has its origins in a space as estranged from Aristides as the disease itself25 That is, grasping the hidden experiences or condition of the body requires opening up chan- nels of knowledge as mysterious as the passages through which the dis- ease first entered. This knowledge is acquired indirectly within the the- atrical space of the dream rather than directly rendering the lived body transparent or legible. By using dreams to decipher his suffering, Aristides, as we have seen, redefines his sense of distance from the body to turn it into an object of knowledge. Yet even when he is defined as a knower, Aristides is not fully at home. That is, if Aristides acquires knowledge neither intuitively nor, like Helen, through his own mitis, but through his relationship to the divine Other, neither self in the split-self divide offers much familiarity. Thus, although Aristides claims an authoritative position ofknowledge about his body vis-a-vis other experts (physicians, companions), that position is always unstable on account of the gap that remains between what he knows and what the god knows. Moments of confident interpretation are interspersed with moments of doubt (should I bathe? should I eati')." Whatever Aristides might see of the abdomen, there is always more that the stranger who magically appears beside him can tell him. The idea of a stranger who knows more about the mysterious body than Aristides himself means that Aristides' identification with Helen, whose authority to tell her story is rooted in experience, is complicated by a more traditional epic model in which the access to knowledge is partial. Unlike Odysseus in Helen's story; who tells Helen all the purposes of the Achaeans (Od. 4.256), the body is never fully denuded of its secrets. And unlike Helen, Aristides' metis depends on a muse. As a result, we cannot reliably identify the 'attending someone' ('ttl; :n:ugwv) mentioned in the prologue who might be able to record what happened or relate the providence of the god. In fact, the mysterious knowing stranger is instrumental not only in the initial interpretation 24 Festugiere 1954,86; Behr 1968, 46; Reardon 1973, 84; Brown 1978,41; Gourevitch 1984, 50-51, 58-59· Cf. Quet 1993, 243; Andersson and Roos 1997, 37· 25 Note that hieroi logoi are marked 'as spoken or written manifestations of "the Other'" (Henrichs 2003, 239). 26 E.g. Or. XLVII.7, 27, 40, 55-56. AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 95 of symptoms but also in the composition of the story they generate. In the preface of the second tale, we learn that in writing the Hieroi Logoi, Aristides relied on Asclepius's assistance, since his body had long forgotten its pains and his original records of the dreams were lacunose or had been 10stY So the knowledge for the text in our hands also originates outside ofAristides. His task is simply to make this knowledge public. The incompleteness of Aristides' knowledge comes into relief against a master text whose existence is implied by the bits and pieces of other writing that appear in the dreams and elsewhere. As Aristides tells his foster father Zosimus within a dream, 'Look! The things I dreamed that the dream said I discover written in a book' ({tEuaaL, a MyeLv eMxo'Uv ovuQ, ei'QLaxw yeYQUl-tl-tEVU ev 'tqJ ~ L ~ A . L q > , L.69); on another occasion, he finds a letter, in which everything that he has been foretold in a dream is written in detail (Or. XLVII.78).28 It is unclear whether these discovered texts are anterior to the dream, thereby functioning as a kind of script. Yet they do imply that the dreams are part of a grand narrative of Aristides' life that unfolds under the sign of the god. To the extent that the written things that Aristides discovers often express divine truth, they model the faithful record of events that the Hieroi Logoi should be. Yet the writing of the Hieroi Logoi is troubled at the outset, even before the loss of the archive, by the challenge of understanding the body through the filter of the dream. Aristides' diffi- culties as an autobiographical narrator with epic pretensions stand out as the particular difficulties of someone trying to capture an infinitely 27 On the relationship between the archive and the Hieroi Logoi, see Pearcy 1988. See King 1999 on Aristides and the difficulty of writing about chronic pain. Aristides repeatedly draws attention to the problems that plague the composition of the Hieroi Logoi: the magnitude and the number of his sufferings defy calculation and transcription (see above, n. II); the archive that contained the decades of notes has been scattered and lost; indeed, it was patchy to begin with (Or. XLVIII. 1-4); given that Aristides began composing the tales late in life, in the early 170S (see Behr 1994, II55-II63), well after his first doomed trip to Rome in 145 when he was around 26 years old, he can remember but a fraction of his past woes; and his body has constantly interfered with the composition of its history (Or. XLVII.4; Or. XLVIII. 2). Thus, insofar as Aristides' past is itself a kind of alien wisdom, he needs Asclepius as a muse: the Hieroi Logoi are composed according to 'however the god should lead and move' (8:n:lOi; av 0 {}Eoi; am re Kat KLVfj, Or. XLVIII.4; cf. Or. XLVIII.24; Or. L.50) its author. 28 See also Or. IL.3Q-31; Or. L.I; Or. LI.45, with Pearcy 1988, 385-386. The discov- ery of a piece of writing that confirms the truth of a story is a topes (Festugiere 1960, 124-126). On the association of writing with special, often sacred, authority, see Hen- richs 2003, 249. AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 97 au'ta OW'tT]QLaV E:7tayyEAAO!J.EVa, XaL O'tL <PLAOU!J.EVT] '\jJUxi]v UV'tL XaL mU!J.a UV'tL UV'tEc'\WXEV, 'ta UV'tL'tWV E!J.WV. (Or. LI. 23) But the main point was that the whole affair concerning Philumene had been inscribed on her very body and on her innards, just as on the entrails of sacrificial animals. And there seemed to be a good deal of intestine, and at the same time somehow I was looking at it. The upper parts were healthy and in good condition, but at the end was a diseased part. And this was all pointed out by the one standing nearby, whoever he was. For indeed I was asking him, 'what, then, is the cause of my troubles and difficulty'? And he pointed out that place. The oracles went something like this: nry name had been inscribed in this way, 'Aelius Aristides', and nearby, spaced apart, were different naming marks. 'Sosimenes' had been written as well, as well other things announcing salvation and that Philumene had given a soul in exchange for a soul, a body for a body, hers in place of mine. The girl's innards, just like Aristides' lower abdomen in the warm bath dream, appear to be diseased. Yet whereas Aristides had required the 'attending someone' to explain why his entrails are diseased, in this case the attendant simply points to where Philumene's story is already inscribed (eY'{EYQa!J.!J.Evou :7taVLOi; LOU :7tEQL au'tilv :7tQaY!J.a'toi;). The girl thus resembles, as Aristides says outright, the sacrificial animal whose entrails Aristides had examined in the first dream. As in hieroscopy, the matter written on Philumene's entrails turns out to be more about Aristides than about her. The question posed is about Aristides' pains; accordingly, it is his own name that he finds inscribed into (evEYEYQa:7tLO) his foster daughter's body. The signs all indicate that Philumene had dedicated her body for his and a soul for a soul, her story for the future of his," In his pioneering reading of this episode, L. Pearcy likened Philume- ne's innards to Aristides' own diseased body (1988, 387-389). It is true that she is cast as Aristides' surrogate. Yet the two also differ from one another in that Philumene's body is literally inscribed with the meaning of her disease and her death, which turns out to be the meaning of Aristides' disease and his survival. Philumene's dreamed body thus takes over the role of Aristides' own dreamed body in attracting signs 29 See also Or. XLVIII.44, another example of the life-for-a-life logic. These episodes have understandably attracted attention and are often interpreted as an unsavory sign of Aristides' megalomania or his psychological instability. Gourevitch places the substitution narratives in the context of contemporary perspectives on Antinous' death (1984,55, with nn. 77-78). 9 8 BROOKE HOLMES that make the difficulties of the lived body comprehensible, but with a twist. For it is as if Philumene's serving as a site of interpretation in the dream, and specifically her conversion into a text, expresses her monumental act of substitution in the waking world, namely the gift of a life for a life. By assuming both the disease and the written word, Philumene also assumes Aristides' death, releasing him from the story that is for her both the first and final sacred tale. Philumene's body offers a site where Aristides' story and Asclepius's saving grace may be both staged (as in the dream) and recorded (as in the archive and the Hieroi Logoz). As a result of her gift her foster father understands (albeit in a limited sense) his own trouble and, most importantly, gains new life. A similar, less disturbing substitution that nevertheless also involves an act of inscription is found in an episode where Aristides learns in a dream that he will die in two days. The fate may be averted if he completes a series of sacrifices, makes an offering of coins, and cuts off a part of his body for the sake of the well- being of the whole (6eLv 6E xat 'tou av'tou :7taga'tEf.tVeLV imEg "COu Or. XLVIII.27). Fortunately, Asclepius remits this demand and allows Aristides to substitute his ring for his finger By inscribing (E:7tLygu'ljJm) this ring with the words '0 son of Cronus' and dedicating it to Telesphorus, Aristides cheats death. The Telesphorus episode, like the Philumene story, points to the desire to protect the body from writing. For it is precisely the body's conversion into a textual surface that appears to preclude its regenera- tion. The fixed nature of the inscription is overdetermined as a signifier of the irreversibility of death, on the one hand, and the promise to remember divine benefaction, on the other. Philumene's fate and Tele- sphorus's ring suggest a relationship between inscription, memory, and death in Aristides' imagination. Such a relationship may seem, at first glance, counter-intuitive, given the fundamentally important role of commemorative tablets and votives in the healing events that take place in the cults of Asclepius and other healing gods. On reflection, however, we can see how the association of inscription with death might make sense in such a context. However speculative, etymologies of Asclepius's name in Homeric scholia offer 30 Compare Or. XLVIII.13-14 (the enactment of a shipwreck averts a real one); Or. Lrr (a dusting stands in for actual burial). Such performances may be seen to persuade the gods that the demand has been satisfied: see Taussig 1993. AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 99 a useful point of orientation. Scholiasts commonly took the name to be the combination of the adjective <J'X,A.T]QOl;, 'hard, rigid', and the alpha-privative, the stated rationale being that, as the god of healing, Asclepius opposes the hardening and withering brought on by disease and death. Porphyry's account is paradigmatic:" 'to O'T)!-taLvEL 'to a.yav aXAT]Qov. aXEAAELV YUQ EO'tL 'to aXAT]QO:ltOLELV, xal. 0 0 <'lui 'tT]V aaaQxLav, xal. xa'ta. O'tEQT]OLV !-tE'ta. 0 <'lui !-tT] Miv axEMwltm. (Homeric Qyestions, a 68=T26g, Edelstein and Edelstein) Dried up means what is too harsh. For aXEMELV means to make harsh. Also the skeleton is that which is dried up through lack of flesh, and the name Asklepios comes from this word with an alpha privative, together with the word for gentleness, that is, he who by the agency ofthe medical art does not permit dryness. Asclepius restores to life, as the symbol of the snake, capable of shed- ding its skin, suggests." In our earliest Greek poetry and philosophical speculation, in fact, we find the idea oflife as something aqueous, labile; in death, everything turns to bone." Asclepius is a god of suppleness. The very suppleness guarded by Asclepius, however, makes the pro- tection of memory a crucial question. Every god needs poetry and myth to keep their deeds visible in cosmic memory. The problem faced by Asclepius, however, is not simply the ephemerality of action and event." For a god whose work lies in restoring to life, the site of his power is uniquely resistant to manifesting that work in any lasting way. Gods like Apollo or Hecate or Aphrodite might break into the mor- tal world via symptoms; Asclepius erases them from the body. Whereas health, like beauty, can index divine benevolence, nothing in it signifies 31 See also T267---268; 270-276. 32 On the snake and the renewal oflife, see T70I, 703-706. 33 Thus Aristotle reported-although he is not necessarily to be trusted-that Tha- les based his idea that the primary element of the world is water on the fact that the nurture (trophC) of all things was moist and that coming-to-be required the moist (Metaph. 1.3, 983b6). Theophrastus conjectures that Thales privileged water as the principle of life after seeing that corpses dry up (Theophr. Phys. op. fro I=DKII A 13). Disease could also be represented in medicine, however, as the liquefaction and disarticulation of the body, an elaboration in materialist terms of the archaic concepts of 'limb-loosening' eras and death. See e.g. Archil. II8 0N), Sapph. 137(LP), Hes. Th. 121, with Vermeule 1979, 145-177. 34 Ephemeral events such as sacrifices or, in healing cults, the nocturnal encounter with the healing god, were often represented on votive offerings (van Straten 1981, 83- 86, 98; id. 1992, 256-257). 100 BROOKE HOLMES its own history. Yet it is precisely the before-and-after that is important to Asclepius: the very absence of the mark on the healed body belies its history of sickness and the intervention of the god. We can contrast to the tabula rasa created by Asclepius's healing the almost imperceptible scar discovered postmortem on the body of the saint Macrina by her brother and the author of her fourth-century CE Vita, Gregory of Nyssa." Through Macrina's nurse, we learn that the scar, likened by Gregory to a mark (O'tLY!1U) made by a small needle, replaced a painful sore that had appeared on the saint's breast after she had prayed for healing. The scar is identified as a sign (OT]!1ELov) and commemoration (!1VT]!1oo'Uvov) of God's removal of the pathos (V. Macr. 31.5-7).36 The mark signals, then, not death, but the renewal of life under the aegis of divine power. Macrina wears the memory of this renewal on her own person. The difference between Macrina's scar and the Asclepian tabula rasa would seem to reflect a historical shift. For the interpretation of that scar takes place against the backdrop of Christianity's valorization of the scarred, wounded, and inscribed body in the first centuries CE, a valorization that departs sharply from Greco-Roman ideas about the corporeal mark. As a surge of recent scholarship has shown, throughout Greco-Roman antiquity a mark such as the tattoo cued subjection to a master, narrowing one's identity to whatever was imprinted on the skin and locking that identity against the passage of time." The tattoo can thus be seen as concretizing the surplus of power that licensed the more general use and abuse of bodies deemed subhuman by masters and governments and effectively canceled the individual's claims to self-determination." If we read Aristides' avoidance of the tattoo in the dream with the barbarians in this context, it is possible to see it as a promising sign for Aristides' eventual recovery of health. Through 35 See Frank 2000 and Burrus 2003 for discussion of Macrina's scar, which Frank reads as an allusion to Odysseus' famous and a site for fixing Macrina's 'shifting identities' (s29). 36 Compare the representation of the martyr's wounds as 'God's writing' at Prud. Peri. 3.135, cited by Shaw 1996, 306. 37 duBois 1991; Steiner 1994, 154-159; Shaw 1996, 306;]ones 2000, 10; Burrus 2003, 404-408. The mutilated body could also be read in such terms (Gleason 2001, 7g-80), although cf Edwards 1999, on the valorization of Scaevola's scarred body in Seneca's letters. 38 For this argument in classical Athens, see e.g. Dem. Against Androtion 55; Pi. Leg. 854d. Aristides himself uses in the metaphorical sense of 'to defame', 'to abuse' (xat 'tWV !-lEV OtXE'tWV oMEva 1tll:I11:m:' 'tWV oa1J'tO'u, 'tWV b' EV'tL!-lO'tU- AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY WI the spectacular performances of the early martyrs, Christians reclaimed the marked and tortured body as a site for the resistance to Roman power while at the same time investing the concept of subjection to a higher power with new meaning," For most Greeks and Romans, however, corporeal inscription was strongly associated from at least the fifth century BCE with slaves, barbarians, and criminals, groups lacking in the corporeal integrity necessary for self-mastery and the mastery of others, i.e. the integrity of the citizen or elite body. If Asclepian healing is to restore this integrity, it is incompatible with the mark. Asclepius's need for a site of commemoration independent of the pri- mary site of his power offers one explanation for why he so often issues directives to create a record when dispensing cures.'? Ancient reports and archaeological evidence indicate that sanctuaries ofAsclepius over- flowed with inscriptions and votive offerings." Anatomical ex-votos- both molded forms and body parts executed in repoussee relief ('tu- :itOL eYf-lUx:tOL, xu'tUf-lux'tOL)-have been discovered in healing sanctuaries throughout the Greek world, particularly from the fourth century BCE onwards." By doubling body parts in durable materials-recall the sub- stitution of Aristides' ring for his finger-these votives commemorate 'to'lJ<; %ut 'tOiJ<; fm:EQ 'tfj<; %OLVfj<; EAE'lJ{}EQla<; Lou %ut Q'tL!;U<; yEYEV1]OaL, you never tattooed any of your servants, but you have done as much as tattoo those who were the most honored of the Greeks and who fought on behalf of their common freedom.. .' Or. 111.651, cited inJones 2000, 9-IO). 39 See esp. Shaw 1996. On the changing meaning of the marked and tortured body, see also Gustafson 1997, 98-I01; Gleason 1999, 305. In speaking of a 'new meaning', I refer to Christianity's interaction with classical Greco-Roman culture. Religious tattooing had long been common among other peoples (Gustafson, op. cit., 9B---99;Jones 2000, 2--6). 40 See e.g. IG IV2.1 122 XXV=T423; IG IV2.1 126 (E%EAE'lJOEV llE %ut avuYQll1jJaL 'tuum)=T432; tc, I, xvii, nos. 17-18=T43g-440. 41 Van Straten 1981, 78-79; LiDonnici 1995, 41; van Straten 1992, 27Q--272. For an overview of the anatomical votives found in healing sites across the Greek-speaking world, see Rouse 1902, 21Q-216; Lang 1977, 14-19 (votives from Corinth); van Straten 1981, IOQ-I04, esp. the catalogue on pp. I05-151; Georgoulaki 1997. Miniature molded body parts have been found as early as Minoan Age Crete. Although their function has been disputed, they are widely seen as some kind of a dedication to gods with healing capacities (van Straten 1981, 146; Georgoulaki, op. cit., 198-202). Anatomical votives begin to appear again in quantity with the rise of healing cults, particularly the cult of Asclepius, in the fourth century BCE, and they remain in use to this day in Greece. A representative corpus of inscriptions can be found in the testimonia gathered in Edelstein and Edelstein 1945 (e.g. T428, 432, 43g-441). On other dedications to healing gods, see Rouse, op. cit., 208-226; LiDonnici, op. cit., 41-47. 42 'tuJto<; EyJ.lU%'tO<;, IG2 II 1534.64; 'tuJto<; %u'tUJ.lU%'to<;, IG2 II 1534.65, 67. 102 BROOKE HOLMES survival; like Aristides' ring, may have also been thought to enable it." Their suitability for memorializing lies precisely in their resistance to change. Fixity is also, of course, an attribute of writing," Indeed, a second- century CE papyrus fragment in praise oflmouthes-Asclepius, the pref- ace of which bears remarkable similarities to the Hieroi Logoi, heralds writing as the most suitable medium for committing Asclepius's deeds to memory, while placing votives on the side of (ephemeral) sacrifice;" [nu]ou YUQ [a]vu- Ti b[OO]QEU 'tOY nUQuu't[L]KU !1[6]v[0]v KU[LQ] 6v, EqJl'tUQ- 'tal bE'tOY !1EMOV'tU, YQU- qJi] M KU- 'to. KaLQOV 'ti][v] !1VT]!1T]V. (P. O:ry XI, 1381, Col. ix Igl-lg8=T331) For everygift of a votive offering or sacrifice lasts onlyfor the immediate moment, and presently perishes, while a written record is an undying meed of gratitude, fromtime to time renewingits youth in memory. Aristides' archive and the Hieroi Logoi similarly ensure that if each day and each night has a story, these stories are not lost by disappearing from the body'" Nor is the body compelled to remember them by becoming arrested in time. Thus, because inscriptions and texts stand 43 For the dedication of anatomical ex-votos in the hope of a cure, see Aristid. Or. XLII.7; see also van Straten 1981, 72-74, lOS; Georgoulaki 1997, 194. C£ Rouse 1902, 21<F-2II, asserting that the votives played no role, at least in the early centuries of the cult, in 'mystical substitution', although he is happy to see such substitution as part of a later mentality (citing Or. XLVIII.27). The success of such substitutions may have been related to a concept of the body as a collection of parts that could be exchanged, as Rynearson 2003 argues. On the votive as a 1Lvi'ilLu, see van Straten 1981,76-77. 44 Pi. Phdr. 275c, 277d, with Derrida 1980. 45 On the diffusion of the cult of Asclepius Imouthes in Egypt, see Edelstein and Edelstein 1945II, 252. 46 On the Hieroi liJgoi as a votive, see Quet 1993, 236-238. Aristides accepts the topos of writing and immortality: see e.g. Or. L.45-47 where he inscribes a dedication with a couplet that comes to him in a dream. The inscription inspires him to persist with his rhetorical career, 'as our name would live even among future men, since the god had called my speeches "everlasting" (me; KUV 'tOTe; UO'tEQOV uvf}QOJltOLe; ovolLU EOOILEVOV, yE uEvaoUe; 'tOile; Myoue; 0 {tEOe; E'tUXEV ltQOOELQT]KWe;). An epigram of Callimachus playfully turns the votive tablet (ltLVU;) into a safeguard against Asclepius's forgetfulness: 'to XQEOe; me; UltEXELe;, l\OKAT]ltLE, 'to ltQo YUVaLKOe; / dT]ILOIILKT]e; l\KEOlllV O)(PEAEV Eu;aILEVOe;, / YLVWOKELV. ijv II' c'iQu M{tn [ltaAL] KUL ILLV UltaL'tfje;, / qJT]OL ltUQE;Eo{}aL ILUQ'tUQLT]V 0 ltLVU;. ('Know, Asclepius, that thou hast received the debt which Aceson AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY still, the patient can be recreated as a tabula rasa without the memory of Asclepius's deeds being erased. The case of Pandarus, found in the third-century BeE Epidaurian miracle tablets, suggests that the association between disease, corporeal inscription, and commemoration may have been part of the imagina- tive world of the Asclepius cult from an early point." Pandarus arrives at Epidaurus bearing tattoos (O'tLY!1U'tU) on his forehead. In a dream vision, the god wraps a band (or fillet) around the marks, instructing him to remove it in the morning and dedicate it as an offering. Upon removing the band, Pandarus finds that his face is clean of the marks; he dedicates the band, which now bears the letters (YQ<l!1!1u'tu) that once appeared on his forehead. The votive, then, quite literally assumes the disease-letters as part of the patient's release, thereby becoming the memory of the marks' erasure.t" The disease-inscription nexus is con- firmed in the second part of the stOry.49 Pandarus gives money to one Echedorus to dedicate to Asclepius, whose aid Echedorus is seeking in the removal of his own tattoos. But Echedorus fails to deliver the money, and goes on to lie about it in a dream; the quizzical Ascle- pius responds by fastening the old headband of Pandarus around the lying suppliant's marks." Echedorus's discovery the following morning reverses his predecessor's: taking off the headband, he finds that both sets of letters are inscribed on his forehead, while the band itself is clean. The votive commemoration is erased, then, at the moment that the god applies signs to the body's surface. owed thee by his vow for his wife Demodice. But if thou dost forget and demand payment again, the tablet says it will bear witness', Call. Epigr. 55=T522). 47 IG IV2.1 121 VI=T423' 48 The anatomical ex-votos themselves, however, only rarely represent diseased body parts (Aleshire 1989, 41); I thank Christopher Jones for drawing my attention to this point. Note that 30.4, 30.5 in van Straten's catalogue are drawn from the problem- atic Meyer-Steineg collection. Some anatomical ex-votos are directly inscribed; others lacking inscriptions may have been placed on inscribed pedestals (van Straten 1992, 24g-250). 49 LiDonnici 1995, 26 reads the two episodes as parts of a single story, hypothesizing that the Pandarus element was a votive inscription to which a priest may have added the Echedorus component. 50 For the punishment motif, see also e.g. IG IV2.1 121 Iv, V, VIII=T423, with the comments of LiDonnici 1995, 26 n. 9 and 40 n. 3. Compare the similar pattern of transgression and punishment in the form of disease in propitiatory inscriptions found in second and third-century CE Phrygia and Lydia, analyzed in Chaniotis 1995. On the whole, however, the cult's emphasis was primarily on cure, rather than on blame and expiation. 104 BROOKE HOLMES The tension between fixed memorials and corporeal renewal that I have been describing would have always been available to cult devotees for thematic elaboration." In Aristides' ceuvre it becomes a major theme. Even cases where Aristides does actively engage the concept of the divine mark end up confirming his larger commitment to the body's capacity for renewal. Early in the first book of the Hieroi Logoi, for example, Aristides dreams that a bull bruises him on the knee (Or. XLVII.I3). His most trusted physician, Theodotus, approaches and cleans (aVExattUQEV) the bruise with a lancet of some kind, and Aristides has the idea in his dream to tell Theodotus 'that you yourself made it a wound'." Upon waking, Aristides finds that his knee does indeed have a small wound. Rather than causing trouble, however, it seems to be beneficial for his upper body. Nevertheless, the cut disappears after the katharsis is completed. A longer-lived and more spectacular corporeal mark appears at the end of the first book. Aristides reports that a tumor suddenly appeared on his groin from no obvious source (an' Or. XLVII.62), as is true of so many of his diseases. Rather than telling Aristides to excise the tumor, however, the god commands him to endure it-indeed, he is to nourish it ('tQEQlELV 'tOV oyxov, Or. XLVII.63). And this Aristides does for four months, quite contrary to the advice of his human doctors. The tumor brings with it an incredible burst of creativity that leads Aristides to declaim from his sickbed. The flourishing of his talents suggests that the presence of a localized disease gives rise to a more general katharsis, as in the bruising episode. In the end, however, what Aristides chooses to stress in the story is the dramatic reversion of the marked body to unblemished surface at the point when Asclepius makes clear to him that the time has come to expel the tumor with 'some drug'. Naturally, the success of the drug in deflating the tumor causes the doctors to marvel at the god's pronoia. Yet they persist with their advice to Aristides, suggesting that he allow them to cut away the loose skin left by the tumor. Again, Aristides 51 Kee 1982 argues for a historical shift within the cult of Asclepius between the period of the Epidaurian inscriptions and the Hieroi Logoi. Yet it is the relationship to the god that changes in his analysis: Asclepius becomes more central to people's lives, rather than fulfilling a single role. The basic imaginary of the cult remains quite stable, although the motifs gather new associations. 52 See also Or. IL.47, where Sarapis appears in a dream with a lancet and shaves around the face, 'as if removing and purging defilement and changing it to its proper state' (olovAVl1a't' (upaLQoov xat xa{}aLQOlv xat l1E1:a[3uAAOlv 'to 1tQoai'jxov). AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY perceives his physicians' strategy as divergent from that communicated to him by the god, who has ordered him to smear egg on the skin, and he ignores them. The result of this godsent remedy is the disap- pearance of every last trace of the tumor, 'so that after a few days had passed, no one was able to discover on which thigh the tumor had been, but both were entirely unscathed (pure, clean)' (WO'tE OAL- ywv :n:UQEA:frO'Uowv oMel\; OLO\; r' EVQELv EV O:n:O'tEQq> I-tTJQq> 'to qJ'ul-tu EXELVO EyEVE'tO, u"A"A' T]O'tTJV Ul-tqJO'tEQW xu'fruQw 'toL\; a:n:umv, Or. XLVII.68).53 The disappearance of the tumor dramatically demonstrates Ascle- pius's ability to return the body 'to its former state' (El\; 'to uQxuLov, Or. XLVII.67) and to make everything the same as it once was (O'Uvi)YUYEV :n:av'ta el\; 'tau'tov, Or. XLVII. 68; cf Or. IL.47). Throughout Aristides' writings, erasure turns out to be closely related to a concept of regen- eration that seems to deny the passage of time so central to the archive and narration more generally. Health is an absence of scars, forgetting, a washing away. I close by briefly looking at Aristides' commitment to endless regeneration in light of both the incompatibility between the mark or sign and the body and the ways in which Aristides controls and circumscribes the public representation of his embodied experience. Lethe andkatharsis The concept of being remade in the wake of illness runs as an under- current throughout the Hieroi Logoi. Aristides, we have seen, often casts the causes of his suffering as foreign elements that have breached the boundaries of the body. Although the elimination of a materia peccans played a key role in medical concepts of disease from the fifth century BeE onwards, the representation of disease as something foreign was counterbalanced by the belief that disease was a process by which con- stituent elements within the body grew dangerously powerful. 54 Indeed, the idea that disease developed inside an individual body could be used to buttress the 'care of the self' as an ethical imperative." Moreover, 53 See Pernot 2002, 375 for a reading of the tumor episode consistent with the one I offer here. 54 The classic account of 'ontological' versus 'physiological' concepts of disease is Temkin 1963. See also Niebyl 1969, 2-II for the overlap of these concepts in Greek explanations of disease. For the medical idea of katharsis in the classical period, see von Staden 2007. 55 See, for example, Galen's arguments against Erasistratus's concept of causality 106 BROOKE HOLMES the ethics of self-care eschews the idea of perfect unity: bodies naturally comprise opposed elements whose interaction must always be man- aged. Aristides, as we have seen, resists attempts to locate his symptoms within secular frameworks of interpretation. He thus implicitly rejects the premise that his suffering is the outcome of practices over which he might be held accountable." His strategy works in tandem with his representation of disease as invasive and hidden and the corresponding emphasis on cathartic expulsion and rebirth. Indeed, in his evacuation of the inner body, Aristides was often willing to go to extremes that expressly contradicted basic therapeu- tic principles of secular medicine, such as considering the strength of the patient when undertaking therapy'" When the noted physician and sophist Satyrus-a teacher of Galen's-hears how many purges of blood Aristides has had, he orders him to stop immediately, lest he over- whelm and destroy his body (Or. IL.8; c£ Or. XLVII.73; Or. XLVIII.34- 35).58 Aristides responds that he is not master ( % U Q L O ~ ) of his own blood and that he will continue to obey the god's directives. 59 Aristides' abil- ity to survive the body's journey to the precipice of a void indicates his privileged relationship to Asclepius. Indeed, it is because he can endure the diseased body's destruction that he is granted holistic renewal, an idea that bears some similarity to contemporary ideas of martyrdom and resurrection in early Christianity, with the notable difference that Aristides wants life after death in this life. 60 The myth of Asclepius, after in OnAntecedent Causes XY.I87-196 (142,3-146,5 Hankinson) and Nutton 1983, 6-16 on resistance to 'ontological' concepts of disease on ethical grounds in the Greco-Roman period. 56 Asclepius does, as we have seen, command him to avoid certain foods or activities, so that the central imperative of medicine, 'watch out'! (lpUAa!;ov), remains in effect, as at Or. XLVII.7!. The difference is that no dietetics handbook or physician can provide the information Aristides needs: the threats to his health are unpredictable and changeable. 57 On the importance in imperial-age medicine of establishing the patient's strength before letting blood, see Niebyl 1969, 68-76 (and pp. 26-38 on the origins of the concept in fifth and fourth-century BCE medicine). 58 Both Aristides and Satyrus accept the effectiveness of venesection but they take different views of it. In medicine, bloodletting helps eliminate excess, rather than aiding in the expulsion of a foreign body (Niebyl 1969). Yet Aristides seems to think of bloodletting precisely in terms of expelling something foreign (e.g. Or. XLVII.28). 59 C£ Or. XLVII.4. 60 Perkins (1992, 254, 262-266; 1995, 180-181, 18g-192) draws the comparison be- tween the martyr and Aristides; see also Dodds 1965, 42. In both cases, similarities arise from a shared cultural context rather than any direct claims of influence. C£ Shaw 1996, 300 ('the discourse in which Aristides is engaged .. .is distinctively his own, and is AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 10 7 all, made clear the dangers involved when philanthropic gods pursue more radical forms of resurrection." In An Address Regarding Asclepius, Aristides casts renewal precisely in the metaphorical terms of primeval creation. a.AM Kat ItEAT] 'tou ahu'i>vtaL Kat MyooKat :n:QOVOL<;,l 'tOU {teou yEvEo'frm mpLOL, 'tWV :n:aQu bLmp{taQEvtOOV, Kat Ka'taMyouOLv c'iAAo n, OL ItEv a.:n:O ou'tooot OL M: EV 'tOLVUV OUXt 'tou a.AA' a:n:av 'to owIta re Kat ebOOKE bOOQEa.V, Wo:n:EQ 'ta.QXa'La MYE'tmoUIt:n:Mom'tOY c'iv{tQoo:n:OV. (Or. XLII.7=T317) But some, I mean both men and women, even attribute to the provi- dence of the god the existence of the limbs of their body, when their natural limbs had been destroyed; others list other things, some in oral accounts, some in the declarations of their votive offerings. For us it is not only a part of the body, but it is the whole body which he has formed and put together and given as a gift, just as Prometheus of old is said to have fashioned man. The representation of Asclepius's work as the gifting of new body parts, rather than the salvaging of old ones, lends credence to the idea that the votive transforms permanent damage (the diseased body) into lasting memory and, as a result, gives the patient a fresh start. Never one to be outdone, Aristides declares that, in his case, his whole body has been destroyed and remade. In On Concord, Aristides' experience of renewal is extraordinary because it has happened so many times. 'I myself', Aristides declares, 'am one of those who under the god's protection, have lived not twice but many varied lives, and who on this account regard their disease as profitable' (eyw I-tEv oilv xat au'tol; eLl-tL 'tmv ou btl; u:n:o 'tq> t}Eq>, &JJ... a :n:OAAOUI; 'tE xat :n:av'tOba:n:oul; xat 'tilv vooov xma roiito Elvm AlJOL'tEAfj Or. XXIII.I6=T402; c£ Or. XLVIII.59). located in a realm of ideas and rhetoric separate from that of the Christian ideologues'). Shaw dates the dissemination of Christian interpretations of the endurance-pain (and torture)-virtue nexus in the elite Roman world to the first century CE (op. cit. 291- 296). Thus while it is true that Aristides' stance incorporates motifs from the cult of Asc1epius, we can also assume his exposure to contemporary concepts of, and debates about, suffering and healing, given his elite education, his travel, and the cosmopolitanismof the Antonine Age. 61 In most versions, Asc1epius is struck dead by Zeus's thunderbolt for raising the dead (T66-8S; TrOS-IIS). Notably, it is Sarapis who appears to Aristides in a dream about the afterlife(Or. IL.48). 108 BROOKE HOLMES The logic of regeneration shows up in dramatic ways in the Hieroi Logoi. In addition to continual purgation and innumerable enemas and bloodlettings, Aristides boasts of being operated on more than any other suppliant in the history of the Pergamene temple of Asclepius." These literal acts of cutting and reassembling vividly express the process that Aristides imagines takes place in less violent treatments. In the third book, Neritus, one of his foster fathers, dreams that the god tells him it is necessary to remove Aristides' bones and put in tendons, since the existing ones have failed (Or. IL.IS). Seeing Neritus's alarm at the prospect of such a surgical operation, the god gives a less shocking command: no need, after all, to knock the bones out directly and cut out the tendons at present; rather what Aristides requires is a change of the existing tendons, a great and strange 'correction' To achieve this Aristides need only adopt the use of unsalted olive oil. What is particularly striking in the Neritus dream is the idea that starting over involves, in the first formulation, not the replacement of bones and tendons with new bones and tendons, but the replacement of hard (i.e. bones with pliant tendons, as though the bones themselves were impediments to Aristides' reinvention (an idea that recalls the etymologies of Asclepius's name that we saw above). Despite the strong emphasis that Aristides appears to place on the foreign origins of disease, then, his belief in regeneration in fact exaggerates secular medicine's concept of a body complicit in the production of suffering. That is to say: it is not simply the invasive element that must be eliminated, but the damaged body itsel£ Purging the body's strangeness thus lays the groundwork for what is both a homecoming and a form of rebirth. 62 or re YUQ VEW)tOQOL EV 'tou'tlp )tUL ol :n:EQL 'tOY i}EOV i}EQU:n:ElJ'tUL )tUL UWL :n:w 'toov :n:uV'tWV OlJVELIlEVUL 'tocruii'tu yE dVUL II' EV :n:uQullo!;6'tu'tOv 'to y' E)tELVOlJ, aMU )tUL U:n:EQf3uAAELV 'to )tui}' UVElJ 'toov UAAWV :n:uQuM!;wv... ('For the temple wardens, having reached such an age in that place, and all of those who served the god and held appointments in the temple agreed that they had never known anyone who had been cut up so many times, except for Ischuron, whose case was the most unbelievable, but that our case went beyond even this one, to say nothing of the other unbelievable things', Or. XLVIII.47). 63 In the last two orations, we find similar instances where what must be changed is the mind (Or. L.S2) or 'the dead part of the soul' ('to Or. LII.2). In both cases, change brings divine communion. aelius aristides’ illegible body 109 I have argued Aristides sees the lived body as resistant to both inter- pretation and the act of creating memory. The body is rather written into stories that are first staged in dreams then recorded in the archive. By interpreting these stories, Aristides is able to act on the body in such a way as to restore it to a primeval state of harmony in which the disso- nance between an opaque interior harboring something foreign, on the one hand, and the person who suffers and seeks the meaning of that suffering, on the other, is eliminated, at least temporarily. The body is repeatedly released from death because, although it is recovered from obscurity through stories, it is never captured by any one story. At the same time, the slipperiness of the living body creates the need for a fixed text to memorialize the work of Asclepius. Even the casual reader of the Hieroi Logoi, however, cannot help but notice that that text does not always feel stable and fixed. It is often jumpy, elliptical, and defiant of chronology. 64 Its disorder stages the breakdown in Aristides’ understanding of what has happened, the moments when he is unsure how to match representation to reality; its lacunae recall the breaks in the archive. The tenuous grasp that Aristides has on his lived experiences in the Hieroi Logoi confirms the body’s irrepressible strangeness that wells up in the gap between the dream and waking life, between the oneiric performance and the text. At other moments, however, what escapes narration is precisely the glowing plenitude of well-being that rewards successful therapeutic ac- tion. This plenitude cannot be captured by the negative figure of the tabula rasa. For the feeling of being restored to wholeness that Aristides describes after events such as the dedication of the surrogate-ring to Telesphorus have a positive charge. 65 Such feelings are associated most strongly with ‘the divine baths’ that Aristides narrates, and indeed 64 Castelli 1999, 198–202. 65 See Or. XLVIII.28: τò δj μετo το0το rξεστιν εiκoζειν oπως διεκεiμε0α, καi oποiαν τινo úρμονiαν πoλιν jμ0ς jρμóσατο o 0εóς (‘After this it is impossible to imagine our condition, and into what kind of harmony the god again brought us’). As D. Goure- vitch has observed, the word íγiεια is found only once, at Or. L.69 (1984, 49). What Aristides gains following the successful implementation of dream therapies is described as ç¸ αστuνη (Or. XLVIII.35; Or. IL.13; Or. LI.38, 90). ‘Physiquement’, Gourevitch writes, ‘ce bien-être obtenu grâce à la faveur divine, est un état bizarre, qui n’est pas partic- ulièrement voluptueux, mais caractérisé par un sentiment de chaleur intérieure par- faite, et d’éloignement par rapport au monde extérieur’ (op. cit., 48); see also Brown 1978, 43; Miller 1994, 203–204. A kind of relaxation or sense of presence may also attend moments of inspired oratorical performance (e.g. Or. LI.39). 110 brooke holmes with all his encounters with sacred water. 66 Like other events that exchange the damaged past for a unified and all-consuming present, such as the healing of the tumor or tasting the water from Asclepius’s sacred well, the baths are synonymous with lêthê: ‘So let us turn to the divine baths, from which we digressed. Let the pains, the diseases, the threats, be forgotten’ (ν0ν δr o0εν rξrβημεν τρεπuμε0α πρòς τo λουτρo τo 0εtα· oδuναι δr καi νóσοι καi κiνδυνοι πoντες rρρóντων, Or. XLVIII.71). 67 In bathing, the body is restored to the conscious, first-person subject as a singular entity suffused with warmth and oblivious of all that is strange or painful. One famous passage in particular goes to some lengths in its attempt to describe the phenomenology of starting over: καi τo 0πò τοuτου τiς 0ν rνδεiξασ0αι δυνη0εiη; 0παν γoρ τò λοιπòν τjς jμrρας καi τjς νυκτòς τò εiς ε0νjν διεσωσoμην τjν rπi τ_u λουτρ_u σχr- σιν, καi οuτε τι ξηροτrρου οuτε íγροτrρου το0 σuματος ¸jσ0óμην, ο0 τjς 0rρμης 0νjκεν ο0δrν, ο0 προσεγrνετο, ο0δ’ αu τοιο0τον j 0rρμη jν, οiον 0ν τ_ω καi 0π’ 0ν0ρωπiνης μηχανjς íπoρξειεν, 0λλo τις jν 0λrα διηνεκjς, δuναμιν φrρουσα iσην διo παντòς το0 σuματóς τε καi το0 χρóνου. 68 παρα- πλησiως δr καi τo τjς γνuμης εiχεν. οuτε γoρ οiον jδονj περιφανjς jν οuτε κατ' 0ν0ρωπiνην ε0φροσuνην rφησ0α 0ν εiναι α0τó, 0λλ' jν τις 0ρ- ρητος ε00υμiα, πoντα δεuτερα το0 παρóντος καιρο0 τι0εμrνη, uστε ο0δ' oρuν τo 0λλα rδóκουν oρ0ν· οIτω π0ς jν πρòς τ_u 0ε_u. (Or. XLVIII. 22–23) And who would be able to relate what came after this? For the entire rest of the day and the night until it was time for bed I preserved the state following the bath, and I sensed no part of my body to be hotter or colder, nor did any of the heat dissipate, nor was any added, but the warmth was not of that kind that one could obtain by human means; it was a kind of continuous heat, producing the same effect throughout the entire body and during the whole time. And it was the same with my mind. For it was no obvious pleasure, nor would you say that it was in the manner of human joy, but it was an inexplicable wellbeing that made everything second to the present moment, with the result that I seemed to see other things without even really seeing them. In this way I was entirely with the god. 66 The role of water in the cult of Asclepius (and in other healing cults in the Greco- Roman world) has long been recognized. For an overview of the different uses of water in the Hieroi Logoi, see Boudon 1994, 159–163. 67 See Or. XXXIX.2, where Aristides compares the water in the sacred well to ‘Homer’s lotus’. 68 Following χρóνου, MSS. Keil prints χρωτóς following Haury’s emendation. aelius aristides’ illegible body 111 At such moments, the body becomes familiar without the mediation of the dreams, which are premised on self-estrangement in waking life. The outside world falls away, leaving only the divine embrace and a sense of inner unity. 69 It is this experience of self-sameness—no part of the body, for example, is warmer or colder than the others— that is shattered not only by the disease, but also by dreaming and writing, practices that, as we have seen, are premised on self-splitting. In focusing Aristides’ attention wholly on the present, the baths stand outside of memory. To the extent that the baths stand outside of time, they are in a strong sense extra- or anti-textual: private and eternally present. Nev- ertheless, Aristides wants to narrate the baths and other such moments within the Hieroi Logoi. The fact that he does so reminds us that ‘the body’ of which I have been speaking is always an effect of the Hieroi Logoi, however much body and text are uncoupled within that work. When Aristides writes about his fully embodied communion with the god, he treads a narrow path between opening that relationship up to public interpretation and protecting the inimitable intimacy that leaves no place to the watcher, and between timelessness and commemora- tion. 70 Following one outdoors bath, Aristides writes that ‘the comfort and relaxation that followed this were perfectly easy for a god to com- prehend, but for a person, not at all easy to imagine or demonstrate in language’ (j δr rπi τοuτ_ω κουφóτης καi 0ναψυχj 0ε_u μrν καi μoλα ç¸αδiα γνuναι, 0ν0ρuπ_ω δr j ν_u λαβεtν j rνδεiξασ0αι λóγ_ω ο0 πoνυ ç¸oδιον, Or. XLVIII.49). The Hieroi Logoi are a testimonial to experi- ences that Aristides insists will always lie outside the public domain, experiences that nevertheless could not be celebrated as indications of divine favor without Aristides’ willingness to speak and write about them. Aristides’ difficulty in sharing the comfort gained through the bath restages the singular nature of his original experience. Several compan- 69 See also Or. XLVIII.53; Or. LI.55. 70 On the tension between the public and the private, see Miller 1994, 184–204. This tension can be sensed even more strongly against the backdrop of Albert Henrichs’ recent analysis (2003) of hieroi logoi, which were defined, Henrichs argues, by their com- mitment to the esoteric while also gaining fame, e.g. in the travelogues of Herodotus or Pausanius, as closed books. Aristides’ Hieroi Logoi, named through—what else?—a dream (Or. XLVIII.9), are cited by Henrichs as an exception to the rule (230 n. 71; 240 n. 115), although on closer inspection they appear to be consistent with Henrichs’ account of hieroi logoi. 112 brooke holmes ions, for example, once tried to imitate his fulfillment of the divine pre- scription only to find that their bodies could not tolerate the extreme conditions that it required (Or. XLVIII.76). 71 As on other occasions where Aristides insists that only he is capable of understanding what the god says and fulfilling his commands, that capacity is confirmed through the failure of others. On the other hand, Aristides’ troubles as a narrator cue the impos- sibility of setting into time an experience that is defined by its resis- tance to narrative arcs that posit beginnings and endings. 72 Of course, these experiences are not, in fact, unspeakable, despite Aristides’ use of this literary topos. Indeed, Aristides addresses the crowd following his bath at Or. XLVIII.82 with a speech inspired by Asclepius. Still, expe- riences of inner unity lie outside the logic of interpretation that governs the experience of the body in its opacity, where opacity ensures there is always something hidden to be (potentially) known and explained via a boundless divine text. Moments of communion with the divine participate, rather, in an ongoing cycle by which Aristides has his sto- ries purged and washed from him as a condition of the renewal of life. Even Aristides, however, cannot remain with the god forever. How- ever much time seems to stand still within his states of joy, pleasure ends, pain encroaches, and the body is again taken up as an object of interpretation and narration: story follows upon story. Thus, the body is Odyssean not only in its toils and its subterfuge, but in its refusal to stay at home in Penelope’s embrace: no sooner has it become familiar than it is attracted into foreign territory once again, like Tennyson’s Ulysses, for whom ‘the deep/moans round with many voices’, beckoning him back to the open sea with its waves, its strangeness. Unlike Odysseus, 71 Although barefoot runs and wintry baths were part of the usual repertoire of Asclepian cures, as Marcus Aurelius indicates (Ad se ipsum V.8=T407) and Aristides himself acknowledges (Or. XLVIII.55). 72 Aristides elsewhere uses the experience of drinking the sacred water to capture a sense of speech that would happen ‘all at once’: τiς οuν δj γrνοιτ’ 0ν 0ρχj, j uσπερ jνiκ’ 0ν 0π’ α0το0 πiνωμεν, προσ0rντες τοtς χεiλεσι τjν κuλικα ο0κrτι 0φiσταμεν, 0λλ’ 00ρóον εiσεχεoμε0α, οIτως καi o λóγος 00ρóα πoν0’ rξει λεγóμενα; (‘What, then, should be the beginning (of our speech), or, just as when we drink from the well, raising the cup to the lips we never stop again, but pour in the liquid all at once, so too should our speech everything all at once’? Or. XXXIX.4=T804). That the sentiment is a topos does not keep it from participating in a set of motifs central to Aristides’ œuvre. Water, he goes on to say in the same speech, is untouched by time (χρóνος γο0ν α0το0 ο0χ 0πτεται, ibid. 9). aelius aristides’ illegible body 113 however, this epic hero travels without a scar: the past belongs wholly to the god and the archive. By displacing writing from the lived self, Aristides manages to keep his distance from his stories and, hence, to survive them. 73 73 I am very grateful to Heinrich von Staden, whose critical eye and intellectual gen- erosity have seen this project through from beginning to end. I would also like to thank Paul Demont, who supervised my mémoire L’écriture dans les Discours sacrés d’Aelius Aris- tide, as well as to the members of my D.E.A. jury, Alain Billaut and Danielle Gourevitch; Hakima Ben-Azzouz and Marie-Pierre Harder provided invaluable editorial assistance in Paris. Thank you to William Harris for inviting me to take part in the conference at the Center for the Ancient Mediterranean at Columbia and for continuing to involve me in the world of Aristides, to Brent Shaw, and to Glen Bowersock, whose comments on the written version of this article greatly improved it. I acknowledge two Joseph E. Croft ’73 Summer Travel Fellowships from Princeton University and a Mellon Fel- lowship for Assistant Professors, which allowed me to complete this work under ideal conditions at the Institute for Advanced Study. chapter six PROPER PLEASURES: BATHING AND ORATORY IN AELIUS ARISTIDES’ HIEROS LOGOS I AND ORATION 33 * Janet Downie Aelius Aristides begins the first of his Hieroi Logoi with what purports to be a diary of illness and therapy. Aristides suffers from digestive problems, and he sets out to offer a serial account of his condition: ‘But now’, he proclaims, ‘I want to reveal to you how it was with my abdomen. And I will give an account of everything day by day’. 1 From the outset, descriptions of his night visions dominate the account, and as a consequence scholars have read Aristides’ so-called Diary (HL I.7– 60)—and sometimes the Hieroi Logoi as a whole—in the Asclepiadic tra- dition of prescriptive dreams and votive offerings. 2 He writes, however, not from the sanctuary of Asclepius at Pergamum—his most famous haunt—but from his ancestral estates in Mysia, in early 166CE, some two decades after the original illness that led him to his divine protec- tor. 3 And while the text is remarkable for the way it vividly reproduces * I would like to thank William Harris for the opportunity to present this paper at the Symposium and for his assistance in the revision and editorial process. I am grateful also to Brooke Holmes and Ewen Bowie for their help, and to Christopher Faraone, Elizabeth Asmis, Shadi Bartsch and Ja´ s Elsner for feedback on earlier versions. The text is substantially that of the paper as presented. 1 ν0ν δr uς rσχεν τò το0 jτρου δηλuσαι πρòς íμ0ς βοuλομαι λογιο0μαι δr rκαστα πρòς jμrραν (HL I.4). The Diary closes at HL I.60: τοσα0τα μrν τo περi το0 jτρου (‘So much, then, for the situation concerning my abdomen’). 2 E.g. Edelstein and Edelstein 1945; Festugière 1954; Dodds 1965; Perkins 1995. 3 Behr 1968, 97–98, dates the Diary 4 January – 15 February CE 166, based on references in Aristides’ dreams to events of the Parthian War (HL I.36) and to the presence of the emperor in the East (HL I.33; for imperial activities and movements see Birley 1966). Cf. Boulanger 1923, 483. The date of the composition of HL I is a separate question. Behr 1994, 1155–1163, argues that the Hieroi Logoi were written in 171. A persuasive case for the later date of 175 is made by Weiss 1998, 38 and nn. 55 and 56; cf. Bowersock 1969, 79–80. Conjectures as to the date of composition are based upon readings of two key passages—I.59 and II.9—but it is possible too that HL I and 116 janet downie the uncertainties of dream language, the first Logos is, I believe, a deliberately public account with a rhetorical aim. 4 Aristides is as much concerned with developing a professional self-portrait as with offering an account of divine medical care. In this paper I examine the rhetoric of Aristides’ self-presentation in a narrative episode from the first Logos. Aristides’ dream account at HL I.19–21 includes a declaration of his oratorical vocation that scholars have taken as key to understanding the passage. But previous readings have not offered an adequate account of what Aristides achieves by reporting this assertion in the context of a dream concerned with the sensual pleasures of bathing. I suggest we can appreciate the rhetorical point of this juxtaposition by considering its place within the broader narrative of bathing in HL I, and by reading the episode alongside moments of very similar polemic in Aristides’ Or. 33, ‘To Those who Criticize him because he does not Declaim’. In both Or. 33 and HL I Aristides draws on the precedent of Socratic self-portraiture as a way of presenting professional claims. At the same time, a comparison of the two texts also reveals what is distinctive about the Hieroi Logoi and its narrative of physical experience. Midway through the Diary of the first Logos, Aristides describes a dream in which he sees himself in conversation with an athlete, a youth in training at one of Smyrna’s gymnasia. 5 The subject of their conversation is bathing—a pursuit which Aristides’ interlocutor takes to be an uncomplicated, self-evident pleasure. Adopting a Socratic pose, Aristides questions the youth’s assumptions (HL I.19–20): HL II were written at different times. Dorandi 2005 suggests that HL I is the work not of Aristides at all, but of a later interpolator. However, his argument—based on the heterogeneity of this portion of the text and on its narrative confusion—is difficult to accept. For reasons I explain more fully in my dissertation on Aristides’ Hieroi Logoi, I take HL I to be genuine. 4 On Aristides’ realistic portrayal of the syntax of dream language see Gigli 1977, 219–220; Del Corno 1978, 1610, 1616–1618; Castelli 1999. Nicosia 1988, 181–182, sug- gests that the Diary of the first Logos has undergone little ‘secondary elaboration’ by comparison with dream narratives of the other Logoi. Cf. Dorandi 2005. Contrast Quet 1993, 220, who maintains that the Diary of 166 was ‘choisi et peut-être conçu pour être publié’ by Aristides himself. On Aristides self-consciousness about the compositional status of his text, and on his references to the ‘apograph’ see Pearcy 1988. 5 The setting of this dream in Smyrna is secured by a reference to the ‘Ephesian Gates’ at HL I.20. Cf. Cadoux 1938, 181. For gymnasia in Smyrna see Aristides Or. 17.11; 18.6. On baths as an outstanding feature of the Smyrnaean landscape, see Aristides Or. 17.11, 47.18–21, 29.30, 23.20. Cf. Yegül 1992, 306. proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 117 αu0ις δr rδóκουν πρòς α0τ_u τ_u 'Ασκληπι_u νεανiσκον τινo τuν γυμναστι- κuν rτι 0γrνειον περi βαλανεiων διαλrγεσ0αι, τo μεγoλα δj rπαινο0ντα καi τοιαuτας τινoς τoς 0πολαuσεις το0 βiου τι0rμενον. δεiξας οuν α0τ_u τjν 0oλατταν jρóμην εi καi rντα00α 0μεινον λοuεσ0αι, j rν μικρ_u. ‘rν μικρ_u’, rφη. μετo δr το0το λiμνην τινo rδειξα καi jρóμην εi καi rν λiμν¸η τοσαuτ¸η κρεtττον, j rν μικρ_u. συνεχuρει κ0ντα00α oτι αlρετuτερον τò rν μικρ_u. ‘ο0κ 0ρα, rφην, πανταχο0 τó γε μεtζον αlρετuτερον, 0λλ’ rστιν τις καi μικρο0 χoρις’. καi 0μα rνενóησα πρòς rμαυτòν uς καi rπιδεικνυμrν_ω που καλòν εiπεtν oτι τuν μrν 0λλων 0ν0ρuπων αl jδοναi κινδυνεuουσιν íuν τινων εiναι jδοναi, j δr rμj κα0αρuς 0ρα 0ν0ρuπου εiη, oστις σuνει- μi τε καi χαiρω λóγοις. And again, I dreamed that by the statue of Asclepius himself a young man—one of the athletes, still unbearded—was lecturing about bathing establishments. He was praising large ones and considered such things the pleasures of life. So indicating to him the sea, I asked if it was better to bathe even in there, or in a small place. ‘In a small place’, he said. And after this I pointed to a harbor and asked whether it was better in a harbor of that size, or in a small place. He agreed that in that case too it was preferable [to bathe] in a small place. ‘Then it’s not’, I said, ‘a general rule that the greater is preferable, but there is also some charm in the small’. And at the same time I thought to myself that also if one were declaiming somewhere it would be well to say that the pleasures of other men risk being the pleasures of swine, but my pleasure is purely that of a man, since I keep company with—and rejoice in— words (logoi). The dream contains a miniature elenchos on the subject of the size of bathing sites, by which Aristides exposes the absurdity of the young man’s assumption that life’s physical pleasures should be enjoyed on a large scale. Then, at the conclusion of this exchange, still inside the dream, 6 Aristides gives an oratorical cap to the conversation in his own mind: ‘What are the pleasures of the bath house’, he reflects, ‘compared to the pure intellectual joys of one who dedicates himself to rhetoric?’ I will come back—at the end of this paper—to what ensues. For in fact, while he strongly censures bathing as ‘the pleasures of swine’, Aristides ends up making the surprising decision to indulge in the very activity he has repudiated (I.20–21). But to begin we should examine the associative logic of the dream itself. How does Aristides’ total rejection of bathing relate to the Socratic-style exchange that precedes it? 6 Implied by the phrase καi 0μα rνενóησα. 118 janet downie Scholars have noticed Aristides’ highly self-conscious expression, here, of his intellectual allegiances. 7 However, the two studies that take some time to interpret the passage have concluded that the episode at HL I.19–21 is ultimately symbolic—either of literary aesthetics or of suppressed sexual desire; and neither offers an adequate account of Aristides’ deliberate conjunction of bathing and oratory. Charles Weiss reads the passage as an allegory of literary style, and dismiss- ing the ‘long fast leap’ Aristides makes between the dream’s two parts, he focuses his attention on the logical conclusion of the elenchos—that there is a certain charm in the small. 8 Weiss relates this to a liter- ary aesthetic of smallness in Callimachaean terms, and suggests that it alludes to the plain style of the Hieroi Logoi themselves. 9 Besides the fact that it is difficult to take the sprawling narrative of the HL as a study in literary miniaturization, 10 there remains the issue that in his rhetorical comment on the dream elenchos, Aristides does not draw distinctions between different kinds of speaking or writing; rather, he contrasts the so-called ‘pleasures of swine’ with oratorical culture in its widest sense: logoi. Weiss’s reading does not address why Aristides represents the very broad categories of bathing and rhetoric as moral opposites. Michenaud and Dierkens, on the other hand, make Aris- tides’ opposition between bathing and oratory crucial. They read the dream encounter with the young athlete as representing a homosex- ual solicitation through which erotic energy is sublimated in intellectual pursuits. 11 However, their overtly psychoanalytic approach misses the ironic humor at work here and precludes any recognition of Aristides’ deliberate construction of an ethical dichotomy between bathing and declamation. 7 Weiss 1998, Michenaud and Dierkens 1972. Keil 1898, ad loc. cross-references this passage with Or. 33.29–31; cf. Behr 1981, ad loc. 8 Weiss 1998, 50. 9 Weiss 1998, 49–52 takes the dream as ‘a symbol for the [stylistic] program’ of the Hieroi Logoi. He suggests that the Hieroi Logoi were composed as an essay in the ‘plain style’ as part of a bid for a position on the imperial staff (perhaps as tutor to the young Commodus) when Marcus Aurelius visited Smyrna in 176 during a political-diplomatic tour after Avidius Cassius’ uprising in the East. 10 When Aristides uses water metaphors to talk about oratory and writing, immen- sity and incommensurability—not an aesthetic of smallness—are the pervasive themes (e.g. HL I.1). On the rarity of references to Hellenistic authors in Aristides’ writings and those of his contemporaries—and the few exceptions—see Bowie 1989, 211–212. 11 Michenaud and Dierkens 1972, 88, take this dream as corroborating their hypoth- esis that Aristides’ oratorical activities are compensation for fear of real social engage- ment. proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 119 To understand Aristides’ deliberate combination of bathing and ora- tory in this passage, I suggest we should consider two contexts for the dream: first, the therapeutic motif of alousia (‘abstention from baths’) that structures the dream narrative of HL I; second, the rhetoric of Or. 33, where Aristides characterizes bathing as a luxurious activity in order to highlight the ethical value of oratory. Dating to approximately the same time as HL I, Oration 33 presents the physical concerns of epi- demic illness and of luxurious living as a testing ground for intellectual commitments. The thematic parallels help to show what is at stake in HL I, where Aristides makes the care and cultivation of his body part of a strategy for self-presentation. Alousia From its first entry, the Diary of Aristides’ digestive complaints is framed by the god’s prescription for restoring balance in his body: alou- sia, ‘abstention from baths’. 12 This therapy makes sound medical sense in the ancient context. 13 For, since abdominal disorder was understood to result from an excess of moist humors, a ‘drying’ regimen was con- sidered the appropriate corrective in some cases. But Aristides’ Diary does not, on the whole, record simple abstention from bathing. Instead he presents a long series of dreams that require interpretation and seem, in a number of cases, to suggest that he ought to bathe. The first of these dreams immediately follows Asclepius’ command of alousia (HL I.7): 12 Δωδεκoτ¸η δr το0 μηνòς 0λουσiαν προστoττει o 0εòς (I.6): ‘And on the twelfth of the month the god prescribes abstention from baths’. Aristides uses the word alousia sixteen times in the Hieroi Logoi, all citations but one occurring in the first Logos. The only ancient author whose record approaches this is Galen (fifteen occurrences over his entire corpus). There are, of course, other ways to describe the action of refraining from bathing in Greek. In the Hippocratic context, for example, Villard 1994, 43 n. 9, finds the following verbal locutions: λουτρuν εiργεσ0αι/απrχεσ0αι, 0λουτεtν, μj λοuειν. Alousia, then, is concise shorthand for the prescription. 13 Villard 1994, 52. Villard’s lexical analysis of Hippocratic texts shows that louesthai can indicate many different external therapeutic activities involving water, only some of which involved immersion bathing. In the Hippocratic treatise The Art 5, bathing and abstention from bathing (alousia) appear in a list of polar opposites that guide medical treatment—including eating much and fasting, exercise and rest, sleep and wakefulness and so on. In the Hippocratic Corpus, see especially: Regimen 2.57, Affections 53, Regimen in Acute Diseases 18. Bathing was believed by the Hippocratic writer of Places in Man 43 120 janet downie After this there came a dream that contained some notion of bathing— not, however, without some doubt (though I did seem to be actually defiled [molunthenai] in some way), but it seemed nevertheless a good idea to bathe, especially because if in fact I had suffered this [defilement], water was necessary. Straightaway, then, I spent some rather unpleasant time in the bathhouse. And when I got out, all [my body] seemed full and my breathing was like an asthmatic’s so that, to begin with, I immediately stopped taking nourishment. After this there was corruption (diaphthora) from night onwards, and it went on to such an extent that it scarcely let up a little before noon. Aristides describes himself as hesitating between the ‘notion’ (ennoia) that a dream of defilement signals the need for a bath, and a ‘doubt’ (huponoia)—since bathing would presumably be contraindicated by his digestive problems and by Asclepius’ previous instructions. 14 The term molunthenai is rare in the medical context; here, in the context of dream interpretation and in conjunction with diaphthora it acquires, rather, a moral resonance. 15 Although Aristides is not explicit about the details of his vision, we might imagine an excrement dream of the sort that Artemidorus and Galen both describe. Galen, attending primarily to how dreams index the state of the body, says that when a dreamer sees himself standing in excrement or mud it means either that his humors are in a bad state or that his bowels are full. 16 According to Artemi- and by Galen to help people obtain nourishment from food; thus, its opposite, alousia, was a logical concomitant of fasting. 14 This passage gives an example of the frequently complex syntax of the HL, by which Aristides attempts to render dream logic in language: narrative and interpreta- tion quickly merge. 15 The medical uses of μολuνω are limited: in his treatise on the composition of medicaments, Galen uses the verb to talk about colors that stain; in the Hippocratic corpus, the related μωλuνω describes swellings that suppurate. Basically, μολuνω refers to physical defilement, but this sense is easily extended metaphorically or symbolically to the moral sphere. Plato speaks of the person who is ‘defiled’ like a wild pig by his ignorance (Rep. 535e); Artemidorus investigates the significance for the dreamer’s social life of various dreams of ‘defilement’ (ii.26). Cf. LSJ (s.v.) for attestations of both the physical and extended (or metaphorical) senses. While diaphthora can refer to ‘corruption’ of a physical sort (see LSJ I.5, Aretaeus, CA ‘stomachic disorder’), in Aristides’ corpus its moral overtones (cf. LSJ I.3 ‘moral corruption’) are marked: see Or. 34.27 and Or. 29.29. Cf. Or. 33.30: φ0ορo (discussed below, and by Avotins 1982). In his treatise On Diagnosis from Dreams (VI.832–835K) Galen cautions that a doctor can err by interpreting in medical terms a vision whose significance pertains to a non-medical aspect of the patient’s life. 16 VI.835K: ‘For, those who dream that they spend time in dung or mud—either they have bad and malodorous and putrid humors inside, or an abundance of retained excrement in their digestive system’. proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 121 dorus, however, whose interest in the interpretation of dreams covers the whole range of symbolic meanings, a dream involving excrement (animal or human) may portend sickness, particularly if the excrement stains, 17 but as a symbol of impurity it may also pertain to a variety of issues relating to the dreamer’s social life. 18 Although the Diary is ori- ented around physical concerns, Aristides responds to this dream as if it marks impurity: he takes a bath. Seizing upon water as a conceptual link between the social and medical realms 19 he finds little success, as the bath leads to physical discomfort, rather than to successful regula- tion of the moist humors. Aristides’ account of his dream of defilement points towards a persis- tent area of ambiguity in the first Logos. As we have seen, bathing and abstention from baths might be explained in either medical or social terms. Just so, in spite of the explicitly medical framework of HL I, many of Aristides’ dream accounts seem concerned less with physi- cal therapeutics than with social and professional situations. 20 Several dream episodes accommodate both issues in the same narrative space. 21 So, while Aristides’ preoccupation with bathing seems at first to belong to his therapeutic concern with alousia, it is also part of Aristides’ social world: a number of narrative vignettes in the Diary feature conven- tional bathing in purpose-built bathhouses. I suggest that he highlights this feature of contemporary health and recreation deliberately, in order to make an ethical point about oratory. Medical and dietetic writings of the Imperial period partly reflect the great popularity of public and private bathing facilities. 22 Physicians like Galen offer nuanced and complex advice on precisely how to calibrate 17 Artemidorus ii.26: ‘…[excrement] indicates despondency and harm, and—when it stains—illness’. 18 Artemidorus ii.26 surveys a range of possibilities. 19 On Aristides’ eclectic approach to dream interpretation see Behr 1968, 171– 195, and Nicosia 1988. Such lack of systematization and consistency in the actual deployment of dream theory was probably common (Harris 2003). 20 Oratory is part of what Aristides refers to as the ‘secondary business’ (πoρεργον) of his dreams (I.16). For a sense of the ethical value with which Aristides invests oratory, particularly in the ‘Platonic Orations’, see Milazzo 2002; cf. Sohlberg 1972. 21 Other dreams that combine oratory with bathing: I.22, I.34, I.35. Dreams in which bathing is linked with a social scenario: I.18, I.27, I.50. 22 Fagan 1999 suggests that the increased interest in bathing as therapy in the Roman period was spurred by Asclepiades of Bithynia, who relied heavily on baths in medical treatment. On the rudimentary state of bathing facilities in earlier periods, as implied by the discussion of bathing in the Hippocratic Regimen in Acute Diseases 65–68 see Villard 1994, 43. 122 janet downie bathing procedures to each health situation; 23 Celsus also recognizes the wide dietetic and therapeutic possibilities of different kinds of bathing. 24 It seems that bathing was such an important part of social life that there were perhaps few health conditions for which it was decisively proscribed. While Asclepius’ prescription to Aristides of alousia fits the logic of humoral medicine, then, it remains somewhat surprising from a social perspective. Aristides’ abstention from bathing would appear to be partly a principled, ascetic position—a possibility that his own writings, and those of his contemporaries, support. Artemidorus, for example, describing a progression from the primitive practices of the hardy ancients to more decadent Roman habits, identifies contempo- rary bathing with luxury: 25 … But now [too] some people will not eat before they have washed, and others even bathe after they have eaten. And then, they take a bath when they are about to have dinner. And now the balaneion is nothing other than the road to luxurious living. A similar apprehension about the link between bathing and luxury seems to underlie Plutarch’s cautious advice on lifestyle and regimen in his ‘On Keeping Well’: the bath is better avoided if you are in good health, he says. And while there may be a place for warm bathing in recovering from an illness, he emphasizes this is not to be overdone (131B–D; cf. 127E–F). The association of bathing with luxury made it a useful tool for rhetorical denunciations of contemporary mores, as we see in Philostratus’ Life of the first century sage Apollonius of Tyana. The model Apollonius makes philosophy his way of life, and his rejection of warm baths is the hallmark of an abstemious regimen of self-care: he disparages public bathhouses as ‘men’s senility’ (1.16.4). 26 Similar prin- ciples are attributed, in this text, to the Cynic lecturer Demetrius, who waged a campaign against the excesses of the Emperor Nero partly by declaiming against bathing on the premises of the new imperial 23 See Galen’s De sanitate tuenda III, with Boudon 1994. 24 Fagan 2006, 201–202. 25 i.64: ‘Our distant ancestors did not consider [dreams about] bathing a bad [omen]. For they were not familiar with bathing establishments (balaneia), since they bathed in [tubs] known as asaminthoi. But later generations, by the time balaneia were in existence, considered it a bad [omen in a dream] both to bathe and to see a bathing establishment, even if one did not bathe. And they thought that the balaneion indicated disturbance (tarache)—on account of the tumult that arises there—and harm (blabe)—on account of the sweat exuded—and even mental anguish and fear because the skin and the appearance of the body are altered in the balaneion’. 26 Cf. Philostratus, VA 7.31, and Marcus Aurelius 8.24. proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 123 gymnasium in Rome: bathers, he said, are effeminate men who defile themselves with extravagance. 27 In brief, Aristides’ preoccupation with bathing in the first Logos belongs within a whole contemporary culture of the bathhouse. Conventional bathing in elaborate public and private facilities was a social institution of the imperial era that could be made to bear ethical weight. Aristides himself uses bathing as part of an eth- ical polemic in his Oration 33, ‘To Those who Criticize him because he does not Declaim’, and we shall see that this polemical text sheds light on the dream conversation at HL I.19–20, in which Aristides contrasts the athlete’s interest in bathing with his own intellectual pursuits. Professional Apologetics in Oration 33 On the basis of references to the Antonine plague, Or. 33 has been dated to around 166, which would make it roughly contemporary with the period covered by the Diary of HL I. 28 In this Oration Aristides defends himself against accusations that he has been less than fully engaged in his role as a public speaker. 29 Defining and defending his practice of rhetoric, Aristides argues, to the contrary, that his deep commitment to oratory as a socially constructive force is clear from the fact that he continued to declaim in Smyrna, even when the plague was at its height in 165. 30 Inscribing his speech consciously in a Greek tradi- 27 Philostratus, VA 4.42. 28 The core of Or. 33 is an apologia, perhaps intended for an audience of Aristides’ students in Smyrna (Avotins 1982). The addition of a prologue makes it an epistolary propemptikon, ostensibly for a friend of Aristides’ who is about to set out on a journey (on the possible recipient see Behr 1968, 102). The dating of Or. 33 is not secure (Behr 1968, 102 n. 22c), but references to the Antonine plague at 33.6 and arguably at Or. 33.30–31 (Avotins 1982) indicate a date after 165. Behr 1968, 102 suggests it was written before Aristides’ return to Smyrna in 167; contrast Boulanger 1923, 162, who dates Or. 33 anywhere between 165 and 178. 29 Some scholars have taken this piece to be a response to renewed attacks on Aristides’ claims to liturgical immunity (Mensching 1965; for the story of Aristides’ several attempts to contest public duties assigned to him, see Bowersock 1969, 36– 41). It is not clear that Aristides had such a specific situation in mind (see Behr 1994, 1168 n. 124 for a critique of Mensching’s hypothesis). Even if, as Behr argues, Aristides’ issues of immunity were over by 153, Aristides is nevertheless frequently concerned with defining and defending oratory as a profession, and especially his own practice of it. 30 Or. 33.6: ‘In fact, I have spoken to you about these things before, too, when the plague was at its height and the god ordered me to come forward. And what I am about to say is informed by the same intention—that you should know I did not think it 124 janet downie tion that has Socrates as its source, 31 Aristides calls his oration both an ‘apologia’ and ‘a well-intentioned censure’, 32 and he borrows from the opening paragraphs of Plato’s Apology the first word of the defense por- tion of Or. 33: skiamachein, ‘shadowboxing’. 33 Reprising Socrates’ asser- tion that his appearance before the jury is not primarily a consequence of the immediate charges against him, but rather reflects a fundamen- tal misunderstanding of his way of life, Aristides constructs a fictional court scenario, in which he is compelled to defend his professional con- duct against unspecified accusers. 34 His defense is an ethical one: like Socrates he bases his self-portrait on claims that he has always been concerned primarily to foster the highest human faculties of intellect and spirit. In the apologetic context of Or. 33, then, when Aristides invokes the contrast between the pleasures of the bathhouse and the intellectual discipline of oratory, he makes a point about his own ethical persona. Conventional bathing is introduced as a sign of the degenerate luxury that is the opposite of all Aristides claims to stand for. Refuting the charge of failing to make public appearances, Aristides turns the tables on his accusers: they are the ones who are at fault for preferring baths to more dignified pursuits (Or. 33.25): Instead of going to listen to declamations, most of you spend your time (diatribete) around the bathing pools, and then you are amazed if you miss some of the speakers. But, it seems to me, you don’t want to tell yourselves the truth: that it’s not possible for people who love jewelry or who are attached to bathing, or who honor what they should not, to understand the serious pursuits (diatribas) of oratory. Underscoring the contrast by his word choice, Aristides insists that wasting time (diatribete) at the baths is the opposite of responsible intel- right to sit idle in those most precarious times. It’s other people who make declamation (logoi) a matter of small concern’. 31 Aristides’ deep familiarity with Plato’s Apology of Socrates is clear especially in his Platonic Orations (Or. 2 and 3; Milazzo 2002). Gigante 1990 briefly discusses Socrates as a model for Aristides in the Hieroi Logoi. Early on, Isocrates appropriated the Socratic apologia tradition for rhetoric (Ober 2004). On Aristides’ use of Isocrates see Hubbell 1913. 32 Or. 33. 34: ‘What I have said, then, is an apologia, if you will—or a well-intentioned censure (rπιτiμησις 0π’ ε0νοiας)’. 33 Or. 33.3: ‘Shadow-boxing, I realize, is what is called for, somehow. For those to whom I should address what I have to say are not present’. Cf. Plato Ap. 18d. 34 He draws attention to the courtroom fiction: ‘I speak, then, as if these men were present and I were addressing them’ (Or. 33.5). proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 125 lectual endeavors (diatribas). An immoderate dependence on bathing is as pathological, he suggests, as a passionate desire for jewelry. By way of contrast, Aristides sketches the responsible attitude toward bathing in a passage that makes reference to Homer. Although he was born the son of the Mysian river Meles—so the legend goes—Homer did not spend his life swimming idly about, the sophists say, but renounced such activities for greater pursuits (Or. 33.29): … Homer himself was not satisfied to dwell on his father’s banks and to swim along with the fishes who were his brothers (as their story goes), but rather lived a life so rough (auchmeron) that clearly he was generally satisfied with access to basic necessities. And baths that were improvised and, in fact, for the purpose of helping ailing bodies, as Plato says—those he accepted, but he permitted no further luxury. Homer appears here as an ascetic model for the true orator: 35 his ‘rough’ or ‘squalid’ way of life is, literally, ‘dry’ (auchmeron)—so Aris- tides once again links the parching effects of a regime of alousia with the ethical virtue of rejecting luxury. The legendary poet is said by his modern admirers to have accepted only baths that were medically nec- essary 36 —and even these were to be ‘improvised’, not taken in the kind of well-appointed kolymbethrai that Artemidorus refers to. Aristides’ por- trait of Homer makes him representative of an old-fashioned austerity diametrically opposed to the sumptuous ease of Imperial-era balaneia that seduce Aristides’ degenerate contemporaries. Because of its associations with luxury, bathing appears as oratory’s opposite at the climax of Or. 33, when Aristides considers ethical behav- ior in light of the ultimate stock-taking—death. Aristides closes Or. 33 by encouraging his audience to derive their satisfactions from the best part of life—oratory of course. His image of the opposite, undesirable ethical choice now combines bathing with a reference to ‘swinish plea- sures’ and recalls HL I (Or. 33.31): Take pleasure in the finest things of life as long as possible. So that if we are of the portion who are saved, we will be saved among the finest pursuits—study and oratory—and we will not be wallowing in our accommodation to the swinish temperament night after night and day after day. But if we are not [of the portion who are saved], the gain will be everything that each person pursued up to that point. Or, by the gods, is there some profit in bathing while one is alive ([an activity] that surely 35 Part of Aristides’ point is that contemporary orators themselves circulate these stories about their ‘ancestor’ Homer, but fail to live up to the model they claim. 36 Plato, Lg. 761c–d. 126 janet downie awaits the deceased), but when it comes to oratory (from which one is necessarily debarred after death) it’s a thoroughly distasteful idea to take pleasure in this during life, both by speaking oneself and by attending when someone else is speaking? 37 This statement of priorities—favoring the practice of oratory—is essen- tially the same as the one Aristides makes to himself ‘as if he were declaiming’ at the end of his dream conversation with the young athlete in the first Logos. Here, he reverses the expected distribution of pleasure and profit: intellectual activities are pleasurable, while bathing is a prof- itless pursuit that Aristides associates with ritual treatment of the dead body. 38 In the context of a heightened awareness of mortality related to the crisis of the Antonine plague, 39 Aristides urges his audience to avoid the kind of social degradation that so often accompanies epidemic ill- ness and to make the finest human preoccupations their most urgent concern, whether they should live or die. 40 By pointing to the fact that one can be bathed after death but cannot participate in the oratori- cal community after death, Aristides draws a clear distinction between activities that are purely physical and those higher ones that are mental or spiritual as well. The description of bathers as swine, rolling about in the mud, evokes a common image of the unregenerate mortal condition used by Plato in several contexts—notably in the Phaedrus—to describe the life lived without philosophy. 41 Bathing, as Aristides’ opponents pur- sue it, is the inverse of intellectual elevation and spiritual purification. It is the pre-occupation of a non-initiate. 42 37 My thanks to David Traill for suggestions on the translation of this passage. 38 Compare the end of Plato’s Phaedo where, as he reflects on the dignity and immortality of the soul, Socrates takes a final bath as an anticipatory funeral rite. On allegorical interpretations of Socrates’ final moments in this dialogue see Crooks 1998. 39 Or. 33.30–31, with discussion by Avotins 1982. 40 Avotins 1982 argues that σuζειν in this passage implies physical survival of epi- demic illness. He also reads φ0ορo at 33.30 as a reference to destruction caused by the Antonine plague. Avotins points out that Aristides echoes Thucydides here—specifically the passage in which he describes the effects of the epidemic on Athenian morals (Th. 2.53; Avotins 1982, 4). Thus φ0ορo also alludes, presumably, to the moral degeneration traditionally associated with plague (on this traditional aspect of plague writing, see Duncan-Jones 1996). Cf. HL II.38–39 and Weiss’s discussion of Thucydidean echoes (Weiss 1998, 69–71). 41 Plato, Phdr. 257a; cf. 275e, where written speeches, famously subordinated in this dialogue to face-to-face dialectic are described as ‘rolling about’ (κυλινδεtται) indiscrim- inately even among those unable to understand or appreciate them; cf. Phd. 81d, 82e: rν πoσ¸η 0μα0i¸α κυλινδουμrνην; Tht. 172c; Plt. 309a. For the association of mud with the uninitiated in Aristides see Or. 22.10; cf. Phd. 69c, R. 363d, Aristophanes, Ra. 145. 42 The connection between washing and purification was deeply embedded in Greek proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 127 Socratic Posturing In Or. 33 we see Aristides using bathing and oratory as polarized ethical terms and drawing on a Socratic tradition of polemical self-portraiture in the context of epidemic crisis. The issues in HL I.19–20 are, I suggest, similar. The Hieroi Logoi, however, are explicitly concerned with Aristides’ own health, and so he faces the challenge of explaining how his therapeutic and physical activities reflect on the professional vocation he values most. We have seen that Aristides does not take Asclepius’ original command to refrain from bathing (HL I.6) as the starting point for a simple narrative of ascetic self-restraint. In fact, after his conversation with the young athlete at I.19–20, and after his round rejection of bathing as a swinish pleasure, Aristides’ dream goes on to describe (and prescribe—we are led to believe) a decidedly pleasurable warm bath (HL I.20–21): rδóκει δ’ οuν τα0τα λrγειν o νεανiσκος περi το0 βαλανεiου το0 πρòς ταtς πuλαις ταtς εiς ¯Εφεσον φεροuσαις, καi τrλος rδοξr μοι χρjναι 0ποπειρα- 0jναι—πóτε γoρ δj καi 0λλοτε 0αρσjσαι, εi μj ν0ν;—οIτω δj συν0rσ0αι εiς uραν rκτην uς τηνικα0τα 0σφαλrστατον oν κινεtσ0αι… rπορευóμε0o τε, καi uς jνuσαμεν, rπιστoς τ¸j δεξαμεν¸j το0 ψυχρο0 rπειρuμην το0 Iδα- τος, καi μοι rδοξεν παρ’ rλπiδας ο0 μoλα ψυχρòν εiναι, κυανο0ν δr καi jδu iδεtν. κ0γu, “καλj,” rφην, οiα δj γνωρiζων τò το0 Iδατος 0γα0óν. uς δr παρjλ0ον εiσω, πoλιν εuρον rτερον rν 0ερμοτrρ_ω οiκ_ω 0νειμrνον μ0λ- λον. καi 0μα rγιγνóμην τε rν τ_u 0ερμ_u καi 0πεδυóμην. rλουσoμην καi μoλ’ jδrως. At any rate, the young man seemed to say these things concerning the bathing establishment that was near the gates leading to Ephesus, thought—not least in the context of the cult of Asclepius, where water appears to have figured prominently (Parker 1983, 212–213). From early on, however, a distinction could be made between purification of the mind and purification of the body as, for example, in the inscription that is said (by Porphyry and by Clement of Alexandria) to have greeted visitors to the fourth century temple at Epidaurus: ‘purity (hagneia) is to think holy thoughts’ (Edelstein and Edelstein 1945, T.318; cf. 336). The distinction is a prominent trope in leges sacrae from the Imperial period, including a first-century CE lex sacra from Lindos (Sokolowski 1962, no. 108) that specifies one should enter the temple ‘clean not through washing, but in mind’ (ο0 λουτρ¯ οι 0λλo νó_ ω κα0αρóν); cf. the verse-oracle of Sarapis (Merkelbach 1995, 85): ‘Enter with pure hands, and with a mind and tongue that are true, clean not through washing, but in mind’ (úγνoς χεtρας rχων καi νο0ν καi γλuτταν 0λη0j | εiσι0ι, μj λοετροtς, 0λλo νóωι κα0αρóς). For broader discussion of this distinction and its implications, see Chaniotis 1997, especially 163–166. The metaphorical framework of religious initiation, to which Aristides briefly alludes here, when he describes rival orators defiling their vocation, plays an important role also in the polemical Orations 34 and 28.113–114. 128 janet downie and in the end it seemed to me that I should give them a try—for when else indeed would I be so bold if not now? Thus, I decided upon the sixth hour as being the safest time to move about… We started out, and when we arrived, stopping at the cold pool I tried the water. And contrary to what I expected it seemed to me not to be very cold, but dark and pleasant to look upon. And I said, ‘Good!’ as if to acknowledge the excellence of the water. When I went in, I found in turn another in the warmer chamber that was milder. And at once I entered the warm chamber and began undressing. And I bathed with much pleasure. In an ironic reversal, Aristides decides to bathe and asserts his ethical independence from the categories of intellectual and physical activity he has so polemically set out. He decides to ‘test out’ the dream’s apparent prescription in spite of his intellectual reservations, and the result is positive: a very pleasant experience in the bathhouse. 43 In this episode, then, Aristides has begun the work of defining the physical practice of bathing in his own terms, setting aside its associations with luxurious indulgence so that he can appropriate it for his own purposes of self-portraiture. With the narrative of this transgressive bath at I.21 Aristides takes a crucial step beyond the basic dichotomy of bathing and oratory that played an important role in Or. 33. By claiming independence from the ethical schema set out in the preceding dream narrative, he prepares the way for the catalogue of extreme and paradoxical baths that will be crucial to the quasi-heroic healing narrative of the second Logos. 44 For, once Aristides has defined his separation from conventional bathing through the narrative of alousia in the first Logos, he can incorporate this concept of abstention from bathing into a paradoxical physical regimen that combines outdoor plunges into wintery rivers, harbors and wells with taxing regimes of purging and fasting and with extraordinary intellectual discipline. 45 For all of this he claims Socratic precedent 43 In his decision to ‘test out’ what the dream message suggests Aristides again follows a Socratic model: at the end of his life Socrates resorted to trial and error in the matter of the god’s command to compose poetry (Phd. 60e–61c: 0ποπειρuμενος τi λrγοι). On Aristides’ response to the dream Michenaud and Dierkens 1972, 88 comment: ‘Ayant affirmé publiquement son éloignement de tout plaisir sensuel dans le bain, il se permet l’après-midi un bain chaud et agréable, chose absolument exceptionelle dans les Discours Sacrés’. 44 HL II.24, II.45. 45 Episodes of extraordinary ‘bathing’ are described at HL II.19–23, II.46–55, II.71– 80. proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 129 when he summarizes, at the end of his Diary, the kind of life he led during this period of illness (HL I.59): But beyond all the fasting at this time, and the even earlier [fasts], and the ones that I endured later that winter, I passed my days in an almost irrational manner: writing and speaking and examining what I had written. And I stretched it out usually into the middle of the night at least, and then on each occasion pursued my customary routines the next day, taking a correspondingly [minimal amount of] food. And when abstention from food followed upon vomiting this was what was encouraging: diligence and serious occupation about these [pursuits]. So that whenever I think of Socrates coming from the symposium to pass his day in the Lyceum, I think it no less fitting for me to give thanks for strength and endurance in these things to the god. Aristides makes arch reference here to the Socrates of Plato’s Sympo- sium: the Socrates who could drink copiously without getting drunk and share a bed with Alcibiades without compromising his principles—all in the same spirit with which he endured the physical rigors of bat- tle at Potidaea, went barefoot, or regularly stood stock still, unaffected by inclement weather and deep in meditative thought. 46 Already we have seen Aristides taking on the role of the philosopher in his con- versation with the young athlete earlier in HL I, and alluding to the Socratic figure of Plato’s Apology in the ethical justification of his intel- lectual pursuits in Oration 33. Now, near the end of the first Logos we see Socrates invoked as the hero whose ethical seriousness is so solid it passes every physical test—whether of excessive strain or excessive luxury. 47 Through the dream narrative of HL I.19–21 specifically, Aris- tides wants to suggest that, like Socrates, he moves beyond conventional moral categories. 48 In this paper I have argued that at HL I.19–21 Aristides’ narrative has a deliberate rhetorical aim that can be understood, first, in the context of the broader theme of bathing and alousia in HL I and, second, with reference to Aristides’ professional polemic in Or. 33. The first Logos and Or. 33 both give moral weight to the motifs of bathing and abstention from baths, and in both texts Aristides alludes to Socrates as 46 Socrates will not be affected, whether he drinks little or much: Plato, Symp. 176c; cf. Krell 1972. 47 Symp. 174a (Aristodemus meets him—unusually—straight from the bath). 48 See McLean 2007, 65, on Socrates’ ‘peculiar bodily habits’ as a challenge to physiognomic approaches to ethical assessment. 130 janet downie a model. In Or. 33, Aristides’ vocation as an orator—and specifically his professional engagement during the epidemic crisis of the 160s CE—is linked to a Socratic concern for the soul. In the Hieroi Logoi, Aristides has Socrates’ example in mind again, but in HL I he uses it to claim a certain kind of liberty in his physical pursuits. He articulates an ethic of alousia and bathing that will ultimately serve the larger apologetic project of the Hieroi Logoi, in which his intellectual vocation and physical experience are linked. chapter seven THE BODY IN THE LANDSCAPE: ARISTIDES’ CORPUS IN LIGHT OF THE SACRED TALES Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis In the late summer of 166A.D., Aristides delivered a speech in the city of Cyzicus at a festival to celebrate the restoration of the temple of Hadrian, which had been damaged in an earthquake in 161. The speech itself survives in the corpus of Aristides’ writings as Oration 27, Panegyric in Cyzicus. We also have an account of this episode in Aristides’ Sacred Tales, a work written about four years later in 170/171 on the subject of the favours that he had received from the god Asklepios (Or. 51.11–17). I begin this essay with a detailed reading of these two accounts, focusing primarily on the treatment of the themes of travel and land- scape, and how these are intertwined with the concepts of the body and the divine. Travel and the body are often explored separately, but when viewed in combination offer fruitful insights into Aristides’ out- look on himself and the world. I then go on to explore these themes more broadly in Aristides’ work, and I argue that they are significant throughout the corpus. This example of the use of the Sacred Tales to illuminate aspects of Aristides’ corpus finally opens the broader ques- tion of the relationship of the Sacred Tales to the rest of the orations. This question is significant not just for a nuanced understanding of the Sacred Tales itself, but also for the corpus as a whole. It will be suggested that viewing Aristides’ corpus in the light of the Sacred Tales reveals the author’s profoundly religious outlook. In the first four chapters of the Panegyric in Cyzicus, Aristides intro- duces the themes of the divine, his body and his oratory. The divine is established as central in Aristides’ statement that he is speaking at the command of the god Asklepios (Or. 27.2). His longstanding and ongo- ing relationship with the god is suggested further by mention of other instances in the past in which he has received help from the god in dif- ficult circumstances (2). The theme of his body arises in the reference to 132 alexia petsalis-diomidis his physical weakness as a potential impediment to making the speech; this weakness is said to be overcome on Asklepios’ orders (2). Aristides self-consciously draws attention to the activity of his speechmaking in the statement that he is extemporising—something which he was noto- riously unwilling or unable to do—and he repeats this statement at the end of the speech (3, 46). This introduction is important, and sets the tone for the entire speech. It presents the orator’s motivation in deliv- ering this oration, his overcoming of his physical difficulties, and the actual content of his speech as emanating from Asklepios. In this way the speech itself, its public delivery at Cyzicus, and subsequent readings enact (and re-enact) the divine/human relationship. Aristides then proceeds to a geographical ekphrasis (Or. 27.5–15). The divine element is first established in the landscape by a reference to the foundation of Cyzicus by Apollo (5). The structure of the description of Cyzicus mirrors the process of movement and travel in that it starts with a passage on the situation of the city (its broad geographical con- text), continues with a more focused section on the city and culminates with a specific description of the temple of Hadrian seen from up close. The process of describing, and indeed of mapping, is never neutral. But in this case, perhaps more than others, the description imposes a particular and one might say even peculiar geographical hierarchy on the landscape. Aristides first locates Cyzicus within a seascape: it is said to be located between the Euxine and the Hellespont, ‘being a kind of link between the two seas, or rather between every sea upon which men sail’ (σuνδεσμóς τις οuσα τjς 0αλoττης rκατrρας, μ0λλον δr úπoσης jν 0ν0ρωποι πλrουσι, 6). 1 It is also said to be located in the midst of three seas, Lake Maeotis (the sea of Azov), the Hellespont and the Pro- pontis (8). It is an epicentre of travel for sailors (6). The centrality of its location both geographically and in terms of the movement of people is further emphasised by the statement that it is ‘located in the midst of the sea, it brings all mankind together, escorting some from the inner to the outer sea, and others from without to within, as if it were a kind of navel stone at the point between Gadira and the Phasis’ (τjς γoρ 0αλoττης rν μrσ_ω κειμrνη συνoγει πoντας 0ν0ρuπους εiς τα0τóν, τοuς τε 0πò τjς εiσω πρòς τjν rξω παραπrμπουσα καi τοuς rξω0εν πρòς τo εiσω, uσπερ τις oμφαλòς το0 μεταξu τóπου Γαδεiρων καi Φoσιδος), the tradi- tional termini of ancient geography (7). Moving on from the seascape, 1 Translations are by C.A. Behr. the body in the landscape 133 Cyzicus is then situated within the landscape (9–10). Centrality is here replaced by the concept of a perfect mixture of geographical features including mountains, plains and rivers. This first section is like a broad cinematic panning shot, an aerial view of the geographical context of the city. The camera then zooms in to focus on Cyzicus proper (11–12). Aristides plays with the idea of Cyzicus simultaneously being an island, a peninsula and a continent. This not only opens up the question of its geographical status, but also introduces the idea of transformational viewing. The causeways linking Cyzicus to the mainland are referred to as ‘legs’, σκrλη (11). This choice of word is interesting. It was used in the sense of walls, and in particular for the long walls between the city of Athens and Piraeus, by writers such as Strabo and Plutarch. 2 This Attic association may have made it particularly appropriate in the eyes of Aristides. But its primary meaning of ‘legs’ should not be ignored. It implies viewing the landscape in the form of the human body and the close linking of the two. Aristides then refers briefly to the beauty of the public buildings (13), but does not describe them. Instead he presents his religious vision of the city ‘as the work of one of the gods’ (τuν κρειττóνων τινóς rστι ποiημα) and ‘sacred to all the gods’ (rοικε γoρ τις úπoντων εiναι τuν 0εuν lερo): uσπερ γoρ κατo κλjρους 0πασι 0εοtς rξ¸ηρημrνη π0σα δj μεμrρισται, καi α0τjν οl νε¸o διειλjφασιν uσπερ úμιλλωμrνων τuν 0εuν πρòς 0λλjλους íπrρ σωτηρiας τjς πóλεως. 0υσiαι δr καi πομπαi καi πρóσοδοι καi 0ερα- πεtαι 0εuν μετo τuν κα0εστηκóτων 0εσμuν … (Or. 27.14). For as if it had been set aside and allotted among all the gods, it has now been all parceled out, and the temples have divided it up, as if the gods were competing against one another on behalf of the safety of the city. There are sacrifices, parades, processions, and divine services under established codes… The land of Cyzicus is envisioned as physically made up of the sum of its sanctuaries, and simultaneously vivified by religious processions and rituals. Just as the topography of Cyzicus is effectively rearranged by the manner of Aristides’ description, so the citizens of Cyzicus are said to mould the landscape by exporting marble from the quarry at Prokon- nesos to adorn other cities (15), and more significantly by the construc- tion of the enormous and beautiful temple of Hadrian (17). The use of 2 E.g. Strabo 9.1.15; Plutarch Kimon 13. 134 alexia petsalis-diomidis marble from Prokonnesos for the construction of this temple is envis- aged in terms of the transferral of most of the island of Prokonnesos to Cyzicus. Not only is Prokonnesos reduced in this way, but the outline of the land is radically altered by the new temple: πρóτερον μrν γoρ τuν νjσων ταtς κορυφαtς rτεκμαiροντο οl πλrοντες, Κuζικος jδε, Προκóννησος αIτη, τuν 0λλων jν iδοι τις· ν0ν δr o νεuς 0ντi τuν oρuν 0ρκεt, καi μóνοις íμtν ο0δrν δεt λαμπτjρων ο0δr πυρσuν ο0δr πuργων πρòς τοuς καταiροντας, 0λλ’ o νεuς πληρuν 0παν τò oρuμενον τjν τε πóλιν καi τjν μεγαλοψυχiαν τuν rχóντων α0τjν oμο0 δηλοt, καi τοσο0τος uν καλλiων rστiν j μεiζων (Or. 27.17). Formerly sailors used to judge their position by the peaks of the islands, ‘Here is Cyzicus’, ‘This is Prokonnesos’, and whatever other island one beheld. But now the temple is equal to the mountains, and you alone have no need for beacons, signal fires, and towers for those putting into port. But the temple fills every vista, and at the same time reveals the city and the magnanimity of its inhabitants. And although it is so great, its beauty exceeds its size. The human intervention in the landscape of Cyzicus is here experi- enced through the process of travel, specifically through sailing. The section on the temple proper is not a systematic description of the kind Pausanias gives in his Description of Greece, much less so of the kind found in modern guidebooks. Instead it conveys the size, beauty and awesome nature of the building through a series of metaphors that transform the temple: φαiης 0ν τuν μrν λi0ων rκαστον 0ντi νεu το0 παντòς εiναι, τòν δr νεuν 0ν- τi το0 παντòς περιβóλου, τòν δ’ αu περiβολον το0 νεu πóλεως 0ποχρuντα γiγνεσ0αι. εi δr βοuλει τo τjς ç¸αστuνης καi τρυφjς, 0ντi γoρ τuν οiκιuν τuν τριωρóφων καi τuν τριjρων πoρεστιν oρ0ν νεuν τòν μrγιστον, τuν μrν 0λλων πολλαπλασiονα, α0τòν δr τριπλο0ν τ¸j φuσει. τo μrν γoρ α0το0 κατoγειóς rστι 0rα, τo δ’ íπερ_uος, μrση δr j νενομισμrνη. δρóμοι δr íπò γjν τε καi κρεμαστοi δι’ α0το0 διjκοντες κuκλ_ω, uσπερ ο0κ rν προσ0jκης μrρει, 0λλ’ rξεπiτηδες εiναι δρóμοι πεποιημrνοι (Or. 27.19–20). You would say that each of the stones was meant to be the whole temple, and the temple the whole precinct, and again that the temple’s precinct was big enough to be a city. If you wish to consider the comfort and luxury which it provides, it is possible to view this very great temple like three-storied houses or like three-decked ships, many times greater than other temples, and itself of a threefold nature. For part of the spectacle is subterranean, part on an upper storey, and part in between in the usual position. There are walks which traverse it all about, underground and hanging, as it were made not as an additional adornment, but actually to be walks. the body in the landscape 135 This series of comparisons has the effect of playing with the relative dimensions of the temple in the mind of the audience, effectively sug- gesting a series of magnifications to the effect that that each stone is the size of the entire temple, the temple the size of the precinct, and the precinct as large as a whole city. The height of the temple and its occupation of the air, the surface of the earth and underground is con- veyed by offering the audience the vision of the temple transformed into ‘three-storied houses’ or ‘three-decked ships’, and the emphasis on the activity of viewing the building is suggested by the use of the term 0rα ‘spectacle’. The passage is revelatory in its description of the underground area of the temple which, according to the archaeological evidence, was neither visible nor accessible. 3 Finally Aristides chooses to highlight the walkways that traverse the temple and are actually in use, and in this way suggests the experience of sacred space through physical movement. A large portion of the speech is then devoted to praise of the ruling emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, dwelling in particular on the concord between the two rulers (22–39). In this respect Aristides’ speech mirrors the temple, as both oration and building celebrate the figure of the emperor. Finally the speech seems to come full circle in its return to the theme of the city of Cyzicus in a series of comparisons between the concord of the emperors and the concord of the universe and of cities (35, 41), between good order in a man’s life and in a city (41), and the appellation of all cities as ‘sisters’ 0δελφαi (44). In these parallels Aristides employs the analogy of city and person, not unlike the earlier vision of the landscape as the human body (11). I turn now to the Sacred Tales, to consider Aristides’ account of delivering this oration in Cyzicus (Or. 51.11–17). The story opens with a chronological reference that locates the episode within the timeframe of the Sacred Tales narrative (‘after a little under a year and a month’); there is also a reference to the festival at Cyzicus called the ‘Sacred Month of the Temple’. There follows a description of Aristides’ physical condition, his troubled sleep and inability to digest anything (11). In this state he receives a revelatory dream in which the doctor Porphyrio praises him to the citizens of Cyzicus and encourages them to gather and listen to him speaking—an echo of the Homeric episode in which Athena persuades the Phaeacians to assemble and listen to Odysseus— 3 On the archaeological evidence of the temple see Schulz and Winter (1990) and Price (1984), 251–252, catalogue entry. 136 alexia petsalis-diomidis and then Aristides finds himself in a theatre (12). 4 This dream prompts him to depart immediately for Cyzicus. We are told a number of details relating to the journey: there is mention of the order to the servants to pack, the time of departure, the mode of transport (riding in a carriage), the leisurely pace of the journey. Aristides then describes his arrival at some warm springs, but being forced to continue his journey with a few attendants because it was so crowded that he could find no shelter (13). Aristides then arrives at a village, and we are given the precise distance traversed (40 stades). He decides to proceed, riding on into the night, but is forced to stop by a lake because his servants are exhausted. Again precise distances are given: the night stop was 120 stades from Cyzicus, and he had already completed 320 stades (14). Aristides offers a detailed description of the furniture in the room in which he spends the night and comments on its cleanliness; he is equally concerned to give an account of his bodily state: he is thirsty and dusty, and spends most of the night sitting on the couch in his travelling clothes. He then relates in a tone of triumph that at daybreak he got up on his own and finished the journey (15). Both the details of the journey and of Aristides’ physical state are presented as significant indicators of divine charis in the light of the initial revelatory dream. Aristides’ insistence on these details, including minutiae relating to his body such as the state of his travel clothes, indicate the profoundly physical way in which this journey was experienced. The initial statement about his poor health also overshadows the narrative: his ability to endure such a tiring journey despite his inability to sleep and eat is also implied to be the result of divine favour. But it is not only through his body that Aristides receives divine favour on this journey: his oratory is also encompassed. And here we come to climax of the story, the passage about composing and delivering Oration 27: καi μοι παραμu0ιον jν της πορεiας τò τ_u λóγ_ω προσrχειν, oν rδει τοtς Κυζικηνοtς rπιδεtξαι κατo τjν το0 rνυπνiου φjμην· uστε καi rποιj0η οIτω παρo τjν oδòν τo εíρισκóμενα αiεi 0ναλαμβoνοντι. τjν μrν οuν σπουδjν τjν συμβ0σαν περi τòν λóγον ο0 μóνον jνiκα rδεiκνυτο rν τ_ u βουλευτηρi_ ω, 0λλo καi Iστερον rν τ¸j πανηγuρει, εiδεtεν 0ν οl παραγενóμενοι καi οl τοuτων 0κοuσαντες, rμοi δ’ ο0χ jδιον rν τοtς τοιοuτοις διατρiβειν (Or. 51.16). 4 See Odyssey VIII.1–25. the body in the landscape 137 And my consolation for the journey was in giving my attention to the speech which I had to present to the Cyzicenes in accordance with the prophecy of the dream, so that I even composed it in this way, always recalling the ideas which I had conceived during the trip. Those who were present, and those who heard about it from these, would know the enthusiasm which was shown toward my speech, not only when it was presented in the Council Chamber, but also at the festival. But it is not so pleasant for me to linger over such things. The threads are here interwoven very tightly. Aristides was undertaking the journey to Cyzicus on account of a revelatory dream; his consola- tion during the arduous journey was to turn his mind to the speech; the actual speech was later composed by recalling ideas he had conceived during the journey; and it was a great success, delivered not once but twice. The divine, his body and his oratory are intimately connected. The story concludes with an account of the return journey to his estate at Laneion. The god’s command for him to set off is experienced as a refrain praising the water at his estate. He notes that his return journey was similar to the journey to Cyzicus: in both cases he left on the same day he received the divine command, at about the same time, and both journeys were uninterrupted. We are given the specific time of arrival at an outlying farm on his estate, a mention of the fact that he had not eaten, the total distance travelled (400 stades) and that he arrived the next day at Laneion (17). He concludes the story with the statement ‘And thus took place my first journey to Cyzicus and my stay there’ (καi τo μrν τjς προτrρας εiς Κuζικον rξóδου καi διατριβjς οIτως rσχεν, 18). Aristides’ decision to include the rather uneventful return journey and not end on the note of oratorical triumph in Cyzicus is interesting. Fundamentally it can be explained by the fact that the return journey no less than the journey to Cyzicus was ordered by the god and its successful accomplishment is ascribed to him. This journey also, then, is one of the many divine favours bestowed by Asklepios, for which Aristides is giving thanks through the composition of the Sacred Tales. But it also reflects the importance of the journey as a round trip, there and back. The Cyzicus episode is presented as a sacred journey, undertaken at the command of the god, and the Sacred Tales as a whole can be read as a series of such sacred journeys. As a literary retrospective narrative of these events, the Sacred Tales can with justice be called a pilgrimage text. The fact that Christian and Islamic models of pilgrimage differ from Graeco-Roman ones, for example, in the emphasis on one major journey to a sacred centre 138 alexia petsalis-diomidis and on the penitential dimension, should not prevent us from identify- ing it as such. 5 Oration 27 is a public speech, delivered at a civic festival and subse- quently published; the Sacred Tales may have reached a smaller num- ber of people—there is no indication that it was delivered to a mass audience—but there is evidence to suggest that it was published, and in this sense it is also a public text. It is self-conscious and polished and by no means private musings, as has sometimes been thought. It is, however, concerned with matters very personal to Aristides: divine epiphanies and communications vouchsafed him, the internal processes of his body, the processes of composition of his speeches. In the account of the journey to Cyzicus we have the inside story, literally, a narra- tive relating to the interior of Aristides’ body (his digestion and sleep) and the internal processes of his mind (including the interpretation of revelatory dreams, his intentions during the journey, the subject of his thoughts, and later the process of composition of the speech). My ini- tial decision to focus on the themes of travel, landscape and the body in the Panegyric were partly inspired by the prominence of these themes in the account in the Sacred Tales; effectively I have used the latter as a guide, indeed a commentary, to illuminate the Panegyric. What clearly emerges in both texts is Aristides’ preoccupation with landscape and travel through it; his interlinking of landscape and body; and his con- ception of the divine as the driving force in his life. But two questions immediately arise: to what extent are these themes of landscape, travel and the body important in the rest of Aristides’ writings? And more fundamentally, how typical is this sort of interpen- etration between the Sacred Tales and other orations in the corpus, and where does it lead us? Is Cyzicus a special case? The answer to the latter question, I would argue, is a resounding no. The themes of landscape, travel and the body are prominent through- out Aristides’ corpus, and I now set out the evidence for this, focus- ing first on the Sacred Tales and then on other orations. The Sacred Tales opens with a comparison between Aristides’ sufferings (cast as the achievements of Asklepios) and the toils of the archetypal traveller Odysseus. 6 The text as a whole is teeming with references to location— where Aristides was at different points of the stories—and to his jour- 5 See Rutherford 1999; Elsner and Rutherford, eds. 2005; and Petsalis-Diomidis, Forthcoming. 6 Or. 47.1. On this comparison see B. Holmes’s paper in this volume. the body in the landscape 139 neys. 7 Fundamental to the purpose of these stories is the presentation of Aristides’ relationship with Asklepios. The god constantly communi- cates with Aristides, ordering him to stay put or to travel somewhere; the usual result is the alleviation of physical suffering contrary to expec- tation and a sense of union with the divine. In one instance Asklepios orders Aristides to go from Pergamon to his old nurse Philoumene, and by this means the woman is saved from death. 8 The account of the journey to Cyzicus is typical in its inclusion of details, such as the state of the weather, the route and stop-offs on the way. It is also rep- resentative in its interlinking of the themes of the body and oratory with the divinely inspired journey. Travel in the Sacred Tales is gener- ally presented as being particularly difficult and dangerous for the sick Aristides, but paradoxically it is undertaken for physical healing: many stories in the Sacred Tales refer to the fact that although Aristides was unable even to get up from his bed, he went on to travel great dis- tances with the help of the god and to experience an amazing sense of well-being. 9 As far as oratory is concerned, his illness is repeatedly said to prevent him from making speeches and from travelling to cities in order to deliver them, but conversely some of the journeys inspire him to compose, 10 and Asklepios’ communications more broadly are seen to benefit his oratory. In the Sacred Tales journeys are not only under- taken for the purpose of bodily healing; they are also experienced, often painfully, through the medium of the body. Simultaneously Aristides’ body is often described as a landscape, a space in which channels of breathing and eating become blocked, 11 channels flow, 12 and tempests occur (τρικυμiαι). 13 In the story of the tumour (Or. 47.61–68), the lan- 7 Journeys in the Sacred Tales include: Or. 47.65 (sailing across the harbour at Smyrna), 78 (journey from Pergamon to see his old nurse Philoumene); Or. 48.7 (journey from Smyrna to Pergamon), 11–18 (abortive journey to Chios), 60–70 (journey to Rome and back); Or. 49.1–6 (journey to Aliani), 7–14 (journey from the temple of Zeus Asklepios to Lebedos), 20 (ordered to go and worship the statue of Zeus at the hearth of his foster fathers); Or. 50.1–12 (journey to the Aesepus), 31–37 (journey to Rome and return via Delos and Miletos), 42–55 (second journey to Cyzicus), 83 and 103 (summoned to Pergamon); Or. 51.1–10 (journey ‘to the land of Zeus’), 11–18 (first journey to Cyzicus), 18–37 (journeys to Pergamon, Smyrna and Ephesos); Or. 52.1 (journey to Epidauros). 8 Or. 47.78. 9 E.g. Or. 48.19–23; Or. 51.1–3, 49. 10 E.g. Or. 50.3–4. 11 E.g. Or. 47.69; Or. 48.6, 56–57, 62, 64; Or. 49.1–6, 11, 16–19, 21; Or. 50.17, 22, 38. 12 E.g. Or. 48.56. 13 E.g. Or. 47.3. Cf. Or. 42.7. 140 alexia petsalis-diomidis guage of gardening and irrigation is used: Asklepios orders Aristides to foster the growth, and says that ‘the source of this discharge was located above, and these gardeners did not know where they ought to turn the channels’ (εiναι γoρ το0 çεuματος τοuτου τoς πηγoς 0νω, τοuς δr κηπου- ροuς τοuτους ο0κ εiδrναι τοuς oχετοuς ¸j χρj τρrπειν, Or. 47.63). The body is also frequently imagined as fragmenting, both in Aristides’ ‘re- al’ and oneiric life, for example in the feeling that his teeth were falling out of his mouth and his intestines were hanging out of his body, and in his dreams of being ordered to cut out pieces of his body. 14 There is a profound sense in the Sacred Tales that Aristides’ rela- tionship with the divine unfolds within the landscape of the Roman Empire, as there are references not just to journeys in Asia Minor, but also beyond to Italy and then back via Delos. 15 The Pergamene Asklepieion where Aristides spent two years at the command of the god also features prominently. Some commentators have been disappointed by his apparent lack of interest in the sanctuary and the major building projects that were taking place at about this time. 16 It is true that Aris- tides does not offer a systematic description of the sanctuary, and he refers only in passing to the magnificent new temple of Zeus Asklepios in the context of a dream about the man who financed it, L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus. 17 However, stories that occur in the sanctuary are full of references to specific buildings and areas, suggesting that the miniature landscape of the Asklepieion also played an important part in the unfolding of Aristides’ relationship with Asklepios. 18 This rela- tionship is presented as the lynchpin of Aristides’ life; his therapeutic and oratorical experiences, ‘real’ and oneiric, driven by this relation- 14 E.g. Or. 47.27, 62, 63; Or. 49.15. 15 Or. 48.60–70; Or. 50.31–37. 16 See Hoffmann 1998a and 1998b. 17 Or. 50.28. 18 E.g. Or. 47.32 (the lamps in the temple); Or. 48.30 (the temple warden Philadelphus in a dream sees Aristides in the sacred theatre), 31 (he dreams that he is in the propylaia of the temple, divine epiphany), 71 (he sleeps between the doors and gates of the temple, anointing himself in the open air, bathing in the sacred well), 74–76 (he smears mud on himself by the sacred well and bathes there; the next night runs three times around the temple and then bathes in the well), 77 (smears himself with mud and sits in the courtyard of the sacred gymnasium); Or. 49.7 (he was undergoing incubation in the temple of Zeus Asklepios), 21–23 (story of the ointment of Tyche, including oneiric and ‘real’ events at specific locations in the sanctuary e.g. Telesphoros’ temple), 28 (consumption of a drug ‘at the sacred tripod’); Or. 50.15 (ordered to resume oratory in the stoa near the theatre), 66 (dream in which companions go towards the temple, and he takes his leave). the body in the landscape 141 ship with Asklepios, also occur not just in but through the medium of the landscape. Aristides does not offer us a comprehensive picture, but a specific, close-up, fragmented vision of the sanctuary, his body and the world. I turn now to consider the themes of travel and landscape in ora- tions other than the Sacred Tales. First, the theme of travel: there are numerous references to Aristides either travelling or refraining from travel, often at Asklepios’ command, and several of the speeches are said to be fulfilling vows to gods in thanks for saving Aristides dur- ing a journey. 19 In Oration 36, The Egyptian Discourse, there are extended descriptions of Aristides’ journey up the Nile, undertaken in 142A.D. 20 The theme of safe travel as one of the blessings of Roman rule recurs numerous times. 21 Travel is associated with religion both in the image of festivals continuously moving around the Empire and in the statement that despite their fear of travelling, men cross the Aegean in order to see ‘contests and mysteries’. 22 Aristides uses the idea of territory being measured according to the time it would take to travel there, for exam- ple, in the case of the city of Ephesos and of the Roman Empire as a whole. 23 The image of the helmsman occurs frequently, and is asso- ciated with Rome, the emperor and Asklepios. 24 Aristides himself is often paralleled with the traveller (and wise speaker!) Odysseus. 25 His speeches or arguments are imagined as choosing paths (literally roads), and are described as rivers and ships travelling through the landscape. 26 Aristides’ treatment of the theme of travel is intimately combined with the idea of viewing the landscape. He adopts a traveller’s changing perspective in his description of landscape. I traced this in the case of Cyzicus, and there are even more compelling examples, such as Oration 17, The Smyrnaean Oration I, a speech written to celebrate the arrival 19 E.g. Or. 19.6 (he escaped the earthquake because the god ordered him to go to his estate); Or. 20.2 (the Saviour restrains him from addressing the assembly in person; he is in Laneion); Or. 21.2 (he is absent as usual because the god guides him); Or. 24.1 (again he is not able to deliver the speech in person to the Rhodians—on account of his health). Speeches made in thanks for a safe journey: Or. 26; Or. 43; Or. 44. 20 Or. 36, especially 48–56, his journey to see the cataracts of the Nile. 21 Or. 26.100; Or. 35.37; Or. 36.91. 22 Or. 26.99; Or. 44.18. 23 Or. 23.24; Or. 26.79–84, 92–95. 24 E.g. Or. 26.68 (Rome); Or. 30.28 (Asklepios); Or. 33.18 (Asklepios); Or. 35.14–15 (the emperor); Or. 42.4 (Asklepios). 25 E.g. Or. 33.18; Or. 42.14. 26 Or. 1.31 (road), and 35 (river); Or. 28.111 (the river Nile), 115 (ship); Or. 46.4 (ship). 142 alexia petsalis-diomidis of the new governor of Asia, where the description of Smyrna follows the course of a walk. In this speech there is a specific emphasis on the changing views of the landscape, following the movement of the traveller. καi προελ0óντι μικρòν j πóλις αu0ις uσπερ παραπrμπουσα 0ναφαiνεται, καi γiγνεται δι’ rλoττονος rντα00α jδη 0ρι0μητo καi μετρητo τo κoλλη α0τjς. καi ο0δεiς οIτως rπεiγεται oστις oρ¸0 τò πρóσω τjς oδο0 καi ο0 μεταβoλλει τò σχjμα, τo μrν κατ’ oφ0αλμοuς δεξιo ποιοuμενος, τo δr 0ριστερo πρò τjς ðψεως (Or. 17.17). And when you have proceeded a little ways, the city again is visible as if it were escorting you, and here its beauty can more closely be counted and measured. And no one is in such a hurry that he stares straight ahead at the road and does not change his view, shifting that before his eyes to his right, and what was to his left before his gaze. In this case the changing views are directly related to the premise of the walk through Smyrna, but the theme occurs in more abstract ways, for example in the comparison of different views of a landscape and the rhetorical discussion of which is best. 27 The idea of moving through the physical, indeed man-made, landscape and reading it is beautifully expressed in Oration 46, The Isthmian Oration: Regarding Poseidon: σοφòν δr δj καi κα0’ oδòν rλ0uν 0ν εIροις καi παρo τuν 0ψuχων μo0οις 0ν καi 0κοuσειας· τοσο0τοι 0ησαυροi γραμμoτων περi π0σαν α0τjν, oποι καi μóνον 0ποβλrψειr τις, καi κατo τoς oδοuς α0τoς καi τoς στοoς, rτι τε τo γυμνoσια καi διδασκαλεtα [καi] μα0jματo τε καi lστορjματα (Or. 46.28). While traveling about the city you would find wisdom and you would learn and hear it from its inanimate objects. So numerous are the trea- sures of paintings all about it, wherever one would simply look, through- out the streets themselves and porticoes. And further the gymnasiums and schools are instruction and stories. But far more frequent are expressions of Aristides’ unsatisfied desire when viewing a landscape, his inability to see it from all angles and truly possess it, and this theme I would connect to his ever repeated desire for union with the divine, which is occasionally but never funda- mentally satisfied. 28 Moving on to the theme of landscape proper in orations other than the Sacred Tales, there are quite simply many examples of geographical 27 Or. 19.2; Or. 23.20. 28 E.g. Or. 17.17; Or. 18.4–5; Or. 22.7; Or. 26.6; Or. 46.25. the body in the landscape 143 ekphrasis. These include cityscapes, landscapes, seascapes and descrip- tions of individual buildings. 29 The frequent occurrence of this theme suggests that to some extent ekphrastic tropes construct Aristides’ the- matics. One of the ways in which he repeatedly describes the landscape is in terms of the human body. Cities can be sick, such as Rhodes on account of internecine strife and the world before the era of Roman rule. 30 There are analogies of the land, landmark or city to a whole per- son (as in the example of cities as sisters in the Panegyric in Cyzicus), 31 but more frequently to a part of the human body, as in the example of the σκrλη of Cyzicus. Examples include the harbour of Smyrna as the navel and bosom of the city, the feet of Smyrna set firmly on the beaches, harbours, and glades, the sea as the eye of Smyrna, Smyrna as the eye of Asia, the Koinon of Asia set in the navel of the whole empire, the sea (of Poseidon) as a mother’s lap, the Aegean sea beginning at the islands in the south and ending in the Hellespont, its beauty extending ‘from head to foot’. 32 The use of the image of a fragmented body for the landscape has particular resonance in the case of the descriptions of Smyrna and Rhodes shattered by earthquakes and political insta- bility in Rhodes. 33 The landscape is envisaged not only as parts of the human body but also as specific adornments of the body. For example, the city of Smyrna is likened to a variety of pieces of clothing, includ- ing an embroidered shirt, a robe of the Nymphs and Graces, a veil of empresses and crown of emperors, and to the crown of Ionia; the river Meles is compared to a necklace; the sea to the belt of the Roman empire; Alexandria to the necklace or bracelet of a rich woman; and Corinth to Aphrodite’s girdle, and to the pendant and necklace of all Greece. 34 The likening of cities and other landscape features to adorn- ments of the human body implicitly creates the image of the underlying geographical landscape as a vast human body. From the plethora of images of the landscape as the human body in Aristides’ corpus I have chosen two more elaborate examples to 29 Or. 17, passim (Smyrna); Or. 23.13–25 (Pergamon, Smyrna and Ephesos); Or. 26.6– 13 (Rome); Or. 27.6–17 (Cyzicus); Or. 36, passim (the Nile); Or. 46.21–26 (the Isthmus); Or. 44, passim (the Aegean); Or. 39, passim (the well at the Pergamene Asklepieion); Or. 22.9–10 (the Eleusinian sanctuary). 30 Or. 19.10; Or. 23.31; Or. 24.16; Or. 26.97. 31 Or. 17.9; Or. 20.21; Or. 21.5; Or. 23.79; Or. 24.9–12,45; Or. 26.4, 83–84; Or. 31.13; Or. 32.10, 21. 32 Or. 17.19, 22; Or. 18.3; Or. 21.7; Or. 23.9; Or. 44.17; Or. 46.24. 33 Or. 18.8, 9; Or. 19.3; Or. 21.10; Or. 24.38, 39. 34 Or. 17.10, 14; Or. 18.8; Or. 19.4; Or. 20.19, 21; Or. 21.13; Or. 26.10, 92–95; Or. 46.25. 144 alexia petsalis-diomidis quote here. In Oration 26 Regarding Rome imperial conquest is expressed in terms of grasping the body or parts of the body: in the case of the Athenians and Lacedaimonians ‘their experience was the same as if someone, in his desire to obtain mastery over a body, should get hold of some nails and hair instead of the whole body, and having these should think that he has what he wished’ (καi rπα0ον δj παραπλjσιον uσπερ 0ν εi τις σuματος rπι0υμuν γενrσ0αι κuριος ðνυχoς τινας καi 0κρα λoβοι 0ντi oλου το0 σuματος καi τα0τα rχων rχειν οiοιτο 0περ rβοuλετο, Or. 26.43). It is implied that the Romans grasp and enjoy the whole body. But the landscape/body analogy is interestingly inverted later in the speech where ‘all former men, even those who ruled the largest portion of the earth, ruled over, as it were, only the naked bodies of their people’ (οl μrν 0νω πoντες καi οl rπi πλεtστον γjς 0ρξαντες uσπερ σωμoτων γυμνuν α0τuν τuν r0νuν jρξαν, Or. 26.92); there is a lacuna at this point of the text, but the sense is clearly that in contrast the Romans rule over cities. To counterbalance this image of imperial conquest Aristides also gives us one of lovemaking in The Smyrnaean Oration (II): καi μjν ο0δε πλoνης γε o Μrλης ο0δ’ οiος 0ποφοιτ0ν, 0λλ’ rοικεν rραστ¸j τινι τjς πóλεως ο0 τολμuντι μακροτrραν 0πογiγνεσ0αι, 0τε, οiμαι, 0σβε- στον μrν α0τjς τòν rρωτα, 0σβεστον δr τjν φυλακjν rχων. uστε α0τó0εν oρμη0εiς α0το0 καi παuεται, παρατεiνας κuλ_ω τινi τjς πóλεως rαυτóν. (Or. 21.15). Indeed, the Meles is not erratic, nor such as to wander off its course, but it is like a sort of lover of the city, who does not dare to be farther apart from it; for it has, I think, a ceaseless love for it and guards it ceaselessly, so that it begins and ends here, stretching itself, as it were, beside the city’s leg. Through his descriptions Aristides imposes his own geographical hier- archy on the landscape. The use of images of parts of the body is one way in which this is achieved, for example in the ideas of the central- ity of the navel or the preciousness of the eye. In addition, Aristides’ shifting perspective on geography results in the literal relocation of the centre of the earth in a number of speeches: Rome, Cyzicus, Corinth and the Aegean sea are at different times envisaged as the centre of the world; and at a microcosmic level, every location in Rome can be experienced as its centre. 35 The idea of the citizens of Cyzicus mould- 35 Or. 26.7, 10, 13, 61; Or. 27.6–8; Or. 36.87–93; Or. 44.2–3; Or. 46.21–23, 26. the body in the landscape 145 ing their landscape through quarrying at Prokonnesos and building the temple of Hadrian is also present in passages of the ordering and re- arranging of the landscape by the Romans, for example in the fording of rivers and the establishment of post stations in deserts, and on the cosmic level, in passages that describe the creation of the universe by Herakles and Zeus. 36 Both in descriptions of landscape and in refer- ences to travel, especially sailing, Aristides emphasises the interconnect- edness of the landscape. 37 Images that convey the impression of a land- scape not through detailed description but through transformational images (such as the temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus as a three-storied house or three-decked ship) occur in many orations. For example, the Aegean is envisaged as containing cities and countryside in its midst, while the islands themselves are likened to ships of rescue and ships for Leto on her way to Delos; the city of Smyrna is imagined translated into heaven; the Pergamene Asklepieion is described as the hearth of Asklepios in Asia and as the harbour of Pergamon. 38 A more extended example of such transformational viewing can be found in the case of Rome. Aristides first presents the city of Rome as snow poured over the landscape, using the Homeric image, and then considers the parts of the city rising high in the hills: uστ’ εi τις α0τjν r0ελjσειε κα0αρuς 0ναπτuξαι καi τoς ν0ν μετεuρους πó- λεις rπi γjς rρεiσας 0εtναι 0λλην παρ’ 0λλην, oσον ν0ν 'Ιταλiας διαλεtπóν rστιν, 0ναπληρω0jναι το0το π0ν 0ν μοι δοκεt καi γενrσ0αι πóλις συνεχjς μiα rπi τòν 'Ιóνιον τεiνουσα (Or. 26.8). Therefore if someone should wish to unfold all of it and to plant and set the cities, which are now aloft in the air, upon the earth, one beside another, I think that all the now intervening space in Italy would have been filled up and that one continuous city, extending to the Ionian Sea, would have been formed. This wonderfully vivid sifting and re-configuring of the landscape finds echoes not only in Pliny the Elder’s image of all the buildings of Rome gathered together ‘in one great heap’, 39 but also within Aristides’ 36 Or. 23.43 (Persians); Or. 26.101, 102 (Romans); Or. 40.4–6, 9, 12–13 (Herakles); Or. 43.11–15, 19 (Zeus). 37 E.g. Or. 36.91. 38 Or. 1.13 and Or. 44.8–9, 14 (the Aegean); Or. 17.8 (Smyrna); Or. 23.15, 17 (the Pergamene Asklepieion). 39 Pliny Natural History 36.101 ‘For if you were to gather together all the buildings of Rome and place them in one great heap, the grandeur which towered above would be no less than if another world were described in the one place.’ (Loeb translation). 146 alexia petsalis-diomidis corpus, in a number of oneiric evocations of specific landscapes and cosmic geography in the Sacred Tales. 40 For example, Aristides writes: Πrμπτ¸η rφαiνετο μrν τò lερòν το0 'Απóλλωνος τò rν τ_u ðρει τ_u Μιλu¸α· rδóκει δr οiκjματα 0ττα προσγεγενjσ0αι, καi ðνομα εiναι τ_u χωρi_ω 'Ελε- φαντiνη 0πò 'Ελεφαντiνης τjς rν Αiγuπτ_ω. rχαιρον δj καi κατ’ α0τo τo οiκjματα καi κατo τjν οiκειóτητα το0 τóπου τ_u τóπ_ω (Or. 47.24). 41 On the twenty-sixth, there appeared the Temple of Apollo, which is on Mount Milyas. Certain buildings seemed to have been added and the name of the place to be Elephantine from Elephantine in Egypt. I was pleased, both because of the buildings themselves and because of the similarity of the one place to the other. In such passages the landscape is reconfigured through divine charis, and the dream reveals the divine either directly in an epiphany of the god or in the form of a prescription for Aristides’ body. But the sense of the divine within the landscape again is not limited to the Sacred Tales, but is fundamental to Aristides’ writings. It was traced in the case of Cyzicus, and further examples include Oration 39, Regarding the well in the temple of Asklepios, where divine charis is located in a specific feature of the landscape, but also in the idea of the divine sons of Asklepios travelling throughout the earth and offering their divine aid universally, unlike the heroes Amphiaraos and Trophonios who are limited to the vicinity of their oracles. 42 Such place-related religion and immanent revelation of deities can be found in other second-century texts such as Pausanias’ Description of Greece and Philostratos’ Heroikos. More broadly Aristides’ interest in the themes of travel and land- scape was by no means unusual in the literature of the Second Sophis- tic. Examples include the ancient novels, Pausanias’ Description of Greece and Menander Rhetor’s On Epideictic Speeches, which includes a sub- stantial section on how to praise a country and city. A brief compar- 40 E.g. Or. 49.48; Or. 50.55–56 (cosmic visions); Or. 51.56–67 (topography of Athens). 41 Compare Or. 36.50–54, a detailed discussion of the location of Elephantine and a refutation of Herodotos’ writings about the springs there. 42 Or. 20.21 (Nymphs and Muses in and around Smyrna); Or. 23.22 (Muses and Graces inhabit Smyrna); Or. 27.14 (land of Cyzicus parcelled out amongst the gods); Or. 38.20–21 (sons of Asklepios travel throughout the earth); Or. 39 passim, especially 4–6, 11, 14–15 (the sacred well in the Pergamene Asklepieion; its precise location in the landscape; described as the god’s co-worker); Or. 44.11 (the Aegean is full of sweet music, as Apollo and Artemis inhabit it); 16 (the Aegean is full of temples and paeans); Or. 46.17–19 (description of Black Sea down into the Aegean, with Poseidon riding on his chariot; mention of various temples to him dotted around), 20 (everywhere is his temple; the Isthmus is the headquarters of his kingdom). the body in the landscape 147 ison between Aristides’ approach to travel and landscape and those of Pausanias and Menander Rhetor is instructive. Despite the importance of the idea of the landscape of Greece in Pausanias’ work, there are remarkably few landscape descriptions, and instead the text follows the bare linear structure of a periplous narrative. Pausanias does not refer to the practical details of his journey and rarely alludes to his feelings or thoughts. In contrast Aristides inserts himself into the landscape by imitating the process of travel in geographical ekphrasis and by describ- ing his experiences of travel ranging from the details of his lodgings to intense moments of divine epiphany. By contrast, Menander Rhetor’s Epideictic Treatise I Book II has much in common with Aristides’ geo- graphical ekphrasis. In particular Menander Rhetor advises orators to locate the country or city in relation to the surrounding territory and geographical features, and includes statements in which a territory, city or harbour is compared to the human body or parts of it. 43 The latter theme, however, acquires an unparalleled prominence in the corpus of Aristides’ orations, while transformational descriptions of the landscape and personal journeys are wholly absent from the advice of Menan- der Rhetor. Aristides’ approach to travel and landscape can thus be situated within a broader cultural sensitisation to the subject and even within similar literary tropes; but his linking of travel and landscape to the human body, personal experience and divine revelation is origi- nal. I turn now to consider very briefly the second question of how rep- resentative the example of Cyzicus is as far as interpenetration between the Sacred Tales and other orations is concerned. This is a question with far-reaching implications for the interpretation of Aristides’ corpus, but I will here limit myself to a suggestion of direction. Again, I would argue that Cyzicus is not a special case, although it is a wonderfully neat example of the dovetailing of the Sacred Tales with another of Aris- tides’ speeches. There are various degrees of interpenetration to identify. Fundamen- tally all the speeches are connected to events in Aristides’ life, such as the state of his health and his travels in order to deliver orations, and to external contemporary events, such as political events, earthquakes, deaths of friends. These same events may be referred to in the Sacred Tales and equally in other speeches. While the Sacred Tales focuses on 43 Menander Rhetor, On Epideictic Speeches, 346.1–7, 351.4–6, 22–25, 30–32. 148 alexia petsalis-diomidis Aristides’ interior both in subject matter and approach, it also intersects with public events such as earthquakes and the plague, for example in the stories of Aristides stopping the spate of earthquakes and of Athena saving him from the plague. 44 The earthquake that destroyed Smyrna also features prominently in other orations, in particular Orations 17–21, and the plague is also referred to. 45 Similarly, in the Sacred Tales public figures such as the emperors appear frequently, and Aristides’ teacher, the grammarian Alexander of Cotyaeum, is mentioned; 46 these figures also appear in other orations, the emperors frequently (e.g. Or. 23.78– 79) and Alexander of Cotyaeum in Oration 32, Funeral Address in Honour of Alexander. Fellow pilgrims at the Pergamene sanctuary appear not only in the Sacred Tales but also in a number of orations. 47 There are also numerous cases of specific cross-referencing between the Sacred Tales and other orations. In the Sacred Tales there are refer- ences to the composition of orations, some of which survive, such as Oration 27, Panegyric in Cyzicus, Oration 34, Against Those Who Burlesque the Mysteries and Oration 41, Dionysus; 48 and there are references to the Sacred Tales in Oration 42, An Address Regarding Asklepios and Oration 28, Concerning a Remark in Passing. 49 Most fundamentally the Sacred Tales as a whole is an apologetic text, partly aiming to silence those who criticised Aristides for not declaiming often enough. 50 To this end it reveals the extent of Aristides’ constant bodily sufferings and the god’s constant commands, both of which prevented him from writing and delivering speeches on many occasions. The relevance of this theme to the other orations is evident not only in Oration 33, To Those Who Criticise Him Because He 44 Or. 48.41; 49.38–43 (earthquakes); and Or. 51.25 (Athena saving him from the plague). 45 Or. 33.6. 46 E.g. Or. 47.23 (Alexander of Cotyaeum and the emperor); 36–38 (dream of Marcus Aurelius); 46–49 (dream of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus); Or. 50.75 (he receives letters from Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, confirming his immunity from public office). 47 References to pilgrimage to Asklepios at Pergamon and to pilgrims known in the Sacred Tales: Or. 23.16; Or. 28.88, 133; Or. 36.10. 48 Or. 50.25 (composition of Oration 41, In Defence of Running, Athena and Dionysus); Or. 51.16 (composition of Oration 27, Panegyric in Cyzicus). See also Or. 50.42 (reference to the Macedonian man’s dream of singing a paean to ‘Herakles Asklepios’, also referred to in Or. 40.21); Or. 51.39 (reference to delivering Oration 34, Against Those Who Burlesque the Mysteries, and amazing feeling of ease during delivery); Or. 52.3 (possible allusions to Oration 1, Panathenaikos, and Oration 26, On Rome, in a dream). 49 Or. 42.4; Or. 28.116–118. 50 E.g. Or. 50.23; Or. 51.56. the body in the landscape 149 Does Not Declaim, which deals directly with the issue, but also in numer- ous other instances where the speeches open with an apology for the fact that Aristides himself is not delivering the speech on account of ill health or at the commands of the god. 51 At the same time, one of the key themes of the Sacred Tales is that of the god’s help to Aristides in improving his oratory, and this directly connects the work with the actual extant orations. The Sacred Tales, especially in Book IV, reveals the way in which a symbiotic relationship develops between Aristides’ ill-health and his oratory, as the god’s communications begin and con- tinue with great frequency on account of the former but gradually become beneficial to the latter. Eventually this complicated relationship between ill-health and oratorical success is interpreted both by Aristides and apparently by the orator Pardalas along the lines that he became ill ‘by some divine good fortune’ (τuχ¸η τινi 0εi¸α) in order to improve his oratory (Or. 50.27 and 29). At various points in the Sacred Tales Aristides discusses in detail how the god effected this improvement, including exhortations not to abandon oratory (Or. 50.14), suggestions of partic- ular topics of composition (Or. 50.39), exercises of ‘unseen preparation’ (Or. 50.26), oneiric introductions to the great authors of the past (Or. 50.59), actual prompting with specific phrases in dreams (Or. 50.25–27 and 39–41), and divine inspiration during delivery (Or. 50.22). In the orations themselves there are countless references to divine commands to take up the challenge of certain topics, pleas for divine aid, and references to direct divine inspiration on the way. 52 But whereas these are brief and may appear conventional, the narrative of the Sacred Tales reveals in depth the intimate processes of composition underlying the other orations, and how these relate to Aristides’ body and the divine. Where does this discussion lead us? I suggest that it offers us the model of using the Sacred Tales as a guide to reading Aristides’ corpus not only in a specific way, as I hope to have demonstrated in relation to Oration 27, Panegyric in Cyzicus and in relation to the theme of travel and landscape, but also in a fundamental way, as a key interpretative text that reveals Aristides’ essential outlook. A reading of the Sacred Tales prompts us to take very seriously the statement in Oration 23, Concerning Concord that the area of Pergamon where the sanctuary of Asklepios was situated was ‘the most honoured of all and ever in my mind’ (τò δ’ 51 Or. 20.2; Or. 21.2; Or. 24.1; Or. 32.1; Or. 33, passim, e.g. 4; Or. 46.1. 52 E.g. Or. 22.1; Or. 26.1; Or. 28.21 and 105; Or. 30.14; Or. 36.124. 150 alexia petsalis-diomidis úπoντων τιμιuτατον καi διo πoσης 0εi μνjμης rμοi, Or. 23.14), and the passage in Oration 46, The Isthmian Oration: Regarding Poseidon ‘when I am mindful of the divine everywhere and when most of my lectures, more or less, are concerned with this’ (rμr πανταχο0 το0 0εiου μεμνημrνον. καi σχεδòν τjς πλεiστης μοι διατριβjς τuν λóγων περi τα0τα οuσης, Or. 46.3). Aristides’ deeply religious outlook can then be recognised throughout his corpus as the prism through which everything is viewed and indeed transformed, most importantly the landscape, his own body and his oratory. chapter eight ARISTIDES AND PLUTARCH ON SELF-PRAISE Dana Fields This paper concerns the two longest and most elaborate discussions of self-praise that survive from Greco-Roman antiquity, Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise and Aristides’ On an Incidental Remark. 1 I propose to read these texts in a way that sets each author’s treatment of the topic against the social and political contexts that these same texts depict, while taking into account their differences in aim and genre. The focus of each work is on the arguments for or against self-praise (and in Plutarch’s case helpful how-to tips). At the same time, it is crucial not to overlook the fact that all of the advice, the complaints, and the self- justifications expressed by these texts take shape against the political and cultural background of the high Roman Empire. By comparing two figures who position themselves in such strikingly different ways in relation to the agonistic elite display culture of this period, we can tease out elements of the complex relationship between epideictic rhetoric, self-promotion, and political involvement. 2 1 Περi το0 rαυτòν rπαινεtν 0νεπιφ0óνως and Or. 28, Περi το0 παραφ0rγματος. See Rutherford 1995, 199–201 for other sources on periautologia and self-praise more broadly, plus Dio Chrysostom Or. 57 (a defense of Nestor’s boasting, which serves as a preemptive deflection in case the same charge might be brought against Dio himself, and in the course of which Dio manages to assimilate himself to Nestor—a strategy that rivals Aristides’ for self-aggrandizement), and Alexander of Cotiaeum’s ‘On the Difference between Praise and Encomium’ found at Rhetores Graeci 3.2–4 (ed. Spengel). The texts that discuss this issue are predominantly Greek, with the exceptions of Tacitus Agricola 1 and Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 11.1.16, where brief mentions appear. See also Gibson 2003, esp. 245–248, for discussion of Pliny’s use of mitigating strategies in self-praise and the place of self-praise in Roman culture more generally. 2 I use the terms ‘political’ and ‘politics’ (as they apply to the actions of an individ- ual) in the narrow sense, here and throughout this essay, to refer to direct involvement in civic or provincial institutions and the fulfillment of civic or provincial responsibil- ities. This includes holding office, performing public benefaction (voluntary or oth- erwise), and serving as an ambassador to other cities, the emperor, or one of the emperor’s representatives. More generally, it also means taking an active part in ensur- ing the well-being (however tendentiously defined) of the city in its internal affairs and in its relations with other cities and the imperial authorities. 152 dana fields Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise is an instructional treatise probably written during the first decades of the second century CE. 3 Plutarch sets out reasons why self-praise is off-putting to others, situations where it is acceptable, and ways to use it without offending (or avoid using it altogether). Aristides’ On an Incidental Remark is by contrast defensive and polemical rather than didactic. The situation that prompted the work can be gleaned from the text as follows: during his period of ‘incubation’ at the temple of Asclepius in the mid 140’s CE, Aristides apparently committed a faux pas while presenting a speech in honor of Athena. He inserted into his written remarks some extemporaneous praise of the speech he was currently giving, allegedly provoking the censure of an unnamed critic, who in turn convinced a friend of the rhetor to criticize him privately. On an Incidental Remark represents Aristides’ public response to this criticism, in which he defends his comment by giving reasons for and examples of justified self-praise. Self-Praise in the High Empire It has been commonly observed that self-praise, or periautologia (literally: talking about oneself), is a concern that appears frequently in texts of the Roman imperial period, though, as has also been demonstrated, interest in this topic originates earlier. 4 My primary question in this paper is what use Plutarch and Aristides in particular make of this theme and what this tells us about how each author envisioned the role of the prominent man in relation to his society, but I would also like 3 If the addressee Herculanus is in fact C. Julius Eurycles Herculanus L. Vibullius Pius, descendant of Spartan dynasts who received their local rule and their citizen- ship from Octavian, friend to Hadrian, and first senator from Sparta (under Trajan). Herculanus was known also for his patronage locally in Sparta and to various other Greek cities on a scale comparable to the benefactions of Herodes Atticus. See Half- mann 1979, no. 29; Cartledge and Spawforth 2002, 110–111. On the dating of Plutarch’s works, see Jones 1966. 4 See Pernot 1998, though it does not necessarily follow that self-praise is not an especial concern in the Roman period. See also Most 1989, arguing that throughout Greek literature talking about oneself to strangers must take the form of a ‘tale of woe’, which he regards as the least problematic mode of self-disclosure in such a situation. As one might expect, self-aggrandizement and other issues related to aristocratic competi- tion are also prominent in honorific inscriptions; see e.g. from third century Oenoanda SEG XLIV 1182 (B), LIII 1689 (on which see Dickey 2003). aristides and plutarch on self-praise 153 to raise the question of what this preoccupation with praising oneself means more broadly during this era. Diverse interpretations have appeared over the course of the last cen- tury regarding the amount of attention that the problem of self-praise receives during the high Roman Empire. These range from Mikhail Bakhtin’s perception of a widespread alienation of the individual from his society, which leaves the individual unsure as to how much self- assertion is allowed (1981, 132–135), 5 to Ian Rutherford’s view that the issue is merely a matter of rhetorical decorum, an interpretation that cuts loose the problematics of self-praise from their historical moorings (1995, 193–204). 6 In my opinion, the prevalence of the concern with self- praise shows the individual (qua individual) making sense of his place in relation to society. After all, such a pervasive concern with how to talk about oneself suggests not individuals alienated from society, but just the opposite: an elite culture in which people are intensely engaged with others, even to the point where this engagement verges on blood sport (as we will see in the course of this paper). Rutherford is right to say that ‘most of periautologia tradition in rhetoric is the working out of a problem of decorum created by a conflict between the social pressure to assert oneself in public and the social criticism of excessive assertiveness’ (ibid., 201). However, the agonistic pressure to self-promote and the opposing forces of social unification that aim to prevent any man from becoming too conspicuous must be examined with reference to the particular historical contexts that give meaning to these forces. For Plutarch and Aristides, this fundamental tension was shaped to a large degree by the political and social envi- ronment of the imperial Greek cities. 7 Epigraphic sources reveal copi- 5 It is not unreasonable to suspect that this interpretation was colored by Bakhtin’s own experiences under Stalin, including a six-year exile to Kazakhstan. Cf. his con- temporary E.R. Dodds’s view of the second to third centuries as an ‘age of anxiety’ in Dodds 1965 (and Swain’s historicization of that claim: 1996, 106–108). 6 Rutherford is followed for the most part by Pernot, who locates the problem of periautologia in the tension between its usefulness and its ‘dénonciation unanime’, (1998, at 117). 7 For surveys of local politics in the Greek East, see Jones 1940, 170–191; Sartre 1991, esp. 126–133; Millar 2006 [1993]; Salmeri 2000, 69–76; Ma 2000, 117–122. For a study of the robust political culture of Asia Minor in the High Empire (from which we have the preponderance of our epigraphic material), see Mitchell 1993, 198–217; and for an examination of the role of local officials as represented in inscriptions detailing civic offices in the province of Asia, see Dmitriev 2005, esp. 140–188 (though see also the reservations of Burell 2005; Habicht 2005). 154 dana fields ous internal political activity in the Greek East, but the limited auton- omy of these cities reduced their scope of action in external affairs. Furthermore, there was at least some degree of direct oversight by Roman magistrates, except among the few ‘free’ cities. 8 Some of the greatest threats to the stability of the Greek cities were internal rifts, caused by aristocratic infighting, class conflict, or other factionalism, as shown in the writings of Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Aristides, as well as epigraphic and numismatic evidence. 9 As a result, the potential for Roman intervention always loomed, which provided elite orators with a trope to use (opportunistically or not) in their attempts at con- trolling the urban masses. At the same time as we recognize the influence of the socio-political environment in which Plutarch and Aristides wrote, we should also acknowledge that the contrasts between their texts arise in part from the cultural role in which each of the authors generally chose to present himself—Plutarch as instructive philosopher and Aristides as rhetor (or ‘sophist’, much as Aristides might dispute that label). 10 The role to which each author lays claim plays a large part in determining his approach to the long-standing problem of negotiation between the extremes of self-glorification and restraint in a highly competitive soci- ety. Greek elite culture always had an agonistic bent, but during this period the emphasis becomes more narrowly focused on the sphere of oratorical performance as such. I argue that Plutarch’s and Aristides’ respective self-positioning in relation to this epideictic culture helps elu- cidate the complicated interrelation of literary and political activity in the Roman era. The political dimension of self-praise is illustrated by the way these authors’ treatments of the topic tap into a larger tension between behavior that is advantageous locally and behavior that is advantageous 8 See Millar 2004a [1988], 203; id. 2004b [1981], 328 on the elusive definition of the ‘free city’. 9 For Aristides and Plutarch, see below; for Dio, see e.g. Or. 32, 34, 39, 46. Sheppard 1984–1986, 241–248, provides an overview. 10 In framing this essay, I take Plutarch and Aristides to be representative to a significant degree of the cultural roles they adopt, but I do not mean to suggest that they are identical to their roles. There are of course limits to how typical we can take them to be, and I acknowledge that each was an idiosyncratic intellectual in his own right. Furthermore, the roles themselves are malleable (i.e. each man takes an active part in shaping the meaning of his role) and generally a matter of self-presentation: in spite of the common contraposition of rhetoric and philosophy (traceable back to Plato), Plutarch produced some sophistic works, while Aristides displays in his writings a very thorough knowledge of Plato’s arguments (rather than just his style). aristides and plutarch on self-praise 155 in a broader imperial context. Plutarch’s writings convey the message that within the polis the time for fierce competition and its accompa- nying self-promotion has passed (though self-praise always had to be handled with care, as his examples from orators of the classical period illustrate). 11 By contrast, Aristides represents what later became for elite Greeks the dominant mode of public life, in which ambition aimed at the imperial center took priority over local participation and bene- faction. 12 In further support of this point we can note, for example, Aristides’ pride in having given speeches before emperors and his resis- tance to taking up local office. 13 By comparing these two authors we can attain a better perspective on the tension inherent in the very issue of self-praise and on the range of approaches to it that were available to prominent Greeks of the High Empire. Plutarch: the Value of Harmony When reading Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise against Aristides’ work on the same theme, one aspect of Plutarch’s piece that becomes par- ticularly striking is its orientation toward the external viewpoint. This should not be too surprising in and of itself—it is practically a cliché at this point to say that the Greeks inhabited a culture carefully attuned to judgment in the eyes of others 14 —but it is Aristides’ lack of inter- est in discussing why self-praise creates problems and what effect it has on its listeners that makes the attention to these issues so noticeable in Plutarch. 11 For more on Plutarch’s relation to his political context, see Aalders 1982; Swain 1996, 135–186; Stadter and Van der Stockt (eds.) 2002; de Blois et al. (eds.) 2004, esp. the contributions of Stadter, de Blois, Beck, and Cook. For the philosophical background of Plutarch’s political prescriptions, see the papers of Hershbell, Secall, and Trapp (ibid.). 12 See Swain 1997, 5–9. On evasion of local offices (and their accompanying litur- gies), see Jones 1940, 184–190. 13 Pride in having given speeches to emperors: Or. 42.14; in his connection with the emperors more generally: Or. 19.1. See also Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum 582–583, and Behr 1968, 111, 142–144. Resistance to office: Or. 50.71–108; cf. Pernot, pp. 176–179 in this volume, for a reading of Aristides’ evasion of office as prioritizing Asclepius over all else, including the imperial authority. 14 Cf. Dodds’s importation of the concept ‘shame culture’ from anthropology (1951, 28–63). Note also Swain’s insistence that the interest in the ‘self ’ during the Roman Empire does not include a conception of an isolated individual, but a self that exists in relation to others and is maintained with others’ judgments in mind (1996, 128). 156 dana fields These other-oriented strategies are apparent in the ethical terms Plutarch uses to describe self-praise: he calls it offensive (rπαχ0rς, 539a), unpleasant (τjν 0ηδiαν, 539b), emphasizes its role in inciting both hatred and envy, and proclaims ‘we are appropriately disgusted at it’ (εiκóτως δυσχεραiνομεν, 539c). 15 He draws an even stronger connec- tion between how one presents oneself and how others react when he scolds that ‘praise of oneself is most painful/distressing to others’ (λυπηρóτατον, 539d). The man who promotes himself in this way is also taken to exhibit shamelessness and a selfish, unjust character. One rea- son for this judgment is the fact that the auto-encomiast forces his lis- tener into a choice between two undesirable reactions: to stay quiet and seem envious, or to join in the praise and act as a flatterer (539d). 16 It is almost as if the braggart is his own flatterer, inflating himself just as inappropriately as a flatterer does for others, and with equal shamelessness. Throughout this list of criticisms, it is precisely the self- centeredness of the auto-encomiast, that is, his lack of attention to oth- ers’ reactions, that comes under attack. In trying to elucidate why self-praise is such a problem at the close of the work, Plutarch maintains his focus on others’ reactions. In reference to manipulative types who deliberately provoke someone into glorifying himself, Plutarch states: 'Εν 0πασιν οuν τοuτοις ε0λαβητrον uς rνι μoλιστα, μjτε συνεκπiπτοντα τοtς rπαiνοις μjτε ταtς rρωτjσεσιν rαυτòν προϊrμενον. rντελεστoτη δr τοuτων ε0λoβεια καi φυλακj τò προσrχειν rτrροις rαυτοuς rπαινο0σι καi μνημονεuειν, uς 0ηδrς τò πρ0γμα καi λυπηρòν 0πασι καi λóγος 0λλος ο0δεiς οIτως rπαχ0jς ο0δr βαρuς. ο0δr γoρ rχοντες εiπεtν o τι πoσχομεν 0λλο κακòν íπò τuν αíτοuς rπαινοuντων uσπερ φuσει βαρυνóμενοι τò πρ0γμα καi φεuγοντες 0παλλαγjναι καi 0ναπνε0σαι σπεuδομεν. (547c–d) In all these circumstances one cannot be too cautious, neither allowing oneself to be drawn out by the compliments nor led on by the questions. The best means of caution and guarding against this is to pay attention to others praising themselves and to remember that the matter was distasteful and painful to all and that no other speech is so annoying or offensive. For though we cannot say that we have suffered any ill other than having to listen to the self-praise, it is as if by nature that we are 15 The Greek text of Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise is Pohlenz and Sieveking 1972; the text of Political Precepts is Hubert and Pohlenz 1957. 16 The speaker demonstrates he is unworthy of praise by boasting; therefore any praise of him must be flattery. aristides and plutarch on self-praise 157 oppressed at the matter and try to escape it, and we are eager to be set free and to breathe again. 17 As an explanation for the offensiveness of self-praise, this passage stresses the inexplicability of the irritation that the act causes. The words used to convey the offense itself emphasize its weighty quality: it is ‘heavy’ (rπαχ0jς), ‘burdensome’ (βαρuς), and ‘oppressive’ (βαρυνó- μενοι), suggesting a quasi-physical dimension to the effects of self-praise. Yet Plutarch is only able to account for the unbearable heaviness of auto-encomium by attributing it to ‘human nature’ (φuσις). In using images of physicality to understand the effects of self-praise, Plutarch occludes the evasiveness of his recourse to the mysterious and unques- tionable ‘way things are’. However, as he continues, it becomes appar- ent that this so-called ‘natural’ reaction is a cover for the resentment caused by others’ flaunting of their social or material advantages, as illustrated by the example of a resentful parasite (547d). Plutarch’s avoidance of making this revelation explicit is as telling (if not more so) than if he had said it outright: if the wealthy and prominent can keep quiet about their privilege, he implies, the society as a whole will be more stable, and those advantages will not come under threat. Here, as elsewhere, Plutarch reveals that he is concerned with the reactions of less privileged ‘others’ as well as those of the reader’s aristocratic fellows. 18 The preceding passage highlights not just the effects of self-praise but also the vigilance over oneself necessary for avoiding the error. 19 Plutarch follows with a tip for achieving that aim: 17 All translations are my own. 18 See below, n. 25. 19 The language used to prescribe this vigilance also appears in Plutarch’s How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend, another text highly concerned with negotiating the tensions inherent in elite (and would-be elite) interaction and with keeping watch over oneself and others (ε0λoβεια and related forms in this connection: 49a, 58a, 70e, 71b; φυλακj and related forms: 50e, 56f, 57a, 61d, 66e, 68d, 71d, 72d). See Whitmarsh 2006, passim, but esp. 102. The emphasis on both self-mastery and the monitoring of others in this period has been widely recognized. This is especially so in the wake of Foucault’s influential analysis (1986, 39–95), which takes this preoccupation as indicating the relocation of ethical self-definition among elites to a more internally- oriented plane (which he describes as an intensification and valorization of the relations ‘of oneself to oneself ’). However, Foucault’s explanation of the phenomenon in terms of the individual’s declining political efficacy has been seriously questioned in light of evidence that the political environment of the Greek cities continued to foster robust 158 dana fields 0ν μνημονεuωμεν, oτι τοtς iδiοις rπαiνοις 0λλóτριος rπεται ψóγος 0εi καi γiνεται τrλος 0δοξiα τjς κενοδοξiας ταuτης… 0φεξóμε0α το0 λrγειν περi αíτuν, 0ν μj τι μεγoλα μrλλωμεν uφελεtν rαυτοuς j τοuς 0κοuοντας. (547e–f) If we remember that censure of others always follows from praise of oneself and that the end of this empty self-glorification is the opposite of glory… we will avoid speaking about ourselves unless we intend some great advantage to ourselves or our listeners. This ambiguous expression, ‘0λλóτριος… ψóγος’, manages to suggest both criticism from others who are annoyed at having to listen to self- praise and the implicit criticism of others that praising oneself entails in a context where competition is perceived as zero-sum. Both readings illustrate Plutarch’s great sensitivity to the volatile nature of agonistic elite culture. 20 In the course of this conclusion, Plutarch moves from discussing annoyance at others’ self-praise to strategies for avoiding the act one- self, but despite this switch he maintains the first person plural. This ‘we’, while didactic in tone, is also slippery in its identification, migrat- ing throughout this work between the producers of self-promotion and their audience, and thus creating a double perspective. 21 The implica- tion is that one must be able to imagine one’s actions from an external point of view to determine the correct (i.e. the least offensive) behavior. It is indeed crucial to Plutarch’s aims and to the kind of advice he is giving that the desirable action is the one least annoying to others. The last sentence of the text (as quoted above) reinforces (and com- plicates) one more fundamental and recurrent theme: self-praise is jus- tified if it has some end that promotes the collective good. 22 But this ending also throws into question the assumptions of the entire work by raising the possibility that self-interest is also a justifiable reason—if one local involvement. See e.g. Swain 1999, 89, demonstrating that the proper regulation of the self and of private life was viewed in the high empire as a prerequisite for the management of public life. 20 See also 540a–b, 546c, 546f–547a, as well as Sympotic Questions 2.1, 630c–d on annoying self-praise. 21 Cf. Plutarch’s use of a similar tactic in How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend. The tricks of shifting focalization in both these works illustrate the importance of keeping watch over others as training for monitoring oneself. 22 See also 539e–f, 544d. Plutarch’s language here echoes that of Plato in his dis- cussions of the exceptional ‘noble lie’ (rπ’ uφελi¸α τjς πóλεως, Republic 389b; rπ’ uφε- λi¸ α τuν 0ρχομrνων, 459d; see also 414b–415d). Both authors share the aim of political expediency. aristides and plutarch on self-praise 159 manages to self-promote without causing a negative reaction. At this point we must note that Plutarch’s suggestions in On Inoffensive Self-Praise are generally aimed at the man taking an active part in local politics. A generous reader might grant Plutarch that the true statesman’s interests are always in some sense the public interest; and, in fact, at the opening of the Political Precepts, Plutarch himself urges that a man should never go into public life to glorify himself but rather to serve his community with its best interests as his aim (798c–799a). However, this ending also points to the fact that tension still remains between the value of self- praise to an individual and the social forces that discourage it. Plutarch’s Political Precepts can also be used to throw further light on why the issue of self-praise is so relevant to Greek politics under the Roman Empire. The advice in On Inoffensive Self-Praise is geared overall toward maintaining social harmony and diminishing envy (phthonos) at a local level. 23 The title itself in Greek is Περi το0 rαυτòν rπαινεtν 0νεπιφ0óνως: On praising oneself without engendering the odium that accompanies too-eminent success. 24 Terms such as rμμελjς (literally: harmonious in the musical sense) come up fairly frequently and are set in opposition to the unattractive quality of self-love and the undesirable envy of others (542b, 544b). Furthermore, Plutarch explicitly states that harmony should be an aim both in interaction with one’s equals and in one’s relationship with the masses (hoi polloi). 25 By comparing Plutarch’s presentation of harmony in the Political Pre- cepts to that in On Inoffensive Self-Praise, we can see that for Plutarch the value of social harmony lies in its necessity for maintaining local sta- bility. 26 He illustrates this when he cautions that ambition (φιλοτιμiα) 23 Cf. Plutarch’s interest in harmony on an extremely local scale, i.e. among fellow- diners, in Sympotic Questions, esp. 1.2, 615c–619a; 1.4, 620a–622b; 7.6, 709d. In expressing his concern not only about aristocratic phthonos but also about mitigating strategies for dealing with that envy, Plutarch echoes Pindaric themes, illustrating a parallel between the social function of his text and that of Pindar’s apotropaic treatment of (human) phthonos; for an analysis of Pindar’s strategies for counteracting envy, see Kurke 1991, 195–218. 24 On this definition of phthonos, see Konstan 2003. 25 Envy and resentment of hoi polloi specifically: 542c, 544d; envy explicitly among elites: 540b, 546c, 546f–547a. Envy among elites is mainly discussed as the cause of self-praise, which would in turn exacerbate the problem, while the masses’ envy is prompted by the self-praise of a public speaker. 26 Expressed as homonoia: 824b–e; and in a musical metaphor: 809e. See Sheppard 1984–1986 on the importance of homonoia as an ideal in the works of Plutarch and in this period more generally, as attested by literary, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence; Swain 1999 on Plutarch’s depictions of the interrelation of domestic/interpersonal 160 dana fields and contentiousness (φιλονεικiα) destroy a state, 27 and urges local lead- ers not to involve Rome in order to assert themselves over their rivals— this tactic results in more subjection to the Romans than is necessary and weakens the authority of local governments (814e–815a). 28 As in On Inoffensive Self-Praise, Plutarch once again shows his concern over the dangers of class conflict: he warns that faction in the sense of quarrels between the elites and (as he puts it) their ‘inferiors’ can destabilize a city, and cites the current ‘weak state of Greek affairs’ as a reason to be especially careful in maintaining internal concord (homonoia). 29 Seen against this background, it becomes clear that the importance of not offending with self-praise during this period is so much more than a strategic way to make friends and influence people. Exercising discre- tion in talking about oneself is crucial to maintaining the limited inde- pendence that Greek cities enjoyed, at the same time as it helps safe- guard the advantages of the wealthy and prominent. Aristides: Self-Promotion in the Service of Truth Moving now to Aristides’ On an Incidental Remark, we find a very different emphasis from that of Plutarch. Aristides’ work devotes far more space than Plutarch’s to providing justifications for self-praise and shows al- most no interest in the reactions of the listener. This emphasis, and more specifically the kinds of justification Aristides produces, suggest a view of self-praise that focuses more on the qualities of the man speaking and less on his social context. Aristides repeatedly insists that it is his own talent as an orator, along with the inspiration and favor of the gods, that enables him to make comments in praise of himself. The idea that self-praise is justified by the nature of the man speaking is a theme that pervades the text, but Aristides sets it out most succinctly in this formulation: ‘I believe it is a homonoia and the smooth running of a city; Cook 2004 on the way Plutarch’s preferred rhetorical exempla in the Political Precepts also emphasize harmony. 27 809c, 815a–b, 819e–820a, 824f–825f. Plutarch also notes that this ambition and contentiousness are equally destructive to a statesman’s career: 811d–e, 816c–d. (N.B. that Hubert and Pohlenz prefer φιλονικiα at 811d, 815a.) 28 This advice is supported by episodes from the history of the Roman conquest of mainland Greece as depicted in Plutarch’s Life of Flamininus 12.9–10. 29 815a–819d, 823e–824e. Cf. Aristides on ceasing from faction, rather than from aristocratic rivalry, to avoid Roman intervention (Or. 24.22). aristides and plutarch on self-praise 161 trait of an intelligent and moderate man to know his worth, and of the just man to pay himself and others their due, and of a brave man to speak the truth unafraid’ (φρονiμου μrν γoρ, οiμαι, καi σuφρονος γνuναι τjν 0ξiαν, δικαiου δr τo πρrποντα καi αíτ_u καi rτrροις 0ποδο0ναι, 0νδρεiου δr μj φοβη0jναι τ0λη0rς εiπεtν, 145). 30 The assumption that underlies the first part of this statement is one that recurs often in this speech: self-knowledge is reliable. 31 Here we can compare the attitude of Plutarch, who warns in On Inoffensive Self-Praise and elsewhere that self-love makes self-knowledge extremely difficult to attain. 32 Clearly this sense of caution is not shared by Aristides, who proclaims, ‘I understand oratory better than the critic and those like him and am more capable of judging what deserves praise than a member of the audience’ (καi μοι παρiει περi τοuτων 0μεινον σο0 καi τuν σοi προσομοiων rπiστασ0αι, σκοτοδινι¸0 δj π0ς rντα00α 0κροατjς καi ο0κ rχει τiς γrνηται, 120). As this statement suggests, self-knowledge for Aristides is closely tied to an understanding of the art of oratory. Early on in the speech, he presents the matter this way: if the critic thinks Aristides is a better judge than himself of what is suitable to say in a historical declamation in the person of a famous ancient orator, how can he think that he is a better judge than Aristides when it comes to what is suitable for Aristides to say about himself ? While, as Aristides says, he has to guess at the character of figures like Demosthenes, he thinks he knows his own character clearly (6–7). 33 Besides the belief that one can be clear-sighted about oneself, the statement quoted above (145) relies on two other suspicious assump- tions. The clause at the center of the sentence suggests that speaking well of oneself is equivalent to speaking well of someone else, which implicitly locates the value of speech in its truth-content and thereby denies the importance of its role in social interaction. 34 In connection with this, the belief underlying the final phrase is that speaking the truth is valuable in itself, no matter what effect it has. 30 See also 11, 150–151. 31 See also 4–5, 14, 118. 32 On Inoffensive Self-Praise 546b; How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend 48e–49a; On Tranquility of Mind 471d–e. 33 The οiμαι in ‘τò δ’ rμαυτο0 σαφuς, οiμαι, rπiσταμαι’ is likely sarcastic. 34 Cf. Plutarch on the limited circumstances (καιρóς καi πρoχις) that might allow this approach: On Inoffensive Self-Praise 539e. 162 dana fields These assumptions are part of a tendency throughout this speech to reframe the issue of self-praise as a matter of frankness, parrhêsia. 35 Aris- tides accuses his critic of disallowing candor entirely if he prevents Aris- tides from praising himself (at least without showing that the self-praise is untrue) (47). This argument, like many of those that Aristides makes about himself in this speech, is based on the fundamental premise that assertions should fit what they refer to (in this case, the quality of Aris- tides’ oratory) rather than the social context in which they take place. As Aristides says: οIτω τοiνυν καi τuν 0ν0ρuπων oσοι 0εοφιλεtς καi τuν oμοφuλων προrχου- σιν, ο0κ αiσχuνονται τ0λη0j λrγοντες, 0λλ’ jγο0νται τοuς 0λjτας íπò 0πο- ρiας πολλo ψευδομrνους καi κατo τjν τjς χρεiας αiτiαν ποιjσαι τοuνομα το0το o σu φεuγεις, τòν 0λαζóνα, _u π0σαν τjν rναντiαν rρχεται δjπου0εν o τ0λη0j λrγων. (49) 36 All men dear to the gods and excelling their fellows are not ashamed to speak the truth, but they believe that beggars tell many lies out of poverty and because of their need have made up this name which you shun, ‘braggart’. This ‘braggart’ is entirely opposite to the direction the truth-speaker proceeds. With this ‘fanciful etymology’, 37 the ‘god-cherished’ truth-speaker is set up as the opposite of the 0λαζuν, the braggart, who is implicitly an impostor because he praises himself dishonestly. 38 Aristides even goes so far as to claim that his speech (or any true statement) cannot be blameworthy on the very basis that it is true when he reminds his audience that insult is not illegal, only slander. By the same logic, he continues, ‘if someone praises himself, he would not justly be blamed, so long as he does not tell lies’ (οIτως ο0δ’ 0ν περi rαυτο0 τις ε0φημ¸j, δικαiως 0ν rχοι μrμψιν, rως 0πεστιν τò τo ψευδj λrγειν, 50). Another ploy Aristides uses to shed a more positive light on his behavior is the depiction of his self-praise as having philanthropic motives (a tactic which is in line with Plutarch’s advice). In one instance 35 For more references to parrhêsia, see 53, 85, 88. 36 Cf. 11. 37 Behr 1981, 384 n. 72. The pun relies on similarities between 0λjτης (beggar/wan- derer) and 0λαζuν (braggart) and builds off a much older pun on 0λη0jς (truth) and 0λjτης, which is first attested at Od. 14.118–127. Cf. Plutarch On Exile 607c–d; Dio Chrysostom 1.9, 7.1, 13.9–11. Cf. also Strabo 1.2.23, which connects the 0λαζuν with πλoνη (wandering)! On Homer, see Goldhill 1991, 38; Segal 1994, 179–183. On Dio, see Whitmarsh 2001, 162. 38 On the history of the term 0λαζuν, see MacDowell 1990. aristides and plutarch on self-praise 163 he even proposes that he is duty-bound to point out what is good about his speech since otherwise the crowd simply would not be capable of noticing all of its fine elements, much less judging which of its qualities are most deserving of praise. Therefore the act of self-praise is characteristic of a man who is ‘completely forthright and generous’ (κα0αρuς úπλο0ν καi φιλoν0ρωπον, 119). 39 This formulation once again depends on Aristides’ superior understanding of the oratorical art. In a metaphor that oozes condescension, he compares his naïve audience, in their ignorance at how to judge his speeches, to soldiers in a battle line who have been surrounded and are thrown into confusion (120). In other words, his speeches are so good that they practically attack the listener with a barrage of excellent techniques! Only with Aristides’ help can the audience survive this onslaught by learning the true value of his oratorical skill. Aristides: Divine Sanction In addition to the admirable qualities of frankness and benevolence that Aristides claims for himself, another factor that is crucial to justifying his self-praise is his self-presentation (in this speech and elsewhere) as both a favorite of particular gods and the recipient of divine help. According to Aristides, help from the gods is part of what makes a man great, 40 and (as we have seen) a great man must be honest and open about his greatness. Honesty therefore includes attributing this excellence to the gods that made it possible; in Aristides’ case these are Asclepius, Athena, and even the Muses. Aristides’ argument rests in part on the notion that his self-praise is indirectly praise of these divinities and that barring him from remarking on the greatness they have allowed him to attain is in some sense to disallow praise of the gods themselves. Aristides’ comments about his connection to the gods range from the general, as when, for example, he groups himself among those dear to 39 See also 103, 105, 147. 40 Precedents for divine inspiration of oratory include: Plato as skeptical of oratorical inspiration, Phaedrus 234d–e, 245a; Ion 534c; Aristotle on the ‘enthusiastic’ style, in connection with ‘what is fitting’ (τò πρrπον), Rhetoric 1408a36–b20. See also Cicero De Oratore 2.193–194; Seneca Major Suasoriae 3.6; Quintilian on Plato as divinely inspired, Institutio Oratoria 12.10.24. 164 dana fields the gods, 41 to the very personal, as at the end of the speech when he refers to Asclepius as his patron or protector (προστoτης) and his only guide (παιδαγωγóς, 156). 42 This image of Asclepius as a teacher and patron is one that appears frequently in the Hieroi Logoi. Aristides relates how, through the medium of a dream, the god encouraged and even commanded him not to give up his oratorical training while he was convalescing in the temple at Pergamum (Or. 50.14–15). He also tells of how his oratorical powers increased, not only because of the god’s encouragement of his practice, but also due to the god’s more specific instruction in that training: for example, Asclepius tells Aristides which ancient authors he should study, and Aristides says that from then on those authors were like comrades to him, with Asclepius as their common patron (καi μοι πoντες οuτοι μετ’ rκεiνην τjν jμrραν rταtροι σχεδòν rφoνησαν, το0 0εο0 προξενjσαντος, Or. 50.24). 43 Oratorical assistance from the gods often takes the form of a dream in Aristides’ writings. Early on in his speech on the ‘incidental remark’, Aristides explicitly compares his oratorical inspiration to the poets’ rela- tionship to the Muses. Like Hesiod, Aristides presents himself as visited by the goddess in a dream—Athena herself in this case, to aid him in composing the speech in her honor—and he insists that in praising himself he acknowledged the goddess’ inspiration (20–21). 44 Likewise, Aristides attributes his own speeches to Asclepius in the Hieroi Logoi (Or. 48.82), 45 and refers in that work to dreams in which he found him- self speaking ‘better than I was accustomed to and saying things I had never thought’ (πολλo δ’ α0τòς λrγειν rδóκουν κρεiττω τjς συνη0εiας καi 0 ο0δεπuποτε rνε0υμj0ην, Or. 50.25). These dreams not only provide a connection to the god, but also assimilate Aristides’ source of inspira- tion to that of great literary figures of the past, bolstering his image as rival to the ancients. Aristides further emphasizes the importance of these dreams to his self-fashioning as a great rhetor when he states that he later incorporated these exalted dream orations into waking 41 See above p. 158. 42 See also Asclepius’ dream message at 116, identical to one that appears at Or. 50.52. 43 Here as elsewhere, Asclepius sets himself up as an equal to the great ancient writers; on other occasions he recalls dreams that tell him he even excels them. For the god as guide, see also Or. 50.8. 44 See also 53, 75, 94, 102. 45 See also Or. 42.12. aristides and plutarch on self-praise 165 speeches and calls the dreams ‘the most valuable part of my training’ (καi μjν τó γε πλεtστον καi πλεiστου 0ξιον τjς 0σκjσεως j τuν rνυπνiων jν rφοδος καi oμιλiα, Or. 50.25). A more extreme version of assistance from the gods takes the form of divine possession during the course of an oratorical performance. 46 By this tactic, Aristides absolves himself of responsibility for the offense he caused, since, as he claims, the god is truly in control. Aristides describes this experience as a series of quasi-physical sensations, height- ening the suggestion of the god’s presence: the light of god comes over the speaker; it possesses his soul like a drink from the springs of Apollo, and it fills him with intensity and warmth and cheer (114). He com- pares those possessed to priests of Cybele (109) and Bacchants (114), both famous for their transgressive manner of worship. He also claims that inspired speech, once set in motion, is like an automaton, like an object moving by the force of its own inertia (111–112). And it is not the speeches of Aristides’ alone that are heaven-sent. ‘This is the one font of oratory’, he says, ‘the truly holy and divine fire from the hearth of Zeus’ and the speaker is figured as an initiate (λóγων δ’ αIτη πηγj μiα, τò uς 0λη0uς lερòν καi 0εtον π0ρ τò rκ Διóς rστiας, 110). 47 The upshot of this collection of mixed metaphors is the generalized connection between oratory and divine possession, which has a number of implications. For one thing, it defines the true rhetor by his communion with the god, implying that all others are shams. It also simultaneously censures any- one who criticizes Aristides’ remark for defaming the mystical art of oratory as a whole. 48 To stress even more emphatically the importance of the god in sanc- tioning self-promotion, Aristides goes so far as to use divine involve- ment to trump the other arguments he himself is making. Aristides informs his audience that even if there were no precedents for self- praise, divine possession would be enough to justify it, stating: uστ’ εi καi μηδrνα μηδ’ 0φ’ rνòς εiδους εiχομεν εiπεtν rπ’ α0τ_u τι φρο- νjσαντα, μηδ’ jν 0ναγκαtον τuν λóγων τò τοιο0τον πo0ημα, jμ0ς δ’ εiς ταuτην o 0εòς ν0ν jγεν, ο0κ 0ν τo πρεσβεtα δj που συμφορoν rποιοuμε0α. σu δ’ αiτι¸0 τò σuμβολον α0το0 το0 çjτορος. (117) 46 Cf. the more common trope of poetic or rhapsodic possession, as depicted in Plato’s Ion 533d–536d, 542a–b. Aristides seems to be playing on the traditionally poetic triangulation of possession-prophesy-(misunderstood) truth. See Detienne 1967, 9–50. 47 Cf. the metaphor of Or. 34, Against Those Who Burlesque the Mysteries of Oratory, bor- rowed, according to Swain (1996, 255 n. 5), from contemporary Platonizing philosophy. 48 See also 105. 166 dana fields Therefore, even if we could name no one in any genre who was proud of himself, and if this condition were unnecessary in oratory, but the god led us now to this—we would not count this privilege as a misfortune. You, however, would criticize what is the very token of an orator. Given that a very large portion of this text is taken up by literary and historical examples of self-praise that Aristides uses to justify his own, the effect of the counterfactual construction above is both to overwrite the earlier arguments and to prove twice over that Aristides’ self-pride is defensible. And, what is more, by the assertion that this behavior is the orator’s defining characteristic, Aristides strengthens his claim to be the consummate public speaker. Aristides: the Critic’s Critic Next we will examine the relationship between these defense tactics and Aristides’ self-promotion. It has been noted that Aristides performs a sly maneuver in this speech by using the premise of a defense against the charge of self-praise to praise himself further, and the speech is indeed full of ruthless self-promotion. 49 For instance, the examples Aristides uses implicitly compare him to (inter alia) great poets, mythical heroes, victorious athletes, conquering armies, and even Zeus himself. 50 Self- aggrandizement is even implied by the premise of the speech in that it rests on Aristides’ claim to be so famous and important that he is the subject of others’ conversations. Likewise, the extensive length and the public performance of his response to what was originally a private critique further adds to the promotional value of the text. We might even suspect that there was no such critic and that the whole issue was invented purely for the sake of self-promotion. 51 Regardless of 49 Rutherford 1995, 203. 50 Though Plutarch uses several of the same sources to discuss self-praise, Aristides’ polemical rather than didactic tone and his explicit discussion of himself dramatically change the effect of these examples. 51 Isocrates, Antidosis 8–14 provides a classical model for the same tactic, but one in which the author is open about the fictionality of the attack against him. Isocrates explains this choice by stating that he is trying to avoid phthonos, an aim that Aristides does not seem to share. But, as in Aristides’ text, issues of truth and frankness figure large in the Antidosis, which is itself modeled on Plato’s Apology—see Norlin 1966, xvii; Too 1995, 192–193; Nightingale 1996, 28–29; Ober 1998, 260–263. For an extended discussion of envy in the Antidosis and in Isocrates generally see Saïd 2003; as well aristides and plutarch on self-praise 167 whether one believes the premise of this speech, Aristides seems highly concerned with individual glory throughout, even as he attributes that glory to the gods and presents it as a conduit for their glorification. A claim of divine favor is after all one more type of boast. Another method Aristides uses to promote himself in this work is a series of vicious attacks against his anonymous (and possibly invented) critic. Aristides’ avoidance of mentioning the critic’s name could be interpreted as part of an attempt to belittle him, a subtle hint that there was no such critic, or even an elaborate fiction to give the impres- sion of belittling. 52 In addition, every item of vituperation against this critic can be taken as an attempt to increase the status differential between him and Aristides, in some instances more explicitly than in others. This abuse includes suggestions that the critic is ignorant (0μα- 0jς, 135), insolent, a slanderer, a meddler (íβριστjν ðντα καi συκοφoν- την καi περiεργον, 95), in need of re-education (μεταπαιδεuειν, 3), and even nausea-inducing (πλεtον j ναυτι0ν, 1). More explicitly competitive remarks characterize the critic as wretched and far from the gods (00λιε καi πóρρω 0εuν, 103), 53 call him a ‘nobody’ (ο0δεiς, 97) 54 who ought to be pleased if he is even allowed to attend Aristides’ speeches in the capacity of a slave (0λλ’ 0γαπ0ν σοι προσjκον, εi καi rν οiκrτου τoξει παρjσ0α τοtς γιγνομrνοις, 97), and speculate that he would probably like his children to turn out like Aristides (155). 55 On the whole, it is clear that On an Incidental Remark is a sharply competitive, vindictive, and, above all else, self-promoting speech. as Ober 1998, 258, 264; Cairns 2003, 244. Cf. also Lucian’s works in the genre of apologia (defense speech): Fisherman, Defense of ‘Portraits’, and Apology, which have raised comparable suspicions that the attacker is a fabrication. Similarly, at the end of Lucian’s A Slip of the Tongue (another contentious response to having committed an embarrassing error in speech), the author suggests that his critics may accuse him of inventing the story of his greeting gaffe merely for the sake of display (epideixis)—a reaction he provocatively seems to encourage as an indication of the quality of his prose (19). For more on rhetorical apologetics in Lucian and in the High Empire more generally, see Whitmarsh 2001, 291–293; id. 2005, 79–83. 52 The text does seem to suggest that the man’s name was intentionally excluded. See 3, 14, 73. Cf. Isocrates’ invention of a name for his pretend prosecutor at Antidosis 14. 53 In contrast to Aristides’ close relationship with them. 54 This comment can be taken to support the view that the critic is non-existent or the reading that sees Aristides as deliberately suppressing the critic’s name. 55 See also 8, 61, 113, 145. 168 dana fields Comparison: Perpendicular Lives? When we set these two texts against one another, sizeable differences in the authors’ attitudes become apparent. Overall, while both authors are negotiating the same tensions inherent in the issue of self-praise, their cultural roles and related generic aims cause them to approach the issue in strikingly dissimilar ways. Plutarch’s didactic, philosophically- oriented piece focuses more on social cohesion while, in the context of Aristides’ self-promotional harangue, individual glory is more impor- tant. Differences also become apparent when Aristides calls justified pride a particularly Greek characteristic, a tactic that challenges his audience to condone his behavior or discard some part of their cul- tural tradition. 56 For Plutarch, by contrast, such ‘Hellenizing’ ideology is beside the point: he is less interested in discussing whether a man merits pride in himself than in the modesty and subtlety that make possible harmony and political expediency (factors that could have real effects on how the Greeks lived under Roman domination). 57 This atti- tude is not completely foreign to Aristides 58 —there are a few speeches where he promotes concord between Greek cities and avoidance of fac- tion within then 59 —but his presentation of himself in On an Incidental Remark clearly takes no interest in interpersonal harmony. 60 56 18, 152. 57 Here we might compare the pragmatic advice of the Political Precepts, which urges local officials to avoid topics fraught with a kind of nationalistic pride, such as Marathon or Plataea, because the reaction they incite is harmful to the common good in the circumstances of Roman rule (814a–c). One might argue that the problem in this passage is that contemporary Greeks (compared to children trying on their father’s shoes or garlands) do not merit this pride, but in fact it is their ancestors in whom they take pride—it is only the actions to which this pride leads them that are inappropriate to the ‘present times and matters’ (παρο0σι καιροtς καi πρoγμασιν, 814a). 58 Though cf. To Plato: In Defense of Oratory for self-referential comments on the limited relevance of contemporary oratory (Or. 2.430, quoted on p. 168 below), and also Or. 23.4 on what he characterizes as the rare opportunity to make his oratorical practice useful. 59 Or. 23, 24, 27. In fact, the opening of Aristides’ On Concord between the Cities scorns exactly the sort of behavior he is displaying in On an Incidental Remark, referring to oratory that is characterized by contentiousness (rρις) and is not beneficial to the audience (Or. 23.1). On Or. 24, see Franco in this volume, esp. pp. 232–243. 60 Cf. e.g. Or. 24.15 on the value of friendship. Overall, Aristides puts much less emphasis than Plutarch on homonoia between individuals. Here we can once again compare Plutarch’s Political Precepts, this time on the potential for private quarrels to spiral out of control and cause large public problems: 824f–825f. aristides and plutarch on self-praise 169 Let us return now to Rutherford’s suggestion that the issue is a matter of decorum. 61 There is something to this, as I suggest above, if we remember that decorum is never just decorum. In some sense the tension between Plutarch’s approach to self-praise and Aristides’ lies in an implied contest over the definition of what is suitable, that is, whether the social context or the man speaking is more important for determining what is appropriate. For Aristides, his relationship to the god even figures into the determination of oratorical kairos, the critical or opportune moment. Instead of referring to fitting one’s speech to its context or providing what is necessary for the public good at some critical juncture, as in Plutarch’s work on self-praise, 62 kairos, according to Aristides, is the point at which not saying what is inspired becomes unbearable and impossible (115). In this passage and throughout the speech, it is clear that Aristides’ position in this pseudo-debate is one that considers fidelity to himself (and thereby to the god) to be the highest good. 63 In considering these stances we can perhaps also look to the ways Plutarch and Aristides depict their own lives for parallels. Aristides’ avoidance of public office, as narrated in the Hieroi Logoi, raises the question of whether we should read these actions as a claim that Aris- tides’ allegiance to the god is a higher priority than responsibility to his fellow citizens. The great lengths to which Aristides goes to avoid public service are aimed partly at establishing his cultural status, since exemp- tions serve as official confirmations of their recipients’ perceived value. We should note as well that Aristides does in fact get involved in the affairs of Greek cities to some degree, for example in his intervention with Marcus Aurelius in favor of aiding Smyrna, his speech on behalf of Rhodes after a similarly devastating earthquake, and the speeches on concord mentioned above. 64 But it is significant that he is willing to contribute only in the role of an orator and a go-between rather than providing any material help himself. 65 Furthermore, whereas these texts 61 See above p. 149. 62 539e, 542c, 545c, 546b. 63 This can be interpreted as supporting the view that religion took over as the primary determinant of identity in late antiquity (see e.g. Stroumsa 2005, 183–184). However, characterizing Aristides’ connection to Asclepius as a religious identity raises methodological problems concerning ancient religion that cannot be addressed here. Cf. also Plutarch’s role as priest of Delphi, which was a part of (rather than something set apart from) his public career; see Stadter 2004. 64 On the letter to Marcus and Commodus, see Quet 2006. 65 Cf. Or. 23.80, for the claim that oratory is a preferable kind of benefaction! 170 dana fields blend self-promotion and political involvement, 66 the Hieroi Logoi and On an Incidental Remark set Aristides’ rhetorical career at odds with any political participation required of him. By comparison, we might note Plutarch’s active public career, discussed most explicitly in the Life of Demosthenes (2.2) where he strikes a careful balance in presenting himself as both prominent abroad and loyal to home. 67 Perhaps also significant is Plutarch’s address of On Inoffensive Self-Praise to a great benefactor to the cities of Greece. 68 These very different approaches to civic involvement illustrate the wide gulf between the priorities of Plutarch and those of Aristides regarding public life, and that gap also matches the disparity in their treatments of the issue of self-praise. Conclusion: the Cost of Self-Praise Versus its Value What then do these two approaches to the issue of self-praise tell us about the contemporary concern surrounding writing and talking about oneself and about imperial-era political culture more broadly? The divergence between Plutarch’s and Aristides’ treatments of the issue can largely be attributed to the vast difference in the cultural roles they play as well as the genres in which they choose to work. But these roles and their associated genres do not exist in a vacuum. When we look at Plutarch’s and Aristides’ texts in conjunction with one another, a strong connection emerges between how one talks about oneself and what position one takes in relation to the political and social environment. Each of these works is trying to persuade its audience or reader of something. In Plutarch’s case, taking his advice on public self- assertion also involves privileging broader social stability over individual self-promotion. Likewise, if one excuses Aristides for praising himself 66 Cf. the orations of Dio Chrysostom addressed to eastern cities. 67 For an extended discussion of self-presentation in the opening of the Lives of Demosthenes and Cicero, see Zadorojnyi 2006. On Plutarch’s public career, see Jones 1971, 20–21, 25–26 (contra Russell 1968, 130), and 28–30, 32–34 (though cf. Swain 1991, 318; id. 1996, 171–172 for warnings against the credulous acceptance of reports in the Suda and Syncellus of various imperial honors awarded to Plutarch in his dotage). 68 See above n. 3, although the reader is of course free to interpret the dedication as an attempt to correct the behavior of a man who bragged too much, benefaction being another form of self-aggrandizement (hence often denoted by the word φιλοτιμiα). aristides and plutarch on self-praise 171 on the grounds that the nature of the man speaking is enough to justify what is said, this requires taking a stance that puts less value on public responsibility. The task of the politician in this period is trickier and more fraught than ever, and the same rhetorical skills needed for political effec- tiveness can be used to much more self-serving ends if the educated and privileged man chooses not to engage in local politics. I do not mean to suggest by this that the agonistic elite display culture of the High Empire is as a whole fundamentally incompatible with political engagement—far from it, as is illustrated by ample literary and epi- graphic evidence. 69 My point is rather that the culture of agonistic self- promotion associated with epideictic oratory, in its privileging of the status of the individual, serves as one frame for discussions of self-praise in the Roman imperial era. At the same time, the political context cre- ates another means of framing the issue by necessitating at least the appearance of solidarity on the part of the elites in order to main- tain local stability and avoid Roman intervention. ‘Sophists’ are among the social and cultural types who, according to Plutarch, tend to self- promote, 70 but I want to make very clear that I do not mean to draw a facile correlation between epideictic, self-praise, and the avoidance of political responsibility. Rather, many options were open to those with rhetorical training. 71 A rhetor who takes an active part in political life must negotiate between the requirements of these two contexts, and this negotiation necessitates putting limits on self-aggrandizement (as well as on other techniques of rhetorical display). The way to avoid these restrictions, as Aristides does, is to dodge one’s political responsibilities. An imperial-era Greek author’s discussion (and use) of self-praise there- fore serve as an indicator of how he is handling this tension and to what degree he places his priorities with his own reputation or with the good of his community. 69 See Bowersock 1969. Bowie (1982, 29–44) emphasizes in response that this partic- ipation was simply part of normal elite activity and did not in itself set the ‘sophists’ apart, but this critique only supports my general point. Brunt (1994, passim, but esp. 26, 34–35), while rightly skeptical of taking details from the literary sources at face value, overstates the case for dismissing reports of the political significance of the ‘sophists’ for the Greek cities. See also Heath 2004, 277–331, on the continuing relevance of rhetorical training to various aspects of public life in the second and third centuries, as complementary to and often coexisting with participation in epideictic performance. 70 On Inoffensive Self-Praise 543e–f, 547e. But N.B. that philosophers are mentioned too (547e)! 71 As Heath has convincingly demonstrated. See n. 69 above. 172 dana fields Because the statesman to whom Plutarch directs his advice operates within the larger hierarchy of the Roman Empire, he must of necessity be more careful than his classical predecessors in avoiding contentious self-promotion so that the remaining local Greek autonomy might not be lost. Plutarch’s ideal statesman recognizes that modesty is necessary for the politician, given the ‘weak state of Greek affairs’, but devotes himself to his city all the same (Political Precepts 824e). The flip side of this response is the rhetor who, in Aristides’ own words, ‘does not easily appear before the people with his oratory and engage in political dis- putes, since he sees that the government is now differently constituted’ (Or. 2.430). When an orator does not take part in political discourse, there is plenty at stake for himself because of the value of his rhetori- cal skill for self-promotion, but for the public the stakes as a whole are considerably lower. 72 72 My thanks go to Tim Whitmarsh, Simon Goldhill, Marc Domingo Gygax, Joseph Streeter, the participants of the Aelius Aristides conference, and the editors and anony- mous readers of this volume for suggestions and critiques. I am particularly grateful to conference organizer William Harris for allowing me to join such a distinguished program. part three ARISTIDES AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE OF HIS TIMES chapter nine AELIUS ARISTIDES AND ROME Laurent Pernot Aristides sang the praises of the Roman emperors and of the Roman Empire in many of his works: in the Smyrnean Orations, in the speech To the Cities Concerning Concord, in the Panegyric in Cyzicus, in the Funeral Oration in Honor of Alexander of Cotiaeum, and of course, in his speech To Rome. He repeatedly expressed the greatest respect for the emperors; he celebrated the advantages of Roman rule, and he asked the gods to keep the imperial family in their favor. Such a display of loyalty is not surprising from a man who was a member of the provincial nobility, possessed Roman citizenship and had numerous contacts with influential Romans and even with the imperial court. Scholars have often said and written, and rightly so, that Aristides is representative of the fidelity of Greek-speaking elites to the Roman Empire. He contributed to what L. Robert called, in a phrase that sum- marizes the spirit of the age, ‘la symbiose gréco-romaine dans l’empire romain’. 1 Aristides’ works are marked by the ideology of concord and consensus, an ideology that he himself shaped and spread with the aid of epideictic rhetoric. On account of its elevated language and cultural and moral authority, as well as the public and ceremonial conditions of performance, epideictic rhetoric gave political messages persuasive force. All of these facts are known, and I myself have contributed to some extent to establishing them in regard to the rhetoric of praise and to the speech To Rome in particular. 2 Therefore, the subject of the present paper may seem paradoxical. It is thus necessary to begin with some preliminary comments. Reading and re-reading Aelius Aristides, with a view to the edition being prepared for the Collection des Universités de France by an international team based in Strasbourg, my attention was 1 Robert 1970, 16. 2 Pernot 1993a; id. 1997. 176 laurent pernot piqued by passages that seemed to me to contain dissonances, cracks and doubts regarding the Empire and the emperors. These passages betray, often implicitly, a sort of malaise; they seemed to be worthy of an explanation. Generally speaking, there are two reasons that make it possible and likely, a priori, that Aristides could have had reservations about or hesi- tations towards Rome. Behind the brilliant façade, certain complex fac- tors were at work. The first reason is of a personal and psychological order. When Aris- tides went to Rome in 144AD at the age of 26, his stay in the capital was extremely difficult, since it was at that time that his illness first began (or, more precisely, the series of illnesses that would overshadow the rest of his life). In Rome, as he himself wrote in his Sacred Tales, he suffered greatly. The doctors were powerless to help him, and after a certain amount of time he ended up going back to his homeland, where Asclepius took over the responsibility for his care. The time spent in Rome, during which he probably delivered his speech To Rome, looks like a failure. In any case, Aristides chose to describe it in precisely this way in his Sacred Tales. During his first stay, Rome disappointed Aris- tides, a sentiment that C.A. Behr described with these expressive words: ‘Rome, the stage of his ambitions, became the cemetery of his hopes’. 3 One should not overlook the fact that, in Aristides’ personal history, Rome was first associated with sickness and failure, circumstances that could have exerted an influence over the way that he judged the city. Second, it is necessary to take into account a reason drawn from historical sociology. Here it will be enough to indicate an idea that deserves a much longer discussion. In brief: it was not the case that in accepting and cooperating with Roman rule, the Greeks were deeply satisfied with it; nor did they completely adhere to it, despite seeing advantages in it; nor did their privileged position within the Roman Empire blind them to other aspects of their situation. The Greeks were convinced of their distinctiveness and their superiority in regard to other peoples, even the Romans. One should not accept too quickly the impression of enthusiastic support for Rome that some ancient speeches give, and it is very possible that the authors’ experiences were, in reality, more complicated. There is always dissatisfaction: it 3 Behr 1968, 24. aelius aristides and rome 177 would not be wise to postulate total unanimity or uniformity. On the one hand, the cooperation and accord between Greeks and Romans within the Roman Empire was a reality; on the other hand, some Greeks of the Imperial Era had mixed feelings towards the glorious Hellenic past and the Roman Empire. 4 It is well known that authors like Dio of Prusa and Lucian, for instance, in some of their works and in some periods of their lives, uttered critical judgments of the Roman Empire or fostered a difficult relationship with it. Unlike rebellious and philosophical types like Dio and Lucian, Aristides outwardly resembled an applied panegyrist, the good student in the class. Yet even good students can have misgivings. Here, then, are two reasons that might lead one to think that it is not impossible that Aristides could have had ambivalent feelings towards Rome. It is neither a matter of frontal attacks, nor of being ‘pro-Roman’ or ‘anti-Roman’. We are not speaking of opposition or dissidence, phenomena that did exist in other contexts in the Roman Empire. 5 It is more a question of psychological complexity and subtle undertones. Indeed, it is interesting to note that some scholars have recently begun to take into account the less obvious aspects of Aristides’ writings and their polyvalent meaning. 6 The present study will examine the emergence of an ambivalent attitude, first in passages from The Sacred Tales, in which Aristides writes about significant dreams and biographical events, and then in passages from other discourses, where the thoughts of the author seem to be expressed in veiled terms. This dossier is composed of texts that have never before been put together, and it could certainly be enriched by the addition of other passages. It should be clear to the reader that this is a case study, centered on Aristides alone. It is not intended as a study of the immense and much disputed question of the relations between Greeks and Romans as a whole. 4 On these mixed feelings see e.g. Schmid 1887–1897, I.38–40 n. 13; W. Schmid in von Christ 1920–1924, II.664–665; Bowie 1970; Reardon 1971, 17–21; D’Elia 1995, 108; Veyne 1999; id. 2005, 163–257. 5 Fuchs 1964; MacMullen 1966; Giovannini-Van Berchem 1987; Rudich 1993; id. 1997. 6 Klein 1995; Quet 2002, 86–90: ‘Les silences volontaires d’Aelius Aristide’; Franco 2005, 401–408: ‘Selezioni e omissioni’; P. Desideri, in Fontanella 2007, 3–22: ‘Scrittura pubblica e scritture nascoste’. 178 laurent pernot 1. Aristides Rebels in the Name of Asclepius Dreams and a Biographical Anecdote Our first text, taken from The Sacred Tales, is an account of a dream. It is a dream, however, that has its roots in actual events from Aristides’ life: προσειπóντος δr κ0μο0 καi στoντος r0αuμασεν o α0τοκρoτωρ, uς ο0 καi α0τòς προσελ0uν φιλjσαιμι. κ0γu εiπον oτι o 0εραπευτjς εiην o το0 'Ασκληπιο0· τοσο0τον γoρ μοι jρκεσεν εiπεtν περi rμαυτο0. ‘πρòς οuν τοtς 0λλοις’, rφην, ‘καi το0το o 0εóς μοι παρjγγειλεν μj φιλεtν οíτωσi’· καi oς, ‘0ρκεt’, rφη· κ0γu rσiγησα. καi oς rφη, ‘καi μjν 0εραπεuειν γε παντòς κρεiττων o 'Ασκληπιóς’ (Or. 47.23). 7 When I too saluted him and stood there, the Emperor wondered why I too did not come forward and kiss him. And I said that I was a worshipper of Asclepius. For I was content to say so much about myself. ‘In addition to other things’, I said, ‘the god has also instructed me not to kiss in this fashion’. And he replied, ‘I am content’. I was silent. And he said, ‘Asclepius is better than all to worship’. When Aristides went to Rome in 144, he was welcomed by his former professor, the grammarian Alexander of Cotiaeum, who was living in the capital as one of the tutors of Prince Marcus, the future Marcus Aurelius. There is a hint of these events in two speeches, To Rome and The Funeral Oration in Honor of Alexander of Cotiaeum. In the Funeral Oration, the author recalls the eminent role that Alexander had with regard to the emperors, as well as how he helped Aristides during his visit. In 166, twenty-two years later according to C.A. Behr’s dating, Aris- tides, for unknown reasons, has a dream that takes him back to these past events (Alexander has been dead for fifteen years). In his dream, he sees Alexander introduce him to the reigning emperor, who was Anton- inus Pius at the time of the events recounted in the dream. The cere- mony at court included speeches (this rhetorical aspect of the situation in particular held Aristides’ attention). Alexander delivers an address to the emperor, and then the emperor responds, as do the members of his entourage. Then it is Aristides’ turn to speak, and the situation turns upside down. 7 Throughout this paper I have used the editions of Lenz-Behr 1976–1980 for Orations 1–16 and Keil 1898 for Orations 17–53. Translations of Aristides are from Behr 1981–1986. aelius aristides and rome 179 According to court etiquette, Aristides should have kissed the em- peror (the Greek word used is the verb φιλεtν). There are numerous sources that note the custom of saluting the emperor by means of a kiss that could be placed on the hands, the mouth, the eyes, the neck or the chest. In the court ceremony, the privilege of kissing the emperor is attested to most notably by Fronto. 8 But Aristides refuses to pay homage to the emperor by giving him a kiss, as he is invited to do. The reason he gives for his refusal is that it is the will of Asclepius: he is, he says, ‘a worshipper of Asclepius’ (0εραπευτjς), 9 and the god has ordered him not to kiss the emperor in this manner. The text does not say any more about this, so we do not know why exactly Asclepius established this ban. The commentators on this pas- sage have not found a precise explanation. But, in any case, the general sense of the scene is clear. Aristides adopts a peculiar manner, refus- ing to submit to court protocol and to pay the expected homage to the emperor, and his behavior is attributed to his bond with Asclepius. His identity as a devotee of Asclepius has given him a reserved attitude, an attitude almost of insolence, even of rebellion, that arouses surprise in the Emperor. One is tempted to compare this scene—mutatis mutandis— to stories of the acts of the martyrs, in which one sees Christians refus- ing to sacrifice in the context of the imperial cult, giving as grounds for their refusal the ties that unite them to their God. 10 Here, luckily for Aristides, it is all a dream, and everything ends well. Antoninus recog- nizes in Aristides the quality of a 0εραπευτjς (using the verb 0εραπεu- ειν), and he accepts, without getting angry, that devotion to Asclepius comes before the respect due to an emperor. The following text is about a dream that Aristides had in 166, about two weeks later, and it illustrates a similar attitude: 11 εiπον δr οIτω πως· ‘uστ”, rφην, ‘εi μj γεγυμνασμrνος jν rν 0εiαις ðψεσιν, ο0κ 0ν μοι δοκu ç¸αδiως ο0δr πρòς α0τjν τjν πρóσοψιν 0ντισχεtν, οIτω μοι δοκεt 0αυμαστj τις εiναι καi κρεiττων j κατ’ 0ν0ρωπον’. rλεγον δr 0εiας ðψεις, μoλιστα δj rνδεικνuμενος τòν 'Ασκληπιòν καi τòν Σoραπιν (Or. 47.38). 8 Fronto, Ad M. Caes. 3.14.3, with the commentary of Van den Hout 1999, 124, 185. 9 See some contrasting views on the significance of this word in Festugière-Saffrey 1986, 130 n. 51; Schröder 1986, 26 n. 48. 10 See also Musurillo 1954, 242 for pagan parallels. 11 Compare Or. 27.39. 180 laurent pernot I spoke somewhat as follows: ‘Therefore’, I said, ‘if I had not been trained in divine visions, I think that I would not easily endure this spectacle. So wonderful does it seem to me and greater than man’s estate’. I said ‘divine visions’, meaning especially Asclepius and Sarapis. This time Marcus Aurelius appears to Aristides (evidently, the sophist was very preoccupied with emperors), together with the king of the Parthians, Vologeses III (whose presence in the dream is explained by the fact that it occurs during the time of the Parthian Wars). In his dream, Aristides sees himself giving a speech addressed to the two sovereigns. This speech, in technical rhetorical terms, is a διoλεξις or προλαλιo, that is to say a brief address serving as an introduction to the recitation of a longer work and containing compliments to the audience. 12 In this address, Aristides tells Marcus Aurelius and Vologeses how happy and flattered he is to have the privilege of giving a reading of his works before them. He then adds that his divine visions have prepared him for the occasion and given him the ability to endure the gaze of the two sovereigns before whom he is standing. These words are certainly intended as a compliment, since Aristides emphasizes the superhuman character of the sovereigns and compares the spectacle that they present to those presented by the gods. But if he is comparing the two types of vision, Aristides does not assimilate them. He carefully distinguishes between divine visions, that is to say the apparitions of Asclepius and Sarapis that he has seen in his dreams, and the spectacle presented by the kings. The vision of the gods was an exercise, a preparation for the vision of the sovereigns. The word ‘exer- cise’ (εi μj γεγυμνασμrνος jν) is a flattering means of expression, but it does not imply that it is easier for Aristides to look at the gods than it was for him to look at the kings. On the contrary, it is because he was used to seeing the gods that he can ‘easily’ look at the sovereigns: he who can do more can do less. As in the preceding text, Aristides describes himself as being, above all, a man of Asclepius. When he appears before emperors and the kings, he is crowned with the glow of his relationship with the divine. In his dealings with temporal author- ity, he remains detached and distant since there is in him a spiritual richness by which he measures everything else. 12 Pernot 1993a, II.552. aelius aristides and rome 181 A third passage is again the account of a dream, one that takes place a little later than the others: o δr r0αuμασrν τε [καi] πειρuμενος τuν λóγων 0ντi πoντων τε rφη τιμ0- σ0αι χρημoτων α0τοuς καi rπεtπεν ‘τοuτοις τοtς λóγοις εi προσjσαν 0κρο- αταi oσον καi πεντjκοντα’· κ0γu íπολαβuν, ‘σο0 γε, rφην, βουλομrνου, βασιλε0, καi 0κροαταi γενjσονται, καi oπως γ”, rφην, ‘0αυμoσ¸ης, τα0τα 0 νυνi λrγεις rμοi íπò το0 'Ασκληπιο0 προεiρηται’ (Or. 51.45). He was amazed; and when he had tested my speech, he said that he valued it at any price, and added, ‘Would that there were also an audience of about fifty present at this speech’. And I said in reply, ‘If you wish, Emperor, there will also be an audience and’, I said, ‘so that you may well be amazed, these things which you now say have been foretold to me by Asclepius’. As at Or. 47.23, Aristides evokes the surprise of the emperor (who is Marcus Aurelius here): r0αuμασεν. As at Or. 47.23 and 38, Aristides invokes, while facing the emperor, his own relationship with Asclepius. What the emperor says had already been predicted by Asclepius, as a written text proves (that is to say the parchment on which Aristides noted the premonitory dream that Asclepius had sent to him). Once again, Aristides, in his connection to political power, displays a sense of superiority that comes to him from his company with the divine. These analyses may allow a passage of Philostratus to be clarified by giving it its full weight. The extract is taken from the biography of Aristides, written by Philostratus fifty years after his death. Philostratus says that he received this anecdote directly from Damianus of Ephesus, who was a student of Aristides: 13 προσειπuν δr α0τòν o α0τοκρoτωρ ‘διo τi σε’, rφη, ‘βραδrως εiδομεν’; καi o 'Αριστεiδης ‘0εuρημα’, rφη, ‘u βασιλε0, jσχóλει, γνuμη δr 0εωρο0σo τι μj 0ποκρεμαννuσ0ω οu ζητεt’. íπερησ0εiς δr o α0τοκρoτωρ τ_u j0ει τ0νδρòς uς úπλοικωτoτ_ω τε καi σχολικωτoτ_ω… (Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 2.9.2 [582]). The Emperor addressed him, and inquired: ‘Why did we have to wait so long to see you’? To which Aristides replied: ‘A subject on which I was meditating kept me busy, and when the mind in absorbed in meditation it must not be distracted from the object of its search’. The Emperor was greatly pleased with the man’s personality, so unaffected was it and so devoted to study… (trans. Wright). 13 Another version of the same anecdote can be read in the Prolegomena: Lenz 1959, 113–114. 182 laurent pernot The scene takes place in Smyrna in 176AD, near the end of Aris- tides’ life. Marcus Aurelius is passing through the city and is surprised that Aristides has not yet come before him to greet him. The great man is sought out and eventually brought before the emperor. Aris- tides’ excuse for not presenting himself to the emperor earlier is that he was absorbed in a ‘meditation’, a ‘contemplation’ (0εuρημα). The story does not tell us what this meditation was about. It is doubtful that the episode was due, as some scholars have suggested, 14 to uncertainty on Aristides’ part about the proper protocol to follow from a political point of view. It was due, rather, to Aristides’ intellectual reflections and his preparation of a speech. In any event, the structure of the anecdote is similar to that of the episodes in his dreams: the absence of Aristides, the surprise of the emperor, a justification in terms of higher preoccu- pations, and the emperor’s acceptance of this justification. All of these texts converge to give the impression that Aristides took on an air of detachment in the face of his obligations as a Greek- speaking public figure and a Roman citizen. His devotion to Asclepius, in particular, could prevent him from paying the respect due to the emperor. In Search of Immunity Let us now consider the biography of Aristides and the problem of his refusal of official duties. It is well known that, in the Greek-speaking world of the second century AD, the wealthiest citizens were obliged to fulfill official duties by paying costly public and honorary expenses in accordance with the system of euergetism. Such duties were offered to Aristides several times in Smyrna and in the province of Asia, but each time he got out of this responsibility, taking advantage of the legal measures that provided an exemption for rhetoricians working as teach- ers. He expended a great deal of effort on obtaining the ‘immunity’ (0τrλεια) from public expenses that he so desired, and he was eventu- ally successful. He wrote about the struggle himself in his Sacred Tales: approximately half of the fourth Tale was reserved for this judicial- administrative saga. The fact that Aristides was looking to obtain an exemption does not signify, by itself, any opposition to Rome. We know that other 14 See Civiletti 2002, 569, 571–572, on this suggestion. aelius aristides and rome 183 rhetoricians and sophists were looking, like Aristides, to obtain this privilege. What is amazing it that Aristides discusses it at such length. G.W. Bowersock, who undertook an in-depth study of this episode in Aristides’ life, has observed, quite rightly, that the narrative is excep- tionally detailed: ‘Thanks to [Aristides’] prolixity, we know more about his case than anyone else’s’. 15 In general, one did not flaunt behavior that could pass for a refusal to fulfill one’s obligations. If Aristides displayed prolixity, it is, I suggest, because he had reason to do so, a reason that is made clear from the whole narrative of the Sacred Tales. By speaking at length about his efforts to avoid paying public expenses and about the problems that pitted him against his fellow citizens and the Roman authorities on this subject, Aristides constructs his own image of himself: the image of an exceptional man, whose talent was recognized, but who held himself apart on the margins of society and ordinary professional life because he was bound by membership in a superior order, that is, by his ties to Asclepius. Aristides felt that he possessed two identities: his identity as a public figure and his identity as a protégé of Asclepius. When he had to choose, he chose Asclepius. Aristides’ preference for Asclepius is what Or. 50.100–102 illustrates. The passage is an excerpt from the exemption narrative as the process is just beginning in 147—Aristides is 30, according to C.A. Behr’s chronology—and it ties together the twists and turns of the affair as a kind of comedy. Act One: The people and magistrates of Smyrna nominate Aristides for the high priesthood of Asia, but he refuses. By means of a speech, that is, through his rhetorical talent, he manages to persuade the assem- bly not to choose him (rπεισα). Aristides does not say exactly what argu- ments he used to decline the nomination. Probably, in view of the logic of the entire passage, his arguments had something to do with Ascle- pius. Act Two: After Aristides refuses the high priesthood, the assembly offers him the priesthood of Asclepius. It seems as though the Smyr- naeans were looking to catch Aristides in his own trap: since he has invoked his relationship with Asclepius, they take him at his word and propose to put him in charge of the service to the god to whom he has said he is particularly attached. 15 Bowersock 1969, 36. 184 laurent pernot But our sophist had other resources, as Act Three shows. Resisting bit by bit, he declines the new proposition, saying that he needs an order directly from the god to accept the offer, an order that he has not received: καi οiδα ε0δοκιμjσας οiς 0πεκρινoμην· rφην γoρ uς ο0δrν οuτε μεtζον οuτε rλαττον οióν τ’ εiη πρoττειν μοι 0νευ το0 0εο0, ο0δ’ οuν α0τò τò lερ0σ0αι νομiζειν rξεtναι πρóτερον, πρiν 0ν α0το0 πu0ωμαι το0 0εο0. οl δ’ r0αuμασoν τε καi συνεχuρουν (Or. 50.102). And I know that I found approval with my reply. For I said that it was impossible for me to do anything, either important or trifling, without the god, and therefore it was not possible to think even of serving as a priest, until I had inquired about this from the god himself. They marveled and yielded. Thus Aristides turns his fellow citizens’ arguments upside down. The close relationship between Aristides and Asclepius is, for the Smyr- naeans, a reason for him to accept the priesthood. For Aristides, on the contrary, it is a reason to refuse (since he can do nothing without the permission of the god, and in this case, such permission is lacking). The argument is completely turned around, as in a sophistic debate. Aris- tides himself emphasizes the skillfulness of his response, which allows him to win over the Smyrnaeans. Later, the Smyrnaeans make another attempt, forcing Aristides to call on the governor of the province, who gives him at least temporary respite. The reasons for Aristides’ refusal were many. One discerns a finan- cial reason: if the temple of Asclepius was under construction, as the text says, the priesthood would have entailed covering some of the con- struction costs, which risked being very expensive. There were also psy- chological reasons: Aristides showed during his entire life that he had a solitary, irritable temperament. But above all, his devotion to Asclepius was the main reason. Aristides’ behavior appears to have been dictated by Asclepius. Aris- tides’ submission to the god was so great that he did not want to do anything without his permission. He was deprived of autonomy, as if dispossessed of himself. Public life and concern about general interest no longer counted for him, absorbed as he was in his exclusive rela- tionship with the god. Therefore, service to Asclepius conflicted with integration into the city. In comparison with the dream texts examined above, these passages reveal a new angle on Aristides’ reluctance to fulfill his social duties. aelius aristides and rome 185 Aristides’ resistance to these duties appears not only when he is con- fronted by the emperor, but also when he is confronted by his city and his province. He resists all types of functions, municipal magistracies, as well as the priesthood, and even the priesthood of the imperial cult. It is a form of resistance to all official responsibilities, which placed him outside the political and social system. 2. Messages in Veiled Terms The Rhetorical Notion of ‘Figured Speech’ To complete this analysis, it is necessary to bring into play one last aspect of a rhetorical nature. If we admit that Aristides had reservations about Rome and the Roman Empire, these reservations could only be expressed in a subtle and implicit manner, first because Aristides might not have admitted these reservations to himself, and second because a frank expression of distance from Rome was inconceivable for a man of his social standing: it would have cost him his position in society and could have put him in danger. The reservations, if there were reservations, had to be expressed in a roundabout way. Dream narratives and autobiographical accounts, which we have been looking at until now, are two such oblique methods. There also exists in Greco-Latin rhetoric a theory and a practice of indirect expression that carries the name ‘figured speech’ (rσχημα- τισμrνος λóγος, figuratus sermo, figurata oratio). This important concept offers a key to a rhetorical reading of some of the passages from Aris- tides. By ‘figured speech’ ancient rhetoricians mean cases in which an orator has recourse to a ruse in order to disguise his intentions, using indirect language to communicate the point that he wants to make in an oblique manner. In this specialized use, the terms σχjμα or figura (with the verbal forms rσχηματισμrνος, figuratus) do not designate figures of style, but assume a particular significance and indicate a process that consists of saying one thing to mean another. Many theoretical texts, dating from the Hellenistic Age to the Impe- rial Age and Byzantium, deal with the technique of figured speech. Among Aristides’ contemporaries writing in Greek on the subject were Hermogenes (or Pseudo-Hermogenes), Apsines, and the Pseudo- 186 laurent pernot Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 16 Figured speech was widely used in Latin and Greek declamation, as can be seen in the Elder Seneca and Philo- stratus. There were different kinds of figured speech. One consisted of saying what needed to be said, but with gentleness and soft words; another kind, called ‘oblique’, consisted of saying one thing while mak- ing another meaning understood, that is to say, of introducing a supple- mentary level of meaning into the debate; finally, the type called ‘con- trary’, which was particularly acrobatic, consisted of saying the opposite of what one really wanted to say and hoping that one would be under- stood by the audience a contrario. The main reasons why an orator resorted to these ruses were, according to the theoreticians, security and propriety. In the first case, the orator wants to avoid attracting the anger of the audience and putting himself in danger when he has something unpleasant to say. In the second case, he does not feel afraid, but feels obliged to respect certain norms lest he upset his audience, compromise his message, and fail to accomplish what he has set out to do. Such is the situation, for example, for one who must accuse a superior while recognizing that it is not in his best interests to do so openly. It is a technique of doublespeak, then, that rhetoric made available to its practitioners. This technique was used not only in schools of rhetoric and in literary criticism, but also in actual discourse, as passages from Demetrius’ On Style and Quintilian indicate. 17 Thus rhetoric furnishes us with a concept whose usefulness is not slight, if figured speech can indeed allow us to better decipher ancient works, and in particular those of the rhetorical authors of the Imperial Age. This trail has hardly been explored, since figured speech has been studied by scholars primarily from a narrowly technical point of view. It is logical to apply this key to Aelius Aristides, because Aristides, a grand orator and an expert in rhetorical matters, was not igno- rant of the notion of figured speech. The verb σχηματiζεσ0αι appears in his work, with technical validation. Aristides is talking about his own method of debate against Plato, and he emphasizes: rγu μrν γoρ 16 Hermog. Inv. 4.13; Meth. 22; Apsines On Fig. Probl.; Ps.-Dion. Hal. Rhet. 8–9. On figured speech, see Ahl 1984; Ahl-Garthwaite 1984, 82–85; Schouler 1986; Desbordes 1993; Chiron 2003; Calboli Montefusco 2003; Heath 2003; Morgan 2006; Milazzo 2007, 46–125. More references, ancient and modern, in Pernot 2007a and Pernot 2008. 17 Demetr. On Style 287–295; Quint. Inst. Or. 9.2.74. aelius aristides and rome 187 rφαινóμην ο0δ’ rν α0τοtς τοtς 0ναγκαiοις 0ποτóμως τ_u λóγ_ω χρuμενος, 0λλo πεφεισμrνως καi σχηματιζóμενος τo πρrποντα (‘Even in the neces- sary points clearly I did not argue brusquely, but with restraint and in a decorous way’, Or. 4.33). The last words, σχηματιζóμενος τo πρrποντα, are probably an allusion to the sort of figured speech that consists of softening the blame in order to respect social propriety, ε0πρrπεια. 18 Aristides also isolates another type of figured speech. The author is addressing his adversaries, who are reproaching him for not giving classes in oratory, while couching this reproach in terms of flattery by saying that he could give excellent classes…if he only wanted to. But Aristides sees through their game: he is perfectly aware that they are only praising his talent as a teacher to better reproach him for not practicing it. He unveils their tactic by saying: βλασφημεtτε μετ’ ε0φημiας (‘you malign me with your praise’), an expression that defines the strategy of disguising blame as praise (Or. 33.25). We will come back to this device later. Still another passage, from Oration 28, is more or less the same as the previous quotation, that is, censure disguised with apparently favorable words: πολλo τοια0τα rχαρiζετο το0 παραδrξασ0αι τjν αiτiαν jμ0ς (‘he attempted to ingratiate himself in many such ways so that we might admit the charge’, Or. 28.2). Let us also add as a subsidiary consideration the fact that figured speech is to be seen in a larger framework. It must be restored to its intellectual context, which is constituted by the precise techniques of encryption and deciphering that had currency in the ancient world. Such techniques were, for example, the genre of the fable, a narrative incorporating an implicit or explicit meaning; enigmas and oracles that called for deciphering and interpretation; Socratic irony, which offers another case of double meaning; the notion of ambiguity (0μφιβολiα); allegorical interpretation; judicial interpretations taking into consider- ation the spirit behind the letter of the law; and the interpretation of dreams. This long list can only be itemized in a cursory manner. Nev- ertheless, these examples prove that the Ancients were used to under- standing speeches without having to have every word spelled out for them. The practice and the theory of the double entendre are ubiqui- tous, appearing in literature, philosophy, law, religion, and medicine. 18 For ε0πρrπεια in figured speech, see Demetr. On Style 287–288; Ps.-Dion. Hal. Rhet. 8.2. 188 laurent pernot In the field of rhetoric, a striking example is offered by the funeral oration delivered by Socrates in Plato’s Menexenus. This speech purports to be an encomium of Athens from the point of view of the city’s historical and political achievements. It was taken seriously by most readers, and only in recent times has it been fully recognized as ironical and parodical. 19 The case of the Menexenus illustrates the possibility that a rhetorical speech could play with the rules of praise and convey concealed messages accessible only to part of the audience and some readers. Now it is time to return to Aristides’ texts. We will present remarks on an entire discourse, whose very conception and construction are revealing, before examining specific passages. The Implicit Significance of To Rome Both in its structure and its style, To Rome follows the rules of the rhetor- ical encomium. 20 The orator starts by emphasizing the difficulty of the subject, then describes the place and situation of Rome. He next praises at length the civil and military organization of the Empire before fin- ishing with a brilliant synthesizing tableau. The presentation involves a large number of comparisons; the tone is admiring and hyperbolic. In all these respects, Aristides’ demonstration is in accordance with enco- miastic norms. But the speech is interesting for what it does not say. In more than thirty pages, representing approximately one hour of speaking, Aristides finds a way to say nothing about the origins of the city, the relations supposedly shared between the Greeks and Romans, or the stories surrounding the founding of Rome. He says nothing about the history of Rome. He completely neglects its monuments, architecture, art, literature and language. He says not one word about Romulus, the Scipios, Caesar or Augustus. He contents himself with refering once to Aeneas, through an allusion to Homer. He does not mention a single Roman proper name, nor does he speak a word of Latin. How should one interpret these omissions? It would have been appropriate to mention such points in an encomium of Rome. Con- sequently, one has to deal with a series of deliberate choices. Aristides 19 See e.g. Méridier 1931, 51–82; Clavaud 1980; Loraux 1981; Coventry 1989; Tsit- siridis 1998. 20 For the following analysis see Pernot 1997, 5–53. aelius aristides and rome 189 wants to see Rome only as the imperial capital, the city from which the rule over the provinces was exercised. He chooses to consider only the current state of affairs and the present functioning of the Empire in the political domain, which leads him to avoid local color, as well as all the artistic, religious, mythological, and historical facts (those which concern Rome, of course, since there are abundant references to Greek mythology and history). The only Roman fact that interests Aristides is the rule that Rome exerts over the Empire, and, more precisely, the Roman links to the Greek-speaking provinces, the provinces to which he belonged. This is why the speech To Rome is actually a discourse in honor of the Roman Empire and the manner in which this empire exerted control over the Greek world. Aristides is very careful not to express any contempt for Roman history and civilization: he simply does not talk about them. By reducing Rome to nothing more than a governmental power and neglecting the rest, he imposes a Hellenocen- tric point of view on the speech. In addition, there is a second series of notable omissions in the speech: omissions concerning the Roman conquest. Aristides avoids saying that the Roman Empire was forced upon the Greeks. At the very most he allows himself to allude to the traditional play on the word çuμη, which means both ‘Rome’ and ‘force’ (in section eight). 21 But he does not develop this idea. He says nothing about the Roman conquest or the military and political processes that led to the installation of Roman rule over the Greek world. 22 What is brought into play here is silence, eloquent silence, a device attested to in the rhetoric of figured speech. The theorists of figured speech observe that sometimes orators can be confronted with a ban on speaking that they do not have the right to break; for instance, in the judicial sector, there might be such a ban on speaking about a case of incest, which would be indecent to mention, or about a deed at the limits of legality; or, in the public domain, about past crimes protected by an amnesty law forbidding mention of them. The theory of figured speech concerns the case where the orator is confronted with a heavy and well-known situation, of which he does not have the right to speak and to which he can refer only implicitly. 23 21 On this traditional play see Rochette 1997. 22 Along the same lines, see F. Fontanella’s conclusion in this volume. 23 See for instance Quint. Inst. Or. 9.2.74: Ita ergo fuit nobis agendum ut iudices illud intellegerent factum, delatores non possent adprendere ut dictum, et contigit utrumque (‘I therefore 190 laurent pernot In the case of To Rome, the secret that everybody knows about is that of the ‘ruling power’. 24 This heavy truth weighed on the speech, but Aristides could not allow himself to speak about it openly. He therefore proceeded by means of an omission, an omission so drastic that is becomes significant in itself as the carrier of a hidden message. To summarize, Aristides suggests that Rome consists merely of the imperial power that it exercises, that its history and culture do not matter, and that the only important issue, in the eyes of the Greeks, is the reality of the authority to which they are subjected. As it was too risky, Aristides thought, to express this opinion directly, he made it understood indirectly. Therefore, this speech is much less flattering than has previously been thought, and it incorporates a certain audacity. Aristides sug- gests that the Empire is a system imposed on the Greeks from the outside and that the Greeks have submitted according to the rule of the stronger without feeling any admiration for Roman civilization and culture. Such is, we can believe, the encrypted message of To Rome, a deeply realistic and embittered message if one knows how to read between the lines. Aristides weighs his praise, and he concentrates on what he approves of, namely the material benefits of Roman peace. As for the rest, he makes himself understood without having to spell out his meaning by suggesting that Roman culture does not matter and that Roman rule must be endured with pragmatism. The Hidden Key We can now turn to the examination of some scattered passages that express Aristides’ disenchanted attitude towards the Roman Empire. The device of ‘figured speech’ that is implemented here could be had to plead in such a way that the judges understood what had happened, but the informers could not seize on any explicit statement. I succeeded on both counts’, trans. Russell); Hermog. Inv. 4.13, (Rabe 206): κατo rμφασιν δr rστιν, oταν λrγειν μj δυνoμενοι διo τò κεκωλ0σ0αι καi παρρησiαν μj rχειν rπi σχjματι 0λλης 0ξιuσεως rμφαiνωμεν κατo τjν σuν0εσιν το0 λóγου καi τò ο0κ rξòν εiρjσ0αι, uς εiναi τε νοjσαι τοtς 0κοuουσι καi μj rπιλjψιμον εiναι τ_u λrγοντι· (‘It is by implication whenever we are not able to speak because hindered and lacking freedom of speech, but in the figure of giving a different opinion we also imply what cannot be spoken by the way the speech is composed, so that the hearers understand and it is not a subject of reproach to the speaker’, trans. Kennedy); Apsines, On Fig. Probl. 27 (Patillon 120): κατo παρoλειψιν καi 0ποσιuπησιν (‘by omission and abrupt pause’). On significant silence in general, see Montiglio 2000. 24 According to the title of Oliver 1953. aelius aristides and rome 191 called the ‘hidden key’; it involves a particularly recherché variant on the general method of saying one thing while suggesting something different. It is a question in this case of slipping a parenthetical remark into a speech that casts a new light onto the whole argument. The pro- cess is analyzed by Pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who perceived the model of this process in the texts of Homer and Plato: ‘What is this art? It is, after having spoken on a subject that carried convic- tion, to introduce at the end, incidentally, the most pertinent subject’ (αIτη οuν j τrχνη τiς rστι; τò rπ’ 0λλης íπο0rσεως πεπεικυiας πρóτε- ρον εiπóντα rπi τrλει uς πoρεργον rρρiπτειν τjν οiκειοτrραν íπó0εσιν, Rhet. 9.6= Usener-Radermacher 335). The orators who use this pro- cess, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, begin by developing at length an opinion that the audience already agrees with, then throwing out ‘as an afterthought’, ‘at the end’, an additional point, which is the one in which the orator truly believes. In any other speech, such uneven- ness in composition, which produces the effect of an inverse proportion between the essential and the incidental, would be quite a grave error. But the peculiarity of ‘figured speech’, that prodigious art, is that all that is vice elsewhere here becomes virtue, as the theorists are fond of repeating. I would like to draw the attention to three passages that fit this definition. ‘The City is Almost as Fortunate as Before’ In the Panathenaic, Aristides sings the praises of Athens. He reviews the history of the city from mythological times to the battle of Chaeronea (338BC), which established the rule of Macedonia over Greece. Here, he stops, on account of a lack of time, or so he says. A development on the dissemination of the Attic dialect follows, and then the ora- tor seems to remember that the history of the world did not stop in the fourth century BC. In a brief chapter dedicated to the honors received by Athens, he comes back to the Macedonians in order to emphasize that they, after defeating Athens, treated the city with par- ticular consideration. In this passage he slips in two sentences about the present situation to show that once again Athens enjoyed special treatment: τοσο0τον rτrρως j πóλις πρoττει τo ν0ν, oσον ο0 πραγματεuεται. τo δr τjς 0λλης ε0δαιμονiας μικρο0 δεtν παραπλjσιo rστιν α0τ¸j τοtς rπ’ rκεiνων τuν χρóνων, oτ’ εiχεν τjς `Ελλoδος τjν 0ρχjν … rπi δr τjς πoντα 0ρiστης καi 192 laurent pernot μεγiστης τjς νυνi κα0εστηκυiας τo πρεσβεtα παντòς rχει το0 `Ελληνικο0 καi πrπραγεν οIτως, uστε μj ç¸αδiως 0ν τινα α0τ¸j τ0ρχαtα 0ντi τuν παρóντων συνεuξασ0αι (Or. 1.332, 335). Now the only difference in the city’s condition is that it is not involved in troublesome affairs. But for the rest, it is almost as fortunate as in those times, when it held the empire of Greece… Under the one (sc. empire) at present existing, which is in every way the best and greatest, it (sc. Athens) has precedence over all the Greek race, and has fared in such a way that no one would readily wish for its old state instead of its present one. Aristides acknowledges that the situation of Athens has changed, and he makes it clear that the new situation is due to the ‘current empire’, that is to say the Roman Empire, which he does not name (although the scholia on this passage do). 25 Following the method to which we are beginning to become accustomed, Aristide expresses no criticism. On the contrary, he extols the happiness of Athens under the power of the Roman Empire, and he displays his own loyalty by expressing the wish, twice, that this power would last forever, in accordance with the custom of praying for the immortality of the Empire. Under Roman rule Athens is happy, because it is set free from the political and military responsibilities that it had assumed before and enjoys honors and supremacy among the Greeks. In sum, the city is rid of all the inconveniences of power and only the advantages remain. Is everything better then? Let us take a look at the text more closely, and take note of two nuances: Athens is today ‘almost’ (μικρο0 δεtν) as happy as it was in the past, and one would not ‘readily’ (ç¸αδiως) wish for it to return to its former state. If one gives to these words their full weight, they betray some reservation and throw doubt on the encomium of Rome being pronounced. In the same passage, again concerning the present situation of Athens, the phrase εi τ_ω καi τοuτων φiλον μεμνjσ0αι (‘if someone wishes to mention these points too’) also conveys the impression that the cur- rent state of affairs is not the favourite subject of the orator, who prefers to praise the past. 26 Out of a hundred pages of mythological and historical account, these remarks occupy a total of ten lines. Yet they raise the essential question 25 Dindorf 1829, III.308–309, 311, 312. 26 Or. 1.335. The scholiast rightly comments: rκ το0 εiπεtν εi τ_ω καi τοuτων φiλον μεμνjσ0αι δεiκνυσιν oτι, εi καi τo παρóντα 0αυμαστo, 0λλ’ ο0χ οiα τo πρóσ0εν, uν καi μεμνjσ0αι μ0λλον καi 0αυμoζειν προσjκεν (Dindorf 1829, III.321). aelius aristides and rome 193 of the situation of Athens in the Roman Empire (and, through Athens, the situation of all the Greeks), and suggest that the evaluation of this situation, which was the heart of the problem of Greece under Rome, is not so simple. For precisely this reason, Aristides did not want to keep silent on the subject, but neither did he wish to address it head-on. He deemed that it would be cleverer and more prudent to resort to the strategy of ‘figured speech’ by slipping into his text, fleetingly, words with far-reaching implications. That ‘almost’ (μικρο0 δεtν) is a nugget of truth. It was up to his audience and his readers to discover it and draw conclusions from it themselves. ‘Seeing that the Situation is Other’ In the speech To Plato in Defense of Oratory, Aristides offers an assessment of the Greek situation under Rome identical to that found in the Panathenaic Oration and expressed in the same terms: ‘the situation is other’: εi τοiνυν τις καi τοιο0τος rγγrνοιτο οiος çητορικjν rχων εiς μrν δjμους ç¸αδiως μj εiσιrναι, μηδr περi πολιτεiας 0μφισβητεtν oρuν rτrρως rχοντα τo πρoγματα…(Or. 2.430). If someone should be of such a nature so that he does not easily appear before the people with his oratory and engage in political disputes, since he sees that the government is now differently constituted… The Defense is an immense treatise, in which Aristides presents a de- tailed defense of rhetoric in response to the accusations that Plato brought against it in the Gorgias. The argument is conducted in the terms that Plato had established, and it is by drawing on Platonic concepts and examples that Aristides tries to make his point of view triumph in a refutation conducted across the centuries. At the end of his work, Aristides turns to the figure of the ideal orator, who embodies all of the qualities of rhetoric. He comes to refer to his own case as an example of a life consecrated to eloquence in all of its purity, untouched by concern about popular favor, wealth or any other form of material success: this example of a disinterested way of life may serve as an argument to refute the reproach of flattery that was often addressed to the followers of rhetoric. Yet although Aristides speaks of himself in the third person, he does not hesitate to take his audience into his confidence, sketching the portrait of a person who is at the same time an orator and a good man and writing the words printed above. 194 laurent pernot The whole passage, which is complex, deserves a detailed reading. 27 The words that count, in view of the issue of ‘figured speech’, are the last ones: oρuν rτrρως rχοντα τo πρoγματα (‘seeing that the situation is other’, or, in the translation of C.A. Behr: ‘since he sees that the government is now differently constituted’). The reader has had to wait until section 430 of the discourse to come across this remark, which is thrown in as though it were an afterthought, but is in reality of great importance. 28 The words signify that the situation has changed between the time of Plato and that of Aristides, since the Greeks are now under Roman rule. 29 Leaving aside for the moment the problem raised by Plato, Aristides finally refers to current events. He acknowledges the political situation and recognizes that this change has had an impact on rhetoric, insomuch as the Greeks orators of the Roman Era, contrary to their predecessors of the Classical Era, are no longer in a position to treat the important issues that concern their lives and the functioning of their cities. Let us understand what Aristides wants to suggest here. With this remark, he does not at all intend to undermine his own argument. Everything that he has said previously remains valid because the debate about rhetoric, according to Aristides, keeps presenting itself through the ages. The aspects of rhetoric that Aristides deals with earlier in the speech by means of the Platonic schemas (the political, philosophical and mystical worth of rhetoric) have lost none of their topicality in the second century AD. The present remark does not, therefore, nullify the debate; rather, it gives it another dimension. It invites the reader to examine the changes that have occurred during the Imperial Era and to make an inventory of those in the sphere of rhetoric, as Tacitus does, for example, in the Dialogue on Orators, or as ‘Longinus’ does in the treaty On the Sublime, or Plutarch in the Political Precepts. Such an inventory would be the subject of a long speech, which Aristides did not want to write for reasons of his own and about which we can only speculate. These reasons have something to do with discretion and prudence, love of subtlety, and probably a period of political abstention and withdrawal related to the author’s illness and his exclusive devotion 27 See Flinterman 2002; Pernot 2006, 91–92, 136 n. 31, 255–256. 28 Perhaps there already was an allusion to the Pax Romana in section 411. The concept of a ‘remark made in passing’ is important in Aristides: see Or. 28. 29 So, rightly, the scholia on this passage: Dindorf 1829, II.146; III.430. aelius aristides and rome 195 to Asclepius. Aristides was fully aware of the pertinence of his subject, namely the changes that had occurred in Greek rhetoric as a result of Roman rule. He was keen to address it, but in his own way: he suggests its importance through a remark made implicitly in one sentence. The strategy was clear for those who knew how to listen for it. ‘The Divine Quality of Empire’ Our last example is taken from the Sicilian Orations, which are a pair of antithetical declamations concerning an episode from the Pelopon- nesian War. The historical context of the declamations is the Sicil- ian expedition as it is depicted in books six and seven of the history of Thucydides. Since the Athenian expeditionary corps sent to con- quer Sicily had encountered difficulties after its arrival on the island, a debate took place in the winter 414–413BC in Athens before the pub- lic assembly to decide if it would be expedient to send a second army to help the first. Aristides imagines the speeches that could have been delivered on that occasion, his first orator opining in favor of sending reinforcements, the second in favor of recalling the expedition. 30 In the first Sicilian Oration, however, as the argument begins to come to an end, we suddenly read the following assertion: ‘Now here one would see best the divine quality of empire. For it preserves itself ’ (ν0ν δ’ rντα00α δj καi κoλλιστα iδοι τις 0ν uς 0εtον τò χρjμα τjς 0ρχjς· α0τj γoρ rαυτjν σuζει, Or. 5.39). In this context, the sentence applies to the Athenian Empire. The orator, who is speaking in favor of sending reinforcements, means to say that the annexation of Sicily would be valuable to the sta- bility of the Athenian Empire as a whole, since it would consolidate its power. The hypothesis that comes to mind, however, is that this sentence could also have been aimed at the Roman Empire. Indeed, Aristides conducted parallel analyses of the Roman and Athenian Empires in the speeches To Rome and The Panathenaic Oration respectively, and he carefully compared these two empires in To Rome. 31 Such a comparison was made all the easier by the fact that the word meaning ‘empire’, 0ρχj, is the same in Greek in both cases. In addition, the passage from the Sicilian declamation contains themes that are found in To Rome— 30 On these texts see Pernot 1992. 31 Or. 26.40–71. 196 laurent pernot the divine nature of the Empire, the wishes formed for its health 32 —and a precise verbal echo connects the two texts. 33 If the declamation has a contemporary resonance, it would seem to be, at first glance, praise for Rome, discrete homage paid to the reign- ing power. But perhaps the reality is more complex. Upon examination, the passage from the Sicilian declamation is revealed as encomium engineered to self-destruct. In fact, immediately after stating that the Empire is divine, the orator presents it in a less favorable light: uσπερ γoρ rν τοtς iδiοις οiκοις rνi μrν καi δυοtν οiκrταιν χαλεπòν χρjσα- σ0αι, οl δr πολλοi κατo 0λλjλων íπoρχουσιν, οIτω κ0ν ταtς δυναστεiαις τò πλj0ος τuν δεδουλωμrνων βεβαιοt τjν iσχuν τοtς προσειληφóσι· πoντες γoρ rν κuκλ_ω δεδiασιν 0λλjλους … χειρω0rντες γoρ 0ν0ρωποι πολλοi καi παντοδαποi γrνος ο0χ rξουσιν 0ποστροφjν, 0λλo π0ν τò μj περαιτrρω το0 παρóντος κακòν uσπερ rρμαιον jγjσονται τοtς oλοις 0πειπóντες (Or. 5.39). For just as in private homes it is difficult to employ one or two servants, but many servants are a foil against one another, so in empire the number of the enslaved strengthens the power of those who have added them to it. For everyone fears each other in turn… For when many men of various races have been defeated, they will have no refuge, but in complete despair they will regard as their good fortune every evil which does not exceed the present one. The subjects are unfortunate and oppressed; rule rests upon force. These details radically modify the encomium. And there is more: not only is the Empire cruel, it is also perishable, as history has proven. The Sicilian expedition failed. Athens lost the Peloponnesian War, and the Empire collapsed. The allusion to the Roman Empire, if there is one, thus proves to be ambiguous. We may read it as a compliment to Rome, if we consider only the first line of the excerpt. We may also imagine that the text suggests an opposition between the situation of Athens in the fifth century BC and that of Rome in the second century AD (Rome being superior to Athens in the art of governing). But we can also see here, and this will seem more plausible, a parallel between the Athenian and Roman Empires. In this case we are dealing with praise that turns to blame in a way that conforms exactly to the process analyzed by Aristides himself in the passage from Oration 33 mentioned above. 34 32 Notably Or. 26.103–109. 33 Compare Or. 5.39 (οl δr πολλοi κατo 0λλjλων íπoρχουσιν) with Or. 26.56 (μrνοντες μrν rπ’ 0λλjλους íπoρξουσιν α0τοtς). 34 Above, p. 181. aelius aristides and rome 197 The word ‘divine’ (0εtον), used in section 39 of the first Sicilian Decla- mation, deserves consideration. The pious Aristides does not use a term like this lightly. The beginning of the sentence celebrates the Empire as divine, but the rest of the passage and the following events show that it is, in reality, the complete opposite of divine, since it is lacking the two qualities essential to divinity in the minds of Aristides and his con- temporaries: concern for mankind and eternity. The orator indicates that the Empire inspires fear and despair in its subjects (therefore there is no solicitude towards mankind), and the course of events will show that the Athenian Empire is destined to disappear (therefore it is not eternal). The Empire (the Athenian Empire, but perhaps the Roman Empire as well) lacks both philanthropy and immortality. It is impossible not to be suspicious towards an argument that ap- pears so self-contradictory in light of its precise correspondence to the device of the rναντiον (‘opposite’ or ‘contrary’), which appears in the classificatory schemas of the theorists of figured speech. Hermogenes: rναντiα μrν οuν rστιν, oταν τò rναντiον κατασκευoζωμεν, οu λrγομεν (‘Problems are “opposed” whenever we are arguing for the opposite of what we actually say’). 35 Pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus: τρiτον σχjμo rστι τò οiς λrγει τo rναντiα πραχ0jναι πραγματευóμενον (‘A third figure consists of making sure that the opposite of what one says is effected’). 36 Is the point of this speech only to denounce the deceptions and the dishonesty of the imperialists of the fifth century BC, as Thucydides had already done? Or are we not dealing with an argument with broader implications, one that suggests that the value of the Roman Empire could be a matter of dispute? Regardless of what one says, the passage suggests, the Empire’s aim is not the wellbeing of its subjects. No matter what one says, empires can fall apart. No matter what they say, the panegyrists can be mistaken. Aristides, the man who, in his dreams, stood up to Marcus Aurelius, might have revealed with a sort of bitter irony and in a text where such sentiments would be least expected that he had no illusions about the generosity or the immortality of Roman supremacy, no more than about the speeches in honor of the Roman Empire. For those who knew how to read it, he delivered a philosophy on empire. 37 35 Hermog. Inv. 4.13 (Rabe 205), trans. Kennedy. 36 Ps.-Dion. Hal. Rhet. 8.2 (Usener-Radermacher 296). 37 Aristides also writes that every empire rests on inequality and the law of the 198 laurent pernot Conclusions To conclude, let us quote a passage from Tacitus’ Dialogue on Orators. This passage is not related to rhetoric but to tragedy, and thus has the advantage of reminding us that the problem of the unsaid in rhetoric is part of the larger problem of the unsaid in literature. Maternus, the famous advocate and poet, has presented a tragedy titled Cato, which has displeased the emperor and the court because of the contemporary allusions that they believe they have recognized in it. A friend asks Maternus if he intends to suppress what could have given rise to such a negative interpretation: An ideo librum istum adprehendisti ut diligentius retractares et, sublatis si quae pravae interpretationi materiam dederunt, emitteres Catonem non quidem meliorem, sed tamen securiorem? (Tac. Dial. 3). Or is it with the idea of going carefully over it that you have taken your drama in hand, intending to cut out any passages that may have given a handle for misrepresentation, and then to publish a new edition of ‘Cato’, if not better than the first at least not so dangerous? (trans. W. Peterson). But Maternus refused to change his text. The concept of interpretatio put forth here is important, because it shows that the unsaid is, to some extent, a matter of appreciation. The study of the unsaid must be conducted with prudence, since it necessar- ily requires a certain amount of speculation about the interpretation. The advantage of ‘figured speech’ consists precisely in the fact that, pushed to a certain degree of refinement, it disconcerts the censors by making a simple and univocal interpretation impossible. Certain peo- ple understand the overtones, others do not, and even those who do understand them may be incapable of proving that they exist. 38 Multi- ple layers of comprehension and an absence of certitude are inherent features of ‘figured speech’. That is why we, the modern scholars, must learn to read between the lines. strongest, and that the differences between the various empires are differences of degree, not of nature. See Or. 1.306: 0πασα γoρ δjπου0εν 0ρχj τuν κρειττóνων rστi καi παρ’ α0τòν τòν τjς iσóτητος νóμον (‘For every empire obviously belongs to the stronger and is contrary to the very law of equality’); Or. 28.125: … τòν τjς φuσεως νóμον, oς κελεuει τjν τuν κρειττóνων íπερβολjν 0νrχεσ0αι καi ζjν πρòς τò jγοuμενον (‘…the law of nature, which commands us to endure the excesses of the stronger and to live in accordance with our leaders’). 38 As happened to Quintilian’s delatores: see above, n. 23. aelius aristides and rome 199 In the case of Aristides, if we consider the passages presented above, an attitude of reserve towards Rome becomes apparent. The rhetorical notion of ‘figured speech’ offers us an objective standard with which to read texts that may admit of multiple layers of meaning. Aristides has a number of resources—such as dream narratives, autobiographical con- fessions with the character of aretalogy, eloquent silences, and hidden keys—that permitted him to slip discrete messages into his works. He could therefore distance himself from the rules of encomium. One may wonder how Aristides’ reservations interacted with the approval and the loyalty that he felt towards the Roman Empire in other respects. Certainly there was a kind of contradiction. The reser- vations did not form any conscious system or program. The moments of dissonance were of limited scope; they did not command the whole of Aristides’ mind, but revealed its inner tensions. Indeed, the reservations expressed by this important figure were con- sistent with the high opinion that he had of his art and himself, as well as with his conviction that he had a message to deliver. Fundamentally, Aristides’ reservations towards Rome were due to two reasons: he was Greek and he was a disciple of Asclepius. These two identities, which are not on the same level, made him pull back. As a Greek, Aristides seems to have felt a sort of tension as a result of the discrepancy between his situation and the opinion that he had of himself. Even though he cooperated with Rome, he remained Greek. He belonged to a ruled people, but one that regarded itself as superior on account of its language, culture, religion, and history. From this identification come the jolts of pride, the cunning phrases, and the embittered remarks that we see here and there and that cannot be ignored (as one might be tempted to do if one accepts Aristides’ protests of loyalty at face value); on the contrary, it is important to probe these remarks in his works. The occasional betrayal of Aristides’ unease about subjects that touched on the contemporary political situation deserves our consideration. But Aristides was not a Greek like the others. He was the protégé and the servant of Asclepius, and his relationship with his god was close and constant throughout his entire life. Behind the official image of a Greek-speaking public figure, one discerns an intense religious experi- ence. 39 This was a solitary experience, even if Aristides was surrounded 39 Sfameni Gasparro 2002, 203–253; Pernot Forthcoming. 200 laurent pernot by friends, fellow worshippers and his companions at the Asclepieion. Aristides did not define himself by membership in a community, but by his individual course of action. If one has a strong personal identity, one risks not knowing one’s place in the laws of society. This is what happened to Aristides. We observe, in a very interesting way, that for Aristides, devotion to Ascle- pius ended up in conflict with his civic duties to Smyrna and the province of Asia Minor, as well as to the Empire and his relationship with the emperor. The testimony of Aristides is particularly enlighten- ing as concerns the strength and the specific details of the religion of Asclepius in the second century AD in the Roman Empire. Finally, there is another question, which is impossible to answer fully in the space allotted, but which is nevertheless worth asking. The question is just how original Aristides was compared to other men of his era. When we read the Sacred Tales, we get the impression that we are dealing with a very unusual personality. And yet, if we go back to the different points addressed in this paper, it is possible to draw parallels between Aristides and his contemporaries every time. As we said at the beginning, among those Greek orators who were likely to voice criticism about Rome, one finds, for example, Dio of Prusa and Lucian. Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists contains several anec- dotes about sophists standing up to the emperors. 40 Figured speech was widely used. In one case, concerning Herodes Atticus, Philostratus con- siders the possibility of figured speech in an address to Marcus Aure- lius. 41 The devotion to Asclepius was widespread among intellectuals (e.g. Apuleius, Polemo of Laodicea, Antiochos of Aegae, Hermocrates of Phocaea), and it is very possible that among them were those who, like Aristides, lived a life of deep personal commitment and selflessness, even if they did not write a work comparable to the Sacred Tales to pub- licize it. Aristides’ case also displays parallels with the contemporary personas of the holy man and the thaumaturgist, who are gifted with supernat- ural powers thanks to their proximity to the divine and who played a charismatic role in society. Some of them could have clashed with Rome, as Apollonius of Tyana and Peregrinus of Parion did. Peregrinus leads us to the Christians, whom we can consider in terms of sepa- 40 See also a similar anecdote, in which the authority of Asclepius is invoked, in Galen, De propriis libris 3.4–5. 41 Philostr. Vit. soph. 2.1.11 (561). aelius aristides and rome 201 ration from society and resistance in the face of imperial power. One could compare the periods during which Aristides lived as a recluse— chaste, emaciated, unbathed, and willing to renounce everything for his god—with a certain type of asceticism and the life of a hermit. Through his suffering, his willingness to bear witness, and his vague desire to rebel against the emperor, Aristides is at times reminiscent of the martyrs. Like some Christians of his time, Aristides was ready both to accept and to rebel against the Empire. This does not mean that there was a Christian influence on Aristides, but that there are points of encounter and similarities between Christians and the orator that can be explained by a common spirituality (on a general level) and by the spirit of the times. Therefore, the expressions of malaise that can be observed in Aristides are interesting not only because they reveal his own inner tensions, but also because they build bridges between him and contemporary trends. 42 42 I warmly thank Professor Brooke Holmes for her editing of this text. chapter ten THE ENCOMIUM ON ROME AS A RESPONSE TO POLYBIUS’ DOUBTS ABOUT THE ROMAN EMPIRE Francesca Fontanella In the so-called second introduction of his Histories, Polybius explains the reasons that led him to end his work not in 167BC (the date when Rome completed its conquest of ‘the whole inhabited world’, 1.1.5), as he originally intended, but in 146 (the year of the destruction of Carthage and Corinth). 1 He maintains (3.4) that it is impossible to form a definitive judgement on the victors or the defeated if one only considers ‘simply the results of the military conflict’, because it has often happened that what seemed to be the greatest successes have as a result of misuse brought the greatest disasters in their train…. Therefore I must add… an account of the subsequent policy of the victors and how they ruled the world, and consider the reactions of the defeated and their behaviour towards their rulers… For it is clear that this will show our contemporaries whether the domination of Rome is to be avoided or rather to be desired, and will show posterity whether Roman power is to be judged worthy of praise and imitation or of blame … Neither historical actors nor those who write about them should think that the aim of every undertaking is to win and to subjugate everyone else… in fact all men act with the aim of obtaining the pleasure, honour or profit that will result from their action. Among the ‘posterity’ who took on the task of delivering this judgement on the Roman Empire we can obviously count the Mysian rhetor Aelius Aristides. Some 300 years after Polybius, probably in 144AD un- der Antoninus Pius, 2 he pronounced in Rome his encomium To Rome, most definitely determining that the city and its empire were worthy of ‘praise’ not ‘blame’. But the link between Aristides’ speech and Poly- 1 This paper draws on the conclusions reached in my commentary on To Rome: A Roma, trans. and comm. by F. Fontanella (Pisa, 2007). It has been translated by W.V. Harris and I would like to thank him also for giving me the opportunity to publish this paper. 2 Cf. my comm., p. 79. 204 francesca fontanella bius’ Histories is not merely an interesting a posteriori indication of how the Greek élite had shifted, by the time of the Antonines, from prob- lematical support for the Roman Empire to enthusiastic acceptance. To Rome lets us see, behind its detailed references to passages of Polybius, a new interpretation of Roman power that seems to constitute a con- scious response to the historian’s doubts. A response that takes account of centuries of Greek political theory—in so far as it was relevant—, and also of Roman thinking on the problem of what made the exten- sion of Roman power to the whole world not only ‘just’ but also ‘advan- tageous’. Aristides, like Polybius, intends to judge the Empire by reference in part to the relations between rulers and ruled and by the benefit it may provide to both; he says so explicitly (To Rome sect. 15). After an opening passage describing the size, magnificence and prosperity of the capital (sects. 4–13), he shifts attention from the city to its empire (0ρχj) with a transition that emphasizes the superiority of the Roman Empire over the empires of the past: ‘it is not easy to decide whether Rome’s superiority to other cities of its time, or the Roman Empire’s superior- ity to past empires, is the greater’ (sect. 13). The comparison with past empires starts with the Persians (sects. 15–23), continues with Alexander (sects. 24–26) and the Macedonians (sect. 27), and ends with the various hegemonies of Greek cities (sects. 40–57). Polybius (1.2.1) had differenti- ated Rome’s dominion from that of the Persians, Spartans and Mace- donians, simply by reference to their size and duration. Aristides on the other hand introduces at the very beginning of these comparisons (sect. 15) the criteria that were formulated in Polybius’ second proem: let us consider everything in order, both its [the Persian Empire’s] size and what happened during its existence. That means that we must examine both how they enjoyed their conquests and how they treated their subjects. On the basis of these criteria, the characteristics of the Persian Empire are examined and then condemned without the possibility of appeal: These then were the ways they enjoyed their famous power. And they suffered the consequences dictated by a law of nature (φuσεως νóμος): hatreds and plots on the part of people who were treated like this, and defections and civil wars and constant strife and ceaseless rivalries. These were their rewards, as if they ruled in consequence of a curse rather than in answer to their prayers, while the subjects underwent all that which the subjects of such men must of necessity undergo… A boy’s good looks caused his parents to be afraid, a wife’s good looks had the same effect polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 205 on her husband. It was not the biggest criminals but the wealthiest who were condemned to destruction (sects. 20–21). The mention of a ‘law of nature’, understood almost as a necessary unfolding of effects following from causes, may certainly make one sus- pect Stoic influence on this passage of Aristides, 3 given in particular the Stoic identification of the λóγος not only with φuσις but also with the εlμαρμrνη. 4 We recall, however, that Polybius too, when he spoke about the birth of the various forms of government and of their degenera- tion (at the beginning of Book VI), several times used expressions such as φυσικuς (6.4.7), κατo φuσιν (6.4.9 and 11 and 13; 6.5.1; 6.6.2; 6.9.13) and φuσεως οiκονομiα 6.9.10) to indicate a natural and therefore nec- essary unrolling of political-constitutional changes in the various states (cf. 6.10.2: 0ναγκαiως καi φυσικuς). In fact he combined with his theory of the anacyclosis of constitutions a ‘biological theory’ 5 already detectable in Anaximander 6 and widely favoured by Greek thinkers. (It was widely diffused in Greek thought: in its more general formulation it amounted to no more than the statement of a natural law that determines the birth, growth and degeneration of everything, 7 though ‘by the Hellenis- tic period it was identified with the Stoic εlμαρμrνη’). 8 Aristides there- fore seems to have followed Polybius in attributing the manner of a state’s evolution to a law of nature that is reminiscient in both works of the Stoic concept of the εlμαρμrνη. Aristides’ conclusions about the Persians were also inspired by classical Greek thinking that distinguished between the δεσπóτης and the βασιλεuς, 9 thinking that in this case was echoed not only by 3 Cf. Klein 1983, 74 n. 27. 4 See, for example, Zeno, SVF 1, 160, Chrysippus, SVF 2, 912–1007, and Pohlenz 1948–1949, I 101–102. 5 Walbank 1957–1979, I, 645. 6 12 B 1 D–K. 7 Walbank 1972, 142. 8 Walbank 1957–1979, I, 645, with the sources. 9 As is well known, the Persian king is already called δεσπóτης in the sense of absolute ruler in Herodotus (e.g. 1.90.2; 115.2), and Plato (Laws 697c) asserts, also with respect to the Persians, that τò rλεu0ερον λiαν 0φελóμενοι το0 δjμου, τò δεσποτικòν δ’ rπαγαγóντες μ0λλον το0 προσjκοντος, τò φiλον 0πuλεσαν καi τò κοινòν rν τ¸j πóλει. Plato also distinguishes two kinds of monarchy, tyranny and kingship, depending on whether it is based on violent constraint or free acceptance, on poverty or wealth, and on law or illegality (Plt. 291e, but cf. also Rep. 576e; for the assimilation of the terms τuραννος and δεσπóτης see further Laws 859a). According to Xenophon (Mem. 4.6.12), such a distinction had already been formulated by Socrates. Aristotle (Pol. 1285a) emphasizes the difference between a βασιλεiα … κατo νóμον, like that of Sparta, 206 francesca fontanella Polybius 10 but also in Roman political thought: 11 The reason was that the Persians did not know how to rule and their subjects did not cooperate, since it is impossible to be good subjects if the rulers are bad rulers. Government and slave-management were not yet differentiated: king and master were equivalent terms. They did not proceed in a reasonable manner towards great objectives. For the term ‘master’ applies properly within the circle of a private household, and when it is extended to cities and nations, the role is hard to keep up (sect. 23). While it is more plausible to suppose that Aristides draws here on Greek political thinking of the classical period, without having to rely on Polybius as an intermediary, that seems not to apply to the sections concerning the comparison between Rome and the hegemonies of the Greek cities. Here the traces of Polybius are easily detectable in certain judgements about Greek history: Aristides, like Polybius (6.43), connects the victory of Thebes at Leuctra in 371 BC with the mistakes made by the Spartans and the hatred that all the Greeks felt for them (To Rome 50). Aristides’ assertion (in the same passage) that it would have been better if the Cadmeia had stayed in Spartan hands and if Sparta had not been defeated by Thebes is more comprehensible if one takes account of the fact that public opinion, which Polybius gives voice to in 4.27, had firmly condemned the surprise occupation of the citadel of Thebes carried out in 382 by the Spartan general Phoibidas. Finally, the general judgement of the Greeks given in To Rome, extending to all of them ‘what has been said about the Athenians’ (sect. 51), seems to and an 0λλο μοναρχiας εiδος, οiαι παρ’ rνiοις εiσi βασιλεtαι τuν βαρβoρων. rχουσι δ’ αuται τjν δuναμιν π0σαι παραπλησiαν τυραννiσιν …; and, according to Plutarch in De Alexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute (Mor. 329b), Aristotle advised Alexander to behave τοtς μrν ¯Ελλησιν jγεμονικuς, τοtς δr βαρβoροις δεσποτικuς (the source of this story must have been Eratosthenes, as is indicated by Strabo 1.4.9). 10 Polybius claims (6.4.2) that ‘one cannot call every monarchy a kingdom, but only one that is recognized by the common will of its subjects and rules more by persuasion than by terror or violence’. 11 The distinction between βασιλεuς and δεσπóτης or τuραννος was made use of by the first emperors, who according to the sources (Suet. Aug. 53, Tib. 27; Tac. Ann. 2.87, 12.11; Cassius Dio 57.8.2) refused the Latin title of dominus and the Greek δεσπóτης. It is theorized, in a Stoic fashion, by Seneca (Clem. 1.11–13, with a description of the distinguishing characteristics of the rex and the tyrannus), by the younger Pliny (Paneg. 45, with the distinction between principatus and dominatio), and by Dio Chrysostom, who in his Orations on Kingship (on which see Desideri 1978, 283–318) constructed a theory of the monarchical form of government as distinct from the tyrannical form of government (1.22, 2.77, 3.43–44): cf. also André 1982, 29–43, Hidalgo de la Vega 1998, 1023–1051. polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 207 echo 12 the observations formulated by Polybius in Book VI, when he emphasizes the inability of the Athenians to rule in peace-time: And what has been said about the Athenians is perhaps also true for all the Greeks: they were better than anyone at resisting foreign rulers, at defeating the Persians and the Lydians, and at knowing how to deal properly with both prosperity and adversity; but they were not trained to rule, and when they tried they failed (To Rome 51). The Athenian people behave like a crew without a captain: as long as fear of the enemy or the threat of a storm prevails on the sailors to cooperate with each other and obey the captain, everything on the ship goes perfectly. But when their confidence comes back and they begin to disregard the officers and debate among themselves…, then some of them let out the sheets while others disagree and furl the sails… Something similar has happened a number of times to the city of Athens: having been saved from serious dangers by the valour of the people and its leaders, it has recklessly got into trouble in times of peace and tranquility (Polyb. 6.44.3–5). The sections of To Rome dealing with the comparison with the Greek world show, however, how Aristides, while recalling Polybius, sanctions the superiority of Rome over the Greeks and draws on motifs that belonged to Roman imperial ideology. I well know that Greek achievements will appear even more insignificant than the Persian ones I have just examined, both with respect to the extent of their power and with regard to their political importance. But to surpass the barbarians in wealth and power, and the Greeks in political wisdom and moderation (σοφi¸α καi σωφροσuν¸η), seems to me to constitute an irrefutable argument in favour of your valour as well as the most glorious subject for my oration (sect. 41). What this σοφiα and σωφροσuνη consist of is made clear in section 51, where the Greeks are recognized as being superior to all other peoples in wisdom, and the Romans in ‘knowing how to rule’: I wanted to show precisely that before you the art of ruling did not even exist. If it had existed, it would have been among the Greeks, who certainly distinguished themselves above all other peoples in every form of wisdom. In fact this art is a discovery of your own, which has been extended in the meanwhile to all other peoples (sect. 51). 12 Cf. Oliver 1953, 924, who hypothesizes that Polybius and Aristides used a com- mon source, perhaps Anaximenes of Lampsacus, in giving their judgements on the Athenians. But see Fontanella 2007, 114–117. 208 francesca fontanella In this case too Aristides’ judgement recalls Polybius Book VI in some ways: the latter of course linked the success of Roman expansion to the superiority of Rome’s form of government over the constitutions of the Greek cities. But since Polybius’ comparison does not concern methods of ruling subject peoples, we can fairly confidently say that Aristides is now making use of the Roman point of view, 13 which had previously been set out by Cicero (Tusc.Disp. 1.1–5) 14 and then rendered canonical by Vergil (Aen. 6. 847–853): excudent alii spirantia mollius aera credo equidem, uiuos ducent de marmore uultus, orabunt causas melius, caelique meatus describent radio et surgentia sidera dicent: tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento hae tibi erunt artes, pacique imponere morem, parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. The same judgement recurs in a passage of To Rome in which Aristides firmly ties the vastness and power of the Roman Empire to Roman superiority in the art of governing, in such a way as to make Roman expansion unproblematic, indeed an essential precondition for the real- ization of ‘good government’: What had eluded practically everyone before was reserved for you alone to discover and perfect. And that is not at all surprising, for just as in other spheres the skills come to the fore when the material is there, so when a great empire of surpassing power arose, skill too accumu- lated and entered into its composition, and each was reinforced by the other. Because of the empire’s size, experience necessarily accrued, while, because of your knowledge how to rule, the empire flourished and increased justly and reasonably (sect. 58). In this last half-sentence one can, I think, hear an echo of the theories elaborated by Panaetius in the mid-second century B.C. in his work Περi το0 κα0jκοντος and taken up by Cicero in De Officiis. 15 Even one who denies, like Ferrary, the Panaetian origin of the justification of Roman imperialism in Book III of Cicero’s De Republica, 16 has to admit that Panaetius apparently taught the Romans in Περi το0 κα0jκοντος 13 Cf. Desideri 2003. 14 Where the author, while recognizing Greek primacy in science and literature, claims superiority for the Romans with respect to social and political institutions and the art of war. 15 Gabba 1979. 16 Cic. Rep. 3.37–39, on which see Ferrary 1988, 363–374. polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 209 that power is only legitimate and durable if exercised with justice, that is to say in the interest of the subjects, and that greatness and glory are only genuine if they are founded on justice and subordinated to reason. 17 Aristides clearly thought that Panaetius’ lesson had been thoroughly absorbed by the Romans (De off. 1.13: ‘nemini parere animus bene informatus a natura velit nisi … utilitatis causa iuste et legitime imperanti’), and that their empire had grown ‘justly and reasonably’. Rome’s ‘imperial vocation’, which distinguishes it from all other peoples, is explained in sections 68 and 91 of To Rome by means of the well-known theory of the ‘natural’ rule of the ‘better’: It is not safe to rule without power. The best alternative [to ruling] is to be governed by one’s betters, but you have by now shown that this is in fact the best situation (sect. 68). For you alone are rulers according to nature, so to speak… Since you were free right from the start and had immediately become rulers, you equipped yourselves with all that was helpful for this position, and you invented a constitution such as no one ever had before, and you pre- scribed for all men rules and fixed arrangements (sect. 91). The idea that there exist by nature some men fit to rule over other men who are destined to obey, and that this unequal relationship is in the interest of both parties, is certainly traceable to the Politics of Aristotle, 18 however one wants to understand the Aristotelian concept of a law of nature. 19 At Rome this theory was taken up by Cicero in Laelius’ speech in Book III of De republica, in reply to the criticisms of those who, like the philosopher Carneades in 155B.C., had condemned Roman expansionism in the name of iustitia. Laelius, in his reply to Furius Philus (who is made the spokesman of Carneades’ complaint), defends the legitimacy of the Roman Empire on the basis of the premise that 17 Ferrary 401–424, esp. 424. 18 Arist, Pol. 1252a–1255a, where we find the famous demonstration that slavery is according to nature. 19 Cf. Fassò 2001 [1966–1970], 72–75. In particular, for a parallel to the whole of section 91 (íμεtς 0ρχοντες … κατo φuσιν. οl μrν γoρ 0λλοι οl πρò íμuν δυναστεuσαντες δεσπóται καi δο0λοι 0λλjλων rν τ_u μrρει γιγνóμενοι … rξ 0ρχjς ðντες rλεu0εροι καi οiον rπi τò 0ρχειν ε00uς γενóμενοι), see, for example, Arist. Pol. 1252a: … 0ρχον δr φuσει καi 0ρχóμενον διo τjν σωτηρiαν. τò μrν γoρ δυνoμενον τ¸j διανοi¸α προορ0ν 0ρχον φuσει καi δεσπóζον φuσει, τò δr δυνoμενον [τα0τα] τ_u σuματι πονεtν 0ρχóμενον καi φuσει δο0λον· διò δεσπóτ¸η καi δοuλ_ω τα0τò συμφrρει; 1254a: καi ε00uς rκ γενετjς rνια διrστηκε τo μrν rπi τò 0ρχεσ0αι τo δ’ rπi τò 0ρχειν; 1255a: oτι μrν τοiνυν εiσi φuσει τινrς οl μrν rλεu0εροι οl δr δο0λοι. 210 francesca fontanella nature dictates that power should be exercised by the best people, in this case the Romans, justly and in defence of the interests of the weaker: ‘An non cernimus optimo cuique dominatum ab ipsa natura cum summa utilitate infirmorum datum?’ (Cic. De rep. 3.37). Later on, Dionysius of Halicarnassus was to exhort his readers not to grieve over the fact that they had to submit to the power of Rome, on the grounds that this had come into being in a just and proper way and was like a natural law that time cannot destroy. The law is that those who are superior will always rule over those who are inferior: μjτε 0χ0εσ0αι τ¸j íποτoξει κατo τò εiκòς γενομrν¸η (φuσεως γoρ δj νóμος 0πασι κοινóς, oν ο0δεiς καταλuσει χρóνος, 0ρχειν 0εi τuν jττóνων τοuς κρεiττονας) (Dion. Hal. Ant.Rom. 1.5.2). Modern scholars, while almost unanimously recognizing the Aristotelian origin of this theory, divide into those who affirm and those who deny the mediation of Panaetius and/or Posidonius in adapting it to the Roman Empire. 20 Since Augustan times this formulation had become ‘canonical’, 21 so it is difficult to identify the source from which it reached To Rome. But when Aristides in section 91 writes κατo φuσιν, it is possible to recognize a more specific reference to the theory of a law of nature (a reference that is explicit earlier, in section 20), that is to say to a theory that found its most complete ancient expression in Stoicism: we find this theory mentioned in two fragments of Posidonius 22 from which I think that it is reasonable to deduce that he used exactly this kind of argument to justify Roman imperialism. 23 The possible echo of Panaetius traceable in sect. 58 and those of Posidonius in sects. 68 and 91 could therefore allow us to identify a Middle Stoic influence on Aristides which probably came to him through Dionysius. 24 We should remember in any case that the arguments of Aristides in sects. 58 and 91 and of Dion. Hal. 1.5.2 had clear-cut precedents in Cicero, who certainly knew and made use of the works of both Panaetius and Posidonius. 25 20 In favour: Capelle 1932, 98–104, Walbank 1965, 13–15, Garbarino 1973, I, 37–43, Pohlenz 1948–1949, I, 206, Gabba 1990, 211, Gabba 1996, 172. Against: Strasburger 1965, 44–45 and n. 50, Gruen 1984, I, 351–352, Kidd 1988, 297, Ferrary 1988, 363–381. 21 Gabba 1996, 172. 22 Poseidonios F 147 and F 448 Theiler, with the latter’s comm. (vol. II, p. 385). 23 Capelle 1932, 98–101, Walbank 1965, 14–15, Gabba 1996, 172. 24 Cf. Fontanella 2007, 118 and 143–146. 25 This idea of Rome’s vocation to rule other peoples persists in Cicero’s last works. See Phil. 6.19: ‘Populum Romanum servire fas non est, quem di immortales omnibus gentibus imperare voluerunt … Aliae nationes servitutem pati possunt, populi Romani est propria libertas’. polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 211 The passage in which Aristides interprets Roman constitutional arrangements as a ‘mixed constitution’ 26 shows once again how he re- worked a tradition that went back to classical Greece but had subse- quently been elaborated and transformed in both the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. However your political system is not like any other but is a mixture of all of them (κρ0σις úπασuν τuν πολιτειuν), without the disadvantages of any of them; hence it is precisely this system of government that has turned out to be successful. If you consider the power of the people and how easily they obtain everything they desire and ask for, you will think that it is a democracy, apart from the single fact that it avoids the mistakes that the people make. If you look at the Senate deliberating and exercising power, you will conclude that it is a perfect aristocracy. But when you look at the overseer and chairman of all this, thanks to whom the people are able to obtain what they desire and the few are able to govern and wield power, you will see the man who possesses the most perfect monarchy, free from the evils of tyranny and above the prestige of a mere king (sect. 90). The model of the ‘mixed constitution’ was present in the Greek politi- cal debate from the fourth century BC, as we can see from both Plato and Aristotle. 27 It was taken up by Peripatetic and Stoic thought in the third century out of ‘a desire to define the relationship between the βασιλεuς, the ruling class of the cities and the mass of the people within the new Hellenistic πóλις’. 28 The first person to have applied this schema to Rome (and therefore not just to any πóλις but to an imperial power) had been Polybius, who had asked himself the question ‘how and with what form of government (πuς καi τiνι γrνει πολιτεiας) the Romans had in only fifty-three years conquered and subjugated almost the whole inhabited world’ (6.2.3; cf. 1.1 and 64). Polybius had identified 26 It is to be observed that in the Panathenaikos too (1.383–388) Aristides applies the scheme of the mixed constitution, though in a diachronic fashion, to the transition at Athens from monarchy to aristocracy and finally to democracy, remarking at the same time how in each of these phases the three elements were to a certain extent combined. In fact the description of a city’s political system and in particular praise for its mixed constitution were considered obligatory themes in panegyrics on cities (Menander Rhetor 1.3, sects. 359–360 Russell and Wilson; Pernot 1993a, I, 211), though that does not mean that in Aristides’ case the theme lacked ideological content (either in To Rome or in the Panathenaikos). 27 Plato (Laws 712d) interprets the Spartan political system in this fashion, while Aristotle (Pol. 1273b) applies it to Solonian Athens. 28 Carsana 1990, 15. 212 francesca fontanella the monarchic element in the Roman system in the consuls, the aristo- cratic element in the Senate and the democratic element in the popular assemblies: a system of reciprocal checks between these three elements was able to maintain them in equilibrium in such a way as to make this form of government stable and not liable to decay like ‘pure’ systems of government (cf. Polyb. 6.11–18). Undoubtedly Aristides’ identification of the aristocratic element with the Senate looks like a rhetorical anachro- nism that owes much to the classical model of the mixed constitution and to Polybius, 29 and the reference to the text of Polybius is unde- niable (see especially 6.11.12). 30 But let us remember that Cicero too, in De republica (1.69, 2.57), had made a ‘mixed and moderate constitu- tion’ the basis of his ideal state—though it was a constitution based on the interaction of three principles (potestas, auctoritas, libertas) present in a single united ruling class, and not, as in Polybius, on the equilibrium of three juxtaposed powers (consuls, Senate and people). 31 Aristides, in speaking of a κρ0σις úπασuν τuν πολιτειuν, seems almost closer to a Ciceronian view (though his reference to Polybius is beyond doubt), not least because To Rome makes it obvious that the Polybian principle of reciprocal control and equilibrium ‘has been replaced by a hierarchical system’, 32 which is a unified system because it is headed by the emperor, the person ‘thanks to whom the people are able to obtain what they desire and the few are able to govern and wield power’. The passages of To Rome examined so far show that Aristides, though he never cites Polybius explicitly, knew and used the Greek historian’s work; but also that he had made his own the essential arguments that had been worked up in both the Latin and Greek worlds in defence of the Roman Empire. The appropriation of these themes in To Rome can be understood as a response to the doubts raised by Polybius in 29 But at the end of the passage Aristides mentions not the Senate but the ‘few’: the use of the term oλiγοι, though it may rather oddly evoke one of the ‘degenerate’ regime forms, oligarchy, nonetheless makes it possible to interpret the aristocratic element in the Aristidean mixed constitution in a wider sense, by identifying it with the governing class of the whole empire, already defined in sect. 59 of To Rome as the χαριrστερóν τε καi γενναιóτερον καi δυνατuτερον element. 30 ‘La citazione ‘sintattica’ del testo […] sta forse ad indicare […] una continuità di rapporti tra Roma e gli esponenti delle classi dirigenti del mondo greco; un filo che lega Polibio, storico greco vissuto all’epoca degli Scipioni, ad Elio Aristide, originario della Misia nell’età degli Antonini’: Carsana 1990, 74–75. 31 Cf. Ferrary 1984. 32 Carsana 1990, 78. polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 213 the so-called second introduction to his history; but Aristides’ answer to Polybius seems even more explicit in the sections of To Rome that immediately follow the comparison with the hegemonies of the Greek city-states (sects. 58–70). Here, first of all, he identifies in the diffusion of Roman citizenship the characteristic ‘that more than any other deserves to be noticed and admired, because there is nothing like it in the world’ (sect. 59). Being great, you have created a great city, but you have not given yourself airs about this and you have made it wonderful not by excluding people from it, but rather you have sought out a population worthy of it. You have made ‘Roman’ the name not of a single city but of a whole nation, and not just of a single nation but of a nation that is a match for all the others together. For you no longer divide the nations into Greeks and barbarians, and indeed you have demonstrated the absurdity of that distinction—for your city by itself is more populous than the whole tribe of the Greeks. You have instead divided humankind into Romans and non-Romans, so far have you extended the name of the capital city (sect. 63). Hence No envy (φ0ονóς) enters into your empire: you in fact were the first people to rise above jealousy, having made all things generally available and having conceded to all who are capable of it the chance of taking their turn in command as well as being commanded. Not even those who are excluded from positions of power nurture resentment (μtσος). Given that there is a single system of government shared by all, as if this were a single city-state, it is natural that those who hold office treat people not as foreigners but as fellow-citizens, and under your government even the mass of the population feels safe from those who hold power among them… For your rage and vengeance (oργj τε καi τιμωρiα) immediately catch up with them if they dare to upset the established order. Thus it is natural that the present state of affairs pleases and suits (καi 0ρrσκει καi συμφrρει) both the poor and the rich and no other way of life any longer exists. There has emerged a single harmonious system of government (μiα úρμονiα πολιτεiας) that includes all … (sects. 65–66). These sections obviously balance sections 44–46, where Aristides em- phasizes the hatred that the various hegemonic Greek city-states aroused against themselves. 33 The terms employed by Aristides to describe disaffection towards the rulers (φ0ονóς and μtσος) are used by 33 One recalls that not being capable of extending their citizenship to other peoples is given as the reason for the ruin of the Greeks by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (2.17.2) 214 francesca fontanella Polybius (6.7.8) to refer to the disaffection that arises when the ruling power ceases to pay attention to the interests of its subjects and thinks only of its own profits, which leads to the degeneration of monarchy into tyranny, which in turn leads to attempts to overthrow it: ‘thus they provoked envy (φ0ονóς) and hostility, then hatred (μtσος) and violent anger (oργj), until monarchy gave way to tyranny’. There is no such disaffection towards the Romans, according to Aristides. While rage, oργj, refers in Polybius to the rage of the subjects towards tendentially tyrannical power, and in Aristides too targets those who abuse their power, it is not in the latter writer expressed by the subjects but by the central Roman power itself, which directs it towards those who ‘dare to overturn the established order’. 34 So great is the convenience of the Roman Empire for the subject peoples that they all stay close to you, and no more think of parting from you than ship-passengers think of parting from their helmsman. Just as bats in caves cling to each other and to the rock, so all of them are attached to you and fearfully take care that no one falls down from the clinging mass: they are more likely to fear being abandoned by you than to think of abandoning you themselves (sect. 68). Finally, thanks to the Romans, peace reigns throughout the oikoumene: Peoples no longer struggle for empire and supremacy (0ρχjς τε καi πρωτεiων), because of which all previous wars have been engaged. Some people, like quietly running water, live voluntarily in peace, pleased to have put an end to troubles and misadventures, and aware of the fact that they had fought to no purpose against shadows. Others do not even know that once they had an empire—they have forgotten the fact: just as and also by Claudius (at least in the account that Tacitus provides of his famous speech on the extension of the ius honorum to the notables of Gallia Comata: Ann. 11.24.4). 34 The end of sect. 66 of To Rome (καi γrγονε μiα úρμονiα πολιτεiας 0παντας συγκε- κλεικυtα) is verbally reminiscent of Polyb. 6.18.1, where, à propos of the mutual rela- tionships that exist between the various elements in the Roman political system (con- suls, Senate, people), the historian speaks of úρμονiα: τοιαuτης δ’ οuσης τjς rκoστου τuν μερuν δυνoμεως εiς τò καi βλoπτειν καi συνεργεtν 0λλjλοις, πρòς πoσας συμβαiνει τoς περιστoσεις δεóντως rχειν τjν úρμογjν α0τuν, uστε μj οióν τ’ εiναι ταuτης εíρεtν 0μεiνω πολιτεiας σuστασιν: cf. Volpe 2001, 308. A final ‘Polybian citation’ is perhaps detectable in sect. 103 of To Rome: ‘once you arrived… laws appeared, and people began to put trust in the altars of the gods’ (0εuν βωμοi πiστιν rλαβον)’. Here Aristides may have had in mind Polyb. 6.56, where δεισιδαιμονiα towards the gods and the πiστις afforded to oaths are recognized as strong points in Roman society: so Oliver 1953, 948, and R. Klein in his edition, 118 n. 138. polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 215 in Er the Pamphylian’s myth, or at least Plato’s, the city-states that were already on their own funerary pyre as a result of their mutual rivalries and struggles came back to life in a moment as soon as they all accepted your hegemony. They cannot say how they reached this state, and they can do nothing but marvel at it. They feel like a man who was dreaming a moment ago and suddenly wakes up to find himself immersed in a new reality (sect. 69). Just this eulogy of peace, contrasted with the lives lived by the various peoples before the advent of Rome, allows us to understand better another aspect of Aristides’ response to Polybius’ problem about the Roman Empire. It is obvious that when he refers to those peoples that had fought ‘for empire and supremacy’ Aristides intends to refer in the first place to the ones whose histories he has sketched in the opening sections of his encomium, that is the Persians, Macedonians and Greeks. 35 But the Romans too were well aware (as can be seen in the pages of Cicero) that they too, from at least the time of the Second Punic War, had fought wars de imperio. 36 How the Romans of that time saw their wars is a matter of some controversy. Cicero later on took a moralistic stand, asserting (probably in the footsteps of Panaetius) 37 that ‘wars are only to be undertaken in order to assure peace without injustice’ (De off. 1.35). Cicero seems not to have been able to make up his own mind about what constituted iustae causae for war. 38 In To Rome, however, all this problematic is absent: what matters is the present, a world hegemony in which, theoretically at least, peace reigns (sects. 69–71). How this situation had been arrived at, one cannot (as Aristides remarks) say, or one would prefer not to, and hence the wars de imperio only seem to concern the past of other peoples and not that of the Romans. To everyone, and above all to the Greeks, the Romans brought peace. 39 35 Demosthenes too (On the Crown 18.66) describes Athens as 0εi περi πρωτεiων καi τιμjς καi δóξης 0γωνιζομrνην, and sees Philip as initiating war íπrρ 0ρχjς καi δυναστεiας. 36 See for instance Cic. De off. 1.38, with Brunt 1978, 159–191. 37 Cf. Gabba 1990, 194. 38 Cf. Harris 1979, 165–175, Brunt 1978, 177, Ferrary 1988, 410–415. 39 The idea that the Romans have brought peace to peoples who have shown themselves to be incapable of attaining and preserving it by themselves is already to be found in the letter of Cicero to his brother in which he observes, with regard to the province Asia, that ‘nullam ab se neque belli externi neque domesticarum discordiarum calamitatem afuturam fuisse, si hoc imperio non teneretur’ (Ad Q. fr. 1.1.34). Tacitus likewise makes Petilius Cerialis say in his speech to the Treviri and the Lingones that 216 francesca fontanella Aristides, having sketched in the preceding sections the unsuccessful history of the Greek hegemonies, thus demonstrates how Rome’s rise to power was in a sense a fulfillment of the objectives that the Greeks themselves had pursued but had not succeeded in achieving. ‘It fell to the political dominion of the Romans to bring about that consortium of cities united by a shared consensus to master city—the only possible way of unifying the Greek world’. 40 Aristides’ attention is centred on a present in which Greece enjoys the fruits of Roman rule and on a past that could be said to have fully justified that rule. There is complete silence on the other hand about what stood chronologically between the two periods in question—Rome’s conquest of the Greek world, during which Rome combined acts such as the proclamation of the freedom of Greece by Flamininus in 196 with acts of brutal imperialism such as the destruction of Corinth in 146. The silence in which Aristides covered the history of the Hellenistic period is of course to be connected with the archaizing and classicizing elements in the style, citations and often in the subject matter of the authors of the Second Sophistic. 41 But another consideration will have played an even bigger role—that it was better not to bring up now a period that was one of the most problematic, from an ‘ethical’ point of view, in the history of Rome. Polybius reserved judgement on that period, at least in public, but extended his history to the last of the Macedonian Wars and to the Achaean War, that is to say to the time when ‘the common misfortune of all Greece had its beginning and its end’ (3.5.6). Aristides prefers not to speak about these events. The reader may wonder whether this silence about Rome’s methods of conquests indicates not so much approval of Roman hegemony however it was achieved but rather, as Pernot argues elsewhere in this volume, tacit resignation in the face of a power that it seemed no longer possible to question. ‘terram vestram ceterorumque Gallorum ingressi sunt duces imperatoresque Romani nulla cupidine, sed maioribus vestris invocantibus quos discordiae usque ad exitium fatigabant’ (Hist. 4.74.2). 40 Desideri 2002, 149. 41 Cf. Bowie 1970. Though this tendency definitely has the effect of reminding the hearer of the glorious literary-historical past of Hellas, the interpretation of this allusion as an intentional challenge to Roman rule should not be generalized. In fact, ‘by re- creating the situations of the past the contrast between the immense prosperity and the distressing dependence of the contemporary Greek world was dulled’ (Bowie 1970, 41), and ‘since Greek identity could not be grounded in the real political world, it had to assert itself in the cultural domain and so as loudly as possible’ (Swain 1996, 89). chapter eleven AELIUS ARISTIDES AND RHODES: CONCORD AND CONSOLATION Carlo Franco Introduction The prosperous civic life of the Greek East under Roman rule may be seen as the most complete development of Greek civilization in antiq- uity. In this context the so-called Second Sophistic played a crucial role, and its cultural, social and political dimensions continue to attract the attention of contemporary scholars. 1 Beyond its literary interest, the rich and brilliant virtuoso prose of the Greek sophists, together with the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and archaeology, provides histori- ans with invaluable material for the study of civic life. The connections between higher education and social power, rhetoric and politics, cen- tral and local power, rulers and subjects, are becoming more and more evident. On the surface, the subjects approached by the orators were escapist (although perhaps no more escapist than a conference of clas- sical scholars today), but on many occasions the sophists’ speeches were closely connected to the time and place of their delivery, thereby open- ing the door to historical analysis. In this context, Aelius Aristides rightly ranks among the most inter- esting and intriguing personalities: apart from the fascinating Sacred Tales and the solemn Encomium To Rome, other writings of his appear worthy of careful study. Having examined the Smyrnean Orations else- where, I will focus in this paper on two speeches about the ancient city of Rhodes that are included in the Aristidean corpus. 2 They are good case studies for examining the impact of natural disasters on the Greek 1 Anderson 1989; id. 1993; Whitmarsh 2005. 2 These texts ‘can only be understood when read in conjunction with other speeches in praise of cities’ (Bowersock 1969, 16). 218 carlo franco cities in the Roman Empire, as well as the social tensions that these disasters revealed. The size and beauty of those poleis were sometimes darkened and challenged by serious crises. But it was precisely in such emergencies that the educated discourse of the orators played a pivotal role. Leaving aside the momentous problem of the sophists’ political efficacy, we may claim that their speeches met above all the emotional needs of the cities: lamenting the disaster and preaching moral values, the orators tried to restore mutual confidence and concord, thereby preserving the deepest values of ancient civic life. 3 The Rhodiakos In modern critical editions of Aristides’ works, the sequence of the two Rhodian speeches reverses their chronology: Oration 24, To the Rhodi- ans on Concord, was apparently delivered more or less five years after Oration 25, the Rhodiakos. In order to examine those texts from a histor- ical point-of-view, it is expedient to observe their proper chronological order by considering the Rhodiakos first. 4 Oration 25 was delivered in Rhodes some time after a tremendous earthquake, which razed the city in 142AD. It is at once a commemo- ration of the ruined city, a memorial of the catastrophe, and an exhor- tation to the survivors. 5 After an exordium, which laments the total loss of Rhodes’ former greatness and beauty (Or. 25.1–10), there is a heart- felt exhortation to endure the disaster (11–16). The earthquake and its effects are vividly described in the central section of the speech (17–33), which goes on to reassess the importance of Rhodes and the duty of endurance (34–49). The oration then turns to a consolation, with an empathetic narration of the most ancient traditions of Rhodes and a forecast of the reconstruction (50–56). After a series of historical exam- ples (57–68), it ends with the appropriate peroration (69). In his 1898 edition of Aristides’ works, Bruno Keil asserted, primar- ily on stylistic grounds, that the speech was not written by Aristides. 3 Leopold 1986, 818. 4 The speech has been often disregarded because of its similarity with Oration 23: according to Reardon, ‘Il n’y a aucunement lieu d’analyser le discours Aux Rhodiens’ (1971, 134). The Rhodiakos is not considered at all, following Boulanger 1923, 126 n. 14. 5 Chronology: Behr 1981, 371; Guidoboni 1994, 235–236. Local context: Papachri- stodoulou 1994, 143f. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 219 Keil’s judgment, accepted until recently, 6 has heavily conditioned the critical evaluation of the text: the speech has generally been considered a spurious and tasteless piece, deprived of literary, not to say histori- cal, value. 7 It may be useful to remember that, before Keil, important scholars like Dindorf and Schmid judged the Rhodiakos perfectly appro- priate to the style of Aristides. 8 Recent studies have reconsidered the question and shown that Keil’s condemnation was too hasty and prob- ably wrong. The bulk of the evidence adduced against an attribution of the text to Aristides was discussed and rejected by Jones. 9 Upon care- ful scrutiny, no element of content and language was seen to conflict explicitly with the authorship of Aristides. 10 Nor do small factual dis- crepancies with other Aristidean works support the attribution to a dif- ferent author. 11 Consistency was not the mark of the genre. It was the special occasion, the kairos, that dictated the choice of material to the orator, even in historical narratives: ad tempus orator retractat sententiam, as was wisely observed. 12 If we were to adopt consistency as a criterion 6 Anderson 2007, 341–342. 7 Keil 1898, 72, 91. As unauthentic, the Rhodiakos receives only a short mention in Boulanger (1923, 374 n. 1). General introduction: Behr 1981, 371 (with analysis of the structure); Cortés Copete 1997, 175–178. For a different hypothesis, namely that the extant Rhodiakos is spurious and that the original Rhodian speech was delivered in Egypt and subsequently lost, see Behr 1968, 16 and n. 48. 8 Aristides’ style was perfectly consistent with the Atticist mode. According to the careful analysis in Schmid 1889, vol. II, the Rhodiakos shows no remarkable difference from the other texts of the Aristidean corpus (Jones 1990). Norden (1909, 420–421) found the Smyrnean Monody and the Eleusinian speech divergent from the ‘normal’ Aristidean style. 9 Jones 1990. The highly mannered use of topoi is studied by Pernot 1993a, II, index s.v.; Cortés 1995; Cortés Copete 1995, 29ff. 10 Much was made of the allocution to the daimones (Or. 25.33). This seems allowed by Men. Rhet 2.435.9–11: see Puiggali 1985, quoting in a note not only Or. 25.33, but also Or. 37.25, Or. 42, and Or. 46.32. 11 According to the author of the Rhodiakos, the members of the democratic group that recaptured Athens in 403BC were seventy in number (Or. 25.64, as in Plut. Glor. Ath. 345D; see Xen. Hell. 2.4.2, Diod. 14.32), whereas Aristides (Or. 1.254) says that they were ‘little more than fifty’ (sixty, according to Paus. 1.29.3). The contradiction is of slight import and should not be used as a proof against the Aristidean authorship of the Rhodiakos. A rhetor was not bound to consistency in the evocation of ancient deeds. On the treatment of the events of 404/3BC by the authors of the Second Sophistic: Oudot 2003. 12 In the Smyrnean Orations Aristides gives three different accounts of the origins of that city, choosing between several traditions according to the circumstances and the different aims of his speeches: Franco 2005, 425ff. 220 carlo franco for judging a speech’s authenticity, the study of these texts would face a mountain of contradictions. 13 The strongest argument against the authenticity of Oration 25 is based on a debatable argumentum e silentio: in the speech To the Rhodians, On Concord, Aristides does not refer to any prior declamation given on the island, despite the fact that he refers to his actions on behalf of the city, as well as to some prior visit paid to Rhodes (Or. 24.3, 53, 56). Moreover, he says that he is addressing the Rhodians tên prôtên. The meaning of these words has been much discussed: should we understand ‘for the first time’, as the more common usage suggests, or ‘for the present’? Whichever interpretation is chosen, the expression seems compatible with the attribution of the Rhodiakos to Aristides. But if this is the case, why did he fail to quote his previous speech about the earthquake? Here, too, various answers, which have underlined the difference between oral performance and written texts and between public and private declamations, have been given. There may be a more compelling explanation. When he was in Egypt, Aristides met the Rhodian ambassadors who were seeking help after the disaster (Or. 24.3). Five years later, in the same way, Rhodian delegates again came to meet him, presumably in Pergamum this time, and requested help for their city in the name of prior relations: the meeting in Egypt, but not the form of the aid given, is duly recalled. The oration On Concord is remarkably reticent about many themes, so the silence about Aristides’ previous involvement with Rhodes may be not so relevant and should be considered in a wider context. The speech is fully oriented towards the present situation of Rhodes; the earthquake is briefly alluded to only at the beginning and at the end of the text, as though it had been forgotten and completely obliterated by the rapid renaissance of the city. I will discuss at greater length later what the real motive for these choices may have been. The same attitude appears in the Aristides’ Panegyricus to Cyzicus, where the very reason for the reconstruction of the temple, viz. an earthquake, receives no mention at all. This attitude may explain the omission in the Concord oration: Rhodes faced a new crisis, that is, stasis, and needed encouragement. So it might have seemed inappropriate to recall the earlier disaster. 13 In Or. 33.29, for example, Aristides criticizes the ‘cursed’ sophists because they ‘persuade you that even Homer’s greatest quality was that he was the son of the Meles’, which is precisely one of the greatest sources of civic pride prized by Aristides in the Smyrnean Orations (Or. 17.14ff.; Or. 21.8). aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 221 In addition to relevant similarities to the oration On Concord, which might eventually outnumber the alleged discrepancies, the Rhodiakos shares many themes, like the beauty or sea power of Rhodes, as well as several stylistic echoes, with other works. All of these similarities led a specialist like Keil to express the bizarre hypothesis that Aristides him- self imitated the Rhodiakos (allegedly the work of a different author) in his Smyrnean orations. It is high time to abandon such a theory, since neither the analysis of content, nor that of style, provides irrefutable evidence against the authenticity of the Rhodiakos. 14 Indeed, the debate on its disputed authorship is showing signs of reaching a generally accepted conclusion. The diction of the Rhodiakos is compatible with Aristidean authorship, and authorship of the Rhodiakos is also consis- tent with Aristides’ biography. In the description of the earthquake, the author of the speech compares the rumble of the collapsing buildings with the noise produced by the Egyptian cataracts (Or. 25.25): this may be a fresh memory, for, in fact, when he went to Egypt, Aristides saw the cataracts, a customary detour for tourists on the Nile. 15 Thus, the Rhodiakos could plausibly have been delivered during the journey back from Alexandria to Asia. 16 To sum up, I will assume that the speech was written by Aristides. But in order to avoid bias in the analysis of the text, I will for the time being maintain a neutral designation and speak of ‘the author of the Rhodiakos’. The first theme worth consideration in the text is the description of Rhodes, which obviously refers to the days before its destruction. At the beginning of the speech, the orator recalls the ‘many great harbours’, the ‘many handsome docks’, the triremes and the bronze beaks ‘along with many other glorious spoils of war’, the temples and the statues, the bronzes and the paintings, the Acropolis ‘full of fields and groves’, and above all ‘the circuit of the walls and the height and beauty of the interspersed towers’. Up until the day of the earthquake, he says, the ancient renown of Rhodes had remained largely intact: although the glory of past sea battles was irremediably lost, ‘all the rest of the city was preserved purely pure’. 17 All this material follows the familiar 14 Linguistic and philological analysis does not always definitively confirm or reject the debated authorship of ancient texts: see as a case-study the ‘Tacitean fragment’ created and discussed by Syme 1991b. 15 Arist. Or. 36 passim; Philostr. VAp 6.26. 16 Cortés 1995, 207. 17 Or. 25.1–8. All translations of Aristides are from Behr 1981. 222 carlo franco pattern of the laudes urbium and reveals a high level of rhetorical artistry: its function is to prepare us for the subsequent reversal of destiny and the total destruction of all the city’s treasures, statues and monuments. Although largely conditioned by rhetoric, the description is not a mere literary essay. The task of an orator in front of a civic community was to choose relevant aspects of the local reality and to reshape them, creating an idealized image of the city, not a false one. 18 Thus it is possible to compare aspects of the speech with the actual city, so far as it is known from literary and archaeological evidence. Let us first consider the naval structures. At the beginning of the Imperial Age, the glory of ancient Rhodian sea power was still consid- ered among the greatest and best-preserved sources of Rhodian pride. 19 The time of its thalassocracy, however, was over. After the great bat- tles of the Hellenistic age, the Rhodian navy had been marginalized by the increasing, and eventually prevailing, role of Rome. During the last century of the Republic, the Rhodians were still fighting against the pirates and collaborating with Caesar. 20 But after heavy depredations at the time of the siege by Cassius in 43BC, the size and strength of the Rhodian navy had been reduced to insignificance. Only commer- cial exchange and the local patrolling of the islands still under Rhodian rule continued. 21 So the author’s reference to triremes, ‘some ready for sailing, others in dry dock, as it were in storage, but if one wished to launch and sail any of them, it was possible’ (Or. 25.4), seems an ele- gant way to describe the present state of the Rhodian navy: the docks and the huge triremes are preserved, but not all of them are actually in use. The author of the Rhodiakos is fully aware of this situation, since he praises this state of affairs as unique to Rhodes among the Greek cities: ‘only when one was with you, did he see precisely, not only hear, what the city was’ (2). Thus, the orator can transform the remains of the sea power into a justification for eulogy: for Rhodes has ‘sensibly 18 This attitude allows us to undertake a historical analysis of these speeches, as in the case of Dio’s speeches for Tarsus or Nicomedia, or Aristides’ for Smyrna: Classen 1980; Bouffartigue 1996. 19 Strabo 14.2.5 reports that the ‘roadsteads had been hidden and forbidden to the people for a long time’, in order to preserve its secrets, as in the Venetian Arsenal: Gabrielsen 1997, 37ff. 20 Pirates: Flor. 1.41.8; Caes. BC 3.102.7; Cic. Fam. 12.4.3. Alexandria: BAl 1.1, 11.1–3, 13.5, 14.1, 15, 25.3–6, App. Civ. 2.89. 21 But see Cic. Fam. 12.15.2 (Lentulus): Rhodiosque navis complures instructas et paratas in aqua. Rhodes and commercial routes in the Imperial Age: Rougé 1966, 132f. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 223 given up its empire’, without losing any of its structures or its name (8) and without diminishing the greatness of its ancestors. 22 Archaeological excavations have revealed significant traces of the dockyards beneath later Roman structures; 23 it is tempting to suppose that they were abandoned after the earthquake. Surely, no one could possibly have forecast at the time of the speech that the Rhodian navy would recover something of its former glory when in the third century AD the seas became less safe. A decree possibly dating to the beginning of the third century AD honours an Ailios Alexander, who patrolled the area of the Rhodian Chersonese and ‘provided safety and security for sailors, seizing and handing over for punishment the piratical band active at sea’. 24 The memories of this great past provided the Rhodians with consid- erable moral strength. As a witness to the fierce character of the citizens in the face of extremely serious situations, the author of the Rhodiakos quotes an old local saying: Καιρòς δr ν0ν εiπερ ποτr, u 0νδρες `Ρóδιοι, σuσαι μrν íμ0ς α0τοuς rκ τuν περιεστηκóτων, βοη0jσαι δr τ_ u γrνει τjς νjσου, στjναι δr πρòς τjν τuχην λαμπρuς, rν0υμη0rντας íμuν τòν το0 πολiτου κυβερνjτου λóγον, oς rφη χειμαζομrνης α0τ_u τjς νεuς καi καταδuσεσ0αι προσδοκuν το0το δj τò 0ρυλοuμενον, 0λλ’ u Ποτειδoν, iσ0ι oτι oρ0oν τoν να0ν καταδuσω (25.13). Now is the time, O men of Rhodes, to save yourselves from these circumstances, to aid the race of the island, and to stand gloriously against fortune, keeping in mind the words of your fellow citizen, the helmsman, who, when his ship was tempest tossed and he expected that she would sink, made that famous remark: ‘Know well, Poseidon, that I will lose my ship on an even keel’. Recourse to examples of ‘vulgarized philosophy’ was common enough in sophistic rhetoric, and especially in consolatory texts. The Rhodiakos also reveals a rich display of traditional wisdom, very apt for a popular assembly. Needless to say, the sailor’s phrase, which is widely attested in the classical writers, was particularly fitting for a Rhodian public. 25 22 See also Dio Or. 31.103–104. 23 Cante 1986–1987, 181 n. 10: ‘bacini di carenaggio, capannoni dei neoria, piani di alaggio’. 24 AE 1948, 201 = BullEp 1946–1947, 156; see De Souza 1999, 218–219. The brave man was also limênarchês. 25 Pernot 1993a, II, 603. Other occurrences of the saying were collected first by Haupt 1876, 319. A preliminary list ranks: Teles 62.2 Hense [= Stob. 34.991 Wachs- muth-Hense]; Enn. 508 Skutsch [dum clavum rectum teneam, navemque gubernem = Cic. QF 1.2.13]; Sen. Ep. 85.33 [‘Neptune, numquam hanc navem nisi rectam’]; Ep. 8.4 [aut saltem rectis, 224 carlo franco As a complement to the memories of past sea power, the author mentions the monuments which had borne witness, at least until the day of the earthquake, to Rhodes’ ancient strength: ‘bronze beaks’ and ‘many other glorious spoils of war’, some ‘taken from the Etruscans’ pirate fleet, some from the campaigns of Alexander, others from wher- ever each had been brought into the city’ (4). As is typical in the culture of the Second Sophistic, the memory of the past is limited to the Age of Alexander, and the approach is largely generic and selective. Rhodes had fought against the pirates already in the fourth century BC, before the Age of Alexander, and had won power and glory, but the author of the Rhodiakos does not mention this phase of Rhodian history. 26 Actually the spoils exposed in Rhodes were not all the result of military opera- tions, nor was the Rhodian attitude towards piracy unambiguous, since Rhodes had taken part, as has been recently argued, in a system of raids in the eastern Mediterranean. 27 Other events in the local history enjoyed even greater renown. Of the sieges, for example, the author says, ‘and of old you showed to visitors the engines of war made from the shorn hair of your women, and it was a wonderful thing’ (καi πoλαι μrν τo rκ τuν γυναικuν τuν 0ποκειραμrνων μηχανjματα rδεiκνυτε τοtς rπιδημο0σι καi 0αυμαστòν jν, Or. 25.32). Apparently female hair was commonly used for torsion catapults in the Hellenistic and Roman epochs: Heron asserts that such hair is long, strong, and elastic—particularly suitable for military engines. After the great earthquake of 227BC, King Seleucus II gave the Rhodians, among many other gifts, a large amount of hair. And a few years later, in 220BC, the favor was returned by the Rhodians, who allegedly sent several tons of (female?) hair to Sinope as help against the attack by Mithridates. 28 In the tradition of war stratagems, the use of female hair during sieges was seen as a sign of dramatic emergency and of a shortage of resources. 29 Thus the machine is quoted as a brilliant aut semel ruere]; Prov. 1.4.5; Cons. Marc. 5.5; 6.3 [At ille vel in naufragio laudandus, quem obruit mare clavum tenentem et obnixum]; Quint. 2.17.24; Isid. Orig. 19.2. (both quoting Ennius); Plin. Epist. 9.26.4; Max. Tyr. Decl. 40.5e. 26 Diod. 20. 81.2–3; Strabo 14.2.5. See Gabrielsen 1997, 108f.; Wiemer 2002, 117ff. 27 Gabrielsen 1997, 176 n. 134; id. 2001. 28 Heron Belopoiika 30; Plb. 5.89.9; 4.56.3. The chronology is somewhere blurred: Walbank 1957–1979, I, pp. 511–512; 621 ad loc. In general see Marsden 1969, 87ff. (and 75 n. 7: no evidence for women’s hair in Plb. 4.56.3). 29 Garlan 1974, 220, n. 3. See in general Vitr. 10.11.2: ad ballistas capillo maxime muliebri, vel nervo funes, and anecdotes about different cities, e.g. Strabo 17.3.15; Frontin. 1.7.3; Flor. 1.31.10; 2.15.10 (Carthage); Caes. BC 3.9.3 (Salona); Polyaen. 8.67 (Thasos); SHA aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 225 symbol of heroic endurance that encompasses the whole civic body, from the soldiers to the women, and thus becomes an inspiring image for the Rhodians resisting the present catastrophe. The war engines dated presumably to the siege by Demetrius, more or less four centuries before, but all details are omitted in the speech: the orator uses the anecdote solely as a source of exhortation for the survivors. Some have suspected a play on words involving the shorn women in the past and Rhodes’ present condition, which is like that of a mourning lady. 30 The opposition is between the past and the present: before the earthquake the Rhodians took pride in showing the war machines that had preserved their city; now the city itself appears destroyed. Nevertheless, there was chance in the misfortune, since ο0 γoρ πολrμ_ω ληφ0εtσα íμuν j πóλις οiχεται ο0δ’ 0νδρuν χεiρων φα- νεtσα, ο0δ’ rστησεν 0π’ α0τjς τρóπαιον ο0δεiς, ο0δ’ 0πò τuν íμετrρων 0να0ημoτων τo παρ’ αíτ_u τις lερo κοσμjσει, uσπερ íμεtς τοtς rξω0εν λαφuροις τjν íμετrραν α0τuν πóλιν κατεκοσμjσατε (Or. 25.59). …your city did not perish captured in war, nor was it seen to be con- quered by other men, nor did anyone triumph over it, nor will anyone adorn their temples with your offerings, as you have adorned your city with foreign spoils. Thus, paradoxically, the orator may confidently judge the destruction of the city by earthquakes a reason to praise Rhodes, since the city ‘perished with a record of total invincibility’ (62), a claim that is surely false, but aptly conceals the defeat inflicted by Cassius. After praising the spoils and the memories of the past, the orator turns to Rhodes’ artistic ornamentation: τεμrνη δr 0εuν καi lερo καi 0γoλματα τοσα0τα μrν τò πλj0ος, τηλικα0τα δr τò μrγε0ος, τοια0τα δr τò κoλλος, uστ’ 0ξια εiναι τuν 0λλων rργων χαριστjρια, καi uς μj εiναι διακρtναι τi τις α0τuν μ0λλον 0αυμoσειεν (Or. 25.5). 31 There could be seen the precincts of the gods, temples and statues, of such number, size and beauty, that they were worthy thank offerings from all the rest of the world, and that it was impossible to decide which of them one would admire more. Maxim. 33.3 (Aquileia); Lact. Div.Inst. 1.20.27; Serv. ad Aen. 1.720; Veget. 4.9 (Rome, Gallic siege). The mention of Rhodes and Massilia in Frontin. 1.7.4 was apparently interpolated. 30 Dindorf 1829, I.809 n. 4, ad loc. Towers as the city’s hair: Eur. Hec. 910f.; Troad. 784. 31 Apparently no mention of the Deigma: Plb. 5.88.8; Diod. 19.45.4. 226 carlo franco The praise of Rhodes’ artistic treasures was typical. Some celebrated paintings by Protogenes were said to have been spared by Demetrius and were later recorded by Strabo. 32 Pliny the Elder, relying on the authority of Mucianus, stated that there were thousands of signa in Rhodes, 33 although the famous oration by Dio Chrysostom informs the reader that, in his time, the Rhodians engaged in the dubious practice of recycling old statues for new honorands. 34 The practise, albeit common elsewhere, was criticized by Dio. 35 The author of the Rhodiakos, to be sure, does not mention this deplorable habit, but states that any one of the monuments that could be seen on the island ‘was a sufficient source of pride for another city’ (5). 36 The speech then turns to the city walls, ‘a wonder […] which could not satiate the eye’ (7). This sort of praise also was very common in ancient descriptions of cities. 37 According to Strabo, the Rhodian enceinte was among the most noteworthy structures of the island, and Dio Chrystostom assures us that the Rhodians took great care and spent a large amount of money in order to keep their walls well- maintained (although they were reluctant to pay for new statues!). Pau- sanias ranked the Rhodian walls among the best fortifications he had seen: since his journeys are dated to the middle of the second century AD, this could mean that he saw them after their reconstruction. 38 But an orator was not supposed to give technical or realistic details; rather, his task was to select relevant elements and convert them into perfect 32 Demetrius: Gell. 15.31.1; Strabo 14.2.5. 33 NH 34.7.36. See also NH 33.12.55; 34.7.34, 63; 35.10, 69, 71, 93 for more informa- tion on Rhodian artistic treasures. 34 On the image of Rhodes in Dio Or. 31: Jones 1978, 26ff. See Plb. 31.4.4 for the dedication of a Colossus to the Roman people in the precinct of Athena (Lindia?). Post-Hellenistic Rhodian statuary has not been the subject of intensive research: see Gualandi 1976, 18. Late Hellenistic casting-houses for large bronzes are studied in Kanzia and Zimmer 1998. Some monuments appear to have been restored after earthquakes: Papachristodoulou 1989, 186 n. 29b (dated to the first century AD for palaeographic reasons). 35 Recycling of statues at Athens: Paus. 1.18.3; Mycenae: Paus. 2.17.3, where criticism of the practice appears implicit in the text. As a sign of economic shortage: Sartre 1991, 138. 36 The same topos appears in Plin. 34.7.41–42 in reference to the Colossus and other large statues: sed ubicumque singuli fuissent, nobilitaturi locum. In the Rhodiakos, mention of the Colossus occurs at Or. 25.53. 37 Franco 2005, 391 ff. 38 Strabo 14.2.5; Dio Or. 31.125,146; Paus. 4.31.5, with Moggi and Osanna 2003, 493 (ad 8.43). aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 227 forms of the topos. The Rhodiakos describes the towers, which could be seen from a distance when sailing to or from Rhodes and served as a sort of lighthouse. 39 Enceintes had no real importance in a world completely pacified by Rome, but the Rhodian walls had a long history. They had played a role in a huge flood at the end of the fourth century BC, and later in the great siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes. 40 Following those events, according to historical tradition and to the archaeological evidence, they had been restored after the earthquake in 227BC (this phase is probably the one alluded to by Philo) and again after the Mithridatic wars. 41 But such wars and troubles had no place in the eirenic discourse of the orators. Praise belongs to a peaceful city, where walls are no longer used and buildings fill the areas close to the enceinte (Or. 25.7), a situation exactly contrary to what ancient military engineers recommended for defence in the case of a siege. 42 In comparison with other elements of the speech, the description of the city itself is rather hasty. The author takes note of the Acropolis, whose terraces have been identified in modern excavations, 43 and the general appearance of the city, marked by the regularity of its build- ings: ‘Nothing higher than anything else, but the construction ample and equal, so that it would seem to belong not to a city, but to a single house’ (ο0δrν rτερον rτrρου íπερrχον, 0λλo διαρκj καi iσην τjν κατασκευjν οuσαν, uς γrνοιτ’ 0ν ο0 πóλεως, 0λλo μι0ς οiκiας, 6). The shape of the city was especially praised in antiquity, not only because of its regular grid but also because of its theatre-like structure, which Rhodes, among other cities, shared with Halikarnassos, although the resemblance between the city’s shape and a theatre belonged more to the city’s ideal image than to its real layout. 44 In his description of the 39 On the topos see by contrast Arist. Or. 27.17 (after the building of the great temple, only Cyzicus does not need a lighthouse). 40 Flood in 316BC: Diod. 19.45. On Demetrius’ siege see now Pimouget Pédarros 2003. 41 Diod. 20.100; Philo Byz. Bel. 84f., 85; App. Mithr. 94; Kontis 1963; Konstantino- poulos 1967; Winter 1992, Philemonos-Tsopotou 1999. See the historical analysis in Pimouget Pédarros 2004. 42 See the prescriptions of Philo Byz. Bel. 80. This was actually attested by the archaeological excavations. 43 Kontis 1952, esp. 551 f.; Konstantinopoulos 1973, esp. 129–134. 44 Theatroeidês: Diod. 19.45.3, 20.83.2; Vitr. 2.8.11; Arist. Or. 25.6. Modern research in Kontis 1952; id. 1953; id. 1954; id. 1958; Wycherley 1976; Papachristodoulou 1994, id. 1996; Caliò and Interdonato 2005, esp. 91 ff. about Rhodes. 228 carlo franco city, the author considers only the elements pertaining to Hellenic cul- ture (like the Rhodian fondness for paideia), 45 but he does not record any ‘Roman’ element: this is hardly surprising, when we consider the attitude of intellectuals in the Second Sophistic. Thus, no mention is made of the many statues decreed (or reused) to honour Roman cit- izens, nor is there any mention of the imperial cult. 46 The author is silent, too, about the gladiators, although this may reflect the actual sit- uation: Louis Robert years ago remarked upon the peculiar absence of gladiatorial documents in Rhodes. 47 In the Rhodiakos by Dio Chrysos- tom, the consistent preference for Hellenic practices is strongly con- trasted with the excessive acceptance of Roman customs in Athens. Dio quotes a law from Rhodes that ‘forbade the executioner to enter the city’ (31.122). 48 The author of the Rhodiakos may refer to the same law when he writes, ‘it was not even in keeping with your religion to pass a death sentence within the walls’. The allusion to the Rhodian law is debatable, however, since the orator is making a rather different point about the perverse impact of the earthquake, which transformed ‘the city which could not be entered by murderers’ into a ‘common grave for the inhabitants’ (Or. 25.28). It is easy to see that any orator appointed to praise Rhodes could walk a well-trodden path, a path amply supplied with literary and historical models; it would be even better if the author, as is the case here, was familiar with the place and the local traditions. The outlines for a eulogy of Rhodes were already established in Hellenistic times, as Polybius’ digression on the great earthquake of Rhodes in 228/7BC makes clear. 49 Relying on local sources, the historian lists in great detail the gifts received by the city from several kings, dynasts and cities after the disaster. He sings the praises of Rhodian freedom, opportunity, and conduct, following the classical scheme described by the rhetorical treatises (thesis, physis, epitêdeumata). 50 In Polybius’ epoch, Rhodes was at the peak of its international power: the historian’s statements, or those of his sources, were the basis 45 Oratory and culture: Arist. Or. 25.67 (and Or. 24.6). Rhodian citizens praised for paideia: Blinkenberg 1941, 2.449 and 2.465 D (second century AD). Decay of Rhodian rhetoric in the Imperial Age: Puech 2002, 367–369. 46 Statues of emperors and Romans: Dio Or. 31.107–108, 115. 47 Robert 1940, 248. 48 Dio Or. 31.122, with Swain 2000, 44. 49 Plb. 5.89–90, with Walbank 1957–1979, I, 16–22; Holleaux 1968 [1923]. 50 On Polybius’ sources see now Lenfant 2005. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 229 for all subsequent praise. 51 The tone of Strabo’s Rhodian section is similar to that of Polybius. Here again, contemporary elements and second-hand information are mixed together: `Η δr τuν `Ροδiων πóλις κεtται μrν rπi το0 rω0ινο0 0κρωτηρiου, λιμrσι δr καi oδοtς καi τεiχεσι καi τ¸j 0λλ¸η κατασκευ¸j τοσο0τον διαφrρει τuν 0λλων uστ’ ο0κ rχομεν εiπεtν rτrραν 0λλ’ ο0δr πoρισον, μj τi γε κρεiττω ταuτης τjς πóλεως (14.2.5). 52 The city of the Rhodians lies on the eastern promontory of Rhodes and it is so far superior to all others in harbours and roads and walls and improvements in general, that I am unable to speak of any other city as equal to it, or even as almost equal to it, much less superior to it (trans. H.L. Jones). Strabo praises above all the eunomia, the politeia, the care for naval affairs, and the city’s faithful conduct towards Rome, all of which resulted in Rhodes being granted the status of autonomy and receiving the large number of votive offerings that adorned the city. Especially celebrated are the provisions granted by the local government to the poor: the redistribution of wealth is considered an ‘ancestral custom’ (patrion ethos). The description of the city, stylized rather than based on autopsy, is nevertheless not remote from reality: some elements, such as the ‘Hippodamian’ plan or the harbours, have been confirmed by modern archaeological research. 53 A brief historical outline also provides some useful hints. The Dorian origins of Rhodes are discussed in reference to Homer: here Strabo’s fondness for the poet joins with local tradition. 54 The image of Rhodes put forth by later authors followed the same pattern. The loyal attitude displayed by the city during Mithridates’ siege won it wide celebrity and esteem. 55 In the second century AD, Aulus Gellius quotes at length from Cato’s speech Pro Rhodiensibus, writ- ing that ‘the city of the Rhodians is renowned because of the location 51 The local historians are likely to have played an important role in the formation of this literary image of Rhodes, but their works are irremediably lost to us: Wiemer 2001. 52 See Pédech 1971. 53 Harbours: Kontis 1953, esp. 279 n. 2. 54 The other poetic authority incorporated into the praise of Rhodes was Pindar. As we know from a scholion to the seventh Olympian, the text of the Ode was carved in golden letters in the temple of Athena Lindia: Gorgon, FGrH 515 F18. 55 App. Mithr. 24ff.; Liv. perioch. 78; Vell. 2.18.3; Flor. 1.40.8. See Campanile 1996, 150f. 230 carlo franco of the island, the beauty of its monuments, their skill in sailing the sea, and their naval victories’ (6.3.1), and repeats this praise in the context of an anecdote about Demetrius’ siege of the island (15.31.1). Apollonius of Tyana’s short visit to the island is also of interest: according to Philostratus, the holy man debated with Damis in the vicinity of the Colossus, engaged a talented flautist in conversation about his art, and rebuked both a rich and ignorant young man and an overweight boy fond of food. The island appears here in all its wellbeing and prosperity, although apparently Apollonius did not pay homage, not even from a critical perspective, to the beauty of Rhodes, as he did, for example, in Smyrna. 56 The brilliant ekphrasis of Rhodes from the beginning of the Amores ascribed to Lucian is also worth attention. After his departure from Tarsus and his visit to the decayed cities of Lycia, on the way to Cnidus, the narrator arrives in Rhodes (6–10), where he admires the Temple of Dionysus, the porch, and the paintings; he does not see any sign of decline or crisis, nor does he mention the earthquake. 57 The Amores are commonly believed to be a later composition. 58 The authorship of Lucian has been denied because the text does not allude to the earthquake of 142AD, among other reasons. But this silence does not imply a terminus ante quem. In Xenophon’s Ephesian Histories, which are dated toward the middle of the second century AD, there is a nice description of Rhodes that includes the crowded festivals of the Sun, the votive offerings, and the altar of the gods, without making any reference to the earthquake: 59 the peculiar ‘atemporality’ of these texts, which show no interest in historical change, conditions the selection of local details. The earthquake of 142AD suddenly destroyed this magical world: ‘The beauty of the harbours has gone, the fairest of crowns has fallen, the temples are barren of statues, and the altars, the streets and theatres are empty of men’ (Or. 25.9). The orator turns the description into the lamentation, exploiting the same classical topoi of the laus urbis, such as the origins of the city, but from a different point of view: if, according 56 VAp 5.21–23 and 4.7 for Smyrna. For the flautist’s name Kanos see SEG XXI 854b; Suet. Galba 12; Plut. Mor. 785B. See also the rebukes by the cithara-player Stratonicus in Plut. Mor. 525B. 57 The omission of the earthquake has been considered, perhaps erroneously, a relevant proof against Lucianic authorship. Aristides, too, in the speech On Concord, evokes the incomparable beauty of Rhodes without a hint of the recent disaster. 58 Jones 1984; Degani 1991, esp. 19. 59 Xen. Eph. 5.10–13. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 231 to the myth, Rhodes had emerged from the sea, now ‘the city has sunk beneath the earth and has gone from mankind’ (29). And if Zeus had ‘poured wealth’ and ‘rained down gold’ on the island, as Homer and Pindar had once sung, now ‘the god of fortune’ has poured on Rhodes very different gifts (30). The orator’s efforts are directly primarily to restraining the grief of the survivors and delivering a persuasive exhortation to them: their sufferings do not admit of any consolation, nonetheless, ‘they must be endured’ (34). He must prove that so terrible a catastrophe is bearable and that the Rhodians, because of their glorious past, must be confident that the city will flourish again. The skill in arguing in many different ways about a single subject was a sophistic heritage: the author of the Rhodiakos had only to follow the scheme of reversal. For as far as sophis- tic rhetoric is concerned, just as destiny transforms happiness into des- peration, so misfortune will assuredly be transformed into a renewal of prosperity. Take Rhodes’ past, for example. When the Rhodians cre- ated the new city of Rhodes by unifying Lindos, Cameiros and Ialysos at the end of the fifth century BC, they did not choose an existing schema, but created a totally new one. 60 Thus the reconstruction of the city after the earthquake ‘is much easier […] than the original foun- dation was’, because what is needed is ‘only to make a Rhodes from Rhodes, a new city from the old one’ (52–53). The argument about the monuments in the city, like the walls, is different. The earthquake has destroyed them, but their loss is bearable because, according to the old saying, ‘Not houses fairly roofed, nor the well-worked stones of walls, nor avenues and docks are the city, but men who are able to handle whatever circumstances confront them’ (ο0κ οiκiαι καλuς rστεγασμrναι ο0δr λi0οι τειχuν εu δεδομημrνοι ο0δr στενωποi τε καi νεuρια j πóλις, 0λλ’ 0νδρες χρjσ0αι τοtς 0εi παρο0σι δυνoμενοι, 64). Thus, ‘even if your walls fell ten times, the dignity of the city will not fall, so long as one Rhodian is left’. 61 All of the local traditions could be used by the orator to promote endurance and confidence—except, it would appear, the tradition of a negative omen that had oppressed the city from its very foundation. 62 60 All the ancient sources are collected in Moggi 1976, 213–243. 61 See also Or. 25.42. On the topos, which comes from Alcaeus fr. 112L–P and Thuc. 7.77.7, see Pernot 1993a, I, 195ff. 62 Not considered in Blinkenberg 1913, who focuses above all on Homer and ancient legends. 232 carlo franco The author asserts that the earthquake has already fulfilled the oracle, so that one can hope that the reconstruction of the city may rest upon ‘more fortunate and better omens’ (69). The reference would have been perfectly plain to the audience, but it is less evident for us. One must turn to Pausanias. Speaking about Sikyon, he attributes the final decline of the city to an earthquake that ‘damaged also the Carian and Lycian towns, and shook above all the island of Rhodes, so that it was believed that the ancient prediction of the Sybil to Rhodes was accomplished’ (2.7.1). It is difficult to define the period alluded to by Pausanias, since the passage seems to be vague in its chronology. Elsewhere, Pausanias records the same earthquake, adding that it occurred under Antoni- nus. 63 Thus, even if the identity of the events is not assured, one may assume that the oracle alluded to by Pausanias is the same as that men- tioned in the Rhodiakos. The content of the prophecy is preserved, as it seems, in the so-called Oracula Sibyllina, among several others concern- ing earthquakes. The tone is obscure and allusive, and thus does not allow irrefutable identification, but the passage provides good elements for the analysis of the Rhodiakos. ¯Ω `Ρóδε δειλαiη σu· σr γoρ πρuτην, σr δακρuσω·/ rσσ¸η δr πρuτη πóλεων, πρuτη δ’ 0πολrσσ¸η,/ 0νδρuν μrν χjρη, βιóτου δr τε πoμπαν *0δευκjς* (Orac. Syb. 7.1–3). O poor Rhodes! I will mourn you as first. Thou shall be first among the cities, but also first in ruin, deprived of your men, totally *deprived* of life. And again: καi σu, `Ρóδος, πουλuν μrν 0δοuλωτος χρóνον rσσ¸η,/ jμερiη 0υγoτηρ, πουλuς δr τοι ðλβος ðπισ0εν/ rσσεται, rν πóντ_ω δ’ rξεις κρoτος rξοχον 0λλων (Orac. Syb. 3.444–448). 64 And you, Rhodes, for a long time shall be free from slavery, O noble daughter, and great prosperity shall be upon you, and on the sea you shall reign over other peoples. Similar oracles could refer to any big earthquake from 227BC onwards, including the serious one of 142AD. The Sibylline prophecies are a reminder of the symbolic and religious dimension of earthquakes in antiquity. Apart from the gods, however, there was also the political 63 Paus. 2.7.1; 8.43.4. 64 Orac. Syb. 4.101 = 8.160 may refer to the earthquake recorded in Paus. 2.7.1: see Geffcken 1902, ad loc. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 233 dimension of the event, such as the request for help and the problems of reconstruction. This was the task for the ambassadors, and required careful study: it is hardly surprising that natural catastrophes became a common subject in imperial and late antique literature. This subject was studied in the schools of rhetoric and appeared in the works of men of letters and historians. 65 More than a century ago, Rudolf Herzog proposed the label of genos seismikon for this specific genre of speeches about earthquakes and suggested locating its origin in Rhodes. 66 This kind of rhetoric was particularly linked to the life of the ancient city, and orators focused their attention especially on the cities. The collapse of buildings, the destruction of urban beauty, and the death of men and women struck the general imagination much more than the destiny of the rural areas did. 67 This explains why in the Rhodiakos, after a sym- pathetic description of the earthquake, small islands around Rhodes receive only a short and dismissive mention: to the dismay of the culti- vated, a great and beautiful city was in ruins, while unimportant places like Carpathus and Casus remained intact (Or. 25.31). 68 But let us come to the earthquake itself. The author of the Rhodiakos was not in Rhodes when the disaster occurred. Thus the speech does not reflect any personal experience of the events, and the high dramatic style, the impressive list of ruins and casualties, and the heavy rhetorical expression are the substitutes for autopsy; this is the normal case in antiquity, with the possible exception of the letter of Pliny the Younger about the eruption of the Mount Vesuvius. At ‘that wretched noon hour’ says the orator, o δr jλιος τελευταtα δj τóτε rπrλαμπε τjν rαυτο0 πóλιν, καi παρjν rξαi- φνης πoντα oμο0 τo δεινo. íπανεχuρει μrν j 0oλαττα καi π0ν rψιλο0το τuν λιμrνων τò rντòς, 0νερριπτο0ντο δr οiκiαι καi μνjματα 0νερρjγνυντο, πuργοι δr πuργοις rνrπιπτον καi νεuσοικοι τριjρεσι καi νε_u βωμοtς καi 0να0jματα 0γoλμασι καi 0νδρες 0νδρoσι, καi πuργοι λιμrσι, καi πoντα 0λλjλοις (Or. 25.20). 65 In the Progymnasmata by Aelius Theon, the seismos is listed among the themes for ekphraseis (118.18 Patillon-Bolognesi). 66 Herzog 1899, 141 ff. 67 Guidoboni 1994; Traina 1985, and now Williams 2006. Contempt for outlying areas: Arist. Or. 19.7–8. 68 This may explain also some inaccuracies about the administrative status of the islands in relationship to Rhodes: Fraser and Bean 1954, esp. 138 n. 1; Papachristodou- lou 1989, 43ff., Carusi 2003, esp. 219ff. 234 carlo franco The sun for the last time shone upon his city. And suddenly every terror was at hand at once. The sea drew back, and all the interior of the harbours was laid bare, and the houses were thrown upwards, and the tombs broken open, and the towers collapsed upon the harbours, and the storage sheds upon the triremes, and the temples upon the altars, and the offerings upon the statues, and men upon men, and everything upon one another. The destiny of the population is a plurima mortis imago: καi οl μrν τoς rαυτuν φεuγοντες οiκiας rν ταtς rτrρων 0πuλλυντο, οl δ’ rν ταtς rαυτuν íπ’ rκπλjξεως μrνοντες, οl δr rκ0rοντες rγκαταλαμβανóμενοι, οl δr 0πολειφ0rντες jμι0νjτες, ο0κ rχοντες rξαναδ0ναι ο0δr αíτοuς çuσα- σ0αι, κακuν rπι0jκην τòν λιμòν προσελoμβανον, καi τοσο0τον κερδαiνον- τες, oσον γνuναι τjν πατρiδα ο0κ οuσαν, rπαπuλλυντο. τuν δr διrκρινε τo σuματα j τuχη, καi τo μrν jμiσεα εiσω 0υρuν 0πεiληπτο, τo δ’ jμiτομα rξω προuκειτο. καi τοuτοις rτερα αu προσενrπιπτε σuματα, σκεuη, λi0οι, o τι rκoστ_ω φrρων o σεισμòς 0νrμιξεν (Or. 25.22). Some in fleeing from their houses perished in those of others, others transfixed by fear perished in their own, some overtaken while running out; others left behind half alive, unable to emerge or save themselves, starved in addition to their other miseries, and profiting only to the extent of knowing that their country did not exist, they perished. Others’ bodies were sundered by chance, half left within doors, half lay exposed without. And in addition other bodies fell upon them, and household implements, and stones, and whatever the earthquake carried off and tossed upon each. Nor is the description of the aftermath much better: jμrραι δr καi νuκτες rπιλαμβoνουσαι τοuς μrν oσον rμπνεtν ζuντας 0νr- φαινον τραυματiας τuν λοιπuν τοtς πλεiστοις, τοuς δr τελευτjσαντας σεση- πóτας, ο0δ’ oτιο0ν rχοντας 0κριβrς τuν μελuν, 0λλ’ uς rκoστου τι 0φεtλεν j προσr0ηκε τò πτuμα (Or. 25.27). The ensuing days and nights revealed those who were alive, at least who were breathing, to be wounded and those who had already died to be rotting, and without any limbs intact, but however the ruin had worked its amputations and its graftings on each. This description is very different from the euphemistic and pathetic but reticent approach that a reader observes in other Aristidean writ- ings, say, in the Smyrnean Monody. Some scholars have considered the entire description tasteless and abhorrent to the writer’s style. 69 Their 69 Swain 1996, 294 n. 146, still rejects Aristides’ authorship, underlining the ‘gory details’. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 235 disappointment originates, perhaps, from a misunderstanding about the genre. The style of the Rhodiakos has been judged in comparison to the restrained grief of the Smyrnean Orations. In fact, it shares with the monodies some stylistic features such as parataxis, dramatic questions, repetitions, pathos, asyndeta, antitheseis, figures of speech ‘especially rapid and vigorous’ (gorgotera kai akmaiotera), 70 but it goes beyond the measure and the restraint typical of the monodies. 71 Thus there are abundant details about the catastrophe, which is described prolixe vehementerque. 72 In fact, the Rhodiakos is not a pathetic lamentation, but a consolation. 73 At Smyrna, Aristides pours tears onto the ruins of the city, then goes on to seek support from the emperor; he selects his topics according to his different aims, describing in great detail the damage suffered by the buildings, but speaking more cautiously about the dead citizens. 74 In Rhodes, the commemoration of the catastrophe is focused rather on the survivors. Thus, much as in a funeral speech, the details are pertinent and would have been requested; the style could develop at length what Apsines called ‘graphic descriptions’ (hypographai). 75 There was no obligation to temper dramatic elements in the narration or to conceal the worst aspects of the catastrophe; indeed, ‘these descriptions satisfied the victims’ need to feel that they were not neglected in their suffering and their fear’. 76 A striking difference between the Rhodiakos and other Aristidean writings does exist: notwithstanding some echoes in the Monody for Smyrna, carefully noted by Keil, 77 the search for parallels goes beyond the age of Aristides. Apart from some Latin examples, 78 one may refer in particular to the impressive tsunami that occurred in 365AD, which was described by Ammianus. 79 More striking similarities are to be found 70 Apsines 10.48 Patillon. See Demoen 2001. 71 Men. Rhet. 2.437. 72 As Dindorf noted (1829, III, xlv). 73 On the paramythêtikos logos see Men. Rhet. 2.413–414 (syngraphikos style). 74 Arist. Or. 18: see Franco 2005, 477. 75 Apsines 3.23 and 27 Patillon. To be sure, Apsines does not suggest noting every detail, in order to avoid excess: 10.31 Patillon. 76 Leopold 1986, 830. 77 Keil 1898, ad loc. 78 Sen. Ep. 91.13 (Lugdunum destroyed in one hour); NQ 6.1.8 (the earthquake annihilates great cities). 79 Amm. 26.10.15–19: Mare dispulsum retro fluctibus evolutis abscessit, ut retecta voragine profundorum species natantium multiformes limo cernerentur haerentes…, with Kelly 2004; on Amm. 17.7.9–14 (Nicomedia) see de Jonge 1977, ad loc. See also Smid 1970. 236 carlo franco in the oration composed by Libanius for the earthquake of Nicomedia in 358AD. Intertextual analysis leads to the attractive hypothesis that the Rhodiakos itself was a model for Libanius: in both writers one finds the polyptoton evoking walls collapsing over other walls and an allocution to the Sun, who sees everything but did not prevent the disaster. 80 Together with minor narrative details, 81 these similarities might be an argument for the attribution of authorship of the Rhodiakos to Aristides, since the speech in Libanius’ epoch was probably included in the Aristidean corpus. The horrific evocation of the earthquake constitutes the negative side of the speech, which in the end tends towards consolation and exhorta- tion. The past and the present of Rhodes become the basis for a rapid reconstruction: upon the sudden catastrophe a prosperous rebirth will follow. The Rhodians are happier than their ancestors, who ‘founded the city in times of war and unrest’ (Or. 25.54), since the present is ‘a time of much peace and deep calm, which has benefited and prospered the affairs of all mankind’ (55). Thus, they ‘should confidently expect that there will be many Greeks to assist the restoration’. Such was the glory of Rhodes and the gratitude towards its inhabitants, who ‘were the common hosts and friends of all and also the saviour of many’ (40), that everybody, when asked to give help, will ‘think that he gratifies himself rather than that it is a favour to them’ (43). Here is another line of argument: after the earthquake of 227BC, according to Poly- bius (or rather, we may confidently assert, according to his source), the Rhodian ambassadors who were requesting aid for the city’s recon- struction behaved in such a wise and dignified manner that they were able to transform the disaster into an opportunity for the city. 82 Such was the strength of the delegates’ request that those to whom it was addressed felt obliged to honour it, and it was not Rhodes that was indebted to the donors, but quite the opposite, since the recipient was so great. Similar arguments recur in other texts of the genos seismologikon, such as Aristides’ own Smyrnean Orations: beyond the rhetorical motiva- 80 Lib. Or. 61.14.9ff. = Arist. Or. 25.20 (collapsing buildings); Or. 61.16 = Arist. Or. 25.31–32 (allocution to Helios). 81 Such as the time at which the catastrophe occurred, an element clearly derived from funeral orations and the equation between city and man. The Rhodiakos does not mention the fire. 82 Plb. 5.88. Dignity: nounechôs, pragmatikôs, semnôs, prostatikôs. Opportunity: mê blabês, diorthôseôs de mallon […] aition. Reversal: hôste mê monon lambanein epidoseis hyperballousas, alla kai charin prosopheilein autous tous didontas. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 237 tions, this attitude reveals a consistent and shared faith in the system of reciprocity, which regulated the relations between cities and the ruling power. On a higher level, the assistance of the gods, Sun and Neptune, is invoked. The invocation participates in a religious system of divine justice, 83 but in the text there is no explicit theodicy: only the god of Fortune is held responsible for present sufferings, and all will revert to happiness in the future. Besides willing Hellenes and compassionate gods, there was another leading figure to invoke as a source of assistance: the emperor. Above all the Rhodians must have hope in a ruler ‘who should certainly decide apace to restore the city as much as he can, so that the fairest of his possessions may not lie upon the earth in dishonour’ (_u μoλιστα χρj δοκεtν εiναι διo σπουδjς uς 0ν οióν τε ¸j τjν πóλιν 0ναλαβεtν, uς μj τò κoλλιστον α0τ_u τuν κτημoτων 0τiμως rπi γjς κrοιτο, Or. 25.56). The dynamics of imperial subventions in the face of natural catastrophes have been repeatedly studied: the Rhodiakos fits by and large the typical patterns. 84 Our information about the provisions granted to the island for its reconstruction comes first from Pausanias. In his detailed eulogy of the emperor Antoninus, he says that ‘when the Lycian and Carian cities, and Cos and Rhodes where shaken by a formidable earthquake, the emperor restored them too, with large gifts of money and great zeal’ (8.43.4). 85 Actually, epigraphic evidence demonstrates that Antoninus was honoured in Rhodes as ktistês. 86 His generosity towards the island was referred to as a model by Fronto when he pleaded in the Senate for the reconstruction of the Carthaginian forum. 87 In Rhodes, imposing Roman architecture began to transform the shape of the city. 88 Thus, the author of the Rhodiakos correctly forecast imperial aid. Like most of his Greek contemporaries, however, he did not take an interest in the broader dimension of the Empire. In this respect, at least, this intriguing speech is reassuringly similar to other texts of the time. 83 Theodicy in this text is ‘complexe et paradoxale’ (Pernot 1994, 363). On reci- procity: Lendon 1997, 82. 84 Waldherr 1997. 85 On the relationship between this passage and 4.31.5, see above. Some information about the provisions granted by Antoninus is given also in SHA Ant. 3.9.1: omnia mirifice instauravit. 86 Pugliese Carratelli 1940 = AE 1948, 199; BullEp 1946–1947 n. 156. 87 Fronto, Pro Carthaginiensibus, pp. 256–259 van den Hout 2 : Rhodum condidisti (257). 88 Tetrapylon: Cante 1986–1987 (late second – early third century AD). 238 carlo franco To the Rhodians, On Concord Oration 24, To the Rhodians, on Concord, was written in Smyrna between 147 and 149AD. 89 Because of his physical condition, Aristides did not deliver the speech personally, but rather sent the text to be read in Rhodes. His intervention had been requested: some Rhodian delegates had come to visit him to ask for his help in settling some internal troubles, and he had declared himself ready to intervene, being deeply involved in the city’s conditions as if it were ‘his own country’ (Or. 24.2–3). After an exordium that defines the author’s attitude towards Rhodes (1–3), the speech begins with a discussion about the good effects of concord and the evil consequences of faction (4–22). Then follows a section devoted to historical examples from the Greek past (23–27) and a moving eulogy of concord (41–44): this attitude is repeatedly declared to be best suited to the Rhodian temper and the city’s political traditions (45–57). An affecting peroration closes the speech (58–59). 90 The object of the quarrels itself is alluded to in the text in a manner that is dramatic, but also quite general. This approach may be due to the situation of the author, who would have been less informed about local matters, as well as to his decision to euphemein, that is, to allude only cautiously and indirectly to the problem. Civic dissent was considered a serious and unpleasant subject, and therefore in need of a very prudent approach. 0γγελλομrνων δr μοι πολλ_u δεινοτrρων, εi οióν τε εiπεtν, τuν ν0ν, oτι 0πιστεtτε íμtν α0τοtς καi δι¸jρησ0ε καi ταραχoς ο0 προσηκοuσας íμtν ταρoττεσ0ε, οu0’ oπως χρj πιστεuειν οu0’ oπως 0πιστεtν εiχον (Or. 24.3). But when the present situation, which is much more terrible, if it is possible to say so, was reported to me, that you distrust one another, have taken sides, and are involved in disturbances unsuited to you, I did not know whether I should credit it, or disbelieve it. The city was apparently split into factions, each of whom Aristides tries to placate in the speech. 91 He speaks of ‘the envy felt by the poor for the rich’, of ‘the greed of the rich against the poor’ (32), and later of ‘those 89 The chronological span depends on the notorious problem of the proconsulate of Albus in Asia: see Behr 1968, 73–74; id. 1981, 368 n. 1 for the later date; for the earlier (July–October 147), Behr 1994, 1204. 90 Structure: Behr 1981, 369. 91 The honorific decree from Lesbos (IG XII 2,135; SEG 29, 1979, 741) might refer to the same crisis: Buraselis 2001, esp. 67ff. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 239 who think that they should be superior’ and ‘those who are deficient either in property or in some other fortune’ (34). The quarrel probably had social and economic roots, which is why Aristides has recourse to the authoritative example of two ancient poets: Terpander, who settled civic unrest in Sparta (3), and Solon. 92 The Athenian legislator ‘was most of all proud of the fact that he brought the people together with the rich, so that they might dwell in harmony in their city, neither side being stronger than was expedient for all’ (14). Beyond the cultivated reference to an ancient figure of Greek history, the example of Solon reveals the role that Aristides himself hoped (or pretended) to play in the matter. The argumentation follows a regular pattern. The undesirability of faction is a self-evident truth, needing no demonstration: within the city, the house, and the individual, discord makes clear its negative impact, involving evil, peril, and dishonour. In the same way, everybody must recognise the good of concord: thus the present attitude of the Rhodians, so unworthy of local traditions, is patently dangerous and absurd. The social unrest involved in the stasis threatened to subvert the traditional structures of power. This may explain why, in the midst of numerous exhortations and pathetic appeals, there is in the speech a particularly frank passage: νóμος γoρ rστιν οuτος φuσει κεiμενος 0λη0uς íπò τuν κρειττóνων κατα- δειχ0εiς, 0κοuειν τòν jττω το0 κρεiττονος. κ0ν τις rλευ0ερiας σuμβολον ποιjται τò διαφ0εiρειν τòν νóμον, αíτòν rξαπατ¸0 (Or. 24.35). There is a natural law, which has truly been promulgated by the gods, our superiors, that the inferior obey the superior. And if some one regards the corruption of law as a sign of liberty, he deceives himself. Here, the topical reference to a ‘natural law’, while mitigating the strong and conservative political advice, does little to conceal the rhe- tor’s effort to protect the privileges of the higher ranks by means of a message of reconciliation and amnesty: ‘those who have suffered’ should not await the punishment of ‘those who have committed these wrongs’, since evil is not ‘the remedy for evil’, and ‘good things should be underlined by memory, and bad things crossed out by forgetful- ness’. 93 92 Terpander, testt. 14–15 (Gostoli). Aristides had recourse elsewhere to this poet: Or. 2.336; Or. 3.231, 242. On Solon see also Or. 25.29, 32, 40. 93 Arist. Or. 24.36, 40. See Behr 1981, 369–370 n. 21. 240 carlo franco Our information on Rhodian society in this period does not permit us to be more specific about the context and the nature of the crisis, although the decline of the coinage—there is no minting later than Commodus—might be considered evidence of the island’s economic decline. 94 We may also link the troubles and the stasis, which challenged traditional forms of social appeasement, to the aftermath of the earth- quake that had occurred some years before. Whatever relationship we may suppose between the Rhodiakos and On Concord, the cautious way in which the latter speech alludes to the earthquakes may be revealing. 95 The memory of the earthquake is minimized: Aristides does not men- tion his prior intervention for Rhodes, nor does he develop a classical consolation argument, but keeps silent about the internal and external solidarity expressed on the occasion of the catastrophe. 96 We are led to the conclusion that the rebirth after the earthquake had been very dif- ferent from the happiness prophesied by the author of the Rhodiakos: if it is Aristides, it is evident that he decided to omit any mention of his previous actions towards the city, since the predictions of prosperity and recovery had been disproved by subsequent events, notwithstanding the efforts displayed by the emperor. As many critics have noted, the speech On Concord comprises a num- ber of general thoughts, which recur in similar works by Dio Chrysos- tom and by Aristides himself and could fit any troubled situation. 97 In fact, the text contains scant reference to the local situation and lacks an adequate context. 98 Aristides was aware of these limits. At the very beginning of the text he anticipates all possible objections: jδιστα δ’ 0ν μοι δοκu το0τ’ rπιτιμη0jναι, uς 0ρχαtα λrγων καi ο0δ’ oτιο0ν καινòν εíρηκuς. πuς γoρ ο0κ 0τοπον τ_u μrν λrγοντι μrμφεσ0αι uς λiαν γνuριμα καi παλαιo καi π0σι δοκο0ντα συμβουλεuει, α0τοuς δr μj τολμ0ν χρjσ0αι τοtς οIτω φανεροtς, 0λλo μj μóνον πρòς αíτοuς στασιαστικuς rχειν, 0λλo καi παντi τ_u μrχρι τοuτου χρóν_ω διαφrρεσ0αι; rγu δ’ οuτε τòν σuμβουλον οuτε τοuς χρωμrνους jγο0μαι το0το δεtν σκοπεtν, τòν μrν oπως 94 Kromann 1988; Ashton 1996. See in general Head 1897, esp. CXVI–VII, and RPC I (1998 2 ), 454–457; II (1999), 179–181; Suppl. I (1999), 33–34. 95 The present situation of Rhodes is considered ‘much more terrible, if it is possible to say so’ than ‘the misfortune of the earthquake’ (Or. 24.2), and in the peroration the citizens are requested to ‘desist from this earthquake’ (59). 96 Contrast Arist. Or. 19.12 and Or. 20.15–18: Franco 2005, 488ff. 97 See now Heller 2006. 98 Leaving aside some minor discussions, the bulk of the analysis is to be found in Dindorf 1829, I, 824–844; Boulanger 1923, 374ff.; Behr 1981, 371 f.; Pernot 1993a, I, 289ff. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 241 rρεt τα0τα 0 μηδεiς, τοuς δ’ oπως 0κοuσονται τα00’ 0 μj πρóτερον, 0λλ’ o τι μrλλει κοινj συνοiσειν, το0το καi λrγειν προαιρεtσ0αι. ο0δr γoρ rν ταtς το0 σuματος χρεiαις το00’ jμuν rκαστος rσποuδακεν, oπως τι καινòν 0κοuσεται, 0λλ’ οuτος 0ριστος iατρòς oστις 0ν íγιεtς ποιεtν rπiστηται· ο0δ’ rσ0’ oστις íμuν 0γανακτjσει, roν διo τuν α0τuν σω0j δι’ uν τις jδη καi πρóτερον (Or. 24.5). 99 I would most willingly, I think, be criticized because my arguments were old and I had found no new ideas. For is it not strange for you to blame the speaker because his advice is well-known, stale, and accepted by all, yet for you yourselves not to dare to make use of such obvious arguments, but not only to be facetiously disposed toward one another, but also to be at odds with your history up to now? I believe that neither an adviser nor those who employ him should give any consideration to the following, the one to how his remarks will be original, the others to how they will hear new material, but that they should prefer a speech on what will be expedient for all in common. In our bodily needs each of us has not sought to learn of some new treatment, but the best doctor is the one who knows how to make men well. No one of you will be annoyed if he is saved by the same means as someone has been before. But the orator knew well how to turn this kind of ‘generic composi- tion’ into a useful exhortation, carving the epideictic ‘langue’ into the ‘parole’ of an oration directed toward a specific audience. The choice of local themes was crucial. From the very beginning of the oration, the troubled status of Rhodes is contrasted with the tradition of long-lasting concord, so that present disturbances can be defined as ‘unsuited’ (3) to the city’s attitude. Ample use is made of examples from the Hellenic and Rhodian past. The vicissitudes of the Athenian and Spartan empires were an overused point of reference for On Concord speeches during the imperial period: many centuries before, the two cities had lost their hegemony because of endemic discord. 100 In order to make these models more effective for his audience, the orator had only to underline a connection between them and Rhodes. The Athenians shared the Rhodians’ love for democracy and sea power, 101 the Spartans were ‘fellow tribesmen’ 99 See also Or. 24.41. The rhetor like a medical doctor: cf. Jones 1978, 74. 100 See Arist. Or. 23.42 and in general Bowie 1974 [1970]; Schmitz 1999; Oudot 2003. 101 In the Rhodiakos, a brilliant connection is developed between the deeds of those major powers and the local traditions of Rhodes through the mention of Conon (65– 66). It was a troubled phase in local history when the Athenian admiral promoted an anti-Spartan rebellion in Rhodes in 395BC: Diod. 14.79.5–7; HellOxy 15, with Barbieri 1955, 116ff. Note especially Paus. 8.52, where Conon is included in a list of benefactors of Greece, obliterating his collaboration with the Persians. 242 carlo franco of the Rhodians, and the citizens of Argos their ‘ancestors’ (24ff.). 102 Each of the three cities had experienced the evils of faction: ‘Now it is fitting, O men of Rhodes, to believe that a common embassy has come from all these cities, urging you to reconciliation’ (28). The Dorian past conveys the more explicit caveat: the city, suffering from self-inflicted divisions, is compared to the Laconian Cleomenes ‘who chopped up his body, beginning with his feet’ (38): the remote source for the whole story is obviously Herodotus (6.75), but the reference to it in Pausanias (3.4.5) bears witness to its popularity in the second century AD. And the example of the Doric past is particularly fitting for an audience that is said to have preserved perfectly the qualities of its ancestors: the pure Doric temper was a symbol of manliness. 103 That symbol is exploited by Dio Chrysostom in the Rhodiakos, as well as by Aristides, and not only in the Rhodian orations. 104 The prevailing attitude to faction in Rhodes is presented as com- pletely unsuited to the Dorian tradition, which the Rhodians have carefully preserved: ‘You are originally Dorians from the Peloponnese, and alone to this day have remained purely Greek’ (45), so that in the recent past it was impossible ‘to find any word among you which was not Dorian’ (57). How far do these aspects correspond to the actual situation in Rhodes? Pride in being ‘purely Hellenes’, as well as the preservation of the Doric temper, were topics of praise attributed to several cities. 105 The concern for purely Greek names, too, was typi- cal of the Greek East. Apollonius of Tyana was said to have rebuked the Smyrneans because of the diffusion of Roman names in the city, whereas Aristides could praise Smyrna for its care in the preservation of its Ionian character. 106 On the other hand, the Dorian language was not universally appreciated. If Marcus from Byzantium was famous for the Doric flavour of his oratory, the Atticists considered this dialect rather rough. 107 This opinion was shared by Tiberius: the emperor did not 102 On the links between Rhodes and Argos, which share the common ancestor Tlepolemos: ISE I 40; Thuc. 7.57.6; Pind. Ol. 7.36ff. 103 Men. Rh. 1.354.19f. (andrikôtatê); cf. 1.357.20ff. on Dorian origins. 104 Dio Or. 31.18; Arist. Or. 38.13. where the author quotes ‘the rule of the sons of Asclepius’ as a source of Rhodian pride. 105 See Dio Or. 48.3 on the citizens of Prusa; Paus. 4.27.11 on the Messenians. 106 Philostr. VAp. 4.5 (Smyrna); Franco 2005, 402. 107 Marcus: Philostr. VS 1.24.529 (dorizontos); Swain 1996, 198f.; Schmitz 1997, 69ff., 176ff. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 243 appreciate men who spoke Greek with a Dorian accent, since it was an unpleasant reminder of his long sojourn in Rhodes. 108 For a Rhodian audience, needless to say, things were different. The renaissance of Greek literary dialects has been sometimes considered an artificial and literary phenomenon, largely surpassed by the diffu- sion of the koinê. Some Dorian elements in the language of Rhodian inscriptions in the Imperial Age may be a superficial phenomenon, but, in fact, Roman names became widespread on the island only at a late date. Along with other elements, this has been judged as a sign of resistance to Romanization. The loss of civic freedom in the early Imperial Age probably involved a softening of this proud attitude. 109 But the author of the Rhodiakos goes so far as to proclaim that even ‘foreign residents’ in Rhodes spoke a pure Dorian dialect (Or. 24.57). As for the archaeological evidence, the ‘absence of permanent Roman settlement’ was interpreted years ago as proof that Rhodes was ‘largely uninfluenced’ by Rome because of a ‘lack of penetration of Roman civilization in depth’. 110 If that is true, it is not the whole truth, for we have learned of some Rhodian citizens who were deeply interested in Roman politics; we know, too, of important Roman elements that penetrated the religious sphere of Rhodian life. The cult of Rome, for example, included a priest and a festival from the second century BC onward; the imperial cult, then, is already documented in the reign of Augustus. 111 Thus the pure Doric temper was only one part of Rho- dian identity, although the diminished visibility of the Roman element allowed the ancients (and sometimes the moderns) to minimize the influence of the ‘barbarians’. References to local culture were more beneficial and more suitable for the audience than remote events from Greek history, although the speech treats events from local history only in a selective and somewhat random way. 112 The leading principle is not historical truth, 108 Perhaps his own pronunciation of Greek had been conditioned by his time on Rhodes: Suet. Tib. 56.1. 109 Linguistic analysis: Bubenik 1989, 94ff.; historical analysis: Bresson 1996; id. 2002; Rhodian civic exclusiveness and conservatism: Jones 2003, 158. On bilingualism in general, see Adams 2003; Adams, Janse, and Swain 2002. 110 Fraser 1977, esp. 11, 74f. 111 See Erskine 1991; ISE III 162 for the inscription in honour of Eupolemos. 112 In the Rhodiakos, the dominion of the sea was rightly abandoned as the new Roman power grew, but as far as the praise of the city is concerned, no clear distinction is made between the ancient glory and the contemporary inactivity. On different grounds, this is even clearer in Dio Or. 31.18–20, 161–162. 244 carlo franco but rather the kairos, that is, the search for what is expedient in a given situation. The theme of origins, for example, was particularly well-suited to preaching the good of concord. 113 Since the Sun was the founder of their race, the propatôr and archegos tou genos, the Rhodians should ‘feel a sense of shame’ (Or. 24.50) on account of their improper attitude. 114 All of the arguments that might support the traditional inclination of the Rhodians towards concord are carefully exploited: 115 the solidarity of the ancestors when they unified the three communities of Lindos, Camiros and Ialysos and Homer’s references to Rhodes are quoted as the perfect counterbalance to the present state of division. How could the Rhodians ruin the renown they had won on the basis of their ancient spirit of concord? It was only on account of such concord that they had successfully fought against the Etruscans and the pirates, ruled the seas, adorned their city, and left ‘their descendants the right to be proud over these deeds’ (53). No detailed account is given, only a sequence of uninterrupted examples of military virtue. Difficult moments in local history are silenced, particularly those such as the siege by Cassius, which caused faction in the civic body, and times when an improper attitude was adopted towards Rome. 116 The most explicit political point in the speech concerns the problem of democracy and freedom. As in many other orations delivered in the cities of the Greek East, exhortations to peace and concord in civic conduct aimed at deterring people from actions that would lead to the undesirable intervention of the Roman authorities. 117 Rhodes was at the time a free city in the Roman Empire. Thus, the broader political context of the strife did not fall within the sphere of the Roman governor and his legions. 118 The danger that the citizens of Rhodes faced was that they might provoke a tightening of ‘indirect’ Roman rule and, as a result, lose their precarious privilege, which had 113 In the Rhodiakos the rebirth of Rhodes is also linked with the myth of its origins: if the gods blessed the emergence of the island from the sea, they will in the same way care for its reconstruction. 114 Sun: Diod. 5.56. On the local cults see Morelli 1959; Papachristodoulou 1992, with reference to recent discoveries and ongoing research. 115 See Or. 25.31–32, with the mention of the nymph Rhode, symbol of the united city: Robert 1967, 7–14. 116 Schmitt 1957, 173ff.; Kontorini 1983, 1–59. 117 Classic reference to Plut. Praec.ger. 814Eff., and some speeches by Dio Chrysostom: Lewin 1995, 50ff., Sartre 1991, 127ff.; Salmeri 2000. 118 On the status of free cities in the empire: Millar 1999. On political problems: Kokkinia 2004. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 245 already been revoked several times. In the first century of the Empire, the island had many a close relationship with the Julio-Claudians, from the visits of Augustus to the long stay of Tiberius to the quarrels that led to its loss of freedom under Claudius. 119 Rhodes experienced the same change of status as Cyzicus, perhaps on the same grounds: the mistreatment or killing of Roman citizens. 120 Some years later, Nero granted the Rhodians the recovery of their freedom and reportedly did not plunder their statues. Imperial favor ceased under Vespasian, perhaps unexpectedly. 121 Once again freedom was lost, but after further quarrels under Domitian, the island probably recovered it in the early eighties. 122 Incapable of stability, the Rhodians alternated between good faith (and flattery) towards Rome and unrest and internal sedition. Aristides’ reflections are supported by an acute awareness of the Rhodian situation: ‘You are proud of the fact that you are free and you praise your democracy so much, that you would not even accept immortality unless someone would allow you to keep this form of government’ (Or. 24.22), says the orator, adding that since the Rhodians are not ‘able to calculate that if things continue in this fashion, it is quite possible that you will be in danger of being deprived of this apparent liberty. And if you do not voluntarily heed this advice, another will come who will forcibly save you, since, as a rule, rulers are neither ignorant of such behaviour nor disregard it’ (22). 123 This remark follows a long section about the dynamics of tyranny that contains, it would seem, historical analysis that draws on remote epochs of Greek history. It is true that the reference to Lesbos (54–55) does not hint at the contemporary situation of the island, 124 but alludes to the troubled times of Alcaeus. The orator could address a concealed admonition to his audience: at the present, faction was the best ally of Roman power. Of course, Rome and Roman magistrates are not explicitly named in the speech. More explicit caveats in Plutarch and Dio, however, 119 Augustus: Jos BJ 1.20.287. Tiberius: see recently Jacob-Sonnabend 1995, with sources and literature. 120 Suet. Claud. 25; Tac. Ann. 12.58; Cass. Dio 60.24.4. Thornton 1999, esp. 512ff. 121 Nero: AP 9.178. See the prudent treatment of the matter in Dio Or. 31.110, with Jones 1978, 148–150; Swain 1996, 428–429; Salmeri 1999, 236ff., 241. Vespasian: Jos. BJ, 7.2.1; Suet. Vesp. 8.6; Dio 66.12. 122 Quarrels: Plut. Praec.ger. 815C. The chronology is much debated: see Momigliano 1951, and now Bresson 1996. 123 ‘Apparent liberty’ (tên dokousan eleutherian): supposedly a negative judgement, but its meaning seems debatable. See Dio Or. 44.12: tên legomenên eleutherian. 124 Labarre 1996, 91 ff. 246 carlo franco are illuminating. If a stasis allowed the Roman rulers to assume a sort of tyrannical power over the Greek cities (Dio Or. 38.36), the risk of losing the existing freedom was serious and became a strong argument for preaching self-restraint. 125 And if the precarious status of freedom granted by the emperor did not automatically imply exemption from tribute, at least it allowed the cities to control their own laws and institutions and partially freed them from the obligations connected with their status within the province. 126 Beyond the arguments created out of conventional topoi, care for civic concord was indeed the last resort of the local authorities, as Plutarch knew: Λεiπεται δj τ_u πολιτικ_u μóνον rκ τuν íποκειμrνων rργων, o μηδενòς rλατ- τóν rστι τuν 0γα0uν, oμóνοιαν rμποιεtν καi φιλiαν 0εi τοtς συνοικο0σιν, rριδας δr καi διχοφροσuνας καi δυσμrνειαν rξαιρεtν 0πασαν (Praec. ger. 824D). 127 The present situation leaves the politicians a benefit, which is not of slight importance: to develop concord and mutual friendship among the populace, to eradicate quarrels, discords, enmities. To be sure, the oration On Concord is far from the polemical attitude of Dio Chrysostom, and does not express an anti-Roman attitude. As Aristides argues now, the present state of things is the best foundation for concord, for the empire brings unity and freedom for everybody (Or. 24.31). Thus the Rhodians must preserve their wisdom and reason, as well as their (limited) freedom: ‘Believe […] that is more profitable to be a slave than to use freedom as a means for evil, and that nonetheless there is some fear that you may even be deprived of this means’ (58). Whatever its actual content, the democratic pride of the Rhodians deserves closer consideration. Modern information on local institutions is unsatisfactory. The Rhodian politeia was analyzed by Aristotle, who studied the troubled political situation of the island. 128 After changes were introduced in the early Hellenistic age, 129 the politeia was praised by Polybius for its concern with isêgoria and parrhêsia. Diodorus called it 125 Contra: Stertz 1984, 1258. The care for concord and autonomy was also part of the ‘system of honour’ which was very important in the civic life of the Empire: Lendon 1997, 154ff. 126 But not from the correctores or from the inspections by the governor, if needed: Sartre 1995, 205f. 127 See now Bost-Pouderon 2006, II, 119ff. 128 Aristot. Pol. 5.3, 1302b; 5.4, 1304b. On the Constitution of Rhodes see Aristotle fr. 569R 3 = 586 Gigon, but also Heraclides, Excerpta 65 Dilts. 129 Pugliese Carratelli 1949. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 247 the ‘best’ of all politeiai, and Strabo, who wrote at length about social welfare in late Hellenistic Rhodes, specified that ‘their rule was not democratic’. 130 Strabo’s statement on the Rhodian welfare has been repeatedly discussed: from a social point of view, we may note that if the government cared for the have-nots, this implies that they actually existed and needed help. 131 Like Cyzicus, Rhodes could benefit from a real eunomia (Strabo 12.8.11). This was perhaps due in both cities to the permanent efficacy of the civic courts: during the Hellenistic age, Rhodes apparently hosted no foreign judges, but was able to send its own arbitrators to other Greek cities, as Aristides aptly remarks (Or. 24.55). 132 Perhaps influenced by the authority of Panaetius and Posidonius, the Roman tradition followed the same path: Cicero in the De re publica had special praise for Rhodes, which he considered together with Athens as a city with a sort of mixed constitution and as a place where the defaults of democracy were limited. 133 A later allusion in Tacitus’ Dia- logus again couples Rhodes and Athens, where oratory flourished, but under an ochlocracy where omnes omnia poterant, and his words appear more as an allusion to the situation of Rhodes in the first century BC than to the Hellenistic age. 134 The troubles of the Roman civil wars apparently destroyed that admired democratic balance and trans- formed Rhodes, as they did many other Greek cities, into a battlefield of local factions. When Cassius approached Rhodes in the late spring of 43BC in order to collect ships and soldiers against Dolabella, he met with resistance: 135 a faction faithful to Caesar held power on the island and refused to help him. Cassius’ delegate Lentulus branded the Rhodians as foolish and arrogant (amentia, superbia). 136 The subsequent siege worsened the situation, with devastating effects on Rhodian poli- 130 Plb. 27.4.5. See also 33.15.3; Diod. 20.81; Strabo 14.2.5. 131 O’Neil 1981; Migeotte 1989; Gabrielsen 1997, 24ff. and 31 ff. on economic in- equalities. 132 [Sall.] Ep. Caes. 1.7.12: Neque Rhodios neque aliae civitates umquam iudiciorum suorum paenituit, ubi promiscue dives et pauper, ut cuique fors tulit, de maximis rebus iuxta ac de minimis disceptat; Gauthier 1984, 103. 133 Cic. Rep. 1.31.47; 3.35.48, etc. 134 Tac. Dial. 40.3: the sarcastic remark by Maternus is currently thought to refer only to Athens. The text does not guarantee it. 135 Cic. Fam. 12.13.3; 14.3; 15.2–4. 136 Not entirely new: Cato’s speech quoted by Gellius 6.3 refers often to the famosis- sima superbia of the Rhodians: Gell. 6.3.48–51, 52 [= frr. 124 and 126 Sblendorio Cugusi]. See also the speech referred to by Liv. 45.23.18. 248 carlo franco tics. Before launching the final attack on the island, Cassius met some Rhodian delegates, among them his former teacher during his stay on the island. Archelaos begged him to spare the city, using typical ‘Rho- dian’ arguments like the city’s love for freedom, its Dorian origins, and its warlike attitude against Demetrius and Mithridates. 137 This concrete exhibition of Rhodes’ goodwill towards Rome proved useless: the Rho- dians were defeated by sea, they lost many ships, and after a short siege they surrendered to Cassius. According to Plutarch, some Rhodians tried to flatter the conqueror by proclaiming him ‘king and lord’. Cas- sius refused the honours: instead, 8500 talents were collected by the seizure of all private treasure, and the city paid an indemnity of 500 tal- ents. Later, in 42BC, thirty more Rhodian ships were seized by Cassius Parmensis, and the remains of the navy were burnt. 138 It was the end for the Rhodian navy. But tradition might prove stronger than reality. Stereotyped and out-of-date as it might be, praise for Rhodian eutaxia, eunomia, and sea power endured until the imperial period, as the Rho- dian Oration by Dio Chrysostom repeatedly shows. 139 In the same way, the myth of Rhodian freedom survived in the literary tradition until the days of Aristides. 140 The orators of the Second Sophistic repeatedly urged the cities in the Greek East to preserve even the palest form of freedom. 141 This behaviour has been considered both by the ancients and the moderns to be a kind of wishful thinking that concealed the real situation of total submission. The Rhodians called ‘democracy’ what was in fact a timocratic and elitist form of rule, where most of the local power was in the hands of a restricted elite of families. 142 The winged words of Aristides were part of unceasing efforts to preserve local autonomy 137 App. Civ. 4.67.283ff.: see also Gowing 1991. 138 Tribute: Plut. Brut. 30.3; 32.4. Burning: App. Civ. 5.2.4. Further data in Dio Or. 31.66, 103–104. 139 Or. 31.6, 146, 157, and also Or. 32.52, where the behaviour of Rhodes is positively contrasted to that of the Alexandrians (these lines however were bracketed by von Arnim). 140 Also, the collection of possibly fictional epistles attributed to Brutus preserves a couple of letters to and from Rhodes: Ep. Brut. 11–12 Hercher. In Ep. 13–14 (Letters to and from Cos), Rhodes appears as having been won over by Cassius. Links between Brutus and the islanders are unattested, but the material is close to the Plutarchean narration, and might be of some historical relevance. Asked to choose between enmity or friendship, the Rhodians give a proud answer, which exhibits a deep fondness for freedom. 141 Guerber 2002, esp. 128ff. 142 Schmitz 1997, 39ff.; Bresson 2004. aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 249 vis-à-vis Roman power and internal social balance in favor of the wealthy. 143 The orator had the cultural and political skill necessary to shore up the pride of the imperial oligarchies, since his celebration of concord opened the path to the preservation of a total subordination of the masses to the few. 144 It was for the wealthy that the Roman Empire formed a comfortable structure. Freedom, octroyée as it might be, was still preferable to a complete dependence within the formula provinciae: ν0ν δr τiς j στoσεως 0φορμj, j ç¸αστuνης ο0κ rξουσiα; ο0 κοινj μrν 0πασα γj, βασιλεuς δr εiς, νóμοι δr κοινοi π0σι, πολιτεuεσ0αι δr καi σιωπ0ν καi 0παiρειν καi μrνειν 0δεια oπóσην τις βοuλεται; (Or. 24.31). But now what cause is there for faction, or what lack of opportunity for a pleasant life? Is not all the earth united, is there not one emperor and common laws for all, and is there not as much freedom as one wishes, to engage in politics and to keep silent, and to travel and to remain at home? I cannot say whether this attitude was realistic or pessimistic, ingenu- ous or marked by illusion: I only understand very well that these texts express above all the fear of losing a privileged status and reveal sad resignation to the limits of political participation. 145 Both attitudes make the study of the Second Sophistic particularly fitting for our disillu- sioned times. 143 Ferrary 1999. 144 Schmitz 1997, 43ff., with reference to Arist. Or. 24.35; Or. 26.66, 68 and bibliogra- phy; Connolly 2001. On the role of the mob see also Thornton 2001; id. 2005, 276ff. 145 Veyne 2005, esp. 215, about Dio Or. 31. part four RECEPTION chapter twelve ARISTIDES’ FIRST ADMIRER Christopher Jones Since the 1930’s it has been known from an Arabic translation that Galen had observed Aristides, classing him among those ‘whose souls are strong by nature and whose bodies are weak… This man was one of the most outstanding orators. So it happened that lifelong activity in talking and declaiming caused his whole body to fade away’. 1 Galen survived at least into the late 190’s, and clearly recorded his observa- tion only after Aristides’ death, which must have occurred about 180. 2 Another testimony to the orator has received less attention, though it is almost certainly earlier than Galen’s. This witness is Phrynichos, whom modern scholarship usually calls an Atticist or a lexicographer, when it calls him anything at all. Unlike Galen, Phrynichos does not speak from autopsy, but is a more valuable witness in that he shows how Aris- tides was regarded by sophists, critics, and others in or near his own profession. Phrynichos’ discussion of Aristides is preserved in the summary of the Sophistic Preparation made by Photios in the ninth century, not in his only extant work, the Ecloge. In the present paper I will first (1) examine what he has to say about Aristides, at least in the form mediated by Photios, and then take up three subjects: (2) the date at which he wrote; (3) the local and social setting in which he wrote; and (4) the literary context, that is, what in his views of language and literature might have helped to make him the first known author to praise Aristides. 1 Trans. Bowersock 1969, 62. 2 See ibid. 63–65 for Galen’s date of death. 254 christopher jones Phrynichos on Aristides Photios summarizes the eleventh book of the Sophistic Preparation as follows: 3 `Ο δr rφεξjς Μηνοδuρ_ω προσπεφuνηται πoλιν, rν _u καi 'Αριστεiδου τοtς λóγοις (uς φησιν) rντυχuν 0ρτι, τóτε 0κμoζοντος, πολuν το0 0νδρòς rπαι- νον ποιεtται, καi Μαρκιανóν φησι, τòν κριτικòν συγγραφrα, íπερορ0ν μrν Πλoτωνος καi Δημοσ0rνους, τoς δr Βροuτου το0 'Ιταλο0 rπιστολoς προ- κρiνειν καi κανóνα τjς rν λóγ_ω 0ρετjς 0ποφαiνειν. Τα0τα δr οuτóς φησιν ο0χi τjν τοιαuτην κρiσιν 0ποδεχóμενος, 0λλ’ εiς τò μj 0αυμoζειν εi τινες καi τjς 'Αριστεiδου δóξης rλoττονα τòν 0νδρα νομiζουσιν, οIτω κλrους το0 rν λóγοις εiς 0κρον rλoσαντα· jψατο γoρ o φ0óνος íπ’ rνiων πεμπóμενος καi 'Αριστεiδου, uσπερ καi 0λλων πολλuν παιδεi¸α διενεγκóντων. The next (book) is addressed to Menodoros again, and here, having recently read the works of Aristides, so he says, who was then at the height of his success, he lavishes high praise on the man, and says that Marcianus the critic despises Plato and Demosthenes, and prefers the let- ters of the Italian Brutus, and considers them the standard of excellence in style. This he says not because he approves of this judgment, but so that it should not be cause for wonder that some people considered Aris- tides less than his reputation, when he had progressed so far in literary fame; for envy emitted by certain people had touched even Aristides, as also many others conspicuous for their culture. For the sake of the following argument, two items of this translation need to be justified. Where I have translated ‘having recently read (rντυχuν 0ρτι) the works of Aristides’, Henry in the standard edition translates ‘après avoir découvert depuis peu les écrits d’Aristide’ (‘hav- ing recently discovered the writings of Aristides’). Though rντυχεtν can mean ‘to come across’, ‘to meet with’, in a literary context it should mean ‘to read’, a sense in which Photius uses it again in this same passage, though he usually prefers 0ναγιγνuσκειν. 4 Where I have trans- lated ‘so that it should not be cause for wonder that some people con- sidered Aristides less than his reputation, when he had progressed so far in literary fame’, Henry understands, ‘pour qu’on ne s’étonne pas si certains placent au-dessous du renom d’Aristide un écrivain qui a 3 Bibl. 101a, 15–27. References are to the edition of Henry 1960. Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 4 Bibl.101a, 13, rντυχuν τοtς γεγραμμrνοις, where Henry again translates ‘après avoir découverts ses écrits’. On the various verbs signifying ‘to read’ in Greek, see Chantraine 1950, especially 122–126 for rντυγχoνειν. aristides’ first admirer 255 atteint un tel degré d’illustration dans les lettres’ (‘in order that one should not be surprised if certain people place below the fame of Aristides [that is, ‘judge Aristides superior to’] a writer [Brutus, i.e.] who has attained such a degree of celebrity in literature’). But no- one could have thought Brutus a notable figure of Greek literature, whereas Photios has just said that Aristides was ‘at his peak’, 0κμoζων. In addition, Henry’s translation turns the definite τòν 0νδρα into the indefinite ‘a writer’, whereas it surely stands for the pronoun α0τóν, as it does twice in this same passage (jκμασε δr o 0νjρ, ‘the man flourished’, πολuν το0 0νδρòς rπαινον ποιεtται, ‘he gives high praise to the man’). Photios means that some people consider Aristides less than his reputation, in other words to be overrated, but that such a judgment is no surprise: he was at the height of his reputation, and so likely to attract jealousy, and moreover, an eminent critic had made the similar mistake of rating the letters of Brutus more highly than those of Plato and Demosthenes. When Phrynichos was writing, therefore, Aristides was already at the height of his fame, but had certain detractors. On the subject of such detractors Aristides himself is far from ret- icent. One of the best documents of the dislike he could inspire is the work, a written and not a spoken one, On the Passing Remark or On the Digression (περi το0 παραφ0rγματος). The work is usually dated to the year 152/53 or shortly thereafter, since the speech in which the digression occurred was almost certainly the extant To Athena (Or. 37 K.), which must belong to that year. 5 The unnamed critic to whom the speech On the Passing Remark was addressed had carped at Aristides for inserting praise of himself into a speech in praise of the goddess. To make matters worse, the wretch had pretended to make his observation out of pure goodwill; there was no need, he said, for Aristides to praise himself, since everyone knew how good he was. From various allusions, it appears that the critic heard the speech as a member of an audience gathered in the Asclepieion of Pergamum, and one could well imagine that the scene was the small theatre in the northeast corner. 5 Behr (1968, 53; 1981, 382) dates it between 145 and 147. 256 christopher jones The Time of Writing The only source for Phrynichos’ life and career, apart from hints in his own works, is the brief and corrupted entry in the Suda (Φ 764, IV 766 Adler): 6 Suda. Φρuνιχος. Βι0υνóς, σοφιστjς. 'Αττικιστjν j Περi 'Αττικuν oνομoτων βιβλiα β, Τι0εμrνων συναγωγjν, Σοφιστικjς παρασκευjς βιβλiα μζ, οl δr οδ. ‘Phrynichos, Bithynian, sophist. (He wrote) Atticist, or On Attic Words, two books; a collection of tithemena [perhaps, ‘approved locutions’]; Sophistic Preparation in 47 books, though some say in 74’. Since Photios makes Phrynichos an ‘Arabian’, not a ‘Bithynian’, either he or the Suda is in error, or else Phrynichos came from somewhere in the Near East populated by ‘Arabs’ in the ancient sense (not necessarily the province of Arabia) and later settled in Bithynia, not at all an unlikely progression. The question when Phrynichos wrote both the extant Ecloge and the lost Preparation is complex and controversial. In brief, the Ecloge is dedicated to a certain Cornelianus, a man of high culture who has been appointed secretary (epistoleus) by plural emperors. 7 Provided that the plural implies two joint emperors, as is usually understood, other references in the work narrow the choice to either Marcus and Lucius or Marcus and Commodus. While there is no clear means of deciding between the two pairs, it might be inferred from a reference to ‘a letter of Alexander the Sophist’ that Phrynichos had read a letter penned by the sophist Alexander of Seleuceia, the so-called Clay-Plato, who was ab epistulis Graecis to Marcus during the German Wars. 8 If that is right, then the joint emperors under whom Cornelianus held the same post will be Marcus and Commodus, and there is a gap in the fasti of this office just about the years 177–180. As we shall see, such a date is also close to the likely date of the Sophistic Preparation. 9 6 I read 'Αττικιστjν j Περi 'Αττικuν with Bernhardy: 'Αττικιστjν (or -τjς) íπ’ 'Α. mss., followed by Adler. 7 rκ προκρiτων 0ποφαν0rντα íπò βασιλrων rπιστολrα α0τuν, s. 394 (Fischer 1974). Subsequent references to Phrynichos will be to the sections of this edition. 8 s. 234. On Alexander: Philostr. Vit. Soph. 2.5, pp. 76–82 Kayser, cf. PIR 2 A 503. 9 Cornelianus: PIR 1 S 716; PIR 2 C 1303; Eck 1991, expanding the suggestion in PIR 1 (ignored in PIR 2 ) that he is the Sulpicius Cornelianus recommended by Fronto (ad Amicos I 2, p. 171 van den Hout [Teubner]). For a listing of Greeks who held the office aristides’ first admirer 257 For the date of this, Photios provides several clues in his summary. The crucial part is as follows: ¯Ηκμασε δr o 0νjρ rν τοtς χρóνοις Μoρκου βασιλrως `Ρωμαiων καi το0 παιδòς α0το0 Κομμóδου, πρòς oν καi τjν 0παρχjν το0 συντoγματος ποι- εtται rπιγρoφων· ‘Κομμóδ_ω Καiσαρι Φρuνιχος χαiρειν’. 'Αλλo Κομμóδ_ ω τò βιβλiον προσφωνuν, κ0κεiν_ω προοιμιαζóμενος, καi παραiνεσιν φιλομα0iας κατατι0rμενος, καi rξαiρων τ_u λóγ_ω τò βιβλiον, rν οiς λrγει λζ α0τ_u μrχρι το0 τóτε καιρο0 συντετoχ0αι λóγους, οIς καi 0να0rσ0αι λrγει τ_u βασιλεt, rπαγγrλλεται καi 0λλους τοσοuτους φιλοπονjσασ0αι τjς ζωjς α0τòν ο0κ 0πολιμπανοuσης. He lived in the time of Marcus, the emperor of the Romans, and his son Commodus. He addresses the dedication of the work to the latter, begin- ning ‘To Caesar Commodus from Phrynichos, greetings’. But though he addresses the book to Commodus, and dedicates the preface to him, gives him advice about the love of learning, and magnifies the book by his language, saying that he has composed thirty-six books up to the present time, which he says he dedicates to the emperor, he promises to complete as many again if life does not desert him. Several conclusions emerge from this preface, despite Photios’ some- times cloudy form of expression. It is not clear whether Marcus is still alive, though that is suggested by Phrynichos’ addressing Commodus as ‘Caesar’ and not ‘Augustus’, which Commodus begins to be called in documents from 177; a date in Marcus’ lifetime is compatible with Phrynichos’ also referring to Commodus as ‘emperor’ (basileus). 10 The phrase ‘advice about the love of learning’ (parainesin philomathias katatithe- menos) would also fit better if addressed to a young prince rather than to a mature emperor. Commodus was born in 161, became Caesar in 166, and joint Augustus with his father in 177. Thus the indications seem to converge on a date in the middle 170’s for this prefatory book, even though by that time Phrynichos had already reached a total of thirty- six books. If the Suda is right in saying that there were versions of the work going up to 47 or even 74 books, then Photios must have come across some kind of first edition, when the author had not yet fulfilled his promise of adding further books. of ab epistulis, see Bowie 1982, 57–59; for the date of his probable predecessor, Vibianus Tertullus (ca. 175–177): Mitchell 2003, 146–148. 10 Cf. the opening of Athenagoras’ Legatio, in which the two rulers are addressed both as autokratores and as megaloi basileôn (ed. Pouderon, Sources chrétiennes 379, 70); it is also possible that basileus is Photius’ own contribution. A date after 180 is preferred by Swain 1996, 54. 258 christopher jones If a date in the 170’s provides a likely terminus ante, at least for this first version, what are the termini ante and post of the reference to Aristides in the eleventh book? Here the crucial clue lies in the dedication to the first book. According to Photios, Phrynichos dedicated this to ‘a certain Aristocles, [being] eager for the work to be an amusement suitable for his birthday, and for him to be his (Phrynichos’) fellow-celebrant (sympaistês)’. He also dedicated the next two books to Aristocles, but addressed the fourth to a compatriot and friend called Julianus, since Aristocles had become ‘a participant in the great council at Rome by royal decree’. 11 This ‘certain Aristocles’, whose name meant nothing to Photios, is nowadays agreed to be Claudius Aristocles, the Pergamene sophist, who is known from a notice in Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists and from an inscription found at Olympia. He had been converted to rhetoric by hearing Herodes Atticus lecture at Rome and, what particularly matters for us, he later became the teacher of Aristides. Both Philostratus and the inscription call him consular, so that he was perhaps plucked out of his academic career and raised from equestrian status into the senate, not at all an unusual progression in this period. Assuming that he was younger than Herodes and older than Aristides, he should have been born approximately about 110; but since Philostratus also says that he died ‘with his hair half-gray, approaching old age’ (mesaipolios, prosbainôn tô gêraskein), he presumably did not live much past the year 170. It follows that Phrynichos had reached at least the thirteenth book, the last to be dedicated to Aristocles, by this date; his move to Rome mentioned in the fourth book might have occurred as early as the 150’s. 12 It also follows that Phrynichos’ reference to Aristides in the eleventh book must fall in Aristides’ own lifetime. The Social and Geographical Setting Phrynichos’ easy friendship with Aristocles before the latter’s move to Rome implies that the two men were social intimates in Pergamum, 11 100b, 18–29. 12 Aristocles: Philostr. VS 2.3 p. 74 Kayser; PIR 2 C 789; Avotins 1978; cf. Puech 2002, 145–148, putting Aristocles’ consulate not before 160 and his death at the end of the 160’s. The notion of a rivalry between Pollux and Phrynichos in the reign of Commodus has no ancient basis: Swain 1996, 54 n. 48. aristides’ first admirer 259 and this perhaps suggests one way in which Phrynichos came to form so early and so high an opinion of Aristides; they might have been fellow-pupils of Aristocles, who according to Philostratus attracted ‘all the Hellenes in that region’ to his lectures. 13 There is another link between Phrynichos and Pergamum, the sole passage in the Ecloge in which he refers to an inscription rather than to a literary work. Under the rubric κατ’ ðναρ, ‘in accordance with a dream’, he observes (396), ‘Polemo the Ionian sophist set up a bronze statue of the rhetor Demosthenes in the shrine of Asclepios at Perg- amon in Mysia, and put the following inscription on it: “Polemo to Demosthenes of Paiania in accordance with a dream (κατ’ ðναρ)”’. Phrynichos objects that the correct expression is not κατ’ ðναρ but ðναρ or ðναρ iδuν, and comments, ‘so important it is to understand vocabu- lary, when one sees even the leading figures of the Greeks tripping up’. As it happens, the excavators of the Asclepieion found this very inscrip- tion, with the unimportant variant that it reads κατo ðναρ, and similar expressions are very common in inscriptions: it may be said in pass- ing that an epigraphical and papyrological commentary on the Ecloge would be of great interest. 14 Like other authors of the period, Phrynichos was very eloquent on the subject of his illnesses. In the fifth book he mentioned a whole series of them: stranguria (an affliction of the bladder), phrenitis (inflamma- tion of the brain), gastric bleeding, and many other ailments; in the eighth book, he complained of nosos, and again in the fourteenth he mentioned a recent recovery. 15 He was therefore perhaps a patient in the Asclepieion, another link with Aristides. If it is accepted that Phrynichos, whatever his origin, had connec- tions with Pergamum and its Asclepieion, two names among his ded- icatees draw attention, as well as that of Aristocles. The first of these is Julianus, whom he calls his ‘friend and compatriot’ (sympolitês kai phi- los). Dedicating his fourth book to Julianus in place of the now-absent Aristocles, Phrynichos asks him to be a ‘judge and assessor’ (kritês kai syngnômôn) of his work, and similarly asks him to correct any deficien- cies in the eighth book. 16 ‘Julianus’ is a very frequent name, but in this 13 Philostr. VS 2.5, p. 76, 21 Kayser. I am assuming that, as argued above, Photios’ words rντυχuν 0ρτι do not imply that Phrynichos had ‘recently discovered’ Aristides. 14 Inscription: Habicht 1969, no. 33. For this and similar phrases in inscriptions: van Straten 1976. 15 Bibl. 100b, 35–40; 101a, 9; 101a, 32–35. 16 Bibl. 100b, 28–29; 101a8–10. 260 christopher jones case is not perhaps beyond recognition. Aristides mentions an occasion of about 145, when he met the celebrated benefactor of Pergamum, Rufinus, together with ‘Julianus the governor’ (hêgemôn) in ‘the temple’. This ‘governor’ must be the Julianus who is attested by an inscription as proconsul of Asia in 145, and in that position helped Aristides in one of his immunity suits. He must also be the Tiberius Julius Julianus who has recently emerged as a consul suffect in the year 129. 17 It is tempt- ing to suppose that he is also Phrynichos’ Julianus, who would thus be of the right social standing to succeed Aristocles as the recipient of the next book of the Preparation. If that is right, then both men must origi- nate either from ‘Arabia’ or Bithynia. Bithynians are to be expected in the Asclepieion of Pergamum. One is the praetorian Sedatus of Nicaea whom Aristides knew as one of the ‘more conspicuous worshippers’ and ‘an excellent man’; like Julianus, he was a friend of Rufinus. 18 As we saw, Aristides connects Julianus the governor and Rufinus the benefactor, who by his full name is L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus, consul ordinarius in the year 142. 19 A Rufinus appears in Phrynichos’ list as the dedicatee of the ninth book. According to Photios, the author said that Aristocles was responsible for his beginning the work, and Rufinus would be responsible for his finishing it, since having read what he had written, he was able to see its usefulness and praised the author’s labor. 20 Like Julianus, he would be a worthy counterpart to Aristocles, who now sat in the Roman senate, and the ‘early’ chronology presumed here would fit, since Aristides speaks of Rufinus as present in Pergamum in the mid-150’s. He was one of Aristides’ most influential admirers, and a strong supporter in his efforts to avoid public service. 21 None of the 17 For the proconsul: Syll. 3 850, 19 = Oliver 1989, no. 138 = Inschr. Ephesos no. 1491; PIR 2 I 76; Syme 1988 [1983], 329–330; for his consulate, AE 2000, 1138. To be dis- tinguished from Tib. Julius Julianus Alexander, governor of Arabia attested in 123/24, consul suffect presumably in 126, on whom see Eck 1983, 158. 18 Aristid. Or. 48.48 (beltistos andrôn); Or. 50.16 (praetorian), 43 (Rufinus). See further Habicht 1969 discussing no. 47; Bowersock 1969, 86–87, though the identification with Sedatius Severianus, cos. suff. 153, is now excluded: see Syme 1991a [1986], 227 n. 128, citing AE 1981, 640. 19 PIR 2 C 1637; Habicht 1969, no. 2; Halfmann 1979, 154 no. 66; Halfmann 2001, 56–57. If the dating followed here is correct, Phrynichos’ friend cannot be Claudius Rufinus, the sophist of Smyrna first attested under Commodus, as suggested in PIR 2 C 998. 20 101a, 11–14, φoσκων αiτιον μrν το0 0πoρξασ0αι τjς συγγραφjς 'Αριστοκλrα γενr- σ0αι, το0 δr rπi πrρας rλ0εtν α0τòν 0ξιον rσεσ0αι, oτι rντυχuν τοtς γεγραμμrνοις τó τε χρjσιμον συνιδεtν rσχε καi rπαινrσειε τòν πóνον. 21 Or. 50, sections 28, 83, 107. aristides’ first admirer 261 other dedicatees is known, though the names are certainly compatible with a west Anatolian context. ‘Basileides the Milesian sophist’, who received the fifteenth book, may one day be revealed by epigraphy, if indeed he is not already one of the several men named Basileides already known at Miletus. 22 Phrynichos on Language and Literature Phrynichos’ tastes reveal him not merely as an Atticist, as he is often labeled, but an Atticist of an especially conservative stripe, and in this respect too he and Aristides would have had much in common. In general, his ideal is the Attic usage of the fifth century, as represented above all by Thucydides and the writers of Old Comedy. When he cites Xenophon, it is to complain that he offends against the rules of his native dialect in using odmê rather than osmê (62), or to say that his single use of acmên in place of eti does not justify others in using it (93). The form acmên also appears in Polybius as well as in papyri and inscriptions, and it survives as the modern akomê, an instance of Phrynichos’ value as an observer of the transformation of classical Greek into medieval and modern. 23 He is particularly incensed by what in his eyes is a depraved taste for Menander, from whom he cites a whole series of supposed vulgarisms (394). We are reminded of his disapproval of the critic Marcianus, who similarly put the letters of Brutus above those of Demosthenes. There is no study of Aristides’ citations similar to that of Helmbold and O’Neil for Plutarch or of Householder for Lucian, so that it is not easy to measure precisely the degree of similarity in their preferences. Among the poets of Old Comedy Aristides cites Aristophanes often, almost always from plays still extant, and he has a few references to Eupolis and Cratinus. He mentions Menander only twice, once for his portrait of an immoral Phrygian girl and once for a dream where his name serves as an omen (menein and andra). 24 Among historians, Aris- tides shows roughly equal favor towards Herodotus, Thucydides and 22 Note especially the Vergilius Basileides of Rehm 1958, no. 155, prophêtês of Apollo Didymeus in the later second century. 23 Klaffenbach 1939, 213. Phrynichos also censures the use of the word νηρóν to mean ‘water’ (27), long before it appears in literature. 24 Or. 3.665; Or. 47.51. 262 christopher jones Xenophon, no doubt because their subject matter was indispensable to his arguments about Greek history. He also differs from Phrynichos in his frequent citation of the lyric poets such as Pindar, but then the lexicographer was not likely to cite these poets when recommending Attic usage. Among the orators, Aristides cites only Lysias, Isocrates and Demosthenes, omitting even Aeschines. Phrynichos cites Lysias, not always with approval, and otherwise only Demosthenes, omitting Aeschines as well as Isocrates. Like Aristides, he cites none of the Hel- lenistic poets or prose writers, except in passing to disapprove of a word in the historian Phylarchus (399). He does, it is true, refer to the bad linguistic habits of ‘Alexandrians’, for example the form τε0εληκrναι in place of the correct j0εληκrναι (305), and here he perhaps refers to Hel- lenistic writers rather than contemporaries, since the forms he indicts had been in use for centuries. 25 In conclusion, Phrynichos is certainly an ‘Atticist’, but in the first place he is, as the Suda correctly says, a sophist, one of those many sophists whom, for reasons now difficult to discern, Philostratus passed over in the Lives. Perhaps of Arabian origin, he resided in Bithynia, but appears to have frequented Pergamum and its famous Asclepieion. His acquaintance with the notable sophist of the city, Aristocles, helps to explain his knowledge of Aristides, Aristocles’ most distinguished pupil. Phrynichos evidently moved in high society. Apart from Aristocles, Rufinus and Julianus, he was also on friendly terms with the ab epistulis Cornelianus, to whom he dedicates the Ecloge, perhaps at a date close to that of the first edition of the Sophistic Preparation. Phrynichos’ way of addressing Commodus might even suggest that he was one of the royal tutors, or at least was close to the court. Above all, he was sufficiently in touch with advanced opinion of the day to recognize the genius of Aristides, a judgment that succeeding centuries were to reaffirm into early modern times. 26 25 For τε0εληκrναι see Gignac 1981, 247 (but Phrynichos does not say that τε0εληκr- ναι is the ‘proper Alexandrian and Egyptian form’). The other example (367) is χειμoζω with the meaning ‘to distress’, ‘to annoy’, which is found as early as Sophocles’ Ichneutae: LSJ s.v. III 2. 26 On Aristides’ later reputation, see now Jones 2008. chapter thirteen VYING WITH ARISTIDES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY: LIBANIUS AND HIS FRIENDS Raffaella Cribiore Modesty was not an attribute of Aristides. When he attempted to mor- tify his vanity, his dreams (like the reassuring mirror of an evil queen in a fairy tale) confirmed that he was the most marvelous rhetor in the empire. He dedicated a tripod to Asclepius, and immediately a dream corrected his self-effacing dedicatory inscription, offering another in which the god assured him of his future fame by calling his speeches ‘everlasting’. 1 In another dream Aristides expressed his wish to live for many years but was fearful that his life might be cut short and there- fore dutifully revised his speeches in order to secure the favorable judg- ment of posterity. 2 Over and over in the Sacred Tales he described his triumphs and the frenzy of his audience, even though in passing he lamented that, because he was not interested in humoring the masses, his contemporaries sometimes preferred more flamboyant orators who catered to their tastes. 3 Posterity (hoi hysteron anthropoi), in any case, richly rewarded him, and in the fourth century in particular he was revered, and his works were used as models of perfect oratory. 4 The sophist Libanius in Antioch was one of Aristides’ most fervent admirers, and paid tribute to him in letters and orations. 5 The letters reveal a circle of cultivated friends who exchanged painted portraits and works of Aristides and the declamations and speeches that they wrote in response to his works. Several extant orations of Libanius were written to vie with his second-century predecessor, and Libanius 1 Or. 50.45–47. 2 Or. 51.52. 3 E.g., Or. 34 passim and 28.116–118. 4 As in the case of Libanius, so many of his works were preserved because of his favor in late antiquity and in the Byzantine age. 5 See the edition of Foerster 1903–1927. For translations of the letters, see Norman 1992, henceforth, N; Cabouret 2000; Bradbury 2004; Cribiore 2007a, Appendix 1. 264 raffaella cribiore evoked his eloquence in other, less well-known, passages. One of the questions I ask in this paper is why Aristides was so irresistible to orators in the fourth century: what were the reasons (besides his perfect Attic style) that made him a cardinal point of reference? In addition, since the direct references to Aristides in Libanius date to the first phase of his activity in Antioch, it is meaningful to inquire whether Aristides’ influence on the fourth-century sophist can be perceived in later periods. In the year 361 Libanius sent a letter from Antioch to his friend Demetrius who lived in Cilicia. Demetrius was a proficient orator, who had been governor of Phoenicia years before, and was the uncle of two of Libanius’ students. 6 Libanius wrote that he was sending two speeches as a gift for Demetrius; but he was to lend them to Palladius, who was then governor of Cilicia. 7 In one of these speeches, Libanius vied with Herodotus and in the other with Aristides. Foerster inferred that the latter was the extant Or. 64, On the Dancers, but the testimony is far from conclusive. 8 Libanius admired Demetrius’ eloquence and had corresponded before with him. In a previous letter, Ep. 283, he had discussed the delivery of some orations and told his friend that he was sending him a declamation on some points of Demosthenes and a couple of introductions. 9 In another letter, the gift consisted of a dream in which Libanius saw Demetrius as a triumphant orator delivering to applauding students a hamilla in rebuttal of an oration of Demosthenes. 10 Sending speeches to friends to elicit their admiration and perhaps some criticism was not unusual among the pepaideumenoi. In a letter Libanius remarked that Palladius dispatched new material to him ‘every day’—supposedly only a fraction of what he composed. 11 Imme- diately after receiving the speech in which Libanius vied with Aristides, Palladius reciprocated and from Cilicia sent him a work in which he contended with Aristides’ Thersites. The sophist in Antioch had to com- pare both works and ‘judge the bout’ (palaismata) between the two ora- 6 See Demetrius 2 in PLRE I, with whom Libanius corresponded often; Ep. 615. 7 Palladius 7 in PLRE I. In Ep. 616, Libanius told Palladius that he had sent the works. 8 Foerster in the introduction to Or. 64. Both Molloy 1996, 86, and Swain 2004, 368, accept his dating of the speech. 9 See N 64, year 359/60. 10 Ep. 243, probably from the year 360. 11 Ep. 631, year 361, N 76. vying with aristides in the fourth century 265 tors but encountered some difficulties because his own copy of Aris- tides was damaged by age. He thought he had found Thersites in his book but was not absolutely certain and had to read the work slowly, syllable by syllable, according to the technique taught in school. 12 We are in almost the same predicament because Thersites is not among the extant works of Aristides, but we may perhaps try to recover traces of it in Libanius’ own Encomium of Thersites. 13 Yet there are difficulties. There are several references to Thersites in the corpus of Aristides. Since he is always presented as an ugly, ludicrous, and garrulous anti- hero (the very opposite of the enlightened orator), it is conceivable that Aristides preserved the traditional view of this Homeric figure in his encomium. 14 Libanius, however, scrutinizes the Homeric text for any con- ceivable positive traits. His encomium starts by ‘begging Homer’s par- don’ and presents Thersites as a very dignified figure, endowed with courage and longing for glory, a kind of ‘democratic’ hero, concerned with the common good, fearless before kings, incapable of flattery, and even comparable to Demosthenes—this being the highest acknowledg- ment. Libanius’ Thersites may have been a work written in rebuttal of Aristides’. A few years later, in 364, another close friend, Quirinus, urged Libanius to vie with Aristides. 15 Libanius esteemed this sophist highly, to the point of declaring that he regarded him as his teacher, 16 and he missed his presence in Antioch as a supporter of his speeches. Quirinus apparently insisted that Libanius would compose a speech on the Olympic games in Antioch even though he approved of a previous oration of the sophist on the same subject. 17 Libanius suspected that behind this request there was Quirinus’ desire that he would vie with two orators: Aristides, who had often written on the Olympic festival, 12 On reading by syllables as typical of beginners, see Cribiore 2001, 172–175. For the ancients the syllable (and not the word) was the unit of measure, as Libanius shows, e.g. in Or. 64.6.12; Ep. 1029.4.3 and 1286.1.8. Behr 1968 does not mention Thersites among the lost works of Aristides. 13 Foerster 1903–1927, vol. 8 Laud. 4, 243–251. 14 See Or. 28.16 Keil, and Dindorf 46.133.22 and 310.20; 52.434.8 and 53.6.28. Lucian also preserved the traditional presentation of Thersites in Ind. 7 and so did Themistius in the fourth century, Or. 21.261–262. 15 Ep. 1243. Quirinus, PLRE I pp. 760–761, was the father of his student Honoratus 3. 16 Ep. 310.3, he makes this admission in a letter to Honoratus, surmising that he will be amused. 17 It is possible that Quirinus meant Or. 11.268–269. In later years, Libanius wrote Or. 10 and 53, trying to reform certain aspects of the games. 266 raffaella cribiore and a rhetor unknown to us who was Quirinus’ teacher and had celebrated the Pythian games. He wrote back to his friend saying that what Quirinus wished was impossible because the latter did not take into account how ‘Teucer was inferior to Idas and Heracles’, a slightly obscure reference, perhaps a proverb, in which Aristides was compared with Idas, whom Homer described as ‘the mightiest of men upon the earth’, but Apollonius on the other hand presented as a rather insolent hero. 18 In the same year Libanius wrote a very interesting letter to his schoolmate Fortunatianus. Fortunatianus was a rhetor, a poet, and a philosopher who had apparently just discovered the works of Aristides. 19 It was fated that Aristides also enjoyed your attention. Albeit slowly, you are coming closer to a writer who has and offers power, if one wishes to use it. You must not discriminate among his works but must seek after everything, take advantage of everything, and leave out nothing. I marvel—as in the case of owls to Athens—that books and speeches are dispatched to Laodiceia, which has so many. But I sent you an envelope with his arguments in opposition, some definitely authentic, and others perhaps. 20 It appears that Fortunatianus was slower than Libanius’ other friends to recognize the relevance of Aristides to the development of his elo- quence and poetry but had of lately acknowledged his mistake. One last, well-known letter that Libanius sent in 365 to Theodorus, the father of two of his students, powerfully evokes the attraction Aris- tides exercised on fourth-century rhetors. 21 Libanius depicted himself as sitting beside a portrait of the orator while reading his works, as if he were trying to capture the true essence of the writer and the man by taking in both his features and his words. The search for Aristides the man bordered on the obsessive: Libanius compared two portraits sent by Theodorus with the one another friend had promptly dispatched to him upon request, and reveled in the expectation of a fourth, full- length, portrait. Aristides was handsome, but Libanius was perplexed 18 Iliad 9.556–564; Apollonius, e.g., 1.151–153 and 462–494; 3.556–566. Idas perished in a quarrel with the Dioscuri, Pindar, Nem. 10.60–72; Theocritus 22.210–211. Salzmann 1910, 16, considers the phrase an unidentified proverb but wrongly connects Quirinus (instead of his teacher) with Heracles. 19 Ep. 1262, never translated before; Fortunatianus 1 in PLRE I. On this friend, see Ep. 1425 (Bradbury 2004, no. 154). 20 The expression ‘to send owls to Athens’ was a proverb, see Salzmann 1910, 33. 21 Ep. 1534. 2; Norman 1992, no. 143; Theodorus 11 in PLRE I. Cf. Cribiore 2007a, 22. vying with aristides in the fourth century 267 by the abundance of hair in one portrait and the scarcity of it in another. Was lack of hair associated with the orator’s illness? Did his hair grow back when he was better? Theodorus, who, as the governor of Bithynia was close to where Aristides had resided, was in charge of finding some answers there. 22 Vying with another writer meant acknowledging one’s forebears and disclosing one’s literary pedigree but might also involve a degree of antagonism and the attempt, often botched, to improve on a forerun- ner. Aristides, in his oration In Defense of Oratory, had emphasized the superiority of nature over art and maintained that great artists and writers were such because they were aware of the primacy of their inborn qualities, tried to surpass their predecessors, and ‘made them appear as children’. 23 At the beginning of his oration For the Dancers, Libanius emphasized his great debt to Aristides and declared the love and attraction (rρως, φiλτρον) he felt for him. 24 He had to justify his attempt to vie with him by proclaiming his lack of animosity and utter deference. The effect of his words—that he would choose the ability to imitate, even to a small degree, Aristides’ art over surpassing Midas in wealth—is somewhat weakened by the fact that in 363 he used a similar expression in a letter to the controversial governor Alexander, referring to the favors the latter bestowed on him. 25 Yet we should not doubt that he felt indebted to his second-century predecessor. To follow the rules of perfect oratory that Aristides had set out was to honor him. Libanius declared that in composing his orations he always ‘trod the tracks’ of Aristides, an expression that he usually employed to refer to the relations of compliant students with their teachers and to the close imitation of models. 26 A passage in Libanius’ Autobiography discloses the immediate consequence of ‘treading the tracks’ of others 22 Norman 1992, 294, follows those who after Ramsay 1890, 161, identified the place as Hadrianutherae. 23 To Plato: in Defense of Oratory 120, Behr 1986, 96. 24 Or. 64.4–5. Lucian in his De saltatione did not respond to Aristides’ work. 25 Ep. 838, year 363, to Alexander 5 in PLRE I, who was consularis Syriae. Midas appears as a symbol of extreme wealth in Libanius, Or. 25.25.2; 33.16.1; and 52.29.8. 26 Cf., e.g., Libanius, Ep. 316.6.4, in which his student Titianus was supposed to ‘tread in the tracks’ of his own father as a teacher and then, when he was in school, those of Libanius; see also Or. 35.21.11, where he says that all his students followed on the ‘same tracks’. On following exactly the ‘footprints’ of great predecessors, see Lucian, Rh.Pr. 8.3 and 9.7, on which see last Cribiore 2007b. See also Herm. 29.7, concerning students’ imitation of philosophers. Aristides too used this expression to indicate the emulation of someone superior, e.g. Or. 46.15 Dindorf. 268 raffaella cribiore (Or. 1.23). When in his youth he studied rhetoric in Athens, he was happy to maintain some independence and not be tied to a specific teacher since in that case his eloquence would have been too close to that of an individual he did not esteem. The classic writers were the only ones who deserved to be imitated, and no doubt Libanius consid- ered Aristides one of them. I am not going to linger on Oration 64, which has been the object of recent attention. It suffices to say that here Libanius evokes in detail Aristides’ lines of argument so that scholars have tried to reconstruct the main points of the latter’s speech Against the Dancers. In fact, far from opposing the views of hypothetical opponents as he does in most of his speeches, Libanius responds directly to his predecessor in a relentless debate, saying that as a Syrian he could not stay silent. While he had declared that ‘speaking in opposition (0ντιλrγειν) to what Aristides had said’ had to be considered a way of paying homage to him, the reader cannot help but feel that in the encounter Libanius is victorious and caused his opponent ‘to retire silenced’ as it happened many times when he confronted others. Even though the precise date of Or. 64 is not necessarily 361, its style, the sanguine disposition of Libanius, and the lack of those themes that will become prevalent in his maturity make it likely that he did not compose it many years later. Other orations, all relatively early, in which some imitation of Aristides is evident are Or. 11, the Antiochicus, Or. 61, the Monody for Nicomedia, and Or. 5, the Hymn to Artemis. After the 360s, direct references to Aristides disappear from Libanius’ letters, and this reinforces the impression that the rhetor’s influence on him had waned. The argument from Libanius’ correspondence is quite weak, since his letters survive from only two distinct periods: the vast majority is from the first ten years of his activity in Antioch, 355–365, and the rest from 388 to 393. That there is no mention of Aristides in the letters of the second period is hardly significant. 27 But besides that, Norman argued that in later years ‘the style and outlook of Libanius were not consciously influenced’ by his previous emulation of Aristides. 28 In say- ing that, this scholar was specifically rejecting a suggestion of Roger 27 The question is similar to that of the continuous friendship or breach of relations between Libanius and Themistius, see Dagron 1968, 38. 28 Norman 1953, 22, who admitted only his unconscious emulation of Aristides’ neurotic aspects. See, however, in Norman 2000, 183–184 the introduction to Or. 3, which was written after the edition of Martin 1988. vying with aristides in the fourth century 269 Pack (Libanius has a similar chronological framework, similar refer- ences to medical matters, and his tutelary divinity Tyche might stand for Asclepius’ pronoia). 29 In addition, Pack noted the similarity between the greeting of the emperor Julian to Libanius in the Autobiography and the greeting of Marcus Aurelius to Aristides, as related by Philostratus. Pack therefore suggested that Libanius, in the first part of the narrative of his life written in 374, deliberately imitated Aristides’ Sacred Tales, a contention that Norman rejected. 30 Although it seems doubtful that the two works correspond so pre- cisely, I think that Aristides was still very much in Libanius’ mind when he wrote in 374. A passage in the Autobiography is a good example of deliberate imitation. When Libanius was granted a leave from Con- stantinople in 353 to spend some time in Antioch after many years of absence, he returned to his native city in triumph, at least as he says. 31 The passionate and frenzied account of it, which he wrote down twenty years later (Or. 1.86–89), has the texture of a literary dream and is strongly reminiscent of Sacred Tales 5.30–34, where Aristides narrated his triumphant arrival in Smyrna to declaim in 167. 32 After Aristides entered the city and was well received, he heard of a little Egyptian orator, an 0ν0ρωπiσκος, who had corrupted some of the councilors and had burst uninvited into the theater. At that point Aristides had a dream, so vivid that he doubted whether it was a vision or reality, in which he saw himself proclaiming that he was going to declaim in the early morning. He went to the city hall and did so: Despite my unexpected appearance and the fact that many people failed to know about it, the council was so packed that one could not see anything except men’s heads, and it would have been impossible to get back one’s hand if it were inserted anywhere between the people. And the shouting and good will—or rather, if we must tell the truth—the frenzy on all sides was such that no one was seen to sit either during the introduction or when I arose to contend, but from my first word they 29 Pack 1947, 19–20. 30 See Pack 1947. Norman 1953 argued that Libanius was imitating Philostratus himself. Swain 2004, 368–373, rejected the idea of the closeness of the autobiography and the hieroi logoi but saw a similarity in Libanius’ and Aristides’ views that rhetoric and Greek religion were connected. 31 On the dokimasia, the test that usually awaited students as they left school, see Cribiore 2007a, 84–88. 32 Cf. Behr 1968, 105 and note 34 (where he tentatively identifies the ‘little Egyptian’ rhetor with Ptolemy of Naucratis as in Philostratus, VS 596) and 307, where he connects it with the dream in Sacred Tales 1.22. 270 raffaella cribiore stood up, suffered, felt joy and awe, assented to what I said, cried out things which were never heard before, and everyone counted it his gain if he paid me some great compliment. After this triumphant performance, which of course Aristides disclosed only to render honor to Asclepius, he went to the baths and was told that the Egyptian orator had declaimed a few days before but only a few people had attended, even though he had publicized his lecture well. Like Aristides’, Libanius’ declamation did not need promotion or individual invitations since people ran to the oratorical display as soon as they heard his name. Before daylight, they packed the city hall, which for the first time appeared inadequate so that when I inquired if anyone had turned up, my slave told me that some had even slept there (Or. 1.87). Introduced by his uncle, Libanius then entered, smiling and full of confidence, and won over his audience immediately. He rejoiced seeing the audience as Achilles was glad at the sight of his armor. How could I adequately describe the tears they shed at my introduction, which many learned by heart before leaving, and their frenzy at the rest of my oration? Everyone, even the elderly, the naturally lethargic, and the sick, jumped up in enthusiasm and did all kinds of things. Those who found it hard to stand up because of gout also stood up, and when I tried to get them seated, proclaimed that my speech did not allow them to and kept on interrupting it with clamorous demands that the emperor restore me to my city. They did this until they stopped from mere exhaustion and then turned to my speech and declared blessed both themselves and me (Or. 1.88–89). After his fellow citizens quieted down, Libanius, reveling in his suc- cess, proceeded to the baths whither many escorted him, wanting to touch him. In this section, Libanius twice invoked his tutelary deity, Tyche, who allowed him to disprove the adage that ‘a prophet is not honored in his own country’. Then, immediately after this ecstatic account of his success, Libanius introduces his own ‘little Egyptian’, the Phoenician rhetor Acacius, who was one of his rivals. 33 The two passages in which Aristides and Libanius narrated their respective triumphs are not identical, since a proficient emulation did 33 Acacius 6 in PLRE I. vying with aristides in the fourth century 271 not engender a perfectly similar product, but they show many parallels: the lack of advertisement for the lecture, the packed hall, the audience standing up from the beginning, the shouts and clamor, the compli- mentary words to the speaker, who was even followed to the baths, and the existence of a rival rhetor. More particularly, the two narra- tives share the tone of Bacchic frenzy, which Libanius called βακχεiα and Aristides rν0ουσιασμóς. This is not the usual mood of Libanius’ prose, which tends to have a more matter-of-fact character. Libanius also appropriated Aristides’ passage by filling it out with lifelike details that end up sounding slightly humorous, such as those old, slow, sick, and gouty people jumping up in acclamation. One could object that sophistic displays generally aroused similar reactions, but analogous narrations in Philostratus and Eunapius are not so exactly compara- ble. Norman found a parallel to the Libanius episode in Philostratus’ sketch of Polemon, yet the two narratives have little in common besides the confidence of the speakers. 34 Libanius must have found Aristides’ words truly rousing and adapted them to his own needs, producing a slightly surreal narration that stands out in his Autobiography. Was he reading Aristides closely as he had done in previous years? It is difficult to know since he must have assimilated passages he found particularly inspiring. In his late years, when he had so many axes to grind against the Latin language, Roman law, the crisis of Greek rhetoric, and the apathy of his students, Libanius turned again to his predecessor for some comfort. When, after 387, he composed Oration 3, To his Students about his Speech, he tacitly appealed to Aristides, who in 166 had written Oration 33, To Those who Criticize him Because he does not Declaim. While Libanius’ imitation of Aristides is more attenuated than before, this late attempt to vie with him was evident enough that the scribe of one manuscript of Oration 3 gave it the same title as Aristides’ speech. 35 Silence is at the center of both speeches. Orations are often born out of silence. At the beginning, a speaker bursts out, saying that silence is unacceptable and he must break it on some issue. 36 Silence then is followed by λóγος, which naturally derives from it. In this case silence becomes the λóγος itself, as Aristides and Libanius compose a speech to 34 Norman 1965, 171 and 1992, 152, Philostratus, VS 537. 35 Martin 1988, 85, manuscript D. 36 Most orations of Libanius use this initial theme. On the topos of the ‘tranquil speaker’ in the classical period, see Montiglio 2000, 118. 272 raffaella cribiore explain the reasons for their refusal to declaim, and silence turns into censure (rπιτiμησις) of their audience’s disinterest. 37 Aristides declines to humor his distant audience, who reproach him for his inactivity and ask for a speech: his argument is that they do not deserve one and that he does not need anything else to enhance his reputation. Yet this oration, which he sends to his distant admirers through the agency of a friend leaving for Smyrna, and which he calls ‘not a pleasant speech’, is his answer to their remonstrations. Libanius is equally exasperated by the complaints of his students who desire the speech at the end of the school year that he refuses to give it on account of their bad behavior. Aristides uses Oration 33 as a propemptikon, a speech for the departure of a friend. His audience is remote, although he feigns to address it as if it were at hand, and he remarks on the absence of a real public, includ- ing foreigners, before whom his addressees might feel some shame. This lack injects some artificiality into his indictment. As he defends himself and attacks the apathy and reprobate habits of his accusers, he con- siders his position unassailable and shows condescension, detachment, and supreme confidence. Like other professionals (doctors, carpenters, craftsmen), he does not feel the obligation to advertise his products and to make them acceptable. It is his audience that is supposed to woo him; orators would waste their resources by trying to assemble a group of listeners. He is not in the least responsible for their disinterest, since he is the λóγος itself. His literary production is abundant and impecca- ble and is the fruit of his accomplished education and of his unfailing devotion to the art. No doubt Libanius could identify with this portrait of the orator. At this point of the speech, Aristides directs his atten- tion to his public, those ‘false lovers’ (δυσrρωτες) who proclaim that ‘he is the best of the Greeks’, and yet neglect him and spend their time at the swimming pools. Everyone hastens there, pursuing pleasure and unable to recognize what is truly valuable. They neglect ‘the first of the Greeks’, and their education is compromised. The reasons why Aristides’ speech attracted Libanius can be found not only throughout Oration 3, in which he vied with him to a degree, but also in everything that made Libanius a man and a rhetor. Notwith- standing their different circumstances, both speeches focused on educa- tion and on the audience’s refusal to be educated despite much protes- tation of love and commitment. An old sophist in the fourth century, 37 See Aristides, Or. 33.34. vying with aristides in the fourth century 273 who was disappointed by the tepid response to a profession which he felt had gone awry, found some comfort in commiserating with ‘the best of the Greeks’. Yet Libanius was in a worse predicament than Aristides, and this is what gives his words the authentic grief that seems to be absent from the work of his predecessor. Aristides’ honor (δóξα) was not compromised by his refusal to write one more speech. He declared that he had survived his difficulties (health and everything else) ‘by cling- ing to our raft like a kind of Odysseus’ (18) and felt above criticism. At the beginning of Oration 3, Libanius says that his determination to be silent jeopardizes the δóξα of his students, since their punishment will be evident to everybody, as will their poor performance. 38 At the end, he reiterates more forcefully that they will incur utter shame when they will be expelled ‘from the holy rites of oratory for defiling the haunt of the Muses’. 39 Yet one cannot but feel that it is the teacher’s honor that is irremediably compromised for failing to attract the attention of his pupils and for his inability to adapt to the changed times. Aristides’ remoteness and isolation from his audience is not confined to this speech. While in Oration 34, Against those who Burlesque the Mysteries, he declared that the beauty of oratory had ‘the power to enchant the audience’ (26), he continued by saying that he had never pronounced a syllable to gratify one. The underlining message of Or. 2, In Defense of Oratory, was that the pleasure of engaging in the art was an end in itself. 40 Attention to the audience made a speech plunge downwards so that words lost their feverish intensity. 41 Libanius, who while still totally enamored of rhetoric, seems to have lost some of his competitive edge in the second part of his life, must have found some support in these words. The sole aim of an orator was writing the best possible speech, but—said Aristides—oratory in its most perfect form was very hard to find. ‘Just as lions and all the nobler animals are naturally rarer than the others’, orators worthy of the name were uncommon (Or. 2.425). The force of Aristides was the conviction that he was a lion. An audience, however, was crucial to Libanius the teacher. His Auto- biography is often a chronicle of his triumphs as a declaimer, but in his late years especially he delivered some of his orations to a restricted 38 I interpret the term δóξα in this way, while Martin 1988, 275, followed by Norman 2000, 185 n. 2, view it as the honor students gain in supporting their teacher. 39 Or. 3.1 and 35. 40 See Or. 2.429–437, Dindorf 1829, 145–148; cf. Behr 1994, 1165–1168. 41 Cf. Or. 28.115. 274 raffaella cribiore circle of friends. 42 All his work, however, is evidence of his profound commitment to teaching and reaching his students, of his attachment to these foster children, and commensurate pride in seeing them fly away. 43 Their nonchalant attitude and disinterest stung him deeply. Or. 3 is an indictment of their shortcomings, but the message to his stu- dents that underlies the whole is: ‘you neglect me, desert me, are not loyal to me, do not memorize my words, hate me, and even delight in my distress’—some exaggeration perhaps, and yet a refrain that per- vades all his late production. Aristides felt detached because his audi- ence was more impersonal and remote and he could pretend it did not exist. Undoubtedly Libanius had more power over his listeners since he could expel delinquent students, as he contemplates doing at the end of the speech (Or. 3.33–37). Immediately after, though, his power crumbles as he realizes that he couldn’t possibly diminish his ‘flock’ because his ‘command’ (0ρχj) would be compromised, and the bad students would pass to the ‘enemy’, that is, to rival teachers. 44 He also has to retain them on account of their fathers, a realistic reason which nevertheless seems to refer to the remark of Aristides that his listeners behaved like the sons of famous men who, aware of their good birth, could afford to misbehave. 45 I am not convinced that Oration 3, which is pervaded with biting acrimony, represents (as it is generally assumed) the formal speech that Libanius gave at the end of the course, an oration that might be attended by governors and other officials, by citizens of Antioch, and particularly by the students’ parents. 46 Oration 3, which discloses the stu- dents’ shortcomings together with their teacher’s dwindling authority, is a bitter speech even though it is occasionally sprinkled with the dry humor that pervades some of Libanius’ work. It probably appealed to an audience of students. 47 Libanius declared in another oration that his students experienced his humor and that he was accustomed to mix fun 42 Petit 1956b is right in this, but in my view wrongly argues that Libanius kept his most controversial speeches in his drawers. 43 See Cribiore 2007a. 44 On his constant preoccupation with the size of his school, see Cribiore 2007a, 96. 45 See Aristides, Or. 33.24. 46 See Martin 1988, 83–86, and Norman 2000, 183–184. 47 Even though the speech is quite rhetorical, Libanius needed to show his students all rhetorical embellishments for didactic reasons. Eunapius, VS 16.2.2, 496, regarded humor as one of the features of his prose, cf. Cribiore 2007a, 19–22. Molloy 1996, 105, disagrees with Eunapius and does not recognize Libanius’ wit. vying with aristides in the fourth century 275 and work in the class. 48 When he laments that his boys’ escapades waste the money for their tuition, he deliberately uses the masculine Home- ric word αiδοiοις (respectable people) in the neuter form to mean ‘sex’, possibly a school joke. 49 Likewise, his depiction of the young men gin- gerly appearing in class with the slow gait of ‘brides or tight-rope walk- ers’, ‘picking their noses with either hand’, spoiling the applause, delib- erately walking around during the oration, and openly inviting class- mates to the baths is a tour de force on students’ misbehavior, which parents might fail to really appreciate (Or. 54.11–14). The remark on the pleasure of going to the baths even before dinner—a true indulgence— takes the reader back to Aristides, who faulted people’s passion for the baths as the principal cause that made them miss his lectures. 50 In his view, the baths are ‘what darkens the beauty of education’. Yet in Aris- tides the mention of people anointed with oil, the Homeric references such as the Sirens’ song ‘come and stop your ship’, 51 the man with his palm fan who lures the spectators away, are not as vivid as the corre- sponding vignettes in Libanius. When Aristides says that everyone runs to bathe in the river Meles because the sophists considered as the great- est quality of Homer that he was the river’s son, the attempt at humor is weak (Or. 33.29). While one of the themes of Or. 33 is education, Aristides’ audience was not made up specifically of students. In Or. 29, Concerning the Pro- hibition of Comedy, he reclaimed for the orator the role of educator that traditionally appertained to the poet and manifested some concern for the environment in which young people matured. I would like to con- sider once more his role as teacher to clarify only a few points. That he was not engaged in this profession on a regular basis and did not have a school is evident from the question of his immunity from civil service as it appears in the Sacred Tales. 52 In this work Aristides occa- sionally mentions students, but these are either those he is advised to have if he looks for an exemption, or young men who offered them- selves as students when he went to Smyrna in 167, an offer he may not have accepted. 53 When he refers to students, he generally uses the 48 See Or. 2.20. Heath 2004, 186–187, remarked on ancient teachers’ jocularity. 49 Od. 15.373, Libanius, Or. 3.6; cf. Martin 1988, 277. 50 Or. 33.25–32. Of course the baths are a constant presence in the Sacred Tales but are used for medical reasons. 51 Od. 12.184–185. 52 See Behr 1968, 77–84. 53 See Sacred Tales 4.87; 4.95; 5.29; and 5.57, a dream. 276 raffaella cribiore term ‘young men’ (νrοι) and once employs the word μα0ηταi. 54 He also once uses the adjective γνuριμος in combination with νrοι to say that ‘the most competent young men’ wished to study with him (Sacred Tales 5.29). Philostratus relates that Aristides asked Marcus Aurelius for per- mission to have his γνuριμοι present so that they could cheer for him at the declamation, and the word is usually translated as ‘students’ (VS 583). I am not convinced that gn¯orimoi were always the students in the inner circle of a teacher, as has been argued in a recent book. 55 Philo- stratus is not always consistent in using the term, and in Aristides it only has the meaning ‘friend or known person’. 56 It seems likely that when Aristides asked the emperor to allow his followers to be in the audience, the latter were friends and people who admired him and were in his retinue, not necessarily his students or only students. 57 In Or. 33.23 Aristides sheds some light on his role as a teacher. ‘To those who were eager to meet with me on a private basis I offered myself not only as I declaimed, but I also indicated to them well how in my opinion they would become somewhat better’. He uses the expression iδi¸α συνεtναι, that is, ‘to meet privately’ (probably in his or in his student’s residence), which contrasts with Libanius’ expression rξω συνεtναι, ‘to meet students at school’ (Ep. 1038.1). Aristides considered his declamations models for instruction and occasionally met some young men to correct their rhetorical imperfections. His involvement with teaching was probably not very significant and did not leave a profound mark on him. The nineteenth -century Italian poet Giacomo Leopardi, who studied Aristides in his youth, reported an amusing adespoton epigram which may have referred to a namesake of the renowned rhetor: ‘Hail to you seven pupils of the rhetor Aristides, four walls and three benches!’ 58 This epigram in any case may have been realistic if it alluded to Aristides having a school. Two other orations are usually taken to show that Aristides had some involvement with teaching. In 147 he wrote Or. 30, the Birthday Speech to Apellas, who, the scholion explains, was his pupil. 59 Very little, however, 54 This usage is compatible with Libanius’ terminology. 55 Watts 2006, 31. 56 See, e.g., Philostratus, VS 483.25 with the meaning ‘friend’, and Aristides, Sacred Tales 1.23 and 4.23, besides 5.29. 57 Philostratus, however, may have believed they were students. 58 See App.Anth. 5.31; Prolegomena to the Panathenaic Oration Dindorf 1829, 741; Cugnoni 1878, 54; Tommasi Moreschini 2004, 11–12 and 269. 59 On this scholion, see Behr 1981, 390 n. 2. vying with aristides in the fourth century 277 indicates that this boy was indeed his student. In the phrase ‘We, your relations, kinsmen, teachers, companions, and all of your dear family’, the word ‘teacher’ does not necessarily refer to the orator. The speech is a conventional and artificial presentation of the city’s and the family’s glory and of the accomplishments of the young man. When he composed it, Aristides had just emerged from a nearly two-year period of incubation in the temple of Asclepius, so that his acquaintance with Apellas must have been quite recent. Years later, in 161, he wrote Or. 31, The Funeral Oration for Eteoneus, a young man who apparently studied with him. Aristides seems to have been more involved in this youth’s upbringing. And yet one per- ceives that some remarks may be out of place. A vain Aristides seems to be in competition with his student, as when he says that Eteoneus was so devoted to him that he never even conceived of being at his level (Or. 31.7–8). In a speech concerned with the study of rhetoric, the boy’s silence—sometimes considered a positive quality in antiquity 60 — nevertheless occupies too much space in the background of the effusive- ness of his teacher. 61 The insistence on Eteoneus’ handsomeness (four remarks in such a small compass) also sounds a bit excessive. 62 When the orator says that in studying and declaiming Eteoneus used gestures that would be appropriate in a painting, one cannot agree more: the silent Eteoneus belongs in a painting (Or. 31.8). Aristides, the masterful orator, appears at the end in a grand, emotional consolation that Liba- nius, if he knew the passage, cannot have failed to appreciate, as when Eteoneus is compared to ‘a poet who has ended his play while people still desire to see him and hear him’. 63 If we now return to the question I posed at the beginning, many of the reasons why Aristides appealed so strongly to Libanius, and implicitly to other rhetors in the fourth century, are already clear. In the fourth century, when rhetoric was not as effective as before and rhetors had lost some of their power, it was comforting to remember an age when ‘rhetoric flashed like lightning’. 64 Aristides was a shining protagonist of that age, and applying his rhetorical rules reinforced the illusion that one could revive it. For Libanius, moreover, rhetoric and 60 Cf. Or. 2. 384–385. 61 On silence, Or. 31. 8 and 10. 62 On this boy’s beauty, Or. 31.4, 11, 12, and 15. 63 The ¯ethopoiia of the deus ex machina pronouncing words of consolation is quite moving. 64 See Libanius, Or. 2.43. 278 raffaella cribiore the worship of the gods were connected not only because, as he told the emperor Julian, ‘rhetoric moved you towards reverence for the gods’, but also because Aristides’ conception of oratory inspired by ‘a sacred and divine fire’ stirred him. 65 Aristides powerfully roused the emotions, and his authoritative tone and confidence in his own ability strongly attracted a sophist who doubted he could make a comparable impact. So what was Libanius reading under Aristides’ portrait? So many are the words of his predecessor that may have appealed to him, but we know with certainty that he identified with Aristides declaring his love for rhetoric in Or. 33.19–20: Alone of all the Greeks whom we know, we did not engage in oratory for wealth, fame, honor, marriage, power, or any acquisition… But since we were its true lovers, we were fittingly honored by oratory… For me oratory means everything, signifies everything, for I have made it children, parents, work, relaxation and all else. Libanius was under the same spell. 65 See Libanius, Or. 13.1; Aristides, Or. 28.110, and, e.g., the myth of Prometheus in 2.396–399. Cf. Swain 2004, 372–373. chapter fourteen AELIUS ARISTIDES’ RECEPTION AT BYZANTIUM: THE CASE OF ARETHAS Luana Quattrocelli Non posso sapere se lo sono o no. Voglio dire che lo sciamano è un messo celeste: fa da intermediario tra Dio e gli uomini. Perché la malat- tia non è altro che un’offesa all’ordine cosmico. Dio abbandona l’uomo, si allontana da lui… e allora interviene la malattia— Sándor Márai, La sorella In addition to providing much interesting material for the history of religion and rhetoric, the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides offer a start- ing point for understanding the success of the author among his con- temporaries. 1 In these six orations, while talking about his oratorical performances, Aristides refers more than once to his universal repu- tation (Or. 47.50; Or. 50.8, 19, 26), to the delirious enthusiasm of the crowds (Or. 50.20, 48, 101; Or. 51.16, 29, 32–33), to insistent requests from friends and acquaintances to write and deliver speeches (Or. 47.2, 64; Or. 48.1–2; Or. 50.17, 24, 95; Or. 51.30), and to the high esteem that bestowed on by the emperors (Or. 47.23, 36–38, 41, 46–49; Or. 50.75–76, 92). All of these remarks, however, would appear to contradict the need that Aristides felt to write an entire oration, To Those Who Criticize Him Because He Does Not Declaim (Πρòς τοuς αiτιωμrνους oτι μj μελετ_uη), in order to complain bitterly about the scant interest in attending his performances that people showed. One may wonder if Aristides’ long absences from the rhetorical scene were really due to the poor condi- tion of his health and to the orders given by Asclepius, or if, instead, all of these reasons were only excuses designed to hide the reality of fickle success. Besides, it should not be forgotten that a panoramic view of 1 I would like to thank Professor William Harris for giving me the opportunity to present this paper before such an important audience. 280 luana quattrocelli Greek rhetoric in those years would have included the works of great professionals of the calibre of Polemon, Herodes Atticus, and Apollo- nius Tyanensis. Although Aristides made a great display of his success, he often worried about the judgement of posterity. In a dream, he replies to a doctor who is insisting that he recite something: ‘Because, by Zeus, it is more important for me to revise some things which I have written. For I must also converse with posterity’ (Or. 51.52). 2 He writes elsewhere: ‘After the inscription, I became much more eager, and it seemed in every way to be fitting to keep on with oratory, as our name would live even among future men, since the god happened to have called our speeches “everlasting”’ (Or. 50.47). Posterity has indeed paid Aristides all the honours of which he dreamt while he was alive. Among the late Imperial Age rhetoricians, Aelius Aristides is the only author whose oeuvre has been handed down nearly complete: fifty-two orations (only the beginning of Or. 53 is pre- served). 3 The survival of Aristides’ corpus was due to the great admi- ration that rhetoricians in later centuries had for him, as well as to the high position reserved for him in schools and in scriptoria. If in the third century Apsines, Longinus, and Menander Rhetor already con- sidered Aristides to be a classical author and quoted him as a model for style and composition, in the fourth century Aristides was often studied and imitated in lieu of the classical authors themselves. Libanius (314– 393AD) shows himself a true devotee of Aristides, imitating him just as Aristides had once imitated Demosthenes. And Himerius (300/10– 380/90AD), a representative of the Asiatic style, which was very dif- ferent from Libanius’s Atticism, does not neglect to acknowledge Aris- tides as one of his masters, especially in the Panathenaicus. As Libanius’s pupils, even two church fathers of this period, Basil and John Chrysos- tomus, took Aristides as a model, as did all the Christian authors whose rhetorical style was deeply influenced by the Second Sophistic. Even a fourth-century papyrus, 4 containing a rhetorician’s funeral oration, cel- ebrates Aristides as Smyrna’s second son after Homer. 2 All translations of the Sacred Tales are by C.A. Behr; the text used is Keil 1898. Translations of the scholia are my own, with the assistance of David Ratzan. 3 F. Robert is preparing an edition of the fragments and the lost works of Aelius Aristides as part of the ‘Aristides Programme’, which will result in an edition of the complete works under the direction of L. Pernot (CUF, Les Belles Lettres). 4 Berliner Klassikertexte V, 1, 1907, 82–83. See Schubart 1918, 143–144. aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 281 In the following century Synesius, who had no love for the sophists, accorded Aristides the same fame. The fame achieved in these cen- turies, sealed by Eunapius (who calls him ‘divine’), allowed Aristides and his orations to acquire first-class authority with lexicographers, the authors of rhetorical manuals, commentators, and erudite schools from the sixth century through the Byzantine period. At the end of the thirteenth century, Maximus Planudes was still making scribes copy a specimen of Aristides’ orations in his scriptorium for his library, 5 and Theodorus Metochites wrote an essay On Demosthenes and Aristides. 6 But even though Aristides escaped unharmed from the hostile at- tacks of Christian authors like Romanus Melodus, who had no scruples about mocking pagan authors like Homer, Plato and Demosthenes in his Hymns, he could not avoid the scorn of one tenth-century com- mentator, who attacked his personality as it emerges in the pages of the most autobiographical of his orations, namely the Sacred Tales. I am referring to the scathing notes written in the margins of the sheets of the manuscript Laurentianus 60, 3, (A) to the Sacred Tales, as a per- sonal commentary on Aristides’ religious experiences. The commen- tary includes a series of notes, never published, 7 which, lying outside the exegetical-grammatical typology of medieval comments, represent a genuine attack by a Byzantine author on a pagan one. Manuscript A, which is divided into two parts, Laurentianus 60, 3 and Parisinus graecus 2951, is the well-known manuscript of the Aris- tidean tradition that belonged to Arethas, the famous archbishop of Caesarea who read and commented on a number of pagan authors. The manuscript was prepared around 920AD for Arethas by John Calligraphus, 8 undoubtedly after Arethas had become archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 9 Arethas himself (see fig. 1) added the titles, the capital letters, and the paragraph signs. He also wrote scholia in his neat majuscule, 10 modifying the Sopater scholia and supplementing 5 See Quattrocelli (forthcoming). 6 See Pernot 2006, 100–115. 7 Except for two cases that were edited by Dindorf in the scholiastic corpus (1829, III, 343–344). A complete edition of these notes will become an integral part of the Sacred Tales edition being prepared by L. Pernot and L. Quattrocelli for Les Belles Lettres. 8 See Keil 1898, vii; Behr–Lenz 1976–1980, xxvii n. 79; Lemerle 1971, 220 n. 52; Pernot 1981, 183. 9 Cf. Behr–Lenz, xxvii, n. 80. 10 Maass (1884, 764) speaks about the semiunciales solemnes used by Arethas for the scholia: ‘Ecce Arethas, quippe qui praeter solemnes scholiorum semiunciales non in sacris tantum verum etiam in profanis utitur uncialibus’. 282 luana quattrocelli Fig. 1 aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 283 Fig. 2 them with additions to which he occasionally attached his monogram ΑΡΕΘ. 11 These scholia cover Orations I–IV and some passages of μελr- ται. In addition, one can read small notes to Orations XVII–LIII. That the reproachful notes in the margin to the Sacred Tales were also written by Arethas is proven above all by the handwriting, which faith- fully imitates the unmistakable majuscule of Caesarea’s archbishop. 12 The most characteristic letters are easily recognizable (see fig. 2): – alpha: with the rounded part that slips into the line space to distinguish itself from delta. – delta: in majuscule form. – epsilon: crescent-shaped. – kappa: more frequently in the majuscule form than in the minus- cule one. – mu: sometimes enriched by an ornament. – nu: which alternates between the minuscule form and the majus- cule one, sometimes inclined on the right. – the compendium for καi. 11 On the personal notes added by Arethas, see Lenz 1964a, 58, 71–72, 84. 12 Maass (1884, 758) was already certain of Arethas’s authorship of the notes. 284 luana quattrocelli Arethas’s matrix is evident even in the arrangement of the note text as an inverted pyramid or in the shape of a funnel, closed with a little leaf or a small wavy line. Once the handwriting has been securely identified as Arethas’s, it is difficult to doubt that the ideas expressed are also his own, rather than copied from notes in other manuscripts. That the notes were copied is highly unlikely for two reasons: first, no copyist would have ever transcribed such extensive comments into his own copy, even if he had read them in the antigraph; second, and most importantly, there is a large repertoire of attacks in the same tone that Arethas addresses to other classical authors, enough to make Wilson speak of ‘the characteristic style’ of Arethas’s notes on other authors (1983, 212). Therefore, even the unedited notes to Manuscript A should be included among the other short polemical and scornful comments with which Arethas glossed the texts preserved in the manuscripts he owned. It is true that, like Photius, the philologist of Patras belongs to the period of the Byzantine culture commonly referred to as the ‘Renais- sance’, which followed the Iconoclastic period. It is also true that, like Photius, Arethas made a career in the church, eventually becoming the archbishop in Cappadocia. However, if Photius provides an example of the tolerance shown towards the pagan literature of the past by the men occupying the highest offices of the church, this is not the case with Arethas. Those who deal with the Platonic textual tradition know the codex Clarkianus 39 very well: it contains twenty-four Platonic dialogues, that is, all of them except the Timaeus, the Republic, and the Laws. It was commissioned from John Calligraphus by Arethas while he was still deacon in November, 895AD. In this manuscript, too, Arethas writes scholia in his own hand, and he adds strictly personal evaluations to them from time to time. Here is the passage from the Apology in which Socrates defends himself against the charge of atheism: εi δ’ αu οl δαiμονες 0εuν παtδrς εiσιν νó0οι τινrς j rκ νυμφuν j rκ τινων 0λλων uν δj καi λrγονται, τiς 0ν 0ν0ρuπων 0εuν μrν παtδας jγοtτο εiναι, 0εοuς δr μj; oμοiως γoρ 0ν 0τοπον εiη uσπερ 0ν εi τις iππων μrν παtδας jγοtτο j καi ðνων, τοuς jμιóνους, iππους δr καi ðνους μj jγοtτο εiναι (Pl. Apol. 27d–e). If on the other hand these supernatural beings are bastard children of the gods by nymphs or other mothers, as they are reputed to be, who in the world would believe in the children of gods and not in the aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 285 gods themselves? It would be as ridiculous as to believe in the young of horses or donkeys and not in horses and donkeys themselves. (trans. H. Tredennick). Arethas glosses the text in this way: ‘you do well, Socrates, to compare the Athenians’ gods to donkeys and horses’. Obviously, Socrates has not done this, but the note gives us a glimpse of Arethas’s lack of philosophical subtlety and familiarizes us with one of his characteristic habits, namely that of conversing with his authors in a confidential and intentionally irreverent tone. For the scholiast from Patras, the text that he is reading is not just a monument of the past: the ancient author comes to life in front of him, provoking his likes and dislikes depending on his mood at that moment. A sort of dialogue opens up between the reader and the author. Arethas addresses the author directly, both to blame him and to express pleasure when he finds that he is in agreement with him. 13 Socrates is again the target of Arethas’s sharp tongue in the Char- mides. Our Christian reader comments on the description of the phi- losopher, who is struck by Charmides’ beauty in the Athenian palaestra, and thus gains the opportunity to reflect at length on σωφροσuνη, 14 in this way: ‘be cursed, Plato, for so cunningly corrupting simple souls’. 15 At a later point, he goes to the heart of the philosophical discussion to defend Charmides and to attack Socrates once again: 16 Socrates, you are deceiving the noble Charmides with your speeches and confusing him with sophistry. Because even if he has not shown adequate temperance (σωφροσuνη), he was not in conflict with the truth. It is at least a part of temperance to act in a quiet and orderly way; for by quiet I mean non-violent, but you take it as the equivalent of lazy, and of course you spoil the reasoning. 17 Since Arethas has no scruples about being so irreverent towards Soc- rates’ auctoritas, we should not be surprised that he behaves similarly, 13 See Bidez 1934, 396. 14 Pl. Chrm. 155d. 15 Arethas lashes out against Lucian for a pederastic issue (Sch. in Luciani Amores 54): rμοi μrν οIτω παιδεραστεtν γrνοιτο κτλ.], describing him as rπoρατος: μóγις ποτr, μιαρr καi rπoρατε, τò σαυτο0 rξεtπας. rξuλης καi προuλης γrνοιο. (‘With much hesitation you admitted this about yourself, you damned scoundrel! May you be utterly destroyed!’). A previous passage in the same work (Amores 35) had irritated Arethas’s sensitivity about the issue of male homosexuality: the Byzantine reader calls Lucian μιαρολóγος, an adjective not found in the classical vocabulary. 16 Pl. Chrm.159a–c. 17 On this passage, see Lemerle 1971, 213–214; Wilson 1983, 206. 286 luana quattrocelli if not more irreverently, towards another late-imperial author, namely Lucian. Lucian had already been the target of insulting epithets from the first Christian authors: in the ancient and medieval scholia to Lucian, the editor Rabe has registered no less than thirty-nine con- temptuous terms used against him. 18 Arethas readily adds his voice to the chorus of reprobation directed against Lucian, who nevertheless lived on among the favourite authors of Byzantine readers. Leafing through the comments on Lucian’s works, one realizes that of thirty- nine spiteful allocutions, as many as fourteen can be read in the notes written by Arethas’s hand in the margins of the codex Harleianus 5694 (tenth century—E), and another thirty such epithets can be found in the three manuscripts (Vindob. gr. 123, eleventh century—B; Coisl. gr. 345, tenth century – C; Pal. gr. 73, thirteenth century—R), in which Rabe has identified scholia that can be ascribed to Arethas. Generally, Lucian is blamed for his jokes about Greek religion and philosophy, for his hyperbolic attacks against individuals, and for his presumed ped- erasty. In the dialogue Hermotimus, or Concerning the Sects (`Ερμóτιμος j περi Αlρrσεων) Lycinus, that is to say Lucian, is explaining to Hermo- timus why no philosophical school can guide man in the quest for truth: ΛΥΚ. κατo τα0τo τοiνυν 0παντες μrν οl φιλοσοφο0ντες τjν ε0δαιμονiαν ζητο0σιν oποtóν τi rστιν, καi λrγουσιν 0λλος 0λλο τι α0τjν εiναι, o μrν jδονjν, o δr τò καλóν, o δr oσα rτερo φασι περi α0τjς. εiκòς μrν οuν καi τοuτων rν τι εiναι τò εuδαιμον, ο0κ 0πεικòς δr καi 0λλο τι παρ’ α0τo πoντα. καi rοiκαμεν jμεtς 0νoπαλιν j rχρjν, πρiν τjν 0ρχjν εíρεtν, rπεiγεσ0αι πρòς τò τrλος. rδει δr μοι πρóτερον φανερòν γενrσ0αι oτι rγνωσται τ0λη0rς καi πoντως rχει τις α0τò εiδuς τuν φιλοσοφοuντων. εiτα μετo το0το τò rξjς 0ν jν ζητjσαι, _u πειστrον rστiν. ΕΡΜ. uστε, u Λυκtνε, το0το φjς, oτι ο0δ’ 0ν διo πoσης φιλοσοφiας χωρjσωμεν. ο0δr τóτε πoντως rξομεν τ0λη0rς εíρεtν. (66) LUC: In the same way, all philosophers are investigating the nature of Happiness; they get different answers, one Pleasure, another Goodness, and so through the list. It is probable that Happiness is one of these; but it is also not improbable that it is something else altogether. We seem to have reversed the proper procedure, and hurried on to the end before we had found the beginning. I suppose we ought first to have ascertained that the truth has actually been discovered, and that some philosopher or other has it, and only then to have gone on to the next question, which of them is to be believed. 18 They are listed in Rabe 1906, 336. See also Baldwin 1980–1981. aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 287 HERM: So that, even if we go all through all philosophy, we shall have no certainty of finding the truth even then; that is what you say (trans. H W. and F.G. Fowler). At this point, that is, at Hermotimus’s τ0λη0rς εíρεtν, the Christian orthodoxy in Arethas objects: 19 iνα καi εIρ¸η, τiς uν εíρjσει, βδελυρuτατε, 0ν0ρωπος uν; καi τiς τοuτ_ω πιστεuσει, τjς 0ν0ρuπου φuσεως κατo σr ο0δ’ oλως rχοuσης τò κεκριμrνον καi 0διoπταιστον; To discover it (sc. the truth), who, oh despicable person, will find it while he is still alive, since he is a man? Who, instead, will believe in this, since human nature, according to you, does not have the capacity for judgement and for not making errors? Arethas uses the adjective βδελυρuτατος, which Lucian often used against his rival in Pseudologistes, or the Mistaken Critic (Ψευδολογιστjς j Περi τjς Αποφρoδος). 20 If the convicia against Lucian reveal both the failure on Arethas’s part to acknowledge the pagan author’s irony and his habit of excessively literal interpretation, 21 the mood is different in the notes written in the margin of the Sacred Tales in the Laurentianus 60, 3, whose content, in my view, confirms their attribution to Arethas. In the first note on the left margin of f. 36 v , we read: 0λλo τi ταuτης rδει τjς τοσαuτης καi 0νηνuτου πραγματεiας, 'Αριστεiδη; καi τjς τοσαuτης το0 χρóνου τριβjς; καi τjς φασματuδους oνειρuξεως; εi δuναμις íπjν τ_u 0ε_u σου 'Ασκληπι_u, rξoντη σε νóσου κα0ιστ0ν καi rν βραχει¸0 καιρο0 çοπ¸j oπερ rργον 0εο0 uς τo παρ’ jμtν rχει 0εtα τuν νóσων φυγαδευτjρια. j ο0 καi ανοjτοις το0το σαφrς uς j παρολκj τjς íγεiας τjν φuσιν rστiν rπισκοπο0ντος* rαυτjν οiκονομο0σαν καi πρòς íγεtαν 0ναφrρουσαν, μηνuοντος δr τα0τα, 0λλ’ ο0κ rνεργο0ντος τjν τuν λυποuντων 0παλλαγjν; 0εi σu συνιδεtν ο0κ rχων τoχα συγκoμνοντος το0 λογισμο0 τ_u σuματι, λjρους 0ναπλoττεις μακροuς καi φoσματα φασμoτων εiς κóμπον 0ποτελευτuντα κενòν oδóντων. 22 * καi 0ναμrνοντος. What is the need, Aristides, of such a never-ending business? Of such a waste of time? Of dreaming hallucination? If the power to make you free 19 This note appears only in the Lucian manuscript Harleianus 5694 (E), written by the scribe Baanes (text) with scholia and marginal notes by Arethas. We are thus here right in front of one of Arethas’s notes. See Rabe 1906, 14–17, 244. 20 Lucian, Pseudologistes 3, 19. See Baldwin 1980–1981, 223. 21 See Baldwin 1980–1981, 233. 22 See the formulaic expression in Hom. Il. 11.417 and 12.149. 288 luana quattrocelli from disease resided in your god Asclepius, and that in the blink of an eye being the work of a god? So among us there are divine ‘cities of refuge’ from diseases. Or, is it not clear even to the foolish that a delay of [the return to] health is characteristic of the man who observes (and so waits) that nature manages itself and returns to health of its own accord, and in declaring such a view does not act in order to deliver himself from those things which grieve him? But you, who are never able to see, perhaps because your reason suffers along with your body, you invent heaps of nonsense and ghosts of ghosts that produce only the empty gnashing of teeth. We are here in the second half of the first Sacred Tale (Or. 47.54– 56). Aristides, after listing a great number of dreams, visions, diseases, and medical cures, pauses to relate the umpteenth strange strategy that Asclepius used to order him to fast. In this case, it is a question of poisoned figs, fortune-tellers, sanctuary doctors and phlebotomies, between Smyrna and Pergamum. The argument in this note is repeated in the margins of the third Sacred Tale: κενεαυχjς 0ν0ρωπος rξ 0γαν κουφóτητος iνα μj καi rμπληξiαν λrγω. (f. 54 v , ad 47.43) A vainglorious man in consequence of his excessive levity, so that I am not talking stupidity. It appears again in the margins of the fourth: οiηματiας 0ν0ρωπος καi κομπορρjμων καi περιαυτολóγος τo δr πoντα rκ κοuφης γνuμης καi χαuνου. 0φ’ uν καi j 0πrραντος αIτη α0τ_u oνεριπολε- σχiα (f. 62 v , ad 50.48). A conceited person and a boaster and always talking about himself: all of this comes from a weak wit and from vanity. From this it comes to him even this boundless talking in dreams. In more recent times, Giacomo Leopardi, at the age of sixteen, wrote of the Sacred Tales: ‘Dopo aver letto tutto ciò, la persona saggia non può sottrarsi, a causa del cieco egocentrismo dell’autore, ad una sensazione di nausea’. 23 In light of the judgement of such a sensitive and learned mind, Arethas’s lack of restraint in his criticism of Arstides appears less objectionable. Certainly, it is true that before the strange ravings of the Sacred Tales, the learned Archbishop from Caesarea would have 23 Leopardi 1878, 43–80. See also Tommasi Moreschini 2005. aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 289 read on the same codex models of rare and irreproachable sophistic expertise in the more typically rhetorical orations (Orations I–XV Keil), where there is almost no trace of diseases, dreams, and the cult of Asclepius. As a Christian Arethas must have been uneasy about the title `Ιεροi λóγοι, Sacred Tales, which echoed his Sacred Scriptures too much. When he then had to associate such an elevated title with content that would have been completely improper in relation to the concept of sacredness upheld by the Christian orthodoxy, Arethas could no longer refrain from reprobation, albeit administered in small doses of ironical comments, annoyed reactions, concise judgements, and true contumelies. Later on he says: iδε rμβροντησiαν καi rμπληξiαν 0ν0ρuπου καi τα0τα δóξαι σοφο0. 24 (f. 44 r ; ad 48.41) Look at the stupidity and the rashness—and such things are the opinions of a wise man. A bit later still, Arethas has the following opinion about an enema to which Aristides submits in order to purify his liver: καλuς γε το0το μóνον εiσελ0òν, uς 0ν 0ποκα0oρ¸η τjν φαντασιοκοπο0σαν κóπρον, καi πρòς τò φρονεtν τε καi σωφρονεtν rπαναχ0εiης εi καi μjδε οIτω 25 τ_ u δrοντι μετεγrνου (f. 44 v , ad 48.43). This is the only good thing that has come into his mind, that he might purify the dung that overworks his imagination and that you might be returned to your mind and your senses although you have not come back to this condition at the point when it was necessary. In the other notes the tone continues to alternate between insulting epithets and scornful irony, resulting in some cases, as in the one just seen, in unexpected vulgarity in a church man and a scholar like Arethas. Soon after, Arethas mocks even the dietary remedies adopted by Aristides: δελφuνιον rσ0iων καi χηνòς jπαρ—τo 0πεπτóτατα—rβοuλου τòν στó- μαχον ε0ρωστεtν; jδuς εi 26 (f. 44 v , but the reference is ad 48.43). Eating delphynion and goose liver—by far the most indigestible food—did you want to strengthen your stomach? How ingenuous! 24 Dindorf (1829, III,343) here adds an rχοντος that is not in the original text. 25 Dindorf (1829, II,344) writes ðντως. 26 Cf. Pl. Gorg. 491e: uς jδuς εi (‘how foolish you are’!). 290 luana quattrocelli In his aversion to our pagan author, Arethas goes so far as to exploit the exaggerated irony in his own comments, which ridicule Aristides’ quite unusual pronouncements. What Aristides had in fact said (Or. 48.43) was that when he was at death’s door, after an encouraging apparition of the goddess Athena, he decided to administer to himself an enema of Attic honey in order to purify his bile: καi μετo τα0τα jκεν ioματα καi τροφαi πρuτον μrν jπαρ. οiμαι. χηνòς μετo τjν πολλjν 0πóρρησιν πρòς 0παντα τo σιτiα. rπειτα íεiου τι íπογα- στρiου. (Or. 48.43). And after this came curatives and nourishment. First, I think, goose liver after frequent refusal of all food. Then some sausage. The Greek text, then, mentions jπαρ χηνòς and íεiου τι íπογαστρiου. In his comments on δελφuνιον καi χηνòς jπαρ, Arethas, who was evi- dently in the dark about dietary habits and pharmacopoeia in the sec- ond century, deliberately distorts the foods prescribed with escalating irony. The ‘some sausage’ (íεiου τι íπογαστρiου) appears to Arethas quite curious and out of place: it has become the vulgar δελφuνιον, which is probably the diminutive of δελφuς, δελφuος (vulva, uterus). Given the harshness of Arethas’s censure, it is not surprising that Aristides is also called a ‘terrible drunkard’: uς rοικεν οiνοπóτης δεινòς 'Αριστεiδης (f. 53 v , ad Or. 49.32). In this case, the commentator shows that he has fully understood the Greek author’s references (Or. 49.32): oσον μrν οuν τινα χρóνον διjνεγκα τjν íδροποσiαν, ο0δr το0το rχω λrγειν, oτι δ’ ε0κóλως τε καi ç¸αδiως, αiεi πως πρóτερον δυσχεραiνων τò Iδωρ καi ναυτιuν. uς δr καi το0το rλελειτοuργητο, το0 μrν Iδατος 0φiησi με, οiνου δr rταξεν μrτρον, καi jν γε τò çjμα ‘jμiνα βασιλικj’· γνuριμον δjπου oτι rφραζεν jμικοτuλιον. rχρuμην τοuτ_ω καi οIτως jρκει uς ο0κ jρκει πρóτερον τò διπλoσιον, rστιν δ’ oτε καi φειδομrν_ω íπò το0 δεδιrναι μj μr τι λυπ¸j περιjν. ο0 μjν το0τó γε rποιοuμην rξαiρετον εiς τjν íστεραiαν, 0λλ’ rξ 0ρχjς rδει τ_ u μrτρ_ ω στrργειν. rπεi δr καi ταuτην εiχε τjν πεtραν, 0φiησιν jδη πiνειν πρòς rξουσiαν, οíτωσi πως χαριεντισoμενος, oτι μoταιοι τuν 0ν0ρuπων εiεν oσοι τuν lκανuν ε0πορο0ντες μj τολμuσιν rλευ0rρως χρjσ0αι. I also cannot say for how long I endured water drinking, but it was easy and pleasant, although before I always found water somehow disagree- able and disgusting. When this duty also had been performed, he took me off water, and assigned me a measure of wine. The word was ‘a demiroyal’. It is quite clear that he meant a half pint. I used this, and it sufficed, as formerly twice the amount did not. Sometimes there was even some wine left over, since I was sparing through fear that it might be harmful. Nor did I add this residue to the next day, but I had to be con- aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 291 tent anew with the measure. When he had also made this experiment, he permitted me to drink as much as I wished, and made some sort of joke, to the effect that they are foolish men who are rich in material goods and do not dare to use them freely. Aristides speaks about jμικοτuλιον, that is to say, a ‘half kotyle’, in referring to the amount of wine assigned to him by the god. If the quantity of wine permitted by Asclepius was so limited, the quantity of wine that Aristides regularly drank prior to his disease must have been more excessive—hence Arethas refers to him as a ‘terrible drunkard’ (οiνοπóτης δεινóς). Even if we are simply observing Arethas’s usual behaviour here, as the notes to Plato and Lucian suggest, his comments on Aristides’ Sacred Tales have a peculiarity of their own. It is as if in the face of these ora- tions Arethas developed a veritable intolerance of the classical author. While his aversion to what he read in Plato or in Lucian grew out of his cultural context, with the Sacred Tales he engages in a polemic of a religious nature. He is no longer confronting Plato’s obvious pagan- ism or Lucian’s alleged atheism; rather, he is confronting a true rival of Christianity. Insofar as Aristides is devoted to one god alone, albeit a pagan one, he becomes an imitator of Christian monotheism for our Byzantine commentator. What appears most hateful about Aris- tides is his representation of Asclepius as precisely the kind of god that Arethas’s God is for the Christians: a god of redemption, who sees everything, knows his believers, and does everything necessary for their salvation. If we are to understand Arethas and ‘his’ Aristides, we cannot lose sight of two aspects of the Sacred Tales. First, we must consider the image of Asclepius. The god is usually invoked as ‘the Saviour’ (o Σωτjρ): he is a god who loves his devoted suppliant Aristides and intervenes directly to secure his salvation, a god who achieves miracles for him and through him. Second, with respect to Aelius Aristides, we should note the Aristidean triangle patient-god-tales that begins to emerge in the Sacred Tales as a self-conscious reworking of the Hippocratic trian- gle patient-disease-doctor. 27 Without an addressee, Aristides’ experience would be interesting only as a religious-mystical event, though a privi- leged and in some respects extreme one. Aristides’ choice to communi- cate that experience by giving it a literary form, however, confirms the 27 See Pernot 2002, 371. 292 luana quattrocelli validity of his experience and its successful outcome. Through being recounted in the Sacred Tales, Aristides’ spiritual experience participates in the ‘biological’ cycle proper to an orthodox religious experience, a cycle made up of: 1) the god’s choice of the beloved believer; 2) the personal experience of divine power; 3) the celebration of the greatness of the god himself through a direct testimony before others, regardless of whether they, too, are followers. It is evident that the representation of Asclepius as a savior god, together with the religious testimony that Aristides offers in the Sacred Tales, makes the second- century pagan orator dangerous for a defender of the Christian faith. From this perspective we can more easily understand the reason for Arethas’s virulent attacks on Aristides in the margins to the Sacred Tales, attacks that, as one might expect, are absent from the margins to Aristides’ other orations. It is because of his deep-seated aversion that Arethas directs his irreverent contempt not only against Aelius Aristides and his travails, but also against Asclepius. We have already seen in the first note how ironic Arethas can be about Asclepius’ capacity to heal: εi δuναμις íπjν τ_u 0ε_u σου 'Ασκληπι_u rξoντη σε νóσου κα0ιστ0ν …(if the power resides in your god Asclepius to make you free of your disease…). After reading the long account of the baths in the river and in the sea that Asclepius imposes on Aristides (Or. 48.52–55), Arethas comments in the same scornful and vexed tone: uς rοικεν 0ντi χηνòς 00uρματi σοι rκrχρητο, 'Αριστεiδη, o 0αυμαστóς σου 0εòς 'Ασκληπιòς τοσοuτοις λυτροtς σε διoγων. (f. 46 r , ad 48.52–55) It seems, Aristides, that instead of a goose your wonderful god Asclepius has made you his pet, amusing you with such baths! The 0αυμαστóς σου, referring to Asclepius, and the 00uρματi σοι, directed at Aristides, show the self-satisfaction that Arethas derives from his displays of irony and contempt. One particularly striking detail of the scholia is the contrast between the quality of the prose of Aristides, who is the addressee of the convicia, and the stylistic level of Arethas’s own prose as the author of those convicia. Although the style of the Sacred Tales is certainly not one of the best examples of Aristidean Atticism—indeed, André Boulanger has spoken of their ‘naïveté profonde’ (1923, 348)—nevertheless it shines in comparison with the writing of the medieval commentator. Lacking in any rhetorical structuring or philological severity, Arethas’s phrasing is difficult and elliptical, obscure and careless. aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 293 Despite Arethas’s ironic and contemptuous comments, Aelius Aris- tides retains his favored position in Byzantium. Few pagan authors have had their corpus of works so richly preserved in multiple manuscripts (232). In the eleventh century, not too long after the Archbishop of Caesarea wrote his harsh notes, Psellus, perhaps the most outstand- ing author of the Byzantine Middle Ages, registers his high esteem for Aristides’ eloquence by placing him next to Demosthenes. The great- est praise that Psellus has for Basil and Gregorius Nazianzenus con- sists of him stressing how much they recall Aristides, the first for the breadth of his argumentation, the second for the grace of his style. Aristides’ fame remains intact for centuries until we reach the scripto- rium of Maximus Planudes, who made scribes copy both the weighty volumes containing Aristides’ entire œuvre and smaller manuscripts of selected orations, which were indispensable to the learned humanist’s studies. We are now at the beginning of the fourteenth century. For the eastern Renaissance, which first develops in this period, Aelius Aristides has definitively become one of the classics of Greek literature. BIBLIOGRAPHY Editions and Translations of Aelius Aristides Amann, J. (1931) Die Zeusrede des Ailios Aristeides [Tübinger Beiträge zur Alter- tumswissenschaft 12] (Tübingen). Behr, C.A., trans. (1968) Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam). ———, and F.W. Lenz, eds. (1976–1980) P. Aelii Aristidis. Opera Quae Exstant Omnia, 1 vol., fasc. 4 (Leiden). ———, trans. (1981) P. Aelius Aristides. The Complete Works. Vol. II (Leiden). ———, trans. (1986) P. Aelius Aristides. The Complete Works. Vol. I (Leiden). Cortés Copete, J.M., trans. (1997) Elio Aristide, Discursos. Vol. IV [Biblioteca Clasica Gredos 238] (Madrid). Dindorf, G., ed. (1829) Aristides ex recensione, 3 vol. (Leipzig). Festugière, A. and H.-D. Saffrey, trans. and comm. (1986) Discours sacrés: Rêve, religion, médecine au IIe siècle après J.C. (Paris). Fontanella, F., ed. and trans. (2007) A Roma. Elio Aristide (Pisa). Gascó, F.A. de Verger Ramírez, L.A. Fueyo Llera, J.M. Copete Cortés, ed. and trans. (1987–1999) Elio Aristides, Discursos, 5 vol. (Madrid). Jöhrens, G., ed. and trans. (1981) Der Athenahymnus des Ailios Aristeides, 2 vol. (Bonn). Keil, B., ed. (1898) Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt omnia. Vol. II: Orationes XVII–LIII continens (Berlin). Reprinted Hildesheim: 2000. Klein, R., ed. and trans. (1981–1983) Die Romrede des Aelius Aristides, 2 vol. (Darmstadt). Nicosia, S., trans. (1984) Elio Aristide. Discorsi sacri (Milan). Oliver J.H., trans. (1968) The Civilizing Power. A Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides against the Background of Literature and Cultural Conflict [Transac- tions of the American Philosophical Society 58] (Philadelphia). Pernot, L., ed. and trans. (1992) Les Discours siciliens d’Aelius Aristide (Or. 5– 6). Étude littéraire et paléographique, édition et traduction. 2nd ed. (Salem, NH). Originally published New York: 1981. Schröder, H.O., trans. (1986) Heilige Berichte. Einleitung, deutsche Übersetzung und Kommentar (Heidelberg). Secondary Works Aalders, G.J.D. (1982) Plutarch’s Political Thought. Trans. A.M. Manekofsky (Ams- terdam and New York). Adams, J.N., M. Janse, S. Swain, eds. (2002). Bilingualism in Ancient Society. Language Contact and the Written Word (Oxford). 296 bibliography Adams, J.N. (2003) Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge). Adler, A., ed. (1928–1938) Suidae Lexicon. 5 vol. (Leipzig). Ahl, F.M. (1984) ‘The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome’, AJP 105:174– 208. ———, and J. Garthwaite. (1984) ‘The Rider and the Horse. Politics and Power in Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius’, ANRW II.32.1, 40–124 (Berlin and New York). Aleshire, S.B. (1989) The Athenian Asklepieion. The People, Their Dedications, and the Inventories (Amsterdam). Anderson, G. (1989) ‘The pepaideumenos in Action. Sophists and Their Outlook in the Early Empire’, ANRW II.33.1, 79–208 (Berlin and New York). ———, (1993) The Second Sophistic. A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire (London and New York). ———, (2007) ‘Rhetoric and the Second Sophistic’, in Dominik and Hall, 339– 353. Andersson, P. and B.-A. Roos. (1997) ‘On the Psychology of Aelius Aristides’, Eranos 95:26–38. André, J.-M. (1982) ‘La conception de l’État et de l’Empire dans la pensée gréco-romaine des deux premiers siècles de notre ère’, ANRW II.30.1, 3–73 (Berlin and New York). Ashton, R. (1996) ‘A Rhodian Bronze Hoard of the Late II Century AD’, in Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey, 41–42 (London). Avotins, I. (1978) ‘The Sophist Aristocles and the Grammarian Phrynichus’, La Parola del Passato 33:181–191. ———, (1982) ‘A Reinterpretation of Aelius Aristides’ 33.30–31K’, TAPA 112:1–6. Bakhtin, M. (1981) ‘Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel’, in The Dialogic Imagination. Trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, 84–258 (Austin). Baldwin, B. (1980–1981) ‘The Scholiasts’ Lucian’, Helikon 20–21:219–234. Barbieri, G. (1955) Conone [Studi pubblicati dall’Istituto italiano per la storia antica 13] (Rome). Barton, T. (1994) Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, and Medicine under the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor). Barwick, K. (1928) ‘Die Gliederung der narratio in der rhetorischen Theo- rie und ihre Bedeutung für die Geschichte des antiken Romans’, Hermes 63:261–287. Baslez, M.-F., P. Hoffmann, and L. Pernot, eds. (1993) L’invention de l’autobio- graphie: d’Hésiode à Saint Augustine. Actes du deuxième colloque de l’Equipe de recherche sur l’hellénisme post-classique (Paris). Beck, M. (2004) ‘Plutarch on the Statesman’s Independence of Action’, in de Blois et al., 105–114. Beecke E. (1905) Die historischen Angaben in Aelius Aristides Panathenaikos auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Strasbourg). Behr, C.A. (1969) ‘Aelius Aristides’ Birth Date Corrected to November 26, 117 A.D.’, AJP 90:75–77. ———, (1994) ‘Studies on the Biography of Aelius Aristides’, ANRW II.34.2, 1140–1233 (Berlin and New York). Bidez, J. (1934) ‘Aréthas de Césarée éditeur et scholiaste’, Byzantion 9:391–408. bibliography 297 Birley, A. (1966) Marcus Aurelius (London). (1987) Marcus Aurelius: a Biography Revised ed. (London). Blinkenberg, H. (1913) ‘Rhodou Ktistai’, Hermes 48:236–249. ———, (1941) Lindos II. Inscriptions (Copenhagen). de Blois, L. (2004) ‘Classical and Contemporary Statesmen in Plutarch’s Prae- cepta’, in de Blois et al., 57–63. de Blois, L., et al., eds. (2004) The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society, Nijmegen/Castle Hernen, May 1–5, 2002. Vol. I (Leiden). Blümel, W. (2004) ‘Neue Inschriften aus Karia II: Mylasa und Umgebung’, Epigraphica Anatolica 37:1–42. Boas, M. (1905) De Epigrammatis Simonideis. Diss. Groningen. Bompaire, J. (1976) ‘Les historiens classiques dans les exercices préparatoires de rhétorique (progymnasmata)’, in Recueil Plassart. Études sur l’antiquité grecque offertes à André Plassart par ses collègues de la Sorbonee, 1–7 (Paris). ———, (1993) ‘Quatre styles d’autobiographie au IIe siècle après J.-C.: Aelius Aristide, Lucien, Marc-Aurèle, Galien’, in Baslez et al., 199–209. Bost-Pouderon, C. (2006) Dion Chrysostom. Trois discourses aux villes (Orr. 33–35), 2 vol. (Salerno). Boudon, V. (1994) ‘Le rôle de l’eau dans les prescriptions médicales d’Asclépios chez Galien et Aelius Aristide’, in L’eau, la santé et la maladie dans le monde grec. Ed. R. Ginouvès, A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, J. Jouanna and L. Villard, 157–168 (Paris). Bouffartigue, J. (1996) ‘La tradition de l’éloge de la cité dans le monde grec’, in La fin de la cité antique et le début de la cité médiévale. Ed. C. Lepelley, 43–58 (Bari). 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. (1982) ‘The Importance of Sophists’, YCS 27:29–59. ———, (1974 [1970]) ‘Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic’, in Studies in Ancient Society. Ed. M. Finley, 166–209 (London and Boston). Originally published in Past and Present 46 (1970) 3–41. ———, (1989) ‘Greek Sophists and Greek Poetry in the Second Sophistic’, ANRW II.33.1, 209–258 (Berlin and New York). ———, (1997) ‘Plutarch’s Citations of Early Elegiac and Iambic Poetry’, in Plutarco y la Historia (Actas del V Simposio Español sobre Plutarco Zaragoza 1996). Ed. C. Schrader, V. Ramón and J. Vela, 99–108 (Zaragoza). ———, (2000) ‘Athenaeus’ Citations of Early Greek Elegiac and Iambic Poetry’, in The World of Athenaeus, 124–135. Ed. D. Braund and J. Wilkins (Exeter). ———, (2001) ‘Ancestors of Herodotus in Early Greek Elegiac and Iambic Poetry’, in The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. Ed. N. Luraghi, 45– 66 (Oxford). ———, (2004) ‘Denys d’Alexandrie. Un poète grec dans l’Empire romain’, REA 106:177–185. ———, (2006) ‘Choral Performances’ in Konstan and Said, 61–92. ———, (2007) ‘The Ups and Downs of Aristophanic Travel in the Greek 298 bibliography Literature of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries A.D.’, in Aristophanes in Performance. 421 BC–AD 2007. Ed. E. Hall and A. Wrigley, 32–51 (Oxford). ———, Forthcoming (a) ‘Quotation of Earlier Texts in τo rς τòν Τυανrα 'Απολ- λuνιον’, in Theios Sophistes [Mnemosyne Supplement]. Ed. K. Demoen and D. Pratt, 57–73 (Leiden). ———, Forthcoming (b) ‘Plutarch’s Habits of Citation: Aspects of Difference’, in The Unity of Plutarch’s Work. Ed. A. Nikolaidis, 143–157 (Berlin). ———, Forthcoming (c) on Stobaeus from Fondation Hardt workshop. Bradbury, S., trans. (2004) Selected Letters of Libanius: From the Age of Constantius and Julian (Liverpool). Bresson, A. (1996) ‘L’onomastique romaine à Rhodes’, in Roman Onomastics in the Greek East. Social and Political Aspects. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Athens 7–9 September 1993. Ed. A. Rizakis, 225–238 (Athens). ———, (2002) ‘Italiens et Romains à Rhodes et à Caunos’, in Les Italiens dans le monde grec. IIe siècle av. J.-C-Ier siècle ap. J.-C. Circulation, Activités, Intégration. Actes de la table ronde. [BCH Suppl. 41]. Ed. C. Müller and C. Hasenohr, 147–162 (Paris). ———, (2004) ‘Dédicaces de Lindos et de Rhodes pour Titus Flavius Aglôchar- tos’, in L’Hellénisme à l’époque romaine: nouveaux documents, nouvelles approches (Ier s. a.C.—IIIe s. p.C.). Actes du Colloque international à la mémoire de Louis Robert. Ed. S. Follet, 225–232 (Paris). Brown, P. (1978) The Making of Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass). Brunt, P.A. (1978) ‘Laus imperii’, in Imperialism in the Ancient World. Ed. P.D.A. Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker, 159–191 (Cambridge). ———, (1994) ‘The Bubble of the Second Sophistic’, BICS 39:25–52. Bubenik, V. (1989) Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area (Amsterdam and Philadelphia). Buraselis, K. (2001) ‘Two Notes on Theophanes’ Descendants’, in The Greek East in the Roman Context. Proceedings of a Colloquium Organized by the Finnish Institute at Athens, May 21–22, 1999. Ed. O. Salomies, 60–70 (Helsinki). Burnet, J., ed. (1905) Platonis Opera. 5 vol. (Oxford). Burrell, B. (2005) ‘Review of Sviatoslav Dmitriev. City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor’, American Historical Review 110:1574. Burrus, V. (2003) ‘Macrina’s Tattoo’, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33:403–417. Cabouret, B. (2000) Libanios: Lettres aux hommes de son temps (Paris). Cadoux, J. (1938) Ancient Smyrna (Oxford). Cairns, D. (2003) ‘The Politics of Envy: Envy and Equality in Ancient Greece’, in Konstan and Rutter, 233–252. Cairns, H. and E. Hamilton. (1961) The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters (Princeton). Calboli Montefusco, L. (2003) ‘Ductus and color. The Right Way to Compose a Suitable Speech’, Rhetorica 21:113–131. Caliò, L. and E. Interdonato. (2005) ‘Theatri curvaturae similis: note sull’urbanis- tica delle città a forma di teatro’, Archeologia classica 66:49–130. Campanile, M.D. (1996) ‘Città d’Asia Minore tra Mitridate e Roma’, in Studi ellenistici VIII. Ed. B. Virgilio, 145–173 (Pisa and Rome). bibliography 299 Campbell, D.A. (1982) Greek Lyric. Vol. I. (Cambridge, Mass. and London). Cante, M. (1986–1987) ‘Rodi: l’arco quadrifronte sul decumano massimo’, Annuario della Scuola Archaeologica di Atene 64–65:175–266. Capelle, W. (1932) ‘Griechische Ethik und römischer Imperialismus’, Klio 25:86–113. Carsana, C. (1990) La teoria della costituzione mista nell’età imperiale romana (Como). Cartledge, P., and A.J. Spawforth. (2002 [1989]) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities. 2nd ed. (London). Carusi, C. (2003) Isole e peree in Asia Minore. Contributo allo studio dei rapporti tra poleis insulari e territori continentali dipendenti (Pisa). Cassin B. (1991) ‘Consensus et création des valeurs. Qu’est-ce qu’un éloge?’, in Les Grecs, les Romains et nous. L’Antiquité est-elle moderne? Ed. R.P. Droit, 273–299 (Paris). Castelli, C. (1999) ‘Intenzionalità espressiva e ordine della narrazione nei Discorsi Sacri di Elio Aristide’, Acme 52:197–212. Chaniotis, A. (1995) ‘Illness and Cures in the Greek Propitiatory Inscrip- tions and Dedications of Lydia and Phrygia’, in van der Eijk et al., 323– 344. ———, (1997) ‘Reinheit des Körpers—Reinheit des Sinnes in den griechischen Kultgesetzen’, in Schuld, Gewissen und Person: Studien zur Geschichte des inneren Mensche. Ed. J. Assmann and T. Sundermeier, 142–179 (Gütersloh). Chantraine, P. (1950) ‘Les Mots grecs signifiant lire’, in Mélanges Henri Grégoire II = Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire orientales et slaves 10:115–126. Chiron, P. (2003) ‘Le logos eskhèmatisménos ou discours figuré’, in La parole polé- mique. Ed. J. Dangel, G. Declercq and M. Murat, 223–254 (Paris). von Christ, W. (1920–1924) Geschichte der griechischen Literatur II: Die nachklas- sische Periode der griechischen Literatur, 6. Ed. W. Schmid and O. Stählin 1–2 (Munich). Civiletti, M. (2002) Filostrato, Vite dei sofisti (Milan). Classen, C.J. (1980) Die Stadt im Spiegel der Descriptiones und Laudes Urbium (Hildes- heim). Clavaud, R. (1980) Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhétorique de son temps (Paris). Connolly, J. (2001) ‘Problems of the Past in Imperial Greek Education’, in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Ed. Y.L. Too, 339–372 (Leiden). ———, (2007) ‘Virile Tongues: Rhetoric and Masculinity’, in Dominik and Hall, 83–97. Cook, B. (2004) ‘Plutarch’s “Many Other” Imitable Events: Mor. 814b and the Statesman’s Duty’, in de Blois et al., 201–210. Cortés J.M. (1995) ‘Elio Aristides, autor de XXV K’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 5:197–207. Cortés Copete, J.M. (1995) Elio Aristide. Un sofista griego en el Imperio Romano (Madrid). Coventry, L. (1989) ‘Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Menexenus’, JHS 109:1– 15. Cribiore, R. (2001) Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton). ———, (2007a) The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton). 300 bibliography ———, (2007b) ‘Lucian, Libanius, and the Short Road to Rhetoric’, GRBS 47:71–86. Crooks, J. (1998) ‘Socrates’ Last Words: Another Look at an Ancient Riddle’, CQ 48:117–125. Cugnoni, G. (1878) Opere inedite di Giacomo Leopardi. Vol. I (Halle). Dagron, G. (1968) ‘L’empire romain d’orient au IVe siècle et les traditions politiques de l’hellénisme: Le témoignage de Thémistios’, Travaux et Mémoires 3:1–242. Daudet, A. (2002) In the Land of Pain. Ed. and trans. J. Barnes (New York). Davies, M., ed. (1991–) Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum fragmenta. (Oxford). Debru, A. (1995) ‘Les demonstrations médicales à Rome au temps de Galien’, in van der Eijk et al., 69–81. Degani, E. (1991) ‘Introduzione’, in Luciano, Questioni d’amore. Ed. E. Cavallini, 9–29 (Venice). DeLaine, J. and D.E. Johnston, eds. (1999) Roman Baths and Bathing (Portsmouth, RI). Del Corno, D. (1978) ‘I sogni e la loro interpretazione nell’età dell’impero’, ANRW II.16.2, 1605–1618 (Berlin and New York). D’Elia, S. (1995) Una monarchia illuminata. La cultura nell’età degli Antonini (Naples). Demoen, K. ‘ “Où est la beauté qui admiraient tous les yeux?” La ville détruite dans les traditions poétique et rhétorique’, in The Greek City from Antiquity to the Present. Historical Reality, Ideological Construction, Literary Representation. Ed. K. Demoen, 103–125 (Louvain, Paris, and Stanford). de Romilly J. (1947) Thucydide et l’impérialisme athénien (Paris). Derrida, J. (1980) ‘Plato’s Pharmacy’, in Dissemination. Trans. B. Johnson (Chi- cago). Desbordes, F. (1993) ‘Le texte caché. Problèmes figurés dans la déclamation latine’, REL 71:73–86. Desideri, P. (1978) Dione di Prusa. Un intellettuale greco nell’impero romano (Messina and Firenze). ———, (2002) ‘Dimensioni della polis in età alto-imperiale romana’, Prometheus 28:139–150. ———, (2003) ‘Roma e la Grecia: una cultura per due popoli’, Studi Ellenistici 15:229–243. de Souza, P. (1999) Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge). Detienne, M. (1967) Les maîtres de vérité dans la Grèce archaïque (Paris). Dmitriev, S. (2005) City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor (Oxford). Dodds, E.R. (1951) The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley and Los Angeles). ———, (1965) Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (New York). Dominik, W. and J. Hall, eds. (2007) A Companion to Roman Rhetoric (Oxford). Dorandi, T. (2005) ‘Il “Diario” dei sogni di Elio Aristide: Per una interpre- tazione del primo Discorso Sacro (47 Keil)’, Segno e Testo 3:51–59. DuBois, P. (1991) Torture and Truth (New York and London). Dunbabin, K.M.D. (1989) ‘Baiarum Grata Voluptas: Pleasures and Dangers of the Baths’, Papers of the British School at Rome 57:7–46. Duncan-Jones, R.P. (1996). ‘The Impact of the Antonine Plague’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 9:108–136. bibliography 301 Durry, M. (1938) Pline le Jeune: Panégyrique de Trajan (Paris). Eck, W. (1983) ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139’, Chiron 13:147–237. ———, (1991) ‘P. Aelius Apollonides, ab epistulis Graecis, und ein Brief des Cornelius Fronto’, ZPE 91:236–242. Edelstein, E.J., and L. Edelstein (1945). Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (Baltimore). Edwards, C. (1999) ‘The Suffering Body: Philosophy and Pain in Seneca’s Letters’, in Porter, 252–268. Elsner, J. and I. Rutherford, eds. (2005) Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods (Oxford). Erskine, A. (1991) ‘Rhodes and Augustus’, ZPE 88:272–275. Fagan, G.G. (1999). Bathing in Public in the Roman World (Ann Arbor). ———, (2006) ‘Bathing for Health with Celsus and Pliny the Elder’, CQ 56:190– 207. Farrington, A. (1999) ‘The Introduction and Spread of Roman Bathing in Greece’, in DeLaine and Johnston, 57–66. Fassò, G. (2001) Storia della filosofia del diritto I: Antichità e medioevo. Edizione aggiornata a cura di C. Faralli. (Rome and Bari). Originally published Bologna: 1966–1970. Ferrary, J.L. (1984) ‘L’Archéologie du De re publica (2,2,4–37–63): Cicéron entre Polybe et Platon’, JRS 54:87–98. ———, (1988) Philhellénisme et impérialisme. Aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique (Rome). ———, (1999) ‘La liberté des cités et ses limites à l’époque republicaine’, Mediter- raneo Antico 2:69–84. Festugière, A.-J. (1954) Personal Religion Among the Greeks (Berkeley and Los Ange- les). ———, (1960) ‘Lieux communs littèraires themes de folk-lore dans l’Hagio- graphie primitive’, Wiener Studien 73:123–152. ———, (1969) ‘Sur les “Discours Sacrés” d’Aelius Aristide’, REG 82:117–153. Fischer, E., ed. (1974) Die Ekloge des Phrynichos. [Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker Bd.1] (Berlin and New York). Flinterman, J.-J. (2002) ‘The Self-Portrait of an Antonine Orator: Aristides, or. 2, 429ff.’, in Greek Romans and Roman Greeks. Ed. E.N. Ostenfeld, 198–211 (Aarhus). ———, (2004) ‘Sophists and Emperors: A Reconnaissance of Sophistic Atti- tudes’, in Paideia. The World of the Second Sophistic. Ed. B.E. Borg, 359–376 (Berlin and New York). Foerster, R. (1903–1927) Libanius, Opera. 12 vol. (Leipzig). Reprinted Hildesheim: 1963. Follet, S. (1976) Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle. Etudes chronologiques et prosopographiques (Paris). Foucault, M. (1986) The History of Sexuality, Vol. 3: The Care of the Self. Trans. R. Hurley (New York). ———, (1997a) ‘Self Writing’, in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984. Vol. I. Ed. P. Rabinow, 208–222 (New York). 302 bibliography ———, (1997b) ‘Technologies of the Self ’, in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984. Vol. I. Ed. P. Rabinow, 223–251 (New York). Fowler, H.W. and F.G. Fowler. (1905) The Works of Lucian of Samosata (Oxford). Franco, C. (2005) ‘Elio Aristide e Smirne’, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Memorie, Ser. IX, 19:347–584. Frank, G. (2000) ‘Macrina’s Scar: Homeric Allusion and Heroic Identity in Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Macrina’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 8:511– 530. Fraser, P.M. and G.E. Bean. (1954) The Rhodian Peraea and the Islands (Oxford). Fraser, P.M. (1977) Rhodian Funerary Documents (Oxford). Fuchs, H. (1964) Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt. 2nd ed. (Berlin). Gabba, E. (1979) ‘Per un’interpretazione politica del de officiis di Cicerone’, Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei, ser. 8 34:117–141. ———, (1990) ‘L’imperialismo romano’, in Storia di Roma 2, I: L’Impero Mediter- raneo. La Repubblica Imperiale. Ed. G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, and E. Gabba, 189–233 (Turin). ———, (1996) Dionigi e la storia di Roma arcaica (Bari). Gabrielsen, V. (1997) The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes (Aarhus). ———, (2001) ‘Economic Activity, Maritime Trade and Piracy in the Hellenistic Aegean’, REA 103:219–240. Gangloff, A. (2006) Dion Chrysostome et les mythes. Hellénisme, communication et philosophie politique (Grenoble). Garbarino, G. (1973) Roma e la filosofia greca dalle origini alla fine del 2. secolo a. C.: raccolta di testi con introduzione e commento. 2 vol. (Turin). Garlan, Y. (1974) Recherches de poliorcétique grecque (Paris). Gascó, F. (1992a) ‘Para una interpretacion historica de las declamaciones en tiempos de la segunda sofistica’, Athenaeum 80:421–431. ———, (1992b) ‘Elio Aristides: historias griegas para tiempos romanos’, in El Pasado renacido. Uso y abuso de la tradición clasica. Ed. E. Falque and F. Gascó, 39–54 (Seville). Gasparro, G.S. (1998) ‘Elio Aristide e Asclepio, un retore e il suo dio: salute del corpo e direzione spirituale’, in Cultura e promozione umana. La cura del corpo e dello spirito nell’antichità classica e nei primi secoli cristiani. Ed. E. Dal Covolo and I. Giannetto, 123–143 (Troina). Gauthier, P. (1984) ‘Les cités hellénistiques: épigraphie et histoire des institu- tions et des régimes politiques’, in Praktika tou ¯ E’ Diethnous Synedriou Hellenik¯es kai latinik¯es Epigraphik¯es. Ath¯ena, 3–9/X/1982, 82–107 (Athens). Geffcken, J., ed. (1902) Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig). Georgoulaki, E. (1997) ‘Votives in the Shape of Human Body Parts: Shaping a Framework’, Platon 49:188–206. Gibson, R.K. (2003) ‘Pliny and the Art of (In)offensive Self-praise’, Arethusa 36:235–254. Gigante, M. (1990) ‘Socrate nei Discorsi Sacri di Elio Aristide’, Elenchos 11:77–78. Gigli, D. (1977) ‘Stile e linguaggio onirico nei Discorsi sacri di Elio Aristide’, Cultura e Scuola 61–62:214–224. bibliography 303 Gignac, F.T. (1981) A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Volume II: Morphology (Milan). Giner Soria, M.C. (1989) Elio Arístides, Luciano de Samosata, Discursos sagrados, Sobre la muerte de Peregrino y Alejandro o el falso profeta (Madrid). Ginouvès, R. (1962) Balaneutikè (Paris). Giovannini, A. and D. Van Berchem, eds. (1987) Oppositions et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan (Vandœuvres-Geneva). Gkourogiannis, T.K. (1999) Pindaric Quotations in Aelius Aristides. Ph.D. Thesis, London. Gleason, M.W. (1995) Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton). ———, (1999) ‘Truth Contests and Talking Corpses’, in Porter, 287–306. ———, (2001) ‘Mutilated Messengers: Body Language in Josephus’, in Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Ed. S. Goldhill, 50–85 (Cambridge). Goldhill, S. (1991) The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature (Cam- bridge). Gorrini, M.E. (2005) ‘The Hippocratic Impact on Healing Cults: the Archae- ological Evidence in Attica’, in Hippocrates in Context. Papers Read at the XIth International Hippocrates Colloquium, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 27–31 August 2002. Ed. P. van der Eijk, 135–156 (Leiden). Gostoli, A., ed. (1990) Terpander, Testimonia, Fragmenta (Rome). Gotteland, S. (2001) Mythes et rhétorique: les exemples mythiques dans le discours politique de l’Athènes classique (Paris). Gourevitch, D. (1984) Le Triangle Hippocratique dans le Monde Gréco-Romain (Par- is). Gourevitch, M. and D. Gourevitch. (1968) ‘Le cas Aelius Aristide ou mémoire d’un hystérique au 2e siècle’, Information psychiatrique 44:897–902. Gowing, A.M. (1991) ‘Appian and Rhodian Libertas’, in Ancient History Bulletin 5:135–144. Gruen, E.S. (1984) The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. 2 vol. (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Gualandi, G. (1976) Sculture di Rodi. [Annuario della Scuola Archaeologica di Atene 54]. Guerber, É. (2002) ‘Le thème de la liberté des grecs et ses prolongements politiques sous le haut-empire’, in Idéologies et valeurs civiques dans le monde romain. Hommage à Claude Lepelley. Ed. H. Inglebert, 123–142 (Paris). Guidoboni, E., ed. (1994) A Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean (Bologna). Guillon, J. (1983) ‘Essai de diagnostic médical (somatique) de la maladie d’Aelius Aristide’, Littérature, médecine, société 5:83–90. Gunderson, E. (2000) Staging Masculinity: the Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World (Ann Arbor). Gustafson, M. (1997) ‘Inscripta in fronte: Penal Tattooing in Late Antiquity’, CA 16:79–105. Habicht, C. (1969) Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Altertümer vonPergamonVIII 3 (Berlin). 304 bibliography ———, (2005) ‘Review of Sviatoslav Dmitriev. City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor’, New England Classical Journal 32:360–362. Hadot, P. (1981) Exercises spirituals et philosophie antique (Paris). Halfmann, H. (1979) Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. [Hypomnemata, Heft 58] (Göttin- gen). ———, (2001) Städtebau und Bauherren im römischen Kleinasien: Ein Vergleich zwischen Pergamon und Ephesos. [Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beiheft 43] (Tübingen). Hankinson, R.J., ed. (1998) Galen. On Antecedent Causes (Cambridge). Harris, W.V. (1979) War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327–70 B.C. (Oxford). ———, (2003) ‘Roman Opinions about the Truthfulness of Dreams’, JRS 93:18– 34. ———, (2005) ‘Insomnia: The Content of Roman Dreams’, in Noctes Campanae: Studi di storia antica ed archeologia dell’Italia preromana e romana in memoria di Martin W. Frederiksen. Ed. W.V. Harris and E. Lo Cascio, 245–260 (Naples). ———, (forthcoming, 2009) Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity (Cam- bridge, Mass.). Harrison, S.J. (2002) ‘Apuleius, Aelius Aristides and Religious Autobiography’, Ancient Narrative 1:245–259. Haupt, M. (1876) Opuscula. 2 vol. (Leipzig). Reprinted Hildesheim: 1967. Haury, J. (1888) Quibus fontibus Aelius Aristides usus sit in declamatione quae inscribitur ΠΑΝΑΘΗΝΑΙΚΟΣ (Augsburg). Hazard-Guillon, C. (1983) ‘La névrose d’Aelius Aristide’, Littérature, médecine, société 5:91–114. Head, B.V. (1897) Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Caria, Cos, Rhodes (London). Reprinted Bologna: 1964. Heath, M. (2003) ‘Pseudo-Dionysius Art of Rhetoric 8–11’, AJP 124:81–105. ———, (2004) Menander: A Rhetor in Context (Oxford). Heller, A. (2006) ‘Les bêtises des Grecs’. Conflits et rivalités entre cités d’Asie et de Bithynie à l’époque romaine (129 a.C.-235 p.C.) (Bordeaux and Paris). Henrichs, A. (2003) ‘Hieroi Logoi and Hierai Bibloi: The (Un)Written Margins of the Sacred in Ancient Greece’, HSCP 101:207–266. Henry, R., ed. (1960) Photius, Bibliothèque Tome II (‘Codices’ 84–105) (Paris). Hershbell, J.P. (2004) ‘Plutarch’s Political Philosophy: Peripatetic and Platonic’, in de Blois et al., 151–162. Herzog, R. (1899) Koische Forschungen und Funde (Leipzig). Reprinted Hildesheim: 1983. Hidalgo de la Vega, M.J. (1998) ‘La teoria monarchica e il culto imperiale’, in I Greci 2, III: Una storia greca. Trasformazioni (Turin). Höfler, A. (1935) Der Sarapishymnus des Ailios Aristeides [Tübinger Beiträge 27] (Tübingen). Hoffmann, A. (1998a) ‘The Roman Remodeling of the Asklepieion’, in Koes- ter, 41–61. ———, (1998b) ‘Aelius Aristides and the Asklepieion’, in Koester, 63–76. Holleaux, M. (1968) ‘Polybe et le tremblement de terre de Rhodes’, Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques I.445–462 (Paris). Originally published in REG (1923) 36:480–498. bibliography 305 Holmes, B. Forthcoming. The Symptom and the Subject. The Emergence of the Body in Ancient Greece (Princeton). Holowchak, A.M. (2001) ‘Interpreting Dreams for Corrective Regimen: Diag- nostic Dreams in Greco-Roman Medicine’, Journal of the History of Medicine and the Allied Sciences 56:382–399. Horsfall, N.M. (1979) ‘Stesichorus at Bovillae?’, JHS 99:26–48. Horstmanshoff, H.F.J. (2004) ‘Did the God Learn Medicine? Asclepius and Temple Medicine in Aelius Aristides’ Sacred Tales’, in Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine. Ed. H.F.J. Horstmanshoff and M. Stol, 325–342 (Leiden). Hubbell, H.M. (1913) The Influence of Isocrates on Cicero, Dionysius and Aristides (New Haven). Hubert, C. and M. Pohlenz. (1957) Plutarchi Moralia. 5 vol. (Leipzig). Jackson, R. (1999) ‘Spas, Waters and Hydrotherapy in the Roman World’, in DeLaine and Johnston, 107–116. Jacob-Sonnabend, W. (1995) ‘Tiberius auf Rhodos: Rückzug oder Kalkül?’, in Rom und der Griechische Osten. Festscrift für Hatto H. Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. C. Schubert and K. Brodersen, 113–116 (Stuttgart). Jaczynowska, M. (1981) ‘Le culte de l’Hercule romain au temps du haut empire’, ANRW II.17.2, 631–661 (Berlin and New York). Jones, A.H.M. (1940) The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford). Jones, A.H.M., J.R. Martindale, and J. Morris, eds. (1971) The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. I (Cambridge). Jones, C.P. (1966) ‘Towards a Chronology of Plutarch’s Works’, JRS 56:61– 74. ———, (1971) Plutarch and Rome (Oxford). ———, (1978) The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge). ———, (1984) ‘Tarsus in the Amores Ascribed to Lucian’, GRBS 25:177–181. ———, (1986) Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge, Mass.). ———, (1987) ‘Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Greco-Roman Antiquity’, JRS 77:139–155. ———, (1990) ‘The Rhodian Oration Ascribed to Aelius Aristides’, CQ 40:514– 522. ———, (2000) ‘Stigma and Tattoo’, in Written on the Body: The Tattoo in European and American History. Ed. J. Caplan, 1–15 (Princeton). ———, (2003) ‘Epigraphica vi–vii’, ZPE 144:157–162. ———, (2004) ‘Multiple Identities in the Age of the Second Sophistic’, in Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic. Ed. B. Borg, 13–21 (Berlin and New York). ———, (2008) ‘The Survival of the Sophists’, in East and West: Papers in Ancient History Presented to Glen W. Bowersock, 113–125 (Cambridge, Mass.). de Jonge, P. (1977) Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus Book xvii (Leiden). Kanzia, C. and G. Zimmer. (1998) ‘Rhodische Kolosse’, Archaeologischer Anzeiger, 497–452. Kayser, C.L. (1870–1871) Flavii Philostrati Opera auctiora. 2 vol. (Leipzig). Kee, H.C. (1982) ‘Self-Definition in the Asclepius Cult’, in Jewish and Christian 306 bibliography Self-Definition: Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World. Vol. III. Ed. B.F. Meyer and E.P. Sanders, 118–136 (London). Kelly, G. (2004) ‘Ammianus and the Great Tsunami’, JRS 94:141–167. Kennedy, G.A. (2005) Invention and Method. Two Rhetorical Treatises from the Hermo- genic Corpus (Atlanta). Kent, S.A. (2007) ‘Narcissistic Fraud in the Ancient World: Lucian’s Account of Alexander of Abonuteichos and the Cult of Glycon’, Ancient Narrative 6:77– 99. Kidd, I.G. (1988) Posidonius II : The Commentary. (i): Testimonia and Fragments, 1– 149 (Cambridge). Kindstrand, J.F. (1973) Homer und die zweiten Sophistik (Uppsala). King, H. (1998) Hippocrates’ Woman (London). ———, (1999) ‘Chronic Pain and the Creation of Narrative’, in Porter, 269–286. ———, (2006) ‘The Origins of Medicine in the Second Century AD’, in Rethink- ing Revolutions Through Ancient Greece. Ed. S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, 246– 263 (Cambridge). Klaffenbach, G. (1939) ‘Parerga’, Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 13:212–213. Klein, R. (1995) ‘Zum Kultur- und Geschichtsverständnis in der Romrede des Aelius Aristides’, in Prinzipat und Kultur im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert. Ed. B. Kühnert, V. Riedel, and R. Gordesiani, 283–292 (Bonn). Koester, H., ed. (1998) Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods. Archaeological Record, Literary Description, and Religious Development. [Harvard Theological Studies 46] (Har- risburg). Kokkinia, C. (2004) ‘Ruling, Inducing, Arguing: How to Govern (and Survive) a Greek Province’, in Roman Rule and Civic Life: Local and Regional Perspectives. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop of the International Network ‘Impact of Empire’ (Roman Empire, c. 200B.C.–A.D. 476), Leiden, June 25–28, 2003. Ed. E.A.L. de Ligt and H.W. Singor Hemelrijk, 39–58 (Amsterdam). Konstan, D. (2003) ‘Before Jealousy’, in Konstan and Rutter, 7–27. Konstan, D. and N.K. Rutter, eds. (2003) Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh). Konstan, D. and S. Saïd, eds. (2006) Greeks on Greekness. [PCPS Supplementary Vol. 29] (Cambridge). Konstantinopoulos, J. (1967) ‘Rhodiaka II. Pyrgoi t¯ es hell¯ enistik¯ es ochyr¯ ose¯ os’, Archaiologiki Ephemeris, 115–128. ———, (1973) ‘Anaskaphai eis Rhodon’, Praktika tis en Athinais Archailogikis Etai- reias, 127–136. Kontis, I.D. (1952) ‘Anaskaphikai ereunai eis t¯ en polin t¯ es Rodou. II’, Praktika tis en Athinais Archailogikis Etaireias, 547–591. ———, (1953) ‘Anaskaphikai ereunai eis t¯ en polin t¯ es Rodou. III’, Praktika tis en Athinais Archailogikis Etaireias, 275–287. ———, (1954) ‘Anaskaphikai ereunai eis t¯ en polin t¯ es Rodou. IV’, Praktika tis en Athinais Archailogikis Etaireias, 340–360. ———, (1958) ‘Zum antiken Stadtbauplan von Rhodos’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 73:146–158. ———, (1963) ‘A archaia teiche t¯ es Rhodou’, Archaiologokon Deltion 18:76–94. bibliography 307 Kontorini, V. (1983) Rhodiaka I. Inscriptions inédites relatives à l’histoire et aux cultes de Rhodes au IIe et au Ier s. av. J.-C. (Louvain-La-Neuve and Providence). Krell, D.F. (1972) ‘Socrates’ Body’, Southern Journal of Philosophy 10:443–451. Kromann, A. (1988) ‘The Greek Imperial Coinage from Cos and Rhodes’, in Archaeology in the Dodecanese. Ed. S. Dietz and I. Papachristodoulou, 213–217 (Copenhagen). Krüger, J. (1990) Oxyrhynchus in der Kaiserzeit: Studien zur Topographie und Literatur- rezeption (Bern, Frankfurt, New York and Paris). Kurke, L. (1991) The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy (Ithaca). Labarre, G. (1996) Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale (Paris). Lang, M. (1977) Cure and Cult in Ancient Corinth (Princeton). Lausberg, H. (1998) Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. Ed. D.E. Orton and R. Dean Anderson. (Leiden). Lemerle, P. (1971) Le premier humanisme byzantin (Paris). Lendon, J.E. (1997) Empire of Honour. The Art of Government in the Roman World (Oxford). Lenfant, D. (2005) ‘Polybe et les ‘fragments’ des historiens de Rhodes, Zénon et Antisthène (XVI. 14–20)’, in The Shadow of Polybius. Intertextuality as a Research Tool in Greek Historiography. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven, 21–22 september 2001. Ed. G. Schepens and J. Bollansée, 184–204 (Dudley, Mass.). Lenz, F.W. (1959) The Aristeides Prolegomena (Leiden). ———, (1963) ‘Der Athenahymnos des Aristides’, Rivista di cultura classica e medio- evale 5:329–347. Reprinted in Opuscula selecta, 355–373 (Amsterdam 1972). ———, (1964a) ‘Untersuchungen zu den Scholien’, in Aristeidesstudien, 3–99 (Ber- lin). ———, (1964b) ‘Der Herakleshymnos’ in Aristeidesstudien, 223–233 (Berlin). Leopardi, G. (1878) De vita et scriptis Aelii Aristidis commentaries, in Opere inedite di Giacomo Leopardi. Vol. 1. Ed. G. Cugnoni, 43–80 (Halle). Leopold, J.W. (1986) ‘Consolando per edicta: Cassiodorus, Variae, 4, 50 and Impe- rial Consolations for Natural Catastrophes’, Latomus 45:816–836. Lewin, A. (1995) Assemblee popolari e lotta politica nelle città dell’impero romano (Flo- rence). LiDonnici, L.R. (1992) ‘Compositional Background of the Epidaurian Iamata’, AJP 113:25–41. ———, (1995) The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Atlanta). Loraux, N. (1993 [1981]) L’invention d’Athènes. Histoire de l’oraison funèbre dans la ‘cité classique’. 2nd ed. (Paris). Ma, J. (2000) ‘Public Speech and Community in the Euboicus’, in Dio Chrysostom. Ed. S. Swain, 108–124 (Oxford). Maass, E. (1884) ‘Observationes Palaeographicae’, in Mélanges Graux (Paris). MacDowell, D. (1990) ‘The Meaning of 0λαζuν,’ in Owls to Athens: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover. Ed. E.M. Craik, 287–292 (Oxford). MacLeod, M.D. (1987) Luciani opera, 4 vol. (Oxford). 308 bibliography MacMullen, R. (1966) Enemies of the Roman Order. Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, Mass.). Marincola, J. (1997) Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge). Marsden, E.W. (1969) Greek and Roman Artillery. Historical Development (Oxford). Martin, J. (1988) Libanios: Discours II–X (Paris). McLean, D.R. (2007) ‘The Socratic Corpus: Socrates and Physiognomy’, in Socrates from Antiquity to the Enlightenment. Ed. M.B. Trapp, 65–85 (Aldershot). Mensching, E. (1965) ‘Zu Aelius Aristides’ 33. Rede’, Mnemosyne 18:57–63. Méridier, L. (1931) Platon. Œuvres completes (Paris). Merkelbach, R. (1995) Isis Regina—Zeus Sarapis: Die grieschisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt (Stuttgart). Mesk, J. (1909) ‘Des Aelius Aristides verlorene Rede gegen die Tänzer’, Wiener Studien 29:59–74. Michenaud, G. and J. Dierkens. (1972) Les Rêves dans les ‘Discours Sacrés’ d’Aelius Aristide (Mons). Migeotte, L. (1989) ‘Démocratie et entretien du peuple à Rhodes d’après Strabon XIV, 2,5’, REG 102:515–528. Milazzo, A.M. (2002) Un Dialogo difficile: la Retorica in conflitto nei Discorsi Platonici di Elio Aristide (Hildesheim). ———, (2007) Dimensione retorica e realtà politica. Dione di Prusa nelle orazioni III, V, VII, VIII (Hildesheim). Millar, F. (1999) ‘Civitates liberae, coloniae and Provincial Governors under the Empire’, Mediterraneo Antico 2:95–113. ———, (2004a) ‘Government and Diplomacy in the Roman Empire during the First Three Centuries’, in Rome, the Greek World, and the East, II, 195– 228 (Chapel Hill). Originally published in International History Review, 10 (1988), 354–377. ———, (2004b) ‘The World of the Golden Ass’, in Rome, the Greek World, and the East, II, 313–335 (Chapel Hill). Originally published in JRS 71 (1981), 63–75. ———, (2006) ‘The Greek City in the Roman Period’, in Rome, the Greek World, and the East, III, 106–135 (Chapel Hill). Originally published in M.H. Han- sen (ed.) The Ancient Greek City-State (Copenhagen, 1993), 232–260. Miller, P.C. (1994) Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture (Princeton). Mitchell, S. (1993) Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford). ———, (2003) ‘Inscriptions from Melli (Kocaaliler) in Pisidia’, Anatolian Studies 53:139–159. Moggi, M. (1976) I sinecismi interstatali greci. Vol. I (Pisa). ———, and P. Osanna. (2003) Guida della Grecia. Libro VIII. L’Arcadia (Milan). Moles, J.L. (1983) ‘The Date and Purpose of the Fourth Kingship Oration’ CA 2:251–278. ———, (1990) ‘The Kingship Orations of Dio Chrysostom’, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6:297–375. Molloy, M.E. (1996) Libanius and the Dancers. [Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien, vol. 31] (Hildesheim). Momigliano, A. (1951) ‘Dio of Prusa, the Rhodian “Libertas” and the Philoso- bibliography 309 phers. Review of C. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic’, JRS 41:149–153. Reprinted in Quinto Contributo alla storia del mondo antico, 966–975. Rome: 1975. Montiglio, S. (2000) Silence in the Land of Logos (Princeton). Morelli, D. (1959) I culti di Rodi. [Studi classici e orientali 8] (Pisa). Moretti, L. (1957) Olympionikai: i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici. [Atti dell’ Accademia nazionale dei Linei. Memorie ser. 8, v. 8, fasc. 2] (Rome). Morgan, J.R. (2006) ‘Un discours figuré chez Héliodore. “Comment, en disant l’inverse de ce qu’on veut, on peut accomplir ce qu’on veut sans sembler dire l’inverse de ce qu’on veut”’, in Discours et débats dans l’ancien roman. Ed. B. Pouderon and J. Peigney, 51–62 (Lyon). Moss, C. (1935) ‘Jacob of Serugh’s Homilies on the Spectacles of the Theater’, Le Muséon 48:87–112. Most, G.W. (1989) ‘The Stranger’s Stratagem: Self-Disclosure and Self-Suffi- ciency in Greek Culture’, JHS 109:114–133. Musurillo, H., ed. (1954) The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford). Nauck, A., ed. (1964) Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. 2nd ed. (Hildesheim). Nicolai, R. (1992) La storiografia nell’ educazione antica (Pisa). Nicosia, S. (1988) ‘L’autobiografia onirica di Elio Aristide’, in Il sogno in Grecia. Ed. G. Guidorizzi, 173–190 (Bari). Niebyl, P. (1969) Venesection and the Concept of the Foreign Body: A Historical Study in the Traumatic Consequence of Humoral and Traumatic Concepts of Disease. Ph.D. Diss., Yale University. Nightingale, A. (1996) Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy (Cambridge). Norden, E. (1909) Die Antike Kunstprosa. Von VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance. 2nd ed. (Leipzig and Berlin). Norlin, G. (1966) Isocrates. Vol. I (Cambridge, Mass.). Norman, A.F. (1953) ‘Philostratus and Libanius’, CP 48:20–23. ———, (1964) ‘The Library of Libanius’, RhM 107:158–175. ———, (1965) Libanius’ Autobiography. Oration I (London). ———, (1969–1977) Libanius, Selected Works. 2 vol. (Cambridge, Mass.). ———, (1992) Libanius: Autobiography and Selected Letters. 2 vol. (Cambridge, Mass.). ———, (2000) Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius (Liver- pool). Nussbaum, M. (1994) The Therapy of Desire (Princeton). Nutton, V. (1979) Galen. On Prognosis. [Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V.8.1] (Berlin). ———, (1983) ‘The Seeds of Disease: an Explanation of Contagion and Infec- tion from the Greeks to the Renaissance’, Medical History 27:1–34. ———, (2004) Ancient Medicine (London and New York). Ober, J. (1998) Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule (Princeton). ———, (2004) ‘I, Socrates … The Performative Audacity of Isocrates’ Antidosis’, in Isocrates and Civic Education. Ed. T. Poulakos and D. Depew, 21–43 (Aus- tin). Oberhelman, S. (1981) ‘The Interpretation of Prescriptive Dreams in Ancient 310 bibliography Greek Medicine’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 36:416– 424. ———, (1987) ‘The Diagnostic Dream in Ancient Medical Theory and Prac- tice’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 61:47–60. ———, (1993) ‘Dreams in Graeco-Roman Medicine’, ANRW II.37.1, 121–156 (Berlin and New York). 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’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 43:871–1003. ———, (1989) Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscripitions and Papyri. [Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 178] (Philadelphia). O’Neil, J.L. (1981) ‘How Democratic was Hellenistic Rhodes?’, Athenaeum 59:468–477. Oudot, E. (2003) ‘Athènes divisée et réconciliée: le point de vue des orateurs de la seconde Sophistique sur les événements de 404–403’, in Fondements et crises du pouvoir. Ed. S. Franchet d’Espèrey, V. Formentin, S. Gotteland, and J.-M. Roddaz, 253–270 (Bordeaux). ———, (2004) ‘Athènes la Périégèse de Denys d’Alexandrie ou la mutation d’une image’, REA 106:247–261. ———, (2006) ‘Au commencement était Athènes. Le Panathénaïque d’Aelius Aris- tide ou l’histoire abolie’, Ktêma 31:227–238. Pack, R. (1947) ‘Two Sophists and Two Emperors’, CP 42:17–20. Page, D.L., ed. (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford). ———, ed. (1981) Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge). Papachristodoulu, J. (1989) Oi archaioi Rhodiakoi Demoi (Athens). ———, (1992) ‘Culti e santuari di Rodi. Nuovi dati e scoperte’, in La Magna Grecia e i grandi santuari della Madrepatria. Atti del XXXI Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 4–8 ottobre 1981. Ed. A. Stazio and S. Ceccoli, 249–273 (Taranto). ———, (1994) Istoria tou Rodou. Apo tous proïstorikous chronous e¯os t¯en ens¯omat¯os¯e t¯es d¯odekan¯esou. 2nd ed. (Athens). ———, (1996) ‘Rodi’, in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, II Supplemento, 766–771 (Rome). Parker, R. (1983) Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford). Patillon, M, ed. (2001), Apsines, Techne (Paris). Patillon, M. and G. Bolognesi, eds. (1997) Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata. (Paris). Pearcy, L.T. (1988) ‘Theme, Dream, and Narrative: Reading the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides’, TAPA 118:377–391. Pédech, P. (1971) ‘La géographie urbaine chez Strabon’, Ancient Society 2:234– 253. Perkins, J. (1992) ‘The “Self ” as Sufferer’, Harvard Theological Review 85:245–272. ———, (1995) The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era (London). Pernot, L. (1993a) La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romaine. Vol. I: Histoire et technique. Vol. II: Les valeurs [Études Augustiniennes. Antiquité 137–138] (Paris). ———, (1993b) ‘Platon contre Platon: le problème de la rhétorique dans les bibliography 311 Discours platoniciens d’Aelius Aristide’, in Contre Platon I. Le Platonisme dévoilé. Ed. M. Dixsaut, 315–338 (Paris). ———, (1994) ‘Aristide (P. Aelius)’, in Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques. Vol. I. Ed. R. Goulet, 358–366 (Paris). ———, (1997) Éloges grecs de Rome. Discours traduits et commentés (Paris). ———, (1998) ‘Periautologia: problèmes et méthodes de l’éloge de soi-même dans la tradition éthique et rhétorique gréco-romaine’, REG 111:101–124. ———, (2002) ‘Les Discours Sacrés d’Aelius Aristide entre médecine, religion et rhétorique’, Atti Accademia Pontaniana 6:369–383. ———, (2005a) ‘Le sacrifice dans la literature grecque de l’époque impériale’, in La cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la méditerranée ancienne. Ed. S. Georgoudi, R.K. Piettre and F. Schmidt, 317–328 (Brepols). ———, (2005b) Rhetoric in Antiquity. Trans. W.E. Higgins (Washington). ———, (2005c) ‘Histoire et rhétorique dans le traité de Lucien Sur la manière d’écrire l’histoire’, Cahiers des études anciennes 42:31–54. ———, (2006) L’ombre du tigre. Recherches sur la réception de Démosthène (Naples). ———, (2007a) ‘Il non-detto della declamazione greco-romana: discorso figu- rato, sottintesi e allusioni politiche’, in Papers on Rhetoric, 8: Declamation. Ed. L. Calboli Montefusco, 209–234 (Rome). ———, (2007b) ‘Aperçus sur le livre grec au iie siècle après J.-C. à partir de l’œuvre d’Aelius Aristide’, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles- Lettres (Paris). ———, (2008). ‘Les faux-semblants de la rhétorique grecque’, in République des lettres, république des arts. Mélanges offerts à Marc Fumaroli, de l’Académie française (Geneva, 2008). ———, Forthcoming. ‘Le identità religiose di Elio Aristide’, in Il culto di Asclepio nell’area mediterranea. Ed. G. Sfameni Gasparro (Pisa). Peterson, W. and M. Hutton. (1914) Tacitus. Dialogus, Agricola, Germania (Cam- bridge, Mass.). Petit, P. (1956a) Les étudiants de Libanius (Paris). ———, (1956b) ‘Recherches sur la publication et la diffusion des discours de Libanius’, Historia 5:479–509. Petsalis-Diomidis, A. Forthcoming. ‘Truly beyond Wonders’. Aelius Aristides and the Cult of Asklepios (Oxford). Philemonos-Tsopotou, M. (1999) ‘Parat¯ ereseis st¯ en ochyr¯ ose t¯ es archaia Ro- dou’, in Rodos 2400 Chronia. ¯ E pol¯e t¯es Rodou apo t¯en idrys¯e t¯es mechri t¯en katal¯eps¯e apo tous Tourkous. Diethnes Epist¯ emoniko Synedrio, Rodos, 24–29 Okt¯ obriou 1993, Praktika, Ath¯ ena Ypourgeio Politismou, I, 1999, 29–40 [non vidi]. Pigeaud, J. (1991) ‘Le cas Aelius Aristide’, Psychoanalystes 39:15–27. Pimouget Pédarros, I. (2003) ‘Le siege de Rhodes par Démétrios et “l’apogée” de la poliorcetique grecque,’ REA 105:371–392. ———, (2004) ‘Rhodes à la fin du IVe siècle. Fortifications urbaines et pra- tiques défensives’, in Studia Anatolica et varia. Mélanges offerts au professeur René Labrun. Ed. M. Mazoyer and O. Casabonne, 212–239 (Louvain-la-Neuve and Paris). Pohlenz, M. (1948–1949) Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung. 2 vol. (Göt- tingen). 312 bibliography ———, and W. Sieveking. (1972) Plutarchi Moralia. 3 vol. (Leipzig). Porter, J.I., ed. (1999) Constructions of the Classical Body (Ann Arbor). Pouderon, B., ed. (1992) Athenagoras, Apologia pro Christianis (Paris). Price, S.R.F. (1984) Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge). ———, (1990) ‘The Future of Dreams: From Freud to Artemidoros’, in Before Sexuality: the Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. Ed. David Halperin et al., 365–387 (Princeton). [Originally published in Past and Present 113 (1986), 3–37]. Puech, B. (2002) Orateurs et sophistes Grecs dans les inscriptions d’époque impériale (Paris). Pugliese Carratelli, G. (1940) ‘Note su epigrafi di età imperiale I. Onori a Tiberio e ad Antonino Pio’, in Studi di antichità classiche offerti da colleghi e discepoli a Emanuele Ciaceri, 254–260 (Genoa, Rome, and Naples). ———, (1949) ‘Alessandro e la costituzione rodia’, La Parola del Passato 4:154– 171. Puiggali, J. (1985) ‘Daim¯on et les mots de la même famille chez Aelius Aristide’, C&M 36:123–126. Quattrocelli, L. (2006) ‘Ricerche sulla tradizione manoscritta di Elio Aristide. Per una nuova datazione del Laur. 60, 8’, Scriptorium 60:206–226. ———, Forthcoming. ‘Maxime Planude éditeur d’Aelius Aristide?’, REG. Quet, M.-H. (1993) ‘Parler de soi pour louer son dieu: le cas d’Aelius Aristide’, in Baslez, Hoffmann, and Pernot, 211–251. ———, (2002) ‘Éloge par Aelius Aristide des co-empereurs Marc Aurèle et Lucius Vérus à l’issue de la guerre contre les Parthes’, Journal des savants, 75–150. ———, (2006) ‘Appel d’Aelius Aristide à Marc Aurèle et Commode après la déstruction de Smyrne (177/8 après J.-C.)’, in La ‘crise’ de l’Empire romain de Marc Aurèle à Constantin: mutations, continuités, ruptures. Ed. M.H. Quet, 237–278 (Paris). Rabe, H. (1906) Scholia in Lucianum (Stuttgart). ———, (1913) Hermogenis opera (Leipzig). Ramsey, W.M. (1890) The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London). Reardon, B.P. (1971) Courants littéraires Grecs des IIe et IIe siècles après J.-C. (Paris). ———, (1973) ‘The Anxious Pagan’, Echos du Monde Classique 17:81–93. Rehm, A. (1958) Didyma II: Die Inschriften (Berlin). Rengakos A. (1984) Form und Wandel des Machtdenkens der Athener bei Thukydides (Stuttgart). Rey-Coquais, J.-P. (1973) ‘Inscriptions grecques d’Apamée’, Annales Archéologi- ques Arabes Syriennes 23:39–84. Robert, L. (1930) ‘Pantomimen im griechischen Orient’, Hermes 65:106–122. Reprinted in Opera Minora Selecta I.654–670 (Amsterdam: 1969). ———, (1940) Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec (Paris). ———, (1966a) Documents de l’Asie Mineure méridionale [Hautes études du monde gréco-romain 2] (Paris and Geneva). ———, (1966b) ‘Inscriptions de l’Antiquité et du Bas-Empire à Corinthe’, REG 79:733–770. Reprinted in Opera Minora Selecta VI.551–588 (Amsterdam 1969). bibliography 313 ———, (1967) ‘Une tête de femme sur les monnaies de Rhodes’, in Monnaies grecques. Types, légendes, magistrats monétaries et géographie, 7–14. (Geneva and Paris). ———, (1970) ‘Deux concours grecs à Rome’, in Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 6–27. Reprinted in Choix d’Écrits (Paris, 2007), 247– 266. Rochette, B. (1997) ‘`Ρuμη=çuμη’, Latomus 56:54–57. Rougé, J. (1966) Recherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l’empire romain (Paris). Rouse, W.H.D. (1902) Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge). Rudich, V. (1993) Political Dissidence under Nero (London and New York). ———, (1997) Dissidence and Literature under Nero (London and New York). Russell, D. (1968) ‘On Reading Plutarch’s Moralia’, Greece and Rome 15:130–146. ———, (1983) Greek Declamation (Cambridge). ———, (1990) ‘Aristides and the Prose Hymn’, in Antonine Literature. Ed. D.A. Russell, 199–219 (Oxford). ———, (2001) Quintilian. The Orator’s Education, 1–5 (Cambridge, Mass.). ———, and N.G. Wilson. (1981) Menander Rhetor (Oxford). Rutherford, I. (1995) ‘Poetics of the Paraphthegma’, in Ethics and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his Seventy-fifth Birthday. Ed. D. Innes et al., 193–204 (Oxford). ———, (1998) Canons of Style in the Antonine Age: Idea-Theory in its Literary Context (Oxford). ———, (1999) ‘TO THE LAND OF ZEUS…: Patterns of Pilgrimage in Aelius Aristides’, Aevum Antiquum 12:133–148. Rynearson, N. (2003) ‘Constructing and Deconstructing the Body in the Cult of Asklepios’, Stanford Journal of Archaeology 2, http://www.stanford.edu/dept/ archeology/journal/newdraft/2003_Journal/rynearson/paper.pdf. ¸ Sahin, S. (1975) ‘Das Grabmal des Pantomimen Krispos in Herakleia Pontike’, ZPE 18:293–297. Saïd, S. (2003) ‘Envy and Emulation in Isocrates’, in Konstan and Rutter, 217– 234. ———, (2006) ‘The Rewriting of the Past: from Isocrates to Aelius Aristides’, in Konstan and Saïd, 47–60. Salmeri, G. (1999) ‘La vita politica in Asia Minore nei discorsi di Dione di Prusa’, in Studi ellenistici XII. Ed. B. Virgilio, 211–267 (Pisa and Rome). ———, (2000) ‘Dio, Rome, and the Civic Life of Asia Minor’, in Swain, 53–92. Salzmann, E. (1910) Sprichwörter und sprichwörtliche Redensarten bei Libanios (Tübin- gen). Sartre, M. (1991) L’Orient romain: provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (Paris). ———, (1995) L’Asie Mineure et l’Anatolie d’Alexandre à Dioclétien. IVe siècle av. J.- C./IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. (Paris). Schick, C. (1970) Polibio, Storie I–III (Milan). Schmid, W. (1887–1897) Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern. Von Dionysios von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (Stuttgart). Reprinted Hildesheim: 1964. 314 bibliography Schmitt, H.H. (1957) Rom und Rhodos. Geschichte ihrer politischen Beziehungen seit der ersten Berührung bis zum Aufgehen des Inselstaates im römischen Weltreich (Munich). Schmitz, T. (1997) Bildung und Macht. Zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweiten Sophistik in der Griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit (Munich). ———, (1999) ‘Performing History in the Second Sophistic’, in Geschichtsschrei- bung und politischer Wandel im 3. Jh. n. Chr. [Historia Einzelschriften 127]. Ed. M. Zimmermann, 71–92 (Stuttgart). Schouler, B. (1986) ‘Le déguisement de l’intention dans la rhétorique grecque’, Ktema 11:257–272. Schröder, H.O. (1987) ‘Das Odysseusbild des Ailios Aristides’, RhM 130:350– 356. Schubart, W. (1918) Einführung in die Papyruskunde (Berlin). Schulz, A. and E. Winter. (1990) ‘Historisch-archäologische Untersuchungen zum Hadrianstempel von Kyzikos’, in Mysische Studien Asia Minor Studien 1. Ed. E. Schwertheim, 33–82 (Bonn). Secall, I.C. (2004) ‘Presencia de las ideas políticas de Aristóteles en Plutarcho’, in de Blois et al., 163–173. Segal, C. (1994) Singers, Heroes, and Gods in the Odyssey (Ithaca). Sfameni Gasparro, G. (2002) Oracoli, profeti, sibille. Rivelazione e salvezza nel mondo antico (Rome). Shaw, B.D. (1996) ‘Body, Power, Identity: The Passions of the Martyrs’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 4:269–312. Sheppard, A.R.R. (1984–1986) ‘Homonoia in the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire’, Ancient Society 15–17:229–252. Sider, D. (2007) ‘Sylloge Simonidea’, in Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Ed. P. Bing and J. Bruss, 112–128 (Leiden). Smid, T.C. (1970) ‘Tsunamis in Greek Literature’, Greece and Rome 17:100–104. Snell, B. and H. Maehler, eds. (1987–1989) Pindari carmina cum fragmentis, 2 vol. (Leipzig). Sohlberg, D. (1972) ‘Aelius Aristides und Diogenes von Babylon: Zur Geschich- te des rednerischen Ideals’, Museum Helveticum 29:177–200, 257–277. Sokolowski, F. (1962) Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplément. (Paris). von Spengel, L., ed. (1853–1856) Rhetores Graeci. 3 vol. (Leipzig). von Staden, H. (1994) ‘Anatomy as Rhetoric: Galen on Dissection and Persua- sion’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 50:47–66. ———, (2007) ‘Purity, Purification and Katharsis in Hippocratic Medicine’, in Katharsiskonzeptionen vor Aristoteles. Ed. M. Vöhler and M. Seidensticker, 21–51 (Berlin). Stadter, P. (2004) ‘Plutarch: Diplomat for Delphi?’, in de Blois et al., 19–31. ———, and L. Van der Stockt, eds. (2002) Sage and Emperor: Plutarch, Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the Time of Trajan (98–117 A.D.) (Leuven). Steiner, D. (1994) The Tyrant’s Writ: Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient Greece (Princeton). Stertz, S. (1984) ‘Aelius Aristides’ Political Ideas’, ANRW II.34.2, 1248–1270 (Berlin and New York). Strasburger, H. (1965) ‘Poseidonios on Problems of the Roman Empire’, JRS 55:40–53. bibliography 315 Strasser, J.-Y. (2004) ‘Inscriptions grecques et latines en l’honneur de pan- tomimes’, Tyche 19:175–212. Stroumsa, G. (2005) ‘From Master of Wisdom to Spiritual Master’, in Religion and the Self in Antiquity. Ed. D. Brakke et al., 183–196 (Bloomington). Swain, S. (1991) ‘Plutarch, Hadrian, and Delphi’, Historia 40:318–330. ———, (1996) Hellenism and Empire (Oxford). ———, (1997) ‘Introduction’, in Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire. Ed. S. Swain and M. Edwards, 1– 37 (Oxford). ———, (1999) ‘Plutarch’s Moral Program’, in Plutarch’s Advice to Bride and Groom and A Consolation to his Wife. Ed. S. Pomeroy, 85–96 (New York). ———, (2000) ‘Reception and Interpretation’, in Swain, 3–50. ———, (2004) ‘Sophists and Emperors: The Case of Libanius,’ in Approaching Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire. Ed. S. Swain and M. Edwards, 355–400 (Oxford). ———, ed. (2000) Dio Chrysostom: Politics, Letters, and Philosophy (Oxford). Syme, R. (1988) ‘The Proconsuls of Asia under Antoninus Pius’, in Roman Papers IV, 325–346 (Oxford). Originally published in ZPE 51 (1983) 271–290. ———, (1991a) ‘More Narbonensian Senators’, in Roman Papers VI, 209–231 (Oxford). Originally published in ZPE 65 (1986) 1–24. ———, (1991b) ‘Titus et Berenice: A Tacitean Fragment’, in Roman Papers VII, 647–662 (Oxford). Taussig, M. (1993) Mimesis and Alterity. A Particular History of the Senses (New York). Temkin, O. (1963) ‘The Scientific Approach to Disease: Specific Entity and Individual Sickness’, in Scientific Change: Historical Studies in the Intellectual, Social and Technical Conditions for Scientific Discovery and Technical Invention, From Antiquity to the Present. Ed. A.C. Crombie, 629–647 (New York). Theiler, W. (1982) Poseidonios, Die Fragmente. 2 vol. (Berlin and New York). Thornton, J. (1999) ‘Una città e due regine: Cizico fra gli Attalidi e i Giulio Claudi’, Mediterraneo Antico 2:497–538. ———, (2001) ‘Gli aristoi, l’akriton plethos e la provincializzazione della Licia nel monumento di Patara’, Mediterraneo Antico 4:427–446. ———, (2005) ‘Pistoi symmachoi. Versioni locali e versione imperiale della provin- cializzazione della Licia’, Mediterraneo Antico 7:247–286. Tommasi Moreschini, C.O. (2004) Giacomo Leopardi: Oratori del secondo secolo (Florence). ———, ed. (2005) G. Leopardi. Retori del secolo II (Colle Val d’Elsa). Too, Y.L. (1995) The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text, Power, Pedagogy (Cam- bridge). Traina, G. (1985) ‘Terremoti e società romana: problemi di mentalità e uso delle informazioni’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa ser. iii 15:867– 887. Trapp, M.B., ed. (1994) Maximus Tyrius Dissertationes (Stuttgart and Leipzig). Trapp, M. (2004) ‘Statesmanship in a Minor Key?’, in de Blois et al., 189–200. Tsitsiridis, S. (1998) Platons Menexenos (Stuttgart and Leipzig). Usener, H., and L. Radermacher. (1904) Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant, 6. 2 (Leipzig). 316 bibliography van den Hout, M.P.J. (1999) A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Fronto (Leiden). van der Eijk, P. et al., eds. (1995) Ancient Medicine in its Socio-Cultural Context. 2 vol. (Amsterdam and Atlanta). van Straten, F.T. (1976) ‘Daikrates’ Dream. A Votive Relief from Kos, and Some Other kat’onar Dedications’, Bulletin antieke beschaving 51:1–38. ———, (1981) ‘Gifts for the Gods’, in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Ed. H.S. Versnel, 65–151 (Leiden). ———, (1992) ‘Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries’, in Le Sanctuaire grec. Ed. A. Schachter, 247–284 (Geneva). Vassilaki, E. (2005) ‘Réminiscences de Pindare dans l’Hymne à Sarapis d’Aelius Aristide (Or. XLV)’, Euphrosyne 33:325–339. Vermeule, E. (1979) Aspects of Death in Greek Art and Poetry (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Veyne, P. (1999) ‘L’identité grecque devant Rome et l’Empereur’, REG 112:510– 567. ———, (2005) L’Empire gréco-romain (Paris). Villard, L. (1994) ‘Le Bain dans la médecine hippocratique’, in L’Eau, la Santé et la maladie dans le monde grec. Ed. R. Ginouvès, 41–60 (Paris). Voigt, E.-M., ed. (1971) Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta (Amsterdam). Volpe, P. (2001) ‘Armonia e taxis nell’Encomio a Roma di Elio Aristide’, in L’idea di Roma nella cultura antica, Atti del Convegno di Studi (Salerno 14–16 ottobre 1996). Ed. F. Giordano, 305–312 (Naples). Walbank, F.W. (1957–1979) A Historical Commentary on Polybius. 3 vol. (Oxford). ———, (1965) ‘Political Morality and the Friends of Scipio’, JRS 55:1–16. ———, (1972) Polybius (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Waldherr, G.H. (1997) Erdbeben. Das ausgewöhnliche Normale. Zur Rezeption seismis- cher Aktivitäten in literarischen Quellen vom 4. Jhdt. v. Chr. bis zum 4. Jhdt. n. Chr. [Geographica Historica 9] (Stuttgart). Watts, E. (2006) City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Webb, R. (2001) ‘The Progymnasmata as Practice’, in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Ed. Y.L. Too, 289–316 (Leiden). Weiss, C.G. (1998) Literary Turns: The Representation of Conversion in Aelius Aristides’ Hieroi Logoi and Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Ph.D. Diss., Yale University. West, M.L., ed. (1989) Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum Cantati, 2 vol. 2nd ed. (Oxford). Westerink, L.G. (1972) Arethae Archiepiscopi Caesariensis scripta minora, Vol. II (Leip- zig). Whitmarsh, T. (2001) Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation (Oxford). ———, (2005) The Second Sophistic (Oxford). ———, (2006) ‘The Sincerest Form of Imitation: Plutarch on Flattery’, in Konstan and Said, 93–111. Wiemer, H.-U. (1995) Libanios und Julian (Munich). ———, (2001) Rhodische Traditionen in der hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung (Frank- furt). bibliography 317 ———, (2002) Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des hellenistis- chen Rhodos [Klio, Beiheft 6] (Berlin). von Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, U. (1913) Sappho und Simonides. Untersuchungen über griechische Lyriker (Berlin). ———, (1925) ‘Der Rhetor Aristeides’, Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 28:333–353. Williams, G.D. (2006) ‘Graeco-Roman Seismology and Seneca on Earthquakes in Naturales Quaestiones’, JRS 96:126–146. Wilson, N.G. (1983) Scholars of Byzantium (London). Winter, F.E. (1992) ‘Philon of Byzantion and the Hellenistic Fortifications of Rhodes’, in Fortificationes antiquae. Ed. A. van de Maele and J.M. Fossey, 185– 209 (Amsterdam). Wissmann, J. (1999) ‘Zur Rezeption des “Protagoras-Mythos” durch Aelius Aristides’, Philologus 143:135–147. Wright, W.C. (1921) Philostratus and Eunapius. The Lives of the Sophists (Cambridge, Mass.). Wycherley, E. (1976) ‘Rhodos’, in Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Ed. R. Stillwell, 755–758 (Princeton). Yegül, F. (1992) Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity (New York). Zadorojnyi, A. (2006) ‘King of his Castle: Plutarch, Demosthenes 1–2’, The Cam- bridge Classical Journal 52:102–127. Zardini, E. (1960) ‘Sulla biblioteca dell’Arcivescovo Areta di Cesarea (IX–X secolo)’, in Akten des XI. Internationalen Byzantinistenkongresses. München 1958. Ed. F. Dölger and H.-G. Beck, 671–678 (Munich). Zimmermann M. (1999) ‘Enkomion und Historiographie: Entwicklungslinien der kaiserzeitlichen Geschichtsschreibung vom 1. bis zum frühen 3. Jh. n. Chr.’, in Geschichtsschreibung und politischer Wandel im 3. Jh. n. Chr. Kolloquium zu Ehren von K.-E. Petzold. Ed. M. Zimmermann, 17–56 (Stuttgart). INDEX Achilles, 1 Aelius Aristides, and Attic Greek, 34, 261, 264, 292; use of concept ‘barbarian’, 2, 93; and bathing, chapter VI passim, 109–111; and the body, 82–85, 89–91, 109–113, 131–132, 138, 140; and Byzantine authors, 281–293; and Christians, 100–101, 106– 107, 179, 200–201, 289, 291– 292; conceit of, 4–5, 263, 273; and contemporary medicine, 84–86, 104–106; detachment from civic life, 169–171, 182– 185; and ‘defilement’, 120–121; and divine inspiration, 94–95, 163–166; dreams of, 4, 83, 84– 85, 86–98, 103, 116–121, 127– 128, 129, 135–137, 139, 149–150, 164; ekphrasis by, 132–135, 142– 143; ‘figured speech’ in, 2, 185– 197; Greek identity of, 199; and the historians, 31–49, 203–216, 261–262; humour(lessness) of, 5; ‘hypochondria’ of, 4, 84; and ‘immunity’, 123; his journeys, 136–137, 139, 141; and landscape, Chapter VII passim; and myths, Chapter III passim; narcissism of, 3; compares self with Odysseus, 112, 138, 141; and Old Comedy, 261; and oratory, 45–46, 66, 123– 126, 130, 131, 136–137, 267–268, 277–278; and the pantomimes, Chapter IV passim; popularity of, 5, 280–281, 293; portraits of, 266– 267; and regeneration, 104–105, 107–108; religiosity of, 3–4, 82, 111–112, 131, 150, 178–185, 199– 201, 291–292; and the Roman Empire, 43–44, 47–48, 178–201, 204, 207, 246, 279; and sacrifice, 97–98; self-praise by, 160–167, 269–270, 279; sexuality of, 118; Stoic influence on, 204–205, 208– 210; as teacher of rhetoric, 275– 277 Oration I: 31–49, 191–193 Oration II: 16, 193–195, 273 Oration III: 16 Oration IV: 186–187 Oration V: 195–196 Orations XI–XV: 58 Oration XVI: 1–3, 16 Oration XXIII: 107 Oration XXIV: 238–248 Oration XXV: 218–237 Oration XXVI: 2–3, 47–48, 144, 145, 188–190, 203–216 Oration XXVII: 131–150 Oration XXVIII: 18–21, 160–163, 165–167, 187, 255 Oration XXIX: 275 Oration XXX: 276–277 Oration XXXI: 277 Oration XXXIII: 116, 119, 123– 127, 129–130, 187, 271, 272, 275–276, 279 Oration XXXIV: 60, 75, 273 Oration XXXVI: 141 Oration XXXVII: 255 Oration XL: 17 Oration XLII: 107 Oration XLV: 16 Orations XLVII–LII (Hieroi Logoi, Sacred Tales): 127, 130, 131, 135– 140 Oration XLVII: 81, 90, 91, 93, 95, 104–105, chapter VI passim, 178–180, 287–288 Oration XLVIII: 87–88, 98, 110– 112, 128, 164, 288 320 index Oration XLIX: 106, 108, 288, 290 Oration L: 93, 95, 183–184, 164, 165, 280, 288 Oration LI: 96–97, 131, 135–138, 181, 269, 276, 280 Thersites (lost): 264–265 agonistic culture, 154, 166–167, 171, 218–219, 228–229, 232, 269–270 Alcaeus, 10 Alcman, 10–11 Alexander of Cotiaeum, 178 Alexander of Seleuceia, 256 alousia (abstention from bathing), 119–123, 125, 128, 130 Ammianus Marcellinus, 235 Anacreon, 13, 14 Antonine plague, 87, 126 Apollonius of Tyana, 122 Apsines, 185, 280 Archilochus, 11–12, 13–14, 15 Arethas, 279–293 Ariphron, 15 Aristophanes, 9, 261 Aristotle, 209, 211, 246 Artemidorus Daldianus, 76, 120–121, 122 Asclepieion at Pergamum, 108, 255, 259 Asclepius, 85–86, 90–91, 98–99, 101–104, 106–107, 117, 122, 131, 132, 137, 139, 140–141, 200, 292 Athenaeus, 12 ‘barbarians’, 2, 93, 96 Bakhtin, M.M., 153 Basil of Caesarea, 280, 293 bathing, 121–122: and see Aelius Aristides, alousia Boulanger, A., 293 Bowersock, G.W., 2, 3, 183 Bowie, E.L., 2 Byzantine Renaissance, 284–285 Celsus, 122 Christian rampages, 70 Cicero, 208, 209–210, 212, 215, 247 Claudius Aristocles, 258–260, 262 Commodus, 257 consolation orations, 218, 220, 235– 236 Cribiore, R., 2, 5 L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus, 260, 262 Cyzicus, 131–138 Damianus of Ephesus, 181 dancing, 60–61, 73–74; and see pan- tomimes death, 125–126 Demetrius Poliorcetes, 226–227 Demosthenes, 161, 264–265, 293 Dierkens, J., 118 Dindorf, G., 219 Dio of Prusa, 12–14, 51, 56, 154, 177, 200, 226, 228, 240, 242, 245–246 Diodorus Siculus, 246–247 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 210 Dionysius Periegetes, 48 dreams, 89; and see Aelius Aristides dunamis (power), 34–37, 47 Epidaurian miracle tablets, 103 Eunapius, 271, 281 Ferrary, J.-L., 208 Fields, D., 3, 4–5 ‘figured speech’, 185–188; and see Aelius Aristides Foerster, R., 264 Fontanella, F., 3 Franco, C., 3 Freud, S., 89 Fronto, 237 Galen, 86, 106, 120, 121, 253 Gangloff, A., 51 Gellius, A., 229–230 Gkourogiannis, T.K., 9 Gotteland, S., 51 Gregory Nazianzenus, 293 Gregory of Nyssa, 100 Hadrian of Tyre, 72 Helen, 81–82, 91, 92, 94 index 321 Henry, R., 254–255 Heracles myth, 51–52, 54, 56, 57–64 Hermogenes, 185, 197 Herodian, 76 Herodotus, 242 Herzog, R., 233 hieroscopy, 96–97 Himerius, 280 Holmes, B., 4 Homer, 1, 9, 81–82, 125, 265, 266, 275 homonoia, among Greek elites, 159– 160 imitation, 267 Imouthes-Asclepius, 102 Isocrates, 63, 66 Iulius Apolaustus, Ti., pantomime, 74–75 Iulius Iulianus, Ti., 259–260, 262 John Chrysostom, 280 Jones, C.P., 5, 219 Julian, 70 kairos, 169, 218, 244 Keil, B., 218–219, 221, 235 laudes urbium, 222, 226–228, 230 Leopardi, G., 276, 288 Libanius, 69–74, 76–77, 236, 263– 278, 280 local autonomy, 159–160, 171–172, 244–246, 248–249 Longinus, 17, 194, 280 Lucian, 49, 73–74, 177, 200, 230, 286–287 luxury, concern about, 122–123, 125 Marcus Aurelius, 135, 169, 179–182, 256–257, 276 Maximum Planudes, 281, 293 Maximus of Tyre, 14–15 Menander, 261 Menander Rhetor, 146–147, 280 Michenaud, G., 118 mixed constitutions, 211–212, 247 muthos, 51–57 national character, 33, 40 Neritus, 108 Norman, A. F., 268–269, 271 Odysseus, 81–82, 86, 91, 92, 94, 112 Oracula Sibyllina, 232 Pack, R., 268–269 Panaetius, 208–210, 247 pantomimes, Chapter IV passim Paris the pantomime, 72–73 parrhêsia, 162 Pausanias the periegete, 12, 146–147, 232, 237, 242 Pax Romana, 214–215 Pearcy, L., 97 periautologia, in public life, 152–155, Plutarch and, 155–160, Aristides and, 160–167 Pericles, 33, 36–37, 44–45 Pernot, L., 2, 3, 47, 216 Persian Empire, 204–207 philanthropia, 34, 38, 42 Philostratus, 15, 122, 181, 186, 200, 230, 258, 271, 276 Photios, 253–258, 260, 284 Phrynichos, 253–262 phthonos (envy), 159, 213–214 Pindar, 10, 16–18, 21, 262 Plato, 16, 59, 65, 124, 126, 129, 186, 188, 193–194, 211, 215, 284–285 Pliny the Elder, 226 Pliny the Younger, 233 Plutarch, 3, 4, 12, 44, 48, 122, 152– 160, 161, 168–170, 172, 194, 245, 246 poets, archaic, Chapter I passim Polybius, 203–216, 228, 246, 261 Posidonius, 210, 247 Prokonnesos, 133–134 Prometheus myth, 65–67 Psellus, 291 Pseudo-Dionysus of Halicarnassus, 186, 191, 197 322 index Quattrocelli, L., 5 Quintilian, 186 Rabe, H., 286 Rhodes, 218–249 Robert, L., 73, 74, 76, 228 Rome, 189–190, 215–216; and see Aelius Aristides Rutherford, I., 153, 169 Said, S., 2 Sappho, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 Satyrus, 106 Schmid, W., 219 Sedatus of Nicaea, 260 Seneca the Elder, 186 Sider, D., 20 Simonides, 11, 14, 18–19, 20, 21 Solon, 14, 20–21, 239 Socrates, 124, 129–130 Sophocles, 9 Sparta, 40, 71–72, 75–77 Stesichorus, 11, 13, 14, 15 Strabo, 48, 226, 229, 246 Swain, S., 5 Synesius, 281 Tacitus, 194, 198, 247 Telesphorus, 98, 109 Tennyson, A., 112 Terpander, 239 Theodorus Metochites, 281 Theodotus, 104 Thucydides, 31–49, 195, 197, 261 tragedy, 73–74 Vergil, 208 Verus, L., 135 Vologeses IV, 179–180 Xenophon, 261 Xenophon of Ephesus, 230 Watts, E., 276 Weiss, C., 118 Wilson, N.G., 284 Wissmann, J., 66 Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition publishes monographs by members of the Columbia University faculty and by former Columbia students. Its subjects are the fol- lowing: Greek and Latin literature, ancient philosophy, Greek and Roman history, classical archaeology, and the classical tradition in its medieval, Renaissance and modern manifestations. 1. MONFASANI, J. Georg of Trebizond. A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04370 5 2. COULTER, J. The Literary Microcosm. Theories of Interpretation of the Later Neoplatonists. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04489 2 3. RIGINOS, A.S. Platonica. The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings of Plato. ISBN 90 04 04565 1 4. BAGNALL, R.S. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04490 6 5. KEULS, E. Plato and Greek Painting. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05395 6 6. SCHEIN, S.L. The Iambic Trimeter in Aeschylus and Sophocles. A Study in Metrical Form. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05949 0 7. O’SULLIVAN, T.D. The De Excidio of Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date. 1978. ISBN 90 04 05793 5 8. COHEN, S.J.D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05922 9 9. TARÁN, S.L. The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05957 1 10. CAMERON, A.V. & J. HERRIN (eds.). Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai. Introduction, Translation and Commentary. In con- junction with Al. Cameron, R. Cormack and Ch. Roueché. 1984. ISBN 90 04 07010 9 11. BRUNO, V.J. Hellenistic Painting Techniques. The Evidence of the Delos Fragments. 1985. ISBN 90 04 07159 8 12. WOOD, S. Roman Portrait Sculpture 217-260 A.D. The Transformation of an Artistic Tradition. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07282 9 13. BAGNALL, R.S. & W.V. HARRIS (eds.). Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07568 2 14. SACKS, R. The Traditional Phrase in Homer. Two Studies in Form, Meaning and Interpretation. 1987. ISBN 90 04 07862 2 15. BROWN, R.D. (ed.). Lucretius on Love and Sex. A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030-1287 with Prolegomena, Text and Translation. 1987. ISBN 90 04 08512 2 16. KNOX, D. Ironia. Medieval and Renaissance Ideas about Irony. 1990. ISBN 90 04 08965 9 17. HANKINS, J. Plato in the Italian Renaissance. Reprint 1994. ISBN 90 04 10095 4 18. SCHWARTZ, S. Josephus and Judaean Politics. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09230 7 19. BARTMAN, E. Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09532 2 20. DORCEY, P.F. The Cult of Silvanus. A Study in Roman Folk Religion. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09601 9 21. AUBERT, J.-J. Business Managers in Ancient Rome. A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B.C.-A.D. 250. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10038 5 22. BILLOWS, R.A. Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism. 1994. ISBN 90 04 10177 2 23. ROTH, J.P. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. - A.D. 235). 1999. ISBN 90 04 11275 1 24. PHANG, S.E. The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B.C. - A.D. 235). Law and Family in the Imperial Army. 2001 ISBN 90 04 12155 2 25. MARCONI, C. (ed.). Greek Vases: Images, Contexts and Controversies. Proceedings of the Con- ference sponsored by The Center for the Ancient Mediterranean at Columbia University, 23–24 March 2002. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13802 1 26. HARRIS, W.V. & G. RUFFINI (eds.). Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14105 7 27. HARRIS, W.V. (ed.). The Spread of Christianity in the First Four Centuries. Essays in Explana- tion. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14717 9 28. VOLK, K. & G.D. WILLIAMS (eds.). Seeing Seneca Whole. Perspectives on Philosophy, Poetry and Politics. 2006. ISBN-10: 90 04 15078 1, ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15078 2 29. HOLLANDER, D.B. Money in the Late Roman Republic. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 15649 4 30. MARZANO, A. Roman Villas in Central Italy. A Social and Economic History. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16037 8 31. BAROLINI, T. & H. WAYNE STOREY (eds.). Petrarch and the Textual Origins of Interpretation. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16322 5 32. CICCOLELLA, F. Donati Graeci. Learning Greek in the Renaissance. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 16352 2 33. HARRIS, W.V. & B. HOLMES (eds.). Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods. 2008. ISBN 978 90 04 17204 3 www.brill.nl/csct . . . in fact the cultural marker. 6). So what was Aristides' relationship to archaic and classical Greek literature? Not simple. says the fictitious orator. Phoenix and Ajax in Iliad IX. It takes the form of a speech aimed at assuaging the wrath of Achilles with Agamemnon. in Achilles' behaviour. According to Behr 1968. of an educated Greek. from his own point of view. but to demonstrate with maximum cleverness the lack of logic. was not attempting to put himself in the place of a Bronze-Age prince or an archaic poet-though he was attempting as so often to live in the past and to take his audience there with him-. however. however. I But unlike the clever speeches of Odysseus and Phoenix. . The Embassy Speech to Achilles can serve rather well as an introduction to some of the investigations that are carried forward in this book. In the first place. one can see that Aristides. for while it is obvious that knowledge of the poetry of that era was a cultural marker. and in this aim he more or less succeeded. it would have been much more likely to inflame Achilles than win him over: 'you seem to hate your fellow-countrymen'. see Kindstrand 1973. 95. 215---216. the 'substance' of this declamation is 'the importance of fame'. Aristides. though he avoids anachronism. lIARRrs Aelius Aristides' Embassy Speech to Achilles (Oration XVI) seems at first reading a ham-fisted piece of work. but that is an eccentric judgement. The speech displays of course an intimate knowledge of Homer-and no overt interest in anything that had been written since Homer's time about the wrath of Achilles or about anger more generally (between the lines. but it was not his interest either. there I As to how Aristides came to be writing on such a theme.INTRODUCTION wv. The subtle understanding of furious anger that was demonstrated by Aristides' contemporary Galen was not the sophist's forte. was familiar with the cliches about moderate anger that were part of the Greek and Roman cultural patrimony). it shows Aristides in his literary context. like the speeches that Homer gives to Odysseus. 'and fear battle too' (sect. is he to deal with the truthloving and unavoidable Thucydides.2 W. but Homer never of course calls the Trojans barbarians. V. 3 The Carians are barbarophonoi in ii. in flattering the Athenians. who was willing to show them at their worst (Estelle Oudot's theme)? Were the great classical myths still important. Another striking feature of the Embassy Speech to Achilles.867. 4) (the latter trope reappears in sect. Aristides' thoughts and feelings about Rome and its empire were more complex than used to be realized when 70 Rome (Or. HARRIS was emulation involved ('modesty'. especially since. if not earlier. I would say that it should be with the barbarians. in the world of the Second Sophistic. 'was not an attribute of Aristides'). and how could they be adapted for contemporary use (the questions answered here by Suzanne Said)? In this context too we can place Glen Bowersock's discussion of Aristides' detestation of the pantomimes. our natural enemies' (sect. both Aristides and his public were accustomed to the practice of 'figured speech'.47oc. At all events. those solo performers who brought much of the repertoire of the classical theatre before the Antonine public. is its repeated reference to the Trojan War as a conflict between the Greeks and the 'barbarians': 'if you must be permanently angry. still viable. as Laurent Pernot points out in detail in his contribution to this book. But there is more: it will have been a sleepy Greek listener or reader who never for a moment thought that Aristides might be alluding to the Romans in the guise of their Trojan 'ancestors'. This difference between Homer and Aristides has often been noticed: see for instance Boulanger 1923. at least for many. as Raffaella Cribiore observes later in this volume. 2 The 'barbarians' had been the 'natural enemies' of the Greeks. 274. 2 In the Iliad Odysseus and Phoenix speak of the harm that Achilles has done the Achaeans by his withdrawal. What does the pattern of Aristides' citation of the archaic poets mean." Aristides applies the term to them seven times in a few pages and concludes his speech on this note. and what in particular does it mean that he so generously cites Pindar (Ewen Bowie's culminating question)? How.V. 26). and individual taste too. . Rep. especially if you come to it fresh from Homer. since Pi. The studies grouped in the first part of the book are concerned above all with the sophist's intimate mental connection with the literary and mythical traditions of the Greeks. That will seem banal. but no reader of the Sacred Tales could doubt that the devotion was real as well as convenient. is a chimaera'. closely connected with each other.P. in the footsteps of Bowersock. Rome. and the Gods in part because the clearest element in Aristides' personality is his religiosity. 31-38. see among others Flinterman 2002. No better indication of his 4 Going against a recent trend.INTRODUCTION 3 XXVI) was taken at face value. We have called this whole collection Aelius Aristides between Greece. are his religiosity and his status as an invalid. Hellenes being only one of their identities (14). Aristides yet another." We have mainly concentrated both of these topics in the second part of the book. Lucian and Cassius Dio still others. a label he would have rejected. apart of course from his main identity as an orator and a sophist.ze. however. 813£). There are two other important elements in Aristides' identity (and here I leave behind the Embassy Speech to Achilles). argued with respect to the cultured Greek intellectuals of this age that their 'supposed Hellenic patriotism. For some further quite adventurous discussion of narcissism in second-century Asia Minor see Kent 2007. Jones 2004 has. the axe that cuts the neck' (Praecepta rei gerendae 17 = Mor. Pernot. Francesca Fontanella and Carlo Franco-accordingly considers the political aspects of his writings. though she avoids the term-to believe that he was a favourite of the gods and of Asclepius in particular. 300 years after the annexation of provincia Asia the Greeks were still not wholly reconciled to their subordinate though privileged role. . Who could be at ease in such a situation? But Greek attitudes gradually changed: every individual had his point of view. It suited both Aristides' narcissistic personality'<-well brought out by Dana Fields. C. Plutarch another.' These two elements. 'many' had suffered 'that terrible chastiser. 6 In fact Aristides' religiosity comes out in xvi. holding that with Aristides the personal is to some extent prior to the political. 7 For a justification of the use of this concept with respect to Aristides see Andersson and Roos 1997. and an important part of his preferred identity consisted of his devotion to Asclepius. 199. 5 On the propriety of calling Aristides a sophist. The third part of this volume-the papers by Pernot. sometimes assumed to be equivalent to Hellenism." Plutarch had warned a young man elected to office in a Greek city that for crossing their Roman rulers. but Celsus Polemaeanus represents one stage. reminds us how Aristides used this identity as a means of squirming out of office-holding. 162." Galen saw Aristides as physically weak.V. Andersson and Roos 1997. and also those of Janet Downie and Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis. Bowersock). shows us the depth On this practice of his see Harris 2009. 10 Many have speculated about his ailments and their possible psychological origins. Fields's paper. the complexity of Aristides' personality. chapter I. By interpreting these stories.. It is certainly a challenge to know how to interpret Aristides' writing about his own physical condition. Brooke Holmes observes that 'biographical-diagnostic approaches to Aristides have given way to studies that situate him within his cultural and historical milieu'.37. continues. and that trend. HARRIS religiosity could be found than his conviction that Asclepius constantly sent him messages in his dreams. even when the god did not appear in his own person. B 9 . 'He was not merely a hypochondriac. Where does this tendentially luxurious interest fit in the austere life and complex self-presentation of the hard-working rhetor? Janet Downie's paper on this subject brings out. by means of a contrast with Plutarch.. given the complexity of the cultural traditions that were at work and the author's own idiosyncrasies. combine the two approaches. written into stories that are first staged in dreams then recorded in the archive. B Aristides was evidently led to Asclepius by his preoccupation with his health. perhaps more than any other in this volume. 10 See the Arabic text cited by Behr 1968. which gathered strength in the 1960s (Behr.4 W. Aristides is able to act on the body in such a way as to restore it to a primeval state of harmony'. 62. he treated his illnesses with the same care as a hypochondriac'. her paper. and how he thought that 'archiving' an immense number of dreams would help him. a preoccupation that has been variously diagnosed. but without knowing more than we can really know about his actual health such a judgement is scarcely possible. To some extent. However. Bowersock 1969. A central feature of that personality was overweening conceit. namely bathing. seeking-as I understand it-to show how Aristides tried to use his dreams to interpret his medical condition. Holmes turns a sceptical eye to modish 1990S chatter about 'bodies becoming texts'. however. No reader of the Sacred Tales can fail to be struck by the author's deep interest in one particular physical activity. 'The body is. and byJones at the beginning of his paper. He is customarily spoken of as a hypochondriac. In recent times this interest has recast itself in the language of the body. with large auditoria in vogue but no democracy in the old sense in sight.rq. More should also be said about Aristides' religious experience (another concept that is contested)-and on this we look forward to the forthcoming book by Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis. And it was to Aristides the orator that most contemporaries. But as for actually empathizing with the humourless rhetor. 254." that may be beyond us. Janet Downie detects 'ironic humor' in the dream description in Or. 11 12 1996. There is much more to investigate. to the world of competitive oratory. as always. But see on the other hand xxviii. We come back. from the contemporary admirer Phrynichus (Christopher Jones). reacted. via his greatest late-antique emulator Libanius (Raffaella Cribiore). as Luana Quattrocelli shows in our final chapter.qg and the whole ofxxix Concerning the Prohibition rifComedy.11 and it would be worth enquiring further into what such popularity meant in Greece in the second century. The last part of this volume concerns itself with some of these reactions. . for example. the only objection to him seems to have been his devotion to the wrong god. has written that Aristides 'enjoyed enormous popularity for his rhetorical prowess'. xlvii.INTRODUCTION 5 and the significance of this conceit. Swain. and serves as a transition from his self-presentation to his views about and position (or non-position) in politics. and most later readers until the twentieth century. down to Byzantine times when. among other passages. . . . is because its inclusion would undoubtedly have raised issues that would have required a much longer paper. In some respects the proportion of these quotations between Homer.' ! In Athenaeus. One reason for its restriction to these poets is that I have been looking at their citation and other ways they are drawn upon in a number of imperial Greek texts. or to what we know of readers' habits from papyri. I suspect. above all of Homer. and five each for Eupolis. in Philostratus' Apollonius in Bowie forthcoming (a). elegiac and iambic poetry. tragedy and comedy show Aristides to be not dissimilar to other authors writing in this period. where Gkourogiannis documented 45 for Aristophanes. completed in 1999. The London doctorate of 'T. 26 for Euripides. Hesiod and other hexameter poetry." though the frequency of Aristides' citation of Menander is rather low. registered the presence in Aristides of 253 citations of the Iliad and 93 of the 04Jssey. partly. because Aristides was drawn. 2 Gkourogiannis 1999. 4 For Aristophanes in other authors of the period. and of Aristophanes rather high: this is partly because of his extensive exploitation of Aristophanes for Athenian history in Oration 3 (which has some 16 citations). 16 for Sophocles. .K. or was made by his tutor Alexander of Cotiaeum. Gkourogiannis.2 This is a far larger number than Aristides' quotations of tragedy or comedy. in Stobaeus in Bowie forthcoming (c). 3 Kruger 1990.' But an equally important reason for the exclusion of other early poetry. Bowie 2000. Bowie 1997 and forthcoming (b). see Bowie 2007. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY EWEN BOWIE This paper investigates Aristides' quotations of and allusions to early Greek lyric. IO for Aeschylus.CHAPTER ONE ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC. entitled Pindaric Qyotations in Aelius Aristides. Cratinus and Menander. in Plutarch. to read Aristophanes with due care and attention in order to beefup his Atticism. Pindar apart.10 EWENBOWIE What.II in the phrase OEATJv'r]v aO'tEgE~ EyxAeLo'UOLv. on fro 196.Tyr.{ to cite Sappho in the phrase 'destroying the gaze' (ou ()LaqJ'fteLgov 'ta~ O'IjJEL~. It is possible that Sappho fro 34 Voigt is cited at Or.51 to Sappho boasting to some women thought to be fortunate. 25. 1. and in the citation of a hexameter. 193 Voigt may also not deserve the status of a separate fragment.68 (cf Or. 352 and Soph.51. since the reference at Or.51-54. he cites only two phrases: one is an apparently well-known gnome (aV()gE~ yag :lt6A. Oed.5 Of Alcaeus. however. and it is on the basis of the evidence presented there that I offer the following observations. . 28. There are also what seem to be several citations of Aleman. 2.6 the other is the idea of shooting arrows in the dark. 23.7 in the citation of fro 56 Page.LO~ :lt1Jgyo~ agE{.LO~. Whatever the intended reference of Or. 2.129 (though here the description 0 'tWV :ltag'frEvwv E:ltaLVE't'r]~ xat o{. 437 Voigt) at Or.!1~o'UAo~ .' Fr. 28.OV'tE~ xa't' 'AAxaLov (fr. 31. however. They are set out in my Table. but as Campbell noted it may be some sort of recollection offr. 3. 56. elegiac and iambic poetry are perhaps surprisingly few. 2.v. 0 AaXE()aL!16vLO~ :ltOL'r]'tTJ~ makes it quite certain that Aristides believed 5 Aristides' works are cited from the edition of Lenz-Behr 1976-1980 for Orations 1-16 and from the edition ofKeil 1898 for Orations 17-53. but since Aristides ascribes it to 'some poet' (:ltOL'r]'ttl~ o. the scholia on Aes. 28.. EX 'tou ~6qJo'U 'tOl.II Voigt. may be a reference to either fro 55 Voigt. 32. fro II2.24).D. 6 Our other sources for this poem are papyrus fragments of the first century A. then. that the Muses had made her really fortunate and that it was she who would be remembered after her death.298 and Or. At least three of these are at Or. That makes it hard to assess his claim at Or. where he is simply called 'the Laconian poet'. a phenomenon to which I shall return. as he is also at Or.v et:ltOL 'tL~) he may not be citing Sappho at all. 18. w~ EqJ'r] La:ltqJw): editors have created Sappho fro 196 Voigt from this. fro 65 Voigt or fro 147 Voigt.1O Voigt) at Or. UQT]'LOL A 3843. however. 41. Aristides' citations of early lyric. Pers. 7 Campbell 1982. these three places do yield at least two citations of Sappho. Aristides undoubtedly knows the names of Sappho and Alcaeus (Or. EU()aL!10VE~.264 (our only source for this fragment). and the Suda s. or he may not realise that it is she whom he is citing. 185 n. at Or. emerges from an examination of this relatively narrow range of poets? On the one hand there is a huge preponderance of citations of Pin dar..E{. fro 107 Page..64). despite the exploitation in Oration 28 of Persian war epigrams. 8.1---2 West.6II to the various people whom he vilified (EAEyE xuxw~)-his friend Pericles. 3. . but only one phrase which might be a quotation. 24. however. which was clearly quite widely known. In his citation of other poets. a presumably melic 'frQfjvo~ for a dead Thessalian patron Antiochus (fr. 3. despite the metre of the line).18.294 and fro 164 Page at Or. 2. fro 241 Davies at Or. there is no clear indication that Aristides knew his poetry. 3. for example. ro8 Page at Or. no citation or even mention of Bacchylides. It is just possible that Semonides of Amorgos is the source for Or. 3.UTU TOV ~Tl]olxoQov seems to be a reference to a poetic trope and not to be a way of marking the expression ~ETEL~L lIE btl ETEQOV 1tQOOl~LOV as a quotation.3).391) and (less remarkably!) Arion (Or. I have been struck by the difference between Aristides and some other writers of this period.82) we have only the scholiast's evidence that the poet is Aleman. 31. to which I shall shortly turn. Although there is nothing that is certainly a verbatim citation. there are two citations in Oration 28 which may be from his melic poetry. 9 One case. For two citations in Oration 3 (fr. That is the case of Archilochus. Or. though cf Semonides fro 1.ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC. 582 Page).u be btl ihEQOV :ltQOOLf-tLOV xu'ta L'tT)OLX. however. 9 Other early poets named but not quoted are Philoxenus (in connection with Dionysius at Or. his enemy Lycambes and a man perhaps called Charilaussuggests that Aristides knew a number of Archilochus' iambic poems 8 As I shall argue elsewhere the phrase ll.612) his poetry is not cited. and although Tyrtaeus' role in early Spartan history is twice mentioned (Or.65).2 Aristides shows knowledge of.336. Or. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY II himself to be citing Aleman. fro IIIO Nauck. 11. and at Or. But of other melic poets there is hardly a trace: no Ibycus. Overall.166. Or. no Anacreon.336 and 376) and Terpander (Or.oQOV.2 f-tE'tELI. 33. and although Timocreon is named (Or. 2.231 and 242. but does not quote. 8 As for Simonides. where Aristides quotes two iambic lines. and in this he is comparable. but there is nothing from Simonides' melic or elegiac poetry associated with the Persian wars. There are indeed some references to the Palinode of Stesichorus. 3. 3. to illuminate which the scholiast cites Eur. 2. however. to Plutarch. Aristides mentions Archilochus several times by name. may point to the issue simply being one of citation rather than of knowledge. and the reference at Or. it is clear that Aristides has some recollection of and use for Aleman. Of the elegists no use is made of Theognis. . Plutarch and Athenaeus. or indeed from his failure to mention a poet by name that neither poet nor poetry were known to him. Dio of Prusa. hence the remarkable range of his poetic quotation. 3. because the lion. which includes some very rare figures. can each be explained differently. xEQ~aA.w:ltTJ~ . too. in terms of comparison with the whole range of writers of this period. The frequency of citation is much lower in the Lines. So.and thirdcentury figures to whom his rhetorical activity brings him closer. and the two texts that are our most prolific sources of poetic quotation. 185187 West (which almost certainly provided him with the cunning little vixen. If Aristides is compared only with those second. Note that Dio contrasted Archilochus' vixen with Homer's lions at 55. UVtL AEOvtO~. of 3. the poems from which fro 124 West.676 cannot easily be accommodated in the poem of frr. he begins to look less odd.12 EWENBOWIE (i..IO. 185-187West. 11 See Bowie forthcoming (b). . largely. I would guess. A quite different agenda drives Pausanias the periegete." Athenaeus in his Deipnosophistae has invented a gathering in which he and his personae loquentes---or indeed loquaces-are keen to adduce evidence for their arguments from an ostentatiously wide and sometimes recondite range of poetry. the reference a little later in the same speech to 'the apes of Archilochus' ('AQXLAOXOlJ :lti:tl'T]XOL. 10 'Almost' certainly. The following paragraphs set out some aspects of these three writers' habits of quotation for comparison. aA. of Or. fro 167 West and fro 172 West are drawn. 3.10 It would therefore certainly be unwise to infer from Aristides' failure to quote an archaic poet that he did not know any of that poet's work. Plutarch uses poetry to reinforce various types of argument in the so-called Moralia. Moreover it is probably inappropriate to think. or other poems involving Lycambes now entirely lost). because of their sympotic frame.e. Each of these writers has his own agenda. but Plutarch's citation is at its most frequent in Oy.fj. points to knowledge of at least one of Archilochus' animal fables. as I initially did.aestiones Convivates.664). Maximus of Tyre and Philostratus of Athens. perhaps of the fable told in frr.676). On Homer and Socrates. 196-204 Davies. A little later. whom he judges preferable to Tyrtaeus. 55. 14 For citation of this poem in imperial Greek sources see frr. Cleobulus. at 2.ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC. Aleman and Ibycus are not mentioned at all by Dio. the role that he himself is adopting towards the people of Tarsus.33 ('t'~v aAwow oux ava~Lw£ E3tOLrjOE 't'fi£ TQoLa£) in support of his claim to a prince's attention. and Archilochus does indeed do rather better at Dio's hands than the poets I have so far mentioned. and at 2. comparing and contrasting him with the praisepoet Homer. at 33. but this speech is generally agreed to be by Favorinus. which may be a complete poem. Oration 33. Finally he invokes Archilochus again near the end of the speech (33. and commends instead Stesichorus and Pindar.28 is that where Alexander.12).51 (see above). he cites the first two lines of four tetrameters. Later in Oration 55 Dio refers to the vixen of Archilochus (55. which may indeed be the reference of Aristides Or. the Nymphs and Aphrodite to secure him the current object of his desire.47 quotes a line of Sappho.59) Dio has his character Alexander quote six lines of a Spartan embaterum which the scholiast plausibly identifies as a poem of Tyrtaeus. and for its highlighting on Tabulae Iliacae.28 and 64. Dio picks out Archilochus as a paradigm of an outspoken critic. fro 147 Voigt. Stesichorus' Palinode is referred to at 2.6-7. 172-181 West or to frr.41 (arguably merely paraphrasing Plato Phaedrus 243a). Horsfall 1979. .ro: 't'~v 'AQXLA. albeit with disapproval. 12 The passage at 2. in dialogue with Philip." the point there made that he imitated Homer is repeated in Oration 55.17. 13 Dio is indeed our only source for the full text of this fragment. but he never quotes her poetry. In the first Tarsian oration. Later in this work (2. pronounces the poetry of Sappho and Anacreon unsuitable for princes. 12 [Dio] 37.61).OXO'll aAo>JtExa). then paraphrases lines 3 and 4 in a way that suggests he had a text slightly different from that cited by Galen. 185-187 West. and above all Homer. He shows knowledge of the secondary tradition about Archilochus' poetic gifts and his death (33.13 and in the Trojan Oration. 11. fro 114 West. not by Dio." Alcaeus. O't'Qa't'T]y6£. Anacreon's I I -line prayer to Dionysus. 28. presumably a reference either to frr. The same point is made there about Archilochus.62 Dio presents him as quoting. his widely cited 'IALO'll 3tEQOL£ is commended at 2. fro 357 Page.3. on the better type of general. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 13 Dio qf Prusa Dio mentions Sappho twice in the second Kingship Oration. and these are Maximus' only citations of Sappho. Anacreon is also mentioned in Maximus' list at Dialexis 37. in words that assign it to his Palinode. the phrase XUAE:1tOV Eo{}A6v E!!!!EVaL. OUX E01. Telesilla. opening Dialexis 21. may well be taken from Plato Phaedrus 243a. Some 15 fragments of Sappho are cited in one paragraph of Dialexis 18. concentrated in and prompted by his four Dialexeis on Eros (18-21 Trapp).1ff.' E't1)!!O£ Myo£. and neither citation nor even mention of Aleman and Ibycus. perhaps Pythian 3.1. The one citation of Stesichorus. There is no mention of Bacchylides. Mimnermus and Theognis.EWENBOWIE Oration 60. viz. 18.4 and Dialexis 41. On Mistrust. for Chiron at 15 See Bowie 2001.20 at Dialexis 5. The same paragraph has four of Maximus' citations of Anacreon. though I suspect that his relation of it to Archilochus' prospective marriage to a member of Lycambes' family arises from his familiarity with the secondary tradition and not from a careful reading of the poem. there is some use of Pindar: perhaps the reference to Etna in Pythian 1. 15 Dio Oration 74. opens with a report of criticism of Archilochus for having his Deianeira deliver an almost epic narrative (Qa'ljJw60uouv) of her wooing by Achelous at the very point at which she is the victim of sexual assault by Nessus (fr.e. the only poem of Stesichorus of which Aristides shows knowledge. in this case from Protagoras 339c.5 of poets whose poetry either calmed or excited their audiencesPindar. ascribed by Maximus to the poet of Himera. where Maximus ascribes it to an old song. 6 'I!!EQuto£ 'toLTJ'tT]£. but not for his poetry.1. and his remarks are a valuable clue to its identification as one of Archilochus' now well-documented narrative elegies. fro 542. Solon is mentioned several times. of course.1. XaLa :n:UAUWV ~o!!u: this too may well come from Plato. i. Dio seems to know this poem and discussions of it. Alcaeus and Anacreon.13 Page. also seems to know fro 173 West.9. Maximus of Tyre Maximus has an especially large number of citations of Anacreon and Sappho. at Dialexis 30. Simonides also gets only one citation. The Palinode is. 286 West). He has no citation of Alcaeus. but as with Aristides. or of the elegists Callinus. Nessus or Deianeira. Tyrtaeus. . albeit to a much lesser extent. at 2. predictably of his Palinode. 84-85' . Sophocles' Paean to Asclepius (PMG fro 737a Page).D. for discussion of Sophocles' Paean in the second century A. has the only certain mention of Stesichorus. constitutes only two of the four lines cited by Maximus. nor is there any verbatim allusion. see Bowie 2006. 17 4. Like any author.26. since the earlier quotation which may have drawn the passage to his attention. Maximus can come up with surprises: in his case the surprise is the citation of the first two lines of Ariphron's Paean to Hygieia.2: in both cases the poet is named.1.II. fro S West. and there are also several citations of or allusions to Attic tragedy.30. especially to Euripides." Philostratus if Athens' Apollonius In his Apollonius Philostratus' chief poetic intertext is Homer. the subject of which is whether it is right to commit injustice against somebody who has done so to onesel£ In this case Maximus seems very likely to have used a text of Pindar. PMG fro 813 Page. Again lyric and elegiac poetry is rare. as the introductory text of Dialexis 12.12. Pindar is twice cited: at 7. and to his elegy addressed to Pericles on the occasion of the death of friends at sea. 18 For a fuller discussion of the citations in Philostratus' Apollonius see Bowie forthcoming (a).4. But there is only one verbatim citation. at 7.2 Philo stratus refers to a poem mentioning a i'laLIlOlv that watches over the source of the Nile (fr.S may also derive from the Palinode. by Plato in Republic 36Sb. Sappho's poetry is mentioned at 1. and at 6.26.ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC. as in the case of Maximus. fro 13 West. 85--86.2. of course.2. Pindar is named each time. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY IS Dialexis 28. described as an uQXaLov {lolla and not attributed nominatim to Ariphron. 282 Snell-Maehler). Again. is a surprise: at 3.7. as with Archilochus.17. but nothing is quoted. referred to by precisely this title: Stesichorus himself is called simply uV~Q 'IIlEQaLo£. Archilochus figures twice: a reference to his 'shield' elegy." 16 For the resurrection of Ariphron's Paean in the second century A.10-13 is paraphrased (the lyre charms Ares). that of fro 213 Snell-Maehler. see Bowie 2006.17 The final lyric intertext of the Apollonius.26. The same locus. 6.2. Pythian 1.D. 21 Vassilaki 2005. for whose Aristidean authorship see]ones 1990.4. those to Thebes never cite Pindar. 45. at Or. 11. an allusion to Ariphron PMC fro 813 Page. 20 For the date of Oration 45 see Behr 1981. 3. and what is the basis of his choices? The speeches in which quotation abounds are Orations 2.18 and Or. then. In this Oration Aristides is setting out his case that prose has as strong a claim as poetry to be used for hymns to the gods: as has been well argued by Vassilaki.. 642-645. Orations 2 and 3 are attacking Plato and philosophers in defense of rhetoric. but understandably he does not cite any of Book g-Book 9 had not been composed at the dramatic date of Oration 16! Or. Moreover it seems that one category of his compositions. 28 and 45. may be Aristides' earliest extant work. we see the phenomenon that stands out in Aristides' citation of early poetry. in order to criticize it. 201-209. Appeals to Athenians never cite Solon. Our other candidate for Aristides' earliest surviving work is The Rlwdian Oration 25. show how much citation from Homer is also to be found in this speech (and. I-tEAE'taL. unfortunately unaware of Russell 1990. and it might be suggested that Aristides' habit of citation is something he has caught from philosophical writing. the monody for Smyrna. however. is one in which citation of the poets was unusual. Pernot 1993a. . II. 19 Oration 28 is a special case to which I shall return.65 refer to Tyrtaeus as a poet sent by Athens to help Sparta. and think that this view is supported by the absence of poetic quotation in Polemo's two surviving I-tEAE't'aL. but none of his poetry is quoted. Where. and prominently Pindar's poetry. to Sarapis. Only twice are there speeches where another poet is cited and Pindar is not: in Or. I take this to be a feature of the genre. Aristides names Sappho and seems to paraphrase her (see 19 Perhaps Oration 20 should be added. does Aristides quote early poetry.D. and then moves on to use allusion to the poets to achieve mimesis of poetry" In each case. 8. cf above on Maximus of Tyre). Behr's notes there (op. his preference for citing Pindar. 420-422). 20 Here too a special explanation can be offered.18. Aristides of course makes extensive use of the Iliad for his Embassy to Achilles (Oration 16). Often Pindar is the only early poet to be cited. For an analysis of Aristides' procedures in Oration 45 see Russell 1990. perhaps from April 142 A. cit.419. Oration 45. Aristides tackles this task first by citing poetry. 18. but the presence of three Pindaric citations is hardly enough.16 EWENBOWIE Aristides After these comparisons the thinness of the harvest from Aristides looks less surprising. Vassilaki 2005. 6. XUL EV 'tQUyq>()L~ ~IOlV 0 Xtoc Tl vi] dLa ~o(POXAfj~.138 that he knew. . the speech's only other poetic allusion is to Odyssey 6. Dio in his second Kingship Oration picked out his AaJ-t:ltQo'tTj'ta 'tiii. vouou. The big question. D. Take lyric poetry: would you rather be Bacchylides or Pindar? Take tragedy: would you rather be Ion of Chios or Sophocles? Ion and Bacchylides are impeccable. cpuOEWi. 0 be mV()uQo~ XUL 0 ~OqJOXAfj~ o'tE JlEV olov :n:uV'tU E:n:L<pAEyoum 'tfj qJoQQ. To me the most persuasive explanation is that Aristides responded to Pindar's praise of the importance of outstanding natural capacities. Aristides' phrase 'tOUi.A. which follows closely in Or.4 and is not signalled.231.ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC. (2. but that there is an allusion here is far from certain. 331-335. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 17 above). already in epinicia of Simonides that we have lost: but no ancient critic questioned Pindar's poetic superiority. EV JlEAEm JlUMOV av Elvm BUXXUAihT]~ EAOLO Tl mV()uQo~. a~EvvuV'tm ()' UA6yOl~ :n:OMUX~ xaL:n:L:n:'toumv u'tuxEO'ta'tu. 0J-t0ii ~LTjV re 'Kat bL'KTjV . On the Sublime 33. EJtEL()i] ol JlEV (i()LCX:7t'tOl'tOL xaL EV 't<p yAUqJlJQ<p miv'tT] XEXUMLYQUqJT]JlEVOL. a line that it is clear from Or. Russell) The last comment of Longinus also gives us a hint of why Pindar might seem an especially kindred spirit to Aristides. 22 For other respects in which Aristides shared the outlooks and ideas of Pindar cf Vassilaki 2005.. 28. oUY'KEQavvui. and of the importance of sustained effort in realizing these capacities. 'tOLi. Trans. And within the epinicia he shows no knowledge of the Nemeans. is 'Why Pindar?' It is a question to which there can be no certain answer. uniformly beautiful writers in the polished manner. Such praise could also be found in Bacchylides and.33). mqy allude to the expression in Solon fro 36. for all that their flame often goes out without reason and they collapse dismally. 18. O:ltAOLi. and his supremacy was affirmed unhesitatingly by Longinus' On the Sublime: 'tL M.. (Longinus. In the very short Oration to Heracles. then. doubtless. something Aristides was also more than ready to apply.15 West.uvaQJ-tooai.5. at 40. The phrase 'their flame often goes out without reason and they collapse dismally' could well have been spoken of the early part of Aristides' own career. but it is Pindar and Sophocles who sometimes set the world on fire with their vehemence." The citations attest Aristides' good knowledge and admiration not only for the epinicia but for several works of Pindar in other genres too. which Aristides was convinced that he himself had. be a satisfactory account of why in citing lyric poetry Aristides often looked no further than Pindar.. The problems raised by this sequence may be of more interest to the investigators of the transmission of Simonides' epigrams. or may not. This pentameter also appears as the sixth line of Further Greek Epigrams 'Simonides' 28. . and the following six are presented as if Aristides believes that they are also from Simonides. 78sA):23 the full six lines of this poem are cited first by Syrianus on Hermogenes (Rabe.ooqJUQLtELV and then 6ybW'ltoV'tUEtEL:rrmbl AEW:rrQE:rrEO~. after reminding his audience of the 'moderation of Simonides' ('ttlV yE 'tOu ~LllwVL()01J oWqJQomJV'I]V. in Keil's view).6 at fro 89. in the middle of delivering an oration in praise of Athena (our Oration 37. 86).18 EWENBOWIE This may. and must have been thought by Aristides to be by Simonides: I-tvtil-t!l b' oihLVU qJTJI-tL ~LI-tWVLb!ll. Concerning a Digression (usually translated Concerning a Remark in Passing). than they are to scholars working on Aristides. 28. The speech where he clearly does look much further is Oration 28. Or. gods and heroes as presented in Homer at 25 to 48. so I shall review it briefly. :7tEQL 'tOu :7tuQuqJt}eYllu'tO!. His aim in Oration 28 is to amass canonical classical precedents for self-praise. but the problem casts light on how Aristides may have operated in seeking out appropriate poetic quotations. where their author is not named.2 West. 23 Page ad loe. part of a couplet quoted by Plutarch On Whether Old Men Should Engage in Politics 3 (Mor. The speech purports to have been provoked by a criticism made of an incident when Aristides. Aristides cites two fragments of elegiac poetry that could be either from an elegy or from an elegiac epigram (Simonides fro 89 West2). Apollo's oracles at 48. departed from his text to voice some praise of himself and his own eloquence. These quotations are followed by several citations of which the first are explicitly ascribed to Simonides. In doing so he moves fairly systematically through Greek literature: Homer the poet at section 19. and of the existence of a Sylloge Simonidea. 28. At Or. Sappho at 51.60. Aleman at 51 to 54. Then at 55 to 58 he offers five quotations from Pindar (see my Table).59). Hesiod at 20-24. does not note the appearance of 28. 296: among other indications that the epigram is indeed from the fifth century E. Aristides cites the eight lines of . at Or. 3. 28. IG 12 394 has the line order 3-2-1-4. a poem he was to quote again almost twenty years later.140141. 870E) and Anthologia Palatina 7.1 and also found in Diodorus 11. however.33 and Anthologia Palatina 7..2 to Diodorus Siculus lO. ~O'UXLUV 24 25 TAM 1. 'Kat OUX etM'tai.44. In Aristides. These eight lines are also known from Diodorus Siculus 11. is our only source for lines 3-6. however. VEXQOVi.63 Aristides cites Further Greek Epigrams 'Simonides' 21 and 38.Simonides' 21 is a version of the two-liner on the batde of Marathon quoted by Lycurgus at lO8-lO9: the first line is the same.Simonides' 45.G.65 Aristides moves from Attic examples. Page (1981.24. the second line. 'Simonides' 38 is a couplet on the fallen at Byzantium (for the problem of its date see Page 1981. at Or.3 and Anthologia Palatina 6.250. then 'Simonides' 12. This substantial sequence concludes with a taunt by Aristides to his critic: 'So this is the right time for you mock these men as loquacious corpses who do not know how to remain calm' (WOLE wQu om OXW:7tLELV uii'tovi. 28. His citation of .. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 19 Then at Or. Wi. 229) was surely right to argue that Lycurgus' version is to be preferred. 191-193):25 l!tIvw Bouordrv xaL XaAXLMwv :ltat(\E~ 'A'Ih]vaLwv (\al-LaaaV'tE~ At Or. 253): Aristides is the only source for this epigram. is its imitation in an epigram inscribed at Xanthus in Lycia at the end of that century" The next citation follows immediately.~vwv :7tQ0!1Uxo'iivtEi.64: it is of the first line and the opening of the second line of the four-line version of 'Simonides' 3 that was current throughout antiquity.64.Gr. from IG I 334 and IG 12 394 through Herodotus 5.1 = Kaibel Ep. at Or.248. of which the first couplet is known from Plutarch On the Meanness ofHerodotus 39 (Mor. 28. Next. the pentameter.343 (see Page 1981.3 and Anthologia Palatina 7.228.ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC. to Doric: first he cites 'Simonides' 22a. 768 = CEG 888. which he concedes might be overheated. 28. Aristides.62. runs EX'tELVUV M~~wv EWEU !1'UQLli~ui. . MoMOXUi. 'tLVai.77. 'A'frTjVULOL MUQU'fr&VL. known from Herodotus 7. whereas in Lycurgus it is XQ'UooqJoQwv M~~wv EOLOQEOUV MVU!1LV. and that it may have been inscribed beside the Soros on the plain of Marathon. 'EJJ. . When it was needed. and it was only for particular purposes that he quoted these (or other) poets liberally in his work. 3. he could amass citations from poets whom he hardly mentions elsewhere. partly. Aristides' knowledge of early Greek lyric. 12. like Simonides and Solon in Oration 28.9IO West at Or." Conclusions Conclusions can be briefly stated. Of the poets of this and indeed oflater periods it is above all Pindar whom he cites most often. apparently enjoying access to a collection of Simonides' poetry comprising elegiac. . however.547. though he does quote fro 37. because he saw a kindred spirit in his occasionally flawed brilliance. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 21 were grouped according to their metrical category (as for example in editions of Archilochusj. I argue. and to an edition of Solon's poetry that had at least trochaic tetrameter and iambic trimeter poems. elegiac and iambic poetry cannot be demonstrated to range as widely as that of some of his contemporaries. Pol.ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC.5 (= fro 37 West) would also have suited Aristides' purpose but are not quoted by him here. 26 Note too that the iambics quoted in Ath. epigrammatic and perhaps lyric poetry. but he probably knew much more than he chose to quote. I030A).3) @21 [also @ Or. Or. 1.13] 2 437V@*464 (a shot in the dark) 107P@*129 259W@406 01. according to the scholiast.lU 28 A. 2.3) @401.2 (DithAth. as does Arsenius for the similar proverb (Apostol.16-17 @229--230 fro 169 1--6 @26 28 3 112V 29@298 108P@2943o 164P@82 31 124W. 2. also?@9 & 12427 [also @Or.12] fr. but not named by Aristides. or.37 @3 Py. 4. 20. 167W & 172W or an-other Lycambes poem @611 185-187W @664&?676 fro 37 @*37 (+~ fro 38 (?Persephone hymn) @* 466 [also @Or.466] fro 31 (?Zeus hymn) @ *420 fro 81 (Dith.13] 01. 33 P. 56. Alcaeus Aleman Archilochus Pindar fro 76. 2)+fr.23 (ii 271L-S)). Cent.401. 3. Berolin. Pets. 9569 (first century 27 EQUJ.112] fr.32 (Zeus hymn) @ 620 32 fro 95 @191 [also @Or. 6 (Mor. O. 9. 3. 352 and Soph.27-29 & 100-102 @11O Py.21.2 (DithAthen.1. Harris 21=1113 SM. P.D.2. de I}th. but lines 16-17 are cited by Aristides at 229. 31 Aleman. Or.22 EWENBOWIE Citations by speeches in the numerical order of the editions of Lenz-Behr and Keil: an asterisk indicates that Aristides is our only source for the fragment: Orn. 42. 20. 8. animo procr. 32 Also Plut.48 (66) @27 fro 76.T.lU. 29 Also known from ~ Aes. 2. 8.) 30 Aristides in the first instance is quoting Plato (whom he names) Laws 705a: the scholiast on Aristides cites Aleman I08P in comparison. 397A). Gorg. . 484b. 33 (Mor.94-96 @109 01.260 @478 33 4 8 Is.95 @148 fro 38 (?Persephone hymn) @*1l2 [also @ Or.169. 94-96 @230 Py.43@4 17 not EQELOJ. Extent and form are those of the citation in PI. Pol.1. apoph. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 23 Sappho 34V@1l Simonides Solon Stesichorus Pal @128. [also @Or. . 166 Pal@234 582P at 97 34 45FGE@140. cf. e. Cited Pluto Solon 18. 12. The Salamis.g [Plut] reg. IG 14. cited Pluto Solon 8.5. 207C. Solon 25.] Ath.9-10W @ 547 cf. [Ar.ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC. 548 Pal@557 Pal@8 34 35 36 Widely known.2. 25.2136. et imp. Popl.6. 28.64] lW @ 549 35 5W@ 54736 37. O. 2995. Hermes 48 (1913) 319. P.T.1] 30P@*51 106P & 148P @*54 28 01. 56.21] 01. 9.58-68?@50 01. 14-15 (Ditk. 9569 (first century A.7. 2) @ 21 [also @ Or. 352 and Soph.T.). Paean 6) @58 fro 194.26-27 & 49 @10 112V@68 37 112 V@6438 21 23 24 25 26 27 Py.7. . 1-6 (Delph. 46.94-96 @55 fro 52£. 56.1-3 & 4-6 @*57 fro 237 @*56 37 Also known from Also known from ~ ~ Aes.26-27@? 19 fro 75.l08al (Hyporchemata) @2 [also @Or.) 38 A. 8.24 Orn. 352 and Soph. Pers. Paris. P.Berolin.2 (DitkJ1then. 1. Athen. O. Pers.25] fro 76.95 + ~ @36 01.54-68 @29 01. 9569 (first century Aes. 39 C£ ~ cod. Or.D.49-50 @ 30 fro 329@p9 fr. Alcaeus 18 20 EWENBOWIE Aleman Archilochus Pindar 01. 2. 1. 33. 7.D. 3) @13 [also @401. Berolin. [Ar. cf Solon 25. For the problem. 5. contra Boas 1905. AP 7. 3. FGE. with n. 47 Aristides offers two couplets following the single couplet in Plutarch and AP.2-3FGE@6445 22a FGE @65 46 12 FGE [= Plut. also @ Or. 7. 95. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 25 Sappho 196V@440 Simonides Solon Stesichorus 5W@1441 193V at 51 (?= 89W2 @* 60 42 21 55.ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC.62.] Ath. 39. Orsini and Bergk thought Simonidean. Popl.6 FGE. lO8-lO9: E'K'tELvav M~lIwv EVVEU ~uQLUl\a~ instead of XQuompoQwv M~lIwv EO'toQEoav Mva~Lv. 25. 48 34. 44 = AP 7.140-141]44 3.296= Diod. II. Sic.LQov 'ta~ O\jJEL~: or is this a recollection of 3UI and lO5(a)? Cited Pluto Solon 18.de rna Hdt.Pol. 48 Stesichorus: Wilamowitz 1913.228.3.250] @66 47 PMG 947a&b @67.6.6-7W and 36. 12. cf Page 1981. 43 But Aristides cites a different pentameter from Lycurgus in Leoer. 3.5.327W extensively @ 137-14049 IILaljYlh. 49 Citing explicitly from the Tetrameters and from the Iamboi. 45 = Hdt. 150ff. 42 Line 2 = 28. 40 41 . 225-231.65 or 147) FGE@63 4338 FGE@*6345 FGE@ 64.77-446 = Hdt.1. 228. 13-14 or Isth. 33e-d @12 01.3.6.1 @3 fr. 3.2.2.2] 01. 33c5 @ 14 01.dub 350-353 @*3 fr.52 @3 fro 52 £.19.68.1 @112 50 fr. . 27.4 (Mor.99.146 51 ?fr. Aleaeus 30 31 32 33 Aleman EWENBOWIE Archiloehus Pindar 01.7 (Threnoz) @34 fr.7. 1. 4. lOO. 9.7@16 fro 99 @*6 fro 283 @?6 fro 95 @12 [also @Or.1.l08al-3 (Hyporchemata) @1 [also Or. 3. ~ THorn.5-6 (Delphi Paean 6) @3 fro 52h (Delos Paean 7).52 01.191] fro 35a@*30 ?fr.27@16 fro 136a (?Threnoz) @*12 fro 129. 44 @25 Py.83 @8 fro 182 @* 5 fro 226 @*5 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 56P@7 fro 201. 617C). 3.7. 8. Isth.25.dub 354-355 @*13 50 51 The first of three lines quoted by Strabo 17. 6.44 @25 01.26 Orn. 8.1 @33 Isth.12.43 & 50 @3 01. 802C.70.11-14 & 26.47 @3 Py 6.39 @24 Py 9.11 @13Py 8.9. Also P1ut. QC 1.62 @13 fro 150. Il.39 @24 Py 9. ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 27 Sappho Simonides Solon Stesichorus 528@*2 Pal @ 2=* fro 24lP ?36.15-16W @6 . 8. . 45. 2) @ 25 [also @Or. 52.2.92 @45. Alcaeus 46 Aleman Archilochus Pindar fro 75.35 (Abdera Paean) @42 Is. 336-337.14-15 (Ditk.21] 01. Athen.1 @ 31 ?fr.13 50 52 For a list of Pindaric reminiscences in Oration 45 (arranged by section and including her own proposals.EWENBOWIE Or n. 20. cf Or. which I accept here) see Vassilaki 2005. ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 29 Sappho Simonides Solon Stesichorus (ref. to Dioscuri story) 510P @36 .ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC. . Bompaire 1976.LEL • I should like to thank Professors Ruth Webb and William Harris for improving the English translation of this paper. See for example Russell 1983. Thucydides. 3 Nicolai 1992. 'seems to excel by far the other writers of history not only in the power and dignity of his expression. of narrating the deeds of the city (.y (pernot 1981). . This cannot be. cf. 112-115. o£ ou f.LOVOV 'tfi 'tWV Mywv bUVUf. and led him finally to write meletai like the Leuctran Orations and the Sicilian Orations:' I have chosen to focus this paper on the way Aristides reads. Webb 2001. Diodorus.322-327. uses and rewrites the History of ThucydidesThucydides who. Gasca 1992a and 1992b. 1976-1980). 297-339. Anderson 1993. On the use of history in the progym:nasmata themselves. II (To Plato: in Difence ofOratory). 301-303. Ephorus. according to the rhetor.W Lenz and CA.. We follow the structure drawn up by F. as is clear from the three Discourses where he defends rhetoric-especially against the criticisms of the Gorgias2history too really falls into his field of thought. but also in factual accuracy' (.CHAPTER TWO AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES: SOME REMARKS ABOUT THE PANATHENAIC ORATION* ESTELLE OunOT 'We did not choose the task of writing a jejune history. Or. We generally follow Behr's translation." above all Herodotus. sometimes slightly changed...). also sect. but only if we omit no category of praise'.. the most debated author from the classical Greek past. Pernot 1993b. Behr (Leiden.47-51. III (To Plato: in Defence cfthe Four). But we chose to mention its most famous actions in war. His relation to history was shaped by his rhetorical training which. Or. 2 Or. 90. 4 More exactly On Sending Reinforcements to Those in Sicil. If Plato is clearly. for this orator. 1 Panathenaic Oration 230. gave him a very precise and deep knowledge of historians. IV (To Capit~. especially thanks to the progymnasmata. if we discuss each point fully. and as far as possible to omit none of the city's good qualities. 1 This assertion comes in the middle of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aristides. It bifitsyou to speak in the manner qfSocrates. given the changes in the calendar introduced by Hadrian.3234) comes down to the year 167.9 By choosing this way (which is a manner of adjusting the topic)." Aristides plans to prove the essential qualities of Athens (her UQELaL). a historical narrative. I received from the god a command and exhortation not to abandon oratory.EL<TtOV :1tQOEXELV 'tWV OVYYQUqJEWV 60xEi:). nor are all these references for the use of his argument. Follet (1976. Haas' conclusions. 33) and on the significance of the word VLKyJ which could reflect the military successes of Lucius Verus over the Parthians in 164-165. but corrects the date to 168 (333n.87-88 and 1994. wars in defence of the Greeks (210-227). for example. Cf also section 23. Persian Wars (92-209). Schmitz 1999.5 The best way to evaluate the relationship between the rhetor of the Second Sophistic and this very significant intellectual figure" is probably to examine it through the Panathenaic Oration. See. 8 Sections 75-321 (out of 404 sections) are devoted to historical deeds of Athens: mythical times (78--91). which appear to be original (they pre-existed the birth of the Athenians) through the city's actions (:1tQa~EL~. Firstly.while Oliver (1968.'? Aristides gives a real history of the city. '. wars against the Greeks (264-313). nor for a single proposition.M xul 'tft 'twv :1tQuy!-t<i'twv UXQL~eL~ :1t'A. III (To Plato: in Difence qf the Four). 9 Oudot 2006.. 11 5 Or. as when he narrates the invasion of the Peloponnesians or any other event of his time. EQYU). wishing to improve A. the 'Fifty-Years' period and the Peloponnesian War) corresponds in many ways to Aristides' Panathenaic Oration. Indeed. p. on the reliability of the historian's portrait of Pericles: 'He reports this. and therefore it is not surprising that Thucydides' narrative (including remembrance of the Persian Wars. epilogue of the deeds performed in war (317-321). 325. 20. from the mythical autochthony up to Macedonian conquest. according to which Aris- . probably during the reign of Antoninus Pius or of the joint rulers Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus7-is. but in his history and narrative he simply thus reports the truth.. this work stands out for several reasons. Demosthenes. u'A. 11 Two scholars have investigated the historical sources of Aristides' Panathenaic Oration: Haury (1888). 10 Pernot 1993b. this long celebration of Athens-a speech delivered in the city. 2): it must be an even year. §8) suggests the year AD 155. or the nature of each or the whole. during the Panathenaic festival.' 6 C£ for instance Sacred Tales Iv. one of the many occasions where the god Asclepios encourages Aristides to practice oratory: 'While I rested in Pergamum because of a divine summons and my supplication. 14-15. Peloponnesian war (228--263). for the most part. It is impossible to say through the length of time whatever dream came first. 7 Behr (1968. basing his conviction both on Eleusis' destruction by the Costoboci in 170('the tone in which Aristides discusses the wars and festivalswould have been irritatingly false soon after the shocking sack of Eleusis'. not to press a personal quarrel. 331--333) implicidy agrees with the overall argumentation of Oliver. and Thucydides.ESTElLE OUDOT xul osuvomn. war against Philip of Macedon (314-316). Barbarian or Hellenic. OUX ro~ VO!LL~E'tm. In other words. 1 will not recall. 11. C.36. this is significant because. And among these some did not carry their narrative through the deeds of the city as is customary. of the controversial hegemony of Athens. E!LOt {)OXELV. saluted some of the dead.oo !LEV nou cruYYVW!LTl~ Aa130vtE~ ljJo13ov. Blot {)E ot xav 'to'lJ'to~. To begin with. EM't'tou~ YEvEcr1'}m'twv J'tQaY!La'toov. but in this way they were far from recounting all of the city's attributes'). 13 Thuc. . aM' o~v oiitrn J'tOAAOii 'tLVO~ EMTloav J'tEQt J'tav'toov yE 'twv uJ'taQXov'toov 'tfj J'tOAEL {)te. concluded that Aristides' main source of information was Ephorusa conclusion which was convincingly disputed by Beecke 1905. Pericles and Aristides intend to do the same thing-that is to explain Athens' excellence--in Pericles' case on the basis of the character ('CQO:ltOL) and the behaviour of the inhabitants. So we read.4: 'The military exploits whereby our several possessions were acquired." In general. But above all.36." Pericles' oration is significant. Indeed we may wonder how such an encomium of Athens. in some way. which Thucydides deals with at length. but went another way. on the other hand. Smith). EV 'tOL~ E:7tL'taljJLOL~ A. which represent a turning point in the oration.6Yo~ 'tWV aJ'to1'}aVOvtooV EvLou~ J'tQoOELQT]Xamv. of being inferior to their theme. How to deal with all the debates in Thucydides about the nature of Athenian aQX~? Moreover. can deal with Thucydides' historical analysis describing the development of Athens' hegemony. we can note that tides would draw his historical knowledge only from the works of authors who have come down to us. in their funeral orations. I would like to consider sections 322-329.Eoov ~A1'}OV. where Aristides.4.AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 33 But the reason why this particular discourse is to be studied is deeper. for 1 have no desire to speak at length among those who know' (transl.324. Pericles' funeral oration clearly serves as an archetype for Aristides-a text to which he alludes several times in his discourse. on the one hand. C£ Thucydides 11. which is based on the continuity of the Athenian virtues. 12 See for example the cutting remark in section 4." in Aristides' case on the basis of the original qJUOL~ which is embodied in the city's character and can be seen through its actions.F. oux E. first. aM' E'tEQav hQaJ'tovto.EA1'}ELv ('others. as it seems to me. {)ELcravtE~. a structural model for praise. 14 See the structure of the discourse (a draft whose grounds are the kephalaia) in Pernot 1993b. in fear. mentions the authors of funeral orations: ol /)f. whether in any case it were we ourselves or our fathers that valiantly repelled the onset of war. by setting a topic and a division into three periods which Aristides takes up again and adapts. both mean to explain the sense of the history of a city through its people's national character. this question cannot fail to take another element into account: in Thucydides' work. reviewing the writers who in the past claimed to speak properly of Athens. Such are the two conflicting aspects of what the historian's work means for the Panathenaic Oration of Aristides. {)ul 'twv J'tQa. or Lacedaemonians. a form of life «HaL'ta) and a set of specific values. 17 This sentence again echoes the Proem (section 2).34 ESTElLE OUDOT the speech is divided into two main parts---deeds in peacetime and deeds in wartime-which are both meant to illustrate the boundless philanthropia of the Athenian people. all that takes place before in the speech-namely the first two thirds of the discourseis. that is eloquence. 'the key passage of the whole oration':" Athens' superiority. but the whole human race---and you have won an honoured and great victory for all time. But I shall not stop before I discuss a subject which. 'tfj~ EV !!u'lh1!!um KUt MyOL~). J-tEQOU\. See sections 4-5 of the Proem where Aristides evokes the different kinds of works that failed to speak worthily of the city.Q WO:n:EQ ou ttqJ. Firstly. as].L'tov J-tOL qJULVE'taL A6yo~ 'to. how is Athens' memory to be dealt with within the Roman Empire? At section 322 Aristides explicitly puts an end to the strictly historical part of his work: And enough about these matters. which provides the right 'fostering of studies and oratory' ('tQoqJfj~ 'tfj~ m~ aA. 14. KOOJ-tOUV'tu 'tOU KU't' uu'tOU\. A6you\. and on everything that is connected with the Attic tongue. not by defeating the Boeotians.\. which would be based upon her political and military rule. This text is all the more interesting. than by using eloquence itself 15 16 . is not one of a historical kind. or Corinthians. somehow. Athens' real superiority is actually based on her dialect. 'tOU\. entirely erased. literature. as Aristides suddenly says. as the expression goes. This passage is a real turning point in the oration. Aristides implicitly ponders over the right literary form to deal with Athens in the imperial era. while bringing history and encomium face to face.. and certainly. In other words. Therefore.EL\. where Aristides claims that there cannot be a more fitting way to honour Athens. broadly speaking.T]i}cii~ Kui}UQa~ KUt [)LUqJEQ6v'tOJ~ avi}Qum:ou. as far as we know. and I would like to show that Aristides distinguishes himself from the historian on two levels.. education. :n:QU!.H. But now we come to a transition from this historical part to the praise of the Attic language. in that it appears to be a real manifesto against Thucydides. . no one has mentioned up to this time in these public recitals of praise. and secondly. :n:UQEAttELV 'tT]V J-tVELUV)Y You alone of mankind have erected 'a bloodless trophy' (UVULJ-tUK'tOV 'tQo:n:mov). Oliver said. 16 For it seems to me as it were improper to praise actions with speech and then to omit mentioning the part of speech itself (Kol ya. No. the orator plans to define Athens' dunamis in contrast with Thucydides. not like Oliver 1968. a time-limited one. gained through a small-scale victory over three of her nearby neighbours. both in time (it is permanent and unceasing) and in space (all peoples are concerned). For all the cities and the races of mankind turned to you and your form of life.UQLOU~ !J. a !J. and dialect ('i\:n:uam yaQ ut :n:OAEL~ %UL :n:av'ta 'to. to state that the rhetor uses Ephorus (Haury 1888. in the belief that it is as it were a mark of education. According to Aristides.E'tUAU~ELV). which was an outstanding success. [327] This I call the great empire of the Athenians. or more. without constraint.E'tU~E~AT]%EV &QXoV'tu~). [323] And the power of the city is not contained in the establishment of garrisons.80. This thesis overlooks the conscious rewriting Aristides undertakes of Thucydides' historical work.107-109 and Diodorus XI. And all men have come to accept this dialect. praying that their sons and they themselves may have a share in the beauty which is yours (%UL ou qJQOUQUL~ ey%utl'EmT]%ULm~ ~ MVU!J. among others. this picture is completely reversed: Athens' victory is no longer a limited one. And a little further on he writes: [326] You Lacedaemonians and all other Greeks.E1:EQU TIQT]!J.. oM' 'EAA~a:n:oV'tov oMe 'to. auVEUXO!J.AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 35 the disputed battle at Tanagra. Moreover this new kind of rule settled down peacefully-with 'bloodless trophies'-and acts upon the whole human race as a gravitational force does. U!J.ii~ %UL 'tT]V U!J. they have abandoned their native dialects and would be ashamed to speak in the old way even among themselves with witnesses present. or the Hellespont.EVWV %UL da:n:mouV'twv EUU'tOiJ~ w~ I)uvu'tov'tti :n:OAEL. the real dunamis of Athens is by no means based on a geographically limited area. one which could be quantified through the number of triremes and which would be maintained by garrisons. Her empire is not a military one. but is now universal.E'tEQUV I)Lm'taV %UL qJWVT]V a:n:E%ALvE). but in the fact that all men of their own accord have chosen your ways and enrolled themselves as far as possible into the city. In fact.EyaAT]V aQXT]v %UAOO 'tT]v 'Atl'T]VULWV. like that at Marathon. or the regions in Thrace. which we attempt to demonstrate in this article. I say that every day this proof of the city's victory is still confirmed by you yourselves and especially by the first men among you. OU 'tQL~QEL~ I)LU%OaLU~ ~ :n:AELOU~ oM' 'lwvLuv. 18 C£ section 220.LV %UAoil !J. Haury based himself on the discrepancy between Aristides and Thucydides on the battle ofTanagra. 22).L~ 'ti'j~ :n:OAEW~ auvEXE'tm. by Zeus. e:n:L eQg%T]~. which have changed their rulers countless times (Tuu'tT]v eyw 'tT]V !J.. See Thuc. continuous (w~ aAT]tl'oo~ 'tT]V :n:QE:n:ouauv avtl'Qwmp %UL I)LT]VE%i'j) . not two hundred triremes. not Ionia. finally.2-6. an empire subject to changes (metabolaz) and. 1. aAM :n:aV'twv eSE:n:hT]I)E~ 'to.l" nor. but a victory truly suited to mankind. 'tOOV avtl'Qw:n:wv yEVT] :n:Qo~ u!J.EVWV %UL :n:maL %UL EUU'tOL~ 'tOil :n:uQ' U!J. . " Now in Pericles' oration. 1.93.19 The dunarnis of Athens is then clearly portrayed as a military and political one. and it has to resist the enemy. for example.23 19 Thuc. oXEMv ol ~La. 'with versatility' (EU'tgU:n:EAWI. ou Mywv EV 't<p :n:ugaV'tL xal1:n:OI.) and become lovers of her. what matters is the expression ~ MVUI1LI." it is power over allied peoples.. :n:6A. and almost all orators.3.3.3.1.2. 1.64. is attested by the very power of your city. See also 11.121. ilv a:n:o 'tWV~E 'tWV 'tga:n:wv EX'tTJOUI1El'tu. <i:n:uV'tEI.'. who have been fully successful among the Greeks.4: Pericles recalls to his fellow-citizens that their fathers 'by their resolution more than by good fortune and with a courage greater than their strength beat back the Barbarian and advanced our fortunes to their present state' (yvOOf. 1. 22 Thuc.F. of the Athenians]'.). have been successful through the power of the Athenians' (UA:n:UV'tEI. :n:aAEwl. C£ also 1.LLI. This power is above all based on Athens' naval forces.4 and 43. C.41." it has 'compelled every sea and every land to grant access to the daring [sc. a power which we have acquired in consequence of these qualities' (Ked WI. I.1. V. and besides. that the Athenians are a sort of a comprehensive person able to perform all kinds of actions.lE[~OVL ~ c'\lJVUf. VI·92·5. OTJI1ULVEL).. Concluding a first step of his argument. 11.1. as it is used in section 329: 1\ll of your oratory in all of its forms and that which others have written in your tradition is excellent.1.43. 'tU~E l1iiAAOV 11 Egywv aAtll'tELU.62·3.41. VI·76.62.2.72. Athens' 'power' clearly stands out as a central point of Pericles' famous argument in Thucydides' Book II. MVUI1LV xul't' ~I1EgUV Egycp l'tEWI1EVO'UI. Cf also 11.2.44·1. 11. 'tfjl.) .lTI f. 11.41423 Thuc.3. 'tUc'\E ltQo~yuyov uiJ'tu) (transl.f.95· 1. V. 'tfi 'tWV 'Ath)VULWV ~'UVUI1EL VEVLXtlXUOLV).121. .lEL 'tOV re ~uQ~uQov UltEOOauV'to 'Kut E'. Smith). 'tfjl. 1. 11. reflect that all this has been acquired by men of courage ('tOAI1WV'tEI. 20 . uu'tf] ~ MVUf. and he goes on to say: 'That this is no mere boast inspired by the occasion. the power of Athens illustrates a definite Athenian virtue-audacity (tolrna): 'Nay rather you must daily fix your gaze upon the power of Athens ('tf]V 'tfjl.II8.65·5. mrvnov 'tWV EL~WV ol :n:ug' UI1LV agLO'tOL xut oUI.ESTElLE OUDOT In the perspective of this paper.lTI re ltA. 11.77-7· 21 Thuc. ol :n:ug' UI1WV E:n:OLTJOUV.144. :n:uV'tWV EV "EAATJOL VLXtlOUV'tEI.Ewl. VII. 11. the Athenian statesman declares that Athens is 'the school of Hellas'. but actual truth.. VII-4 2. :n:aAEwl. and when the vision of her greatness has inspired you.2-3. and has 'everywhere planted everlasting memorials (I1VTJI1ELU aL~Lu) both of evil and of good'.EOVL ~ 'tUXTI 'Kut 'tOA. M ol MyOL ~La. 1]'tUL).!J. but to refuse to go to war from a desire for tranquillity is by no means so free from danger' (1. he would simply speak the truth' (.. wmE EL 'tLl. Smith). 1. cf.390425 Thuc. but coveting the more enduring peace which will result from the war.4. cf.) and decide (XQLOLl. the dunamis of the logoi. According to the Corinthian envoys. the cultural empire of Athens) corresponds to a new interpretation of the behaviour of the Athenian people.tl'tE LOUl.AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 37 Boldness ('tOA. de Romilly 1947. Eav. 11.30 And the Corinthians conclude thus: 'Therefore if a man should sum up and say that they were born neither to have peace themselves nor to let other men have it. 1. EXELV ~OUXLUV !J.I02. 1.u) is one of the main virtues praised by Pericles in his funeral oration.3. 28 Thuc. He dwells on the remarkable way his fellow citizens put this quality into practice. As their bravery ('to EihlJ1JXOV) is innate. the Athenian people is generally viewed as one person.26 Such a portrayal of the Athenians is both foretold and confirmed in the speech delivered by the Corinthians in front of the Spartan Apella in Book I-this text is well-known to Aristides.L<. 29 Ibid. See also the arguments used by the Corinthians to urge their allies to bring help to the Potidaeans: 'Vote for the war. while avoiding tiring physical training (Q<..UVEAWV qJUL1] nEqJuxEVaL Ent 't{fl !J. 30 Thuc.31 The issue at stake now is whether the new meaning of Athenian dunamis in the Panathenaic Oration (that is. 11. UU'tO'Ul..EvWl.70.39.9g-136.2) (transl. ()LaL'tW!J.F. also 1.). 26 On the development of Pericles' analysis through his discourses.EVOL).28 they are prone to imagine new projects (EnLVOijOaL 01.70. av dnOL).tl'tE UULOUl. 27 Or.ELl.ol.9.124.24 living instead unconstrained (avEL!J. C. aAAoul. 32 In the Panathenaic Oration. 1.EAE-tU).70. they are not reluctant to move (ano()1]!J. 31 Thuc. OQ{}Wl.t !J.60.1. not fearing the immediate danger. also I. For peace is more firmly established when it follows war. the Athenians are fundamentally aggressive and innovative (they are VEw'tEQonOLoL). they can be bold. with a unity of character and endowed with a consistency both of acts and convic- .)29 and highrisk actions. XI1." The Corinthians depict Athenian activism and vigour as dangerous to other peoples.3.6. Cf. Pericles' speech is thus mirrored in this famous antithetical presentation. who quotes it verbatim in the second Leuctran Discourse.t{}U!J. where the Athenians are depicted in contrast with the idle and procrastinating Lacedaemonians." 24 Thuc.UAAOV t) novcov !J. aV{}Qwnoul.25 because they are able to think and argue (AoyLO!J. . 282. 372. 393· Ell1jJllXla: 89. 317. 213. clemency (emEtxELu). 138.). 390. chosen from ancient examples. 34 See for instance sect. 392. 38 Sections 23." for they are systematically linked with terms falling within the semantic field of kindness. 192... 257. 213 ((}WIlT] and IlEyuAO'IVllXlu). 134. 'tOAJ-tU)33 can be found throughout Aristides' discourse. 196 (the actions of the city are the 'demonstration of justice and true courage' . 233. This is precisely one of the three feelings. 177. 345. 244. 3II). [they added] such even temper (:n:Qc. IlEV 6LUlpEQOV'tW~ E~OllAEvau'to. 254. 81.108.. 257· KUQ'tEQlu: 145. 137. both of courage and of generosity'. In a general way. 39 Sections 45. and did not argue the matter (.. 154.. 33 f\V6QEla: 81-82 (where Aristides says that he just showed 'proofs.. 308. Pa:nathenaic Oration 308: 'It will be obvious that the Athenian people in their remarkable decisions has taken up the character of one man. 03tEQ E'GtOV. Rengakos 1984. In fact. the best one'lpuvt']aE'taL yaQ. in Iv. by way of illustration.2-3. 345 (av6QElu and lpLAuvttQw3tlu).37 generosity (J-tEYUAO'IlruxLu). but it was cured by its own nature.). but these virtues are in a way always neutralised.36 piety (EU<Jl~~ELU). 36 Sections 8.lO'tTji. 3tQo~ 6LXULOcrVVT]~ xUL 3tQo~ av6QELU~ E3tl6EL!. 223. 159. sect. and were all-important (. in the whole Panathenaic Oration. 396. 227.40. the account of an event which took place during the year 48r Be. 303. 48. identified by Thucydides' Cleon as being the most dangerous to Empire: see 111.. 348.3. 313. 293.xo'tTji. 196. 15. There is only one occurrence in Thucydides. 257 (E1J'ljJ1lXla and E3tLElxELU).). EU'IjJUXLu. these two aspects complete each other in order to form a full and perfect wisdom (oorptc). 222. TOAIlU and related terms: II4. the city of Athens is endowed by Aristides with an ~tto~ (for example 138.ELAEYIlEVU). How can such conduct fail to prove that they tions (for example. 37 Sections 154-155. along with pity and delight in eloquence. 256. see also 301-306 ('t~v 'tWV 3tQUYlla'twv lpVOLV). 142. (8-10.ESTElLE OUDOT Boldness and bravery (av6QEtu. 77. 388. 133. 213. 179. EVO~ av6Qo~ ~ttEL XEXQT]IlEVO~ 'tou ~EA­ rtorou). 223) and a lpvau.) and nobility (J-tEyuAo'IjJuXLu).35 even temper (:n:Q<. 154. xUQ'tEQLu. 89 (lpLAuvftQw3tlu and E1J'ljJllXlu). describing the Spartan Brasidas at Amphipolis. the nature of the city and her inhabitants is twofold and. yielded the naval leadership to the Peloponnesians: 'When the Athenians had shown such great enthusiasm for the safety of all men. 250.avftQw3tlu~ 1J3tUQXE'tW 'tWV aQxulwv E!. in the congress at the Isthmus. 257. far from cancelling one another out. 136. 195. 149.. 107 (av6Quyuttla). 137.39 All these virtues are both crowned and summed up by philanthropia (a term which Thucydides does not use). 203. 'tUll'tL IlEV ovv XOLVU 6ElYIlU'tU. and made such a great contribution to the common need. I would like to consider. 306--308. 92.). 35 Sections 8. 160. 3 17. 58-65. so that they conceded to others a formal leadership.. 196. 361. 127.38 and justice (6LXaLOOUVTj). 372. and 255-when Athens had to face the maOLa: in the nature of mankind the city was diseased. av6QEla~ rs XUL lpLl. 81. a . 67.LV aAT]ttLvii~ . 133. when the Athenians. EIJtm).. ()E()OLXOI.AELIUS AR1STIDES AND THUCYDIDES 39 already possessed every kind of wisdom and were the best of all men . have voluntarily dispensed with the fear of empire' (qJLA. what is left of the portrait which Thucydides draws of the Athenians. oM' av eLI. ?' (137). 41 Thuc. the city's personal struggles. XQT)au!!Evol. After Athens' defeat before Syracuse. uQXfjl.3and 76.77. but one which now had acquired more. so the wars fought through the need of those who asked for help and the advantages deriving from knowledge combine with the city's benefactions. honour ('U!!tl) and later self-interest (wqJEALa)Y In the Panathenaic Oration. and the city's activity on behalf of itself as those who asked for help combine with the wars'. Aristides downplays the heavy losses of the Athenian army. speaking instead of a renewed force.I-lu and OOOljlQOmJVIl to rewrite the episode of the Thirty in 404403BC-oudot 2003)' Cf also sects.75. uxoAou{h1aal. no matter how many the parts into which you divide it. In an answer to the Corinthians. 42 Panathenaic Oration 308 (drawing upon Thuc. 344-345: 'Consider also matters of warfare. a:ltav'tal.. And will you speak of the courage or the generosity which is inherent in the wars themselves? For just as all the segments of a single spring. the Athenians of Thucydides justify their power successively by reference to fear (MOI. . On this text see Sard 2006: the way in which Aristides deals with Melos and Skione is influenced by the portrait of the 'enemies of the Roman order' (MacMullen 1966). and the disciplined life which they chose so as not to make any shameful concessions could not be convincingly described' (.avftQW:ltL~ be 'to 'tfjl.40 Another example is provided by the way Aristides alters one of Thucydides' explanations of how the Athenian empire reached its highest point.2. The calmness of their behaviour. their moderation. acting like a single man.. likewise. in the Panathenaic Oration of Aristides? What has become of Pericles' fellow citizens? 40 See for instance sects. 174-176... their military dunamis is even supplanted by a force of a different kind. uSLWI.. the Athenians.) and behaved with the greatest equity and moderation toward all (:ltAELO'tcp 'tep XOLVep xat !!E'tQLCP :ltQOI. and those in defence of others. uvuyxU).).. 1. 213.. EXWV !!EttElI. consisting of a set of moral qualities: 'It was not like a city deprived of its power. flow back to one another and are combined. 1. Kat 't~v !!EV 'tQO:ltWV dixOALav xat aWqJQolJ'livT)V xat 'tUSLV ()LaL'tT)I. both in Greek and barbarian territory. and especially 252-256 (where Aristides makes use both o[.). ijv V:ltEQ 'to'u !!T)()EV atOXQov auyxwQfjaaL :ltQOELAOV'tO. 43 Panathenaic Oration 234. 'have followed the imperatives of empire' ('rfi 'tfjl. and again the successes at home and further those abroad.3-4). uQXT)1. but as soon as possible they 'in generosity.oA.43 In fact.42 Moreover.. 196. Aristides emphasizes the responsibility of the rebels and blames for their hubris 'those who made the action necessary' . the Athenians) are the quickest of all to decide upon and to carry out what is best. And you alone. as we can read in Or. 60). 1.45 And how could Aristides speak about the Athenians as an innovative people. and Aristides even reverses an event reported by Thucydides in Book I. 'tow 'A:61'JVULWV 'to 'tOA. one of the Leuctran Orations: 'There is an old saying that you (sc... naturally does not appear.3 and Plutarch.102. 396). And this is clear both from your decrees and from the contests in which you have always engaged. 47 Panathenaic Oration 222. 'fearing their audacity and their revolutionary spirit ()eLOuV'tEl. ilv :n:uQUI-"eLVWVOLV. 1.. See also Diodorus XI. ' (:n:Qocrlh]ow I'lE lIui :n:uQa. confident in their courage and fearful for the Lacedaemonians as if for their own safety.. Gimon 16-17· .. the wisest. The historian relates how the Lacedemonians first called on the Athenians for help. Smith). 45 Panathenaic Oration 396.102). XII. C. relates this event in a completely different way and rewrites Thucydides' text: we are told that the reason why the Lacedaemonians no longer fear the rebels on Ithome is that the ~thenian people were present under arms. see also section 348: 'And I shall add. 't'ij(1)e lIui <TtQu'tT]yoi ooqxirmrot lIui O~1J'ta'tOL lIui UmpUAE<Ttu'tOL lIui 1)LlIaLO'ta'tOL.. as I believe. Aristides also keeps silent over what follows: the Athenians felt so offended that they broke the alliance they had entered into with the Spartans against the Persians (Thuc.63-64. but dismissed them at once. 1. when the whole oration emphasizes the permanence of their national character throughout their whole history? The word VEW'tEQO:n:OLOl. VEW'tEQLOWOL). If the Athenian people is of course the most sharp-minded (o.). 46 Thuc. and enabled the Lacedaemonians later to punish the Perioeci' Y 44 The rhetor is well acquainted with the Thucydidean portrait of the Athenians as an active people which rejects every kind of idleness or inertia (Thuc. they might be persuaded by the rebels on Ithome to change sides' (1-"'1'] n. They thought that if the Athenians remained. This event took place in 46SBC when the rebels on Ithome tried to rise up against Sparta. have a law which has provided an indictment for inertia. cleverest. sect. and most just generals also are from this city . This action put an end to the current fears of Lacedaemonia.46 Aristides.I-"TjQov xut VEW'tEQO:n:OLLUV) ... soundest.70 and 11-40).). so that no one may indulge in untimely idleness or neglect.40 ESTElLE OUDOT The Athenians of the Panathenaic Oration are no longer the vigorous and conquering nation which is depicted in Thucydides' historical work. or call slothfulness a case of minding one's own business' (XII.{rtEQol. u:n:o 'tow EV 'HhoI-"n :n:ELO'frEV'tEl. Then Thucydides adds: 'It was in consequence of this expedition that a lack of harmony in the relations of the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians first became manifest'. however..44 Aristides immediately adds that this people is also the most even-tempered (:n:QUO'tEQOl.3 (transl.F. 'seeks no advantage when she is victorious' (O'tE EVLXTjaE.fJf. and it judged well and with a regard for how matters stood. the one waged to acquire possessions. but on the contrary because they care for general peace: 'Athens realized that the Greeks had no safety and security (uacpuAELuV xut aw'tTlQLuV) if it should shut them up and keep them at home.EtV) and. See. 225: 'It presented one piece of evidence as an equal proof of its superiority both in war and in native goodness. Aristides agrees that the Athenians are unable to be calm.WOL f.48 It is natural therefore that Aristides' narrative of the Pentakontaetia period and the Peloponnesian War is strongly opposed to the historian's.49 Such is the overall pattern of the relations between Athens and its allies throughout Aristides' celebration of the city.4. Athens is above all a nation that helps victims and when the orator cannot avoid speaking of Athenian attacks.tU):50 'a counter-attack against those who first plotted hostilities. Panathenaic Oration 228. he explains that the city's behaviour is beyond the simple dichotomy between attacker and defender. just as in Thucydides' history.tTj()Ev :7tAEOV ~Tj'tfJam).AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES Finally.tEVOU~ XU'tUO)(. sect. with the freedom of action of the aggressor and the just cause of the Panathenaic Oration 197. 48 49 . on the opposite. Thuc.Luv a:7tUOLV eawtl'm). For it is generally true that they alone are most fully at peace who show that they do not desire to remain entirely at peace' (f. 11. but against the Greeks must fight simply to the point of attaining superiority'. or if it should ask nothing of them. 50 Panathenaic Oration 194. where Pericles clearly mentions two kinds of wars. f. it never acts out of revenge.t1) :7tuV'tw~ ~aux. in this way Athens thought that all would have the best and fullest peace (oihw~ qlE'tO UQLO'tTjV xut xutl'uQav ~aux. and the others waged to repel attacks. although they are both ungrateful and jealous of her 'extraordinary actions'. its belief drat it must wage total war against the barbarians. since it is able to invent a new kind of war ('tQhov :7tOAEf. when compelled to wage war against them ('tq> :7tOAEf.36.tOVOL yaQ O)(.EMv O-o'tOL xutl'uQw~ ~aux.tOU O)(. The Athens of Aristides never appears aggressive or repressive. but according to him this is not 'because they regard untroubled peace as a far greater calamity than laborious activity'. Thus Athens is reluctant to intervene militarily against the Greeks. or they should do nothing in their own behalf But if they should drive the barbarians as far as possible from Greece. C£ also a litde before. OL'tLVE~ o.v ()EL.Luv ayELv ()EOf.tElV uvuyxuatl'Elau).u~ouOLV.tEVOL). It only tries to keep their rebellion under control ('tq> XLVOUf. to define them generically: its own personal wars..H. because she constantly acts out of philanthropia. and among those who desired aid are people by whom the city had been wronged and against whose former conduct it could complain'. 318: 'The city has waged four kinds of war. Consider for example how Aristides deals with the government of the Thirty Tyrants and the return of the democrats. 54 Panatlzenaic Oration 253. But Thucydides puts forward other reasons: the Athenians acted in this way 'for bargaining purposes'. Paradoxically. the assembled democrats at once came ready for battle and almost at the same time to make terms.xaL "tau"ta UltUQX0V1:01.). and had opposed the Lacedaemonians. 52 In fact. "tou ltaQa()ELy~a"t01. But those of the Lacedaemonians who were in the Hellespont (. Aristides here praises Athens for the specific way she overcame the crisis and got out of these times of troubles by decreeing the amnesty: 'She not only bore more gracefully her defeats in war than others their successes.6V'twv. Athens in the Panathenaic Oration uses wars to give advice about peace and concord. although they had an example from home of the city's behaviour toward unfortunates (.) slaughtered on the spot the Athenians whom they had captured by the ruse of the naval batde-and I say no more-. EAEVtl'EQL<.ESTElLE OUDOT defender' (ro 'WLI.. au"toi£.56 What follows in Aristides' text recalls Pericles' funeral 51 Panatlzenaic Oration 195. W<J:1tEQ uQxouv uQE"tfi VEVLXTjXEvm)..LVVOJ..LEVOVI.. rs xat 'tOAJ.55 Aristides reports as an extraordinary fact that 'when they had struggled against those in the city. and not themselves alone'. 'the city made peace and sent back the Lacedaemonians.1 J. See also sect. E:1t:L~OVAEUOaOLV UV'tE:1t:EA. XXIII (Concerning Concorrf): 'When they reached .LTjI. E<TtLv)'." This text is particularly significant. See also Or. to use ]..LEv 'tft 'tWV uQ)(.{tEi:V alJ'tOUI. as if it were enough to have conquered in virtue (.I). 1] ltOALI.51 Aristides even goes a step further. wars on behalf of the general welfare of Greece..LEVWV XQWJ. because it presents Athens' deeds as part of a pattern of behaviour.54 As a proof both of moderation and daring (aJ. OLXO'frEV. without harming them. whom it had captured. ()u<TtuxiJaaV1:al. chxmooUvTI 6E 'tft 'tWV UJ. IV:4I.La oWqJQOOUVTjI. as if each side were going to wage war on behalf of one another. Oliver's words (Thuc. 52 Gasca 1992 .. 277). and held the Piraeus (. 56 Panatlzenaic Oration 255. 53 See also the discrepancy between Thucydides and Aristides in the accounts they give of the Sphacteria episode.Lam). According to the orator (sect.. 55 Panatlzenaic Oration 254. wars on behalf of those who in particular desired aid.). but she also settled her troubles at home in such a way that all mankind had a definition of moderation (oQov oWqJQooUVTjI. ()ELYJ. :1t:QO'tEQOLI.) and no one later could discover a better arrangement than theirs'. that is precisely how she is a true model (paradeigma) for others. OLa ltEQL "tOi!l.... 39. For they kept these concealed. but also that they must reconcile them when they were sick with faction at home'. 58 Panathenaic Oration 260: Kal!-l~v AmtE/)aL!-lOVLOL !-lEv oJtw~ W!-lo. IIE!-l\jJaaa yaQ w~ au'tou~ xal ilJto!-lv~aaaa 'tIDV Eau'tfj~ /)L~AAal. au'tOL'tE xal JtQo~ 'tou~ El." that is to say the famous paradeigma to which Pericles alludes in II. beside arranging its own affairs in this way in the presence of many witnesses. in order to receive each man his due').27) to what is called the clubbing of aristocrats at Argos by the mob. 61 For example Panathenaic Oration 56 (cf. 59 'Clearly the Athenians alone among all have administered both the private and the public affairs of the Greeks.w JtOAE!-lOU~ xal JtQo~ 'ta~ OLXOL /)uaxoAla~ JtaQEaxEUaa!-lEVOL XQELTIOV EAJtL/)o~ EWQIDV'tO. that the popular party went off in exile because of the faction.AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 43 oration: 'Indeed'.3 . Tou~ re yaQ "EAAT]Va~ ou !-lOVOV EX 'tIDV JtOAE!-lLWV . see Diodorus XV. Compare Roman Oration 60-61 ('All come together as into a common civic center. mentioning the money the Lacedaemonians lent to the Thirty. 1. but Aristides may refer here (as later in section 271 and in Or.58 and Plutarch. For they not only thought that they must save the Greeks from their enemies. Again when upon the return of that party they voted an amnesty. Aristides offers two patterns of political behaviour. then they were in the worst condition. they enjoyed the best reputation and once more were almost as they were in the beginning'. Through Athens' history. which took place in 370.37. Thuc. 59 Panathenaic Oration 261: To youv ~QyElwv JtAiii}o~ vooonv UO'tEQOV taaa'tO xal EQYcp xal Mycp. 57 C£ Thuc.poV'to /)ELV QUEO'fraL.I. XXIY. This allusion remains obscure. aMa xal voaouV'ta~ EV ail'tOL~ aJtaMu't'tELV. Aristides says.OV YUQ' ~ I)E JtOA~ JtQo~ 'tip 'ta mpE'tEQa au'tii~ oihw i}EO'fraL !-lE'ta JtOMIDV !-laQ'tuQwv xal 'to~ UAAO~ JtaQu/)ELY!-la xa'tEO'tI']. also became a model for other people'.:n:ELV· EXQUJt1.!.2. a power which avoids being aggressive. but works through gentle attraction.ouv aM~AOL~ oux uv EXOL!-lEV El. . he uses the city as a paradigm of the perfect ruling power. On these events. This then enables Aristides to show the Athenian model spreading abroad and the city teaching its own history as an example of homonoia: 'Later she cured by her actions and counsel the masses of the Argives when they were sick with faction.6). 'we could not discuss the internal affairs of the Lacedaemonians. For she reconciled them by sending to them and reminding them of her own history'. 57 But the city.. 60 We must of course read this work within the contemporary political framework of the Roman Empire. 11.57.s'Athens cares for general freedom and peace.E. On the one hand. Precepts of Statecrafl 814B. 60 Panathenaic Oration 262: <I>aLvoV'taL 'tOLVUV o!-lolw~ 'tu re OLXELa xal 'ta XOLVa 'tIDV 'EM~VWV JtoAL'tEuaU!-lEVOL !-lOVOL 'tIDV UAAWV. as the Romans do in the Roman this point offortune. at Athens by calling to mind. Plutarch gives the young Menemachos advice about the way to keep his city peaceful and obedient: the officials in the cities must not 'foolishly urge the people to imitate the deeds. he begins by asserting the inferiority of words (logoz) compared to actions (erga). Thus. 103.a£ JtgaSEL£ xocuouvrc). I would like to come back briefly to the text with which I began this paper. Cf also section 2. we see that Aristides reverses the historical picture of Athens in two ways. 64 11. in which the Argives killed fifteen hundred of their own citizens. in the funeral oration. because. to some extent imagine the Panathenaic Oration as a reply to Thucydides' historical work. 'there are many acts of the Greeks offormer times by recounting which the statesman can mould and correct the characters of our contemporaries. whereas orators praised 'actions with speech' (A6yOL£ . 111. But. Athens is put forward as a model of concord. of 62 C£ for instance Panathenaic Oration 227 (contra: Thuc. 2 • .3-6) and the Roman Oration. to come back to Thucydides. This seems all the more likely when we consider another way in which Aristides takes a different stand from that of Thucydides." This is not the place. when Aristides deals with its 'hegemonic' past." Pericles. they omitted mentioning the topic of speech itself. 97. I think. leaving Thucydides aside. its real power resides in its language and culture and.. not at first sight-with the praise of Athens' oratory. because it is able to cure its domestic troubles and therefore Roman forces do not have to be brought in. but such things as the decree of amnesty after the downfall of the Thirty Tyrants' (and. if they are 'unsuitable to the present times and conditions' (8I¢). Indeed. Athens is also the model of the Greek subject city within the Empire. for example.10. In this work.44 ESTElLE OUDOT Oration:" But on the other hand. meets Plutarch. not deeds in war. To illustrate this. secondly.35. earlier encomia of Athens were a failure. when they heard of the clubbing at Argos. Firstly. as Plutarch says. 63 Panathenaic Oration 322. According to Aristides. And therefore we may. According to him. This means that Aristides here. they decreed that an expiatory sacrifice be carried about in the assembly' (8I4B). as another example) 'how. for the rhetor. particularly his Precepts qf Statecraft. ideals and actions of their ancestors'. is not concerned-at least. especially 6g-71. what counts is that the glory of the celebrated men is based on two external criteria: the orator's ability to speak and the knowledge and wishes of the audience. n:lllIlEV).lav 'to'ur. 268-269. it created for it an oratory of commensurate value.EL). See also sect. xuft' OOOV buvu'tov.tOVOV 'to OLxmov eXEL f.tLUV ~E~moi:' f. he goes beyond Pericles' position. but only if we omit no category of praise' (Tuii'tu b' EmLV oux o.v IlllbEv E1'Ior. From now on. tVU uu'ti] re xoouotro u:n:o 'twv euu'ti'jr...tOVTj YUQ EO'tLV aXQL~w~ EVAOYO~). u!. EUCPlllllar. and as far as possible to omit none of the city's good qualities (uMu'twv IlEv xu'tU 'to'ur. 329: 'As if nature had foreseen from the start how far in its actions the city would excel all the others. aAM xat 't~v a:7to 'tov Myo'lJ :7tQ6nov E:7tWV'Uf. And thus a part of the prooemium of the Panathenaic Oration becomes clearer: 'It is reasonable to present here a speech on this subject and to honour the city in a fitting way. :n:OAEIlOUr.tTjOEv doo~ EUqJTjf. of narrating the deeds of the city (ou auYYQucpi'jr.). 67 Panathenaic Oration 229. EQYOV 'Il'LAi'jr. makes a complete reversal: by asserting that the power of Athens lies in her logoi (her language. Cassin 199166 See for example sect. uym'}wv. there exists the perfect identity between form and subject which Pericles longed for. uM' o.tEVTj XUQL~ ou f. 65 Thus oratory is really revalued against history. yet not directly proper to the matter.' (XU'tElJ%EUliou'tO uu'tfi :n:Qor. because. as we have said. but that this alone can be called a genuine means of expressing thanks for your kindness. But what matters is that Aristides." In fact true accuracy (axQL~ELU) is reached by making a selection from among the deeds of the past and by choosing those which are suitable to illustrate a quality peculiar to the object.. here too. According to Aristides. we did not choose the task of writing a jejune history.AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 45 course. her literature. The logos now represents the best deed (ergon) of Athens and it is precisely this that he plans to celebrate.tE'fr' EU'lJ'tfi~. Myour. 'tWV b' u:n:UQX0V1:111V uyuftwv 'tfj :n:OAEL. :n:QU!. :n:QOELAOIlEftu uqJllYELai}m 'tu :n:E:n:QUYIlEVU 'tfi :n:OA. the eulogy' ('H yaQ imEQ Mywv MyQ. For it has chanced that other means of showing gratitude are just. her culture). history is not relevant when dealing with Athens. ifwe discuss each point fully. Loraux 1993. :n:UQUAEl. For it alone is. This cannot be. Indeed it is unequal to what is essential in Athens' soul. 229: 'Further. for even that speech would extend into the following penteterid. so that it might be praised by means of its own advantages . But we chose to mention its most famous actions in war.tLU~ :7tuQuAd:7tELV)Y 65 Panathenaic Oration 2. in the literal sense. El.1tELV). Illll)Ev :n:UQUAI. .ElllV 'tur.l YLYVOf. according to the rhetor. YVlllQLlllll'tU'tUr.1tELV.. it is only concerned with the accurate narrative of actions. For the expression of thanks for oratory delivered by means of oratory is right in itself but also first of all confirms the name given to this kind of speech.v btU :n:UV1:111V Exumu AEYlllIlEV. to examine the very subtle use Pericles makes of this opposition throughout his oration before finally dismissing it. The main thing is to 'omit no category of praise' (f. . 72 Furthermore. 'tEXI-tTJQLq> :7tLO'tEiiam). 95--g7). 'to describe the state of affairs of early times. Marincola 1997.1. 1. EUQELV <'lux XQovou :n:A:fj'frol.68 and. TJ<'lOVf]V 01hE uu'tOV ihL ElJtELV 01hE 'tUXELV uxouovrwv).69 Thucydides accordingly dismisses the poets and logographoi-a term Aristides could apply to himself-who have composed accounts 'with a view rather of pleasing the ear than of telling the truth' (e:n:l 'to :n:Qoauywyo'tEQOV 'tfi uXQouaEL ~ UATJ'frEO'tEQOV). wants to reply to Thucydides. 1. As the historian says. I did not undertake these arguments to entertain (ou 'ljJuXUYWYLal. so that I shall do more wrong by slackening than I shall cause annoyance by speaking'. but to show truthfully the worth of the city (I-tE'ta UATJ'frelul. That is what he explains in a text which is part of what is called the 'second prooemium' within the long account of the Persian wars.l<'lLOV QV :n:QOl.4.7 1 The Panathenaic Oration of Aristides attempts to reply to these two main points. Thuc. he plans to reconcile the two criteria which Thucydides contrasted. :n:OAEWl.7 o Thucydides wants his historical method to be 'adjudged profitable' (WqJEALI-tU XQLVELV) and not thought of as 'a prize-essay to be heard for the moment' (uywvLal-tU el. u6'UvU'tOV). . Aristides aims at pleasing the ear as well as telling the truth. clearly recalls the Thucydidean word uywVLl-taU. U~LUV). Panathenaic Oration 185." Here Aristides clearly plays with Thucydides' words: 'I see indeed that my speech is becoming long and that it is no longer easy after what has already been said to speak to please or to win my audience (ou Q<. it is impossible 'as to the events of a still earlier date' (than the Persian wars) to get 'clear information on account of lapse of time' (aa<pwl. In this way he 68 Thuc.ESTElLE OUDOT So oratory alone has the legitimacy to speak about Athens.1. XUQLV). In other words. 'to :n:uQUXQfjl-tu UXOVELV). 70 71 72 73 74 Thuc. just like a second contestant who enters after the first has distinguished himself However. Panathenaic Oration 7.21. speaking about Athens.2. 95-117 (esp. on this point too. just as 'ljJUXUyWyLU recalls 'to :n:Qoauywyo'tEQOV. 1. 1. First.22.1. and Aristides. it is difficult to credit any and every piece of testimony' (:n:uvrl E~fjl. it is because the beginnings of the city are not clear or easily comprehensible that Aristides can make use of the topos that he does not know where to begin. 'tf]V 'tfjl." The word uYWVLO'tT]l. Panathenaic Oration 185-188.20. 69 Thuc. Thus it is not surprising that Aristides does not mention any evolution in Athens' supremacy-neither decline nor progress. presented as the last of the five world empires: 'Under the empire at present existing. Besides.6LW\. roO'tE !-ttl QQ. which is in every way the best and greatest. while offering a new definition of Athens' dunamis. In the Roman Oration." Therefore the history of Athens cannot be a chronological one. See also section 332: 'The present empire of both land and sea-and may it be immortal-is not unwilling to adorn Athens as a teacher and fosterfather. whom the Romans take 75 Thuc. Aristides makes clear that this chronology is provided by Rome.7.. for its function is to illustrate values which always recur and are continuously confirmed. :JtClv'ta UQLO't11\.. in the Panathenaic Oration. And when the city. it serves as a first principle.11. precedence.). Athens has precedence over all the Greek race. but so great are its honours that now the only difference in the city's condition is that it does not engage in serious affairs (ou 3tQUYJ. Being an essence. using the empire described by Thucydides as a metaphor. it is almost as fortunate as in those times when it held the empire of Greece. EOLXO'tE\.aa'frm). Aristides works out an overall view: Athens' history is now fixed as a logical whole and her values are to be 'historicized' by Rome. VUVL xa'frEO't11xULa\. . 'tu :JtQEO~Ei:a :Jtav'to\.AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 47 rehabilitates the Athenians. and has fared in such a way that no one would readily wish for its old state instead of its present one' ('E:JtL M 'ti'j\. Athens exists before coming into historical times. like the audience of the sophists' (. finally comes into the historical frame. But for the rest.75 Thus Aristides' Panathenaic Oration attempts a double reversal ofThucydides' work: imperial Athens of the fifth century-which is depicted by the historian as an increasing power-is now the model of a pacifism aimed at universal concord.38. in respect to revenues. 76 Oudot 2006. and the privileges conceded by all'. xaL !-tEYLO't11\. The Panathenaic Oration offers the structured vision of the relations between the ruling power and the ruled cities. Aristides first excludes Athens from history. in the unit made up of the Panathenaic Oration and the Roman Oration. ~6ovfj ~aaw!-tEvOL xaL oorpurrdrv 'frEa'taL\. 'ti'j\.77 Therefore. 77 Panathenaic Oration 335. EXEL 'tau 'EAA11VLXOU xaL :JtE:JtQaYEv olhw\. In fact for Aristides Athens has no beginnings: because it is by herself an uQX~. which is precisely the one promoted by Rome.lUTEUETaL). whom Thucydides' Cleon had described as 'overcome by the pleasure of hearing. Greeks are shown as foster-fathers. av 'tLva aiJ'tfj 'tuQxaLa UV'tL'tWV :JtaQov'twv O1JVE".. uxoi'j\. I fear that I should go too far. but in no case a geographical account. and that my work would depart from the purpose I have in view' ('Allu YUQ Et~ JtAii{}o~ 78 79 E~Jti. And Plutarch's declamation upon the glory of Athens. 83 On the Fame of the Athenians (IIoTEQov 'A~VULOL ltUTU JtOAE~OV ~ ltUTU lJOqJLUV EV1l0. he says. the Panathenaic Oration is likely to be read as one of those works of the Second Sophistic period that meditate on the most suitable literary form to deal with Athens. From a more general viewpoint.L. needs either the mention of one of its monuments or the exhaustive description made by a periegete. For him. poets or orators. Thus historiography's hegemony falls away. even brings this picture to the highest point of abstraction. Namely the Ilissos river 'where Boreas carried offOreithyia' (v. in some ways. Dionysius Periegetes." questioning whether the city's fame is due to her statesmen and generals or to her historians. There is one last issue I would like to emphasize briefly." Athens is no longer a geographical place. .I. prompts the discussion of the respective powers of talking and writing. in his Description ofthe T#Jrld. but a weighty cultural reference. for example. In Book 9 of his Geograplry. also comes into this discussion.33-40. both by itself and in connection with the Roman Oration. and more exactly to the mythological event which. JtAEova~ELv.6TEQOL) (345C-351C). Aristides takes part in the hotly debated question of Athens' essence. Pernot 1997. Thus. 82 Oudot 2004. See. he states that the city cannot be depicted because she is too famous and too celebrated (u!1vou!1evwv re 'Kat ()La~OW!1evwv). Aristides' thought comes close to Strabo's own questions about the right way to describe the space and the stones of Athens. H. Swain 1996.I6 C396: 'However." Later. Through the Panathenaic Oration. as if it were no longer of any use. The true mirror of Athens is not that of the historian any longer-and Roman Oration 96. 423-425). IX. in Plato's dialogue. Jones).m:OlV 80 TWV JtEQL Tii~ JtOAEOl~ TUUTT]~ U~V01J~EVOlV ~~ lJ1J~~fi Tii~ JtQO{}ElJEOl~ 81 TE ltULIlLU~OOl~EVOlV OltVW EltJtElJELV ~v YQuqJT]v) (transl. he substitutes a literary locus." referring to the discussion between Socrates and Phaedrus.ESTElLE OUDOT good care 0£78 But meanwhile they take over from the Greeks. 79 The Acropolis. putting into practice the very values brought forward by the Athenians of the Panathenaic Oration. Ibid. For a topographical or architectural mention. 274---284. He is therefore afraid of making a real digression (E'K:7teoELV 'tfj~ :7tQotl'eoEw~). the city's identity is now purely a cultural one and her past is now a rhetorical matter. if I once began to describe the multitude of things in this city that are lauded and proclaimed far and wide. from a consideration of the records of the past to handle rightly what now confronts them' (transl.. free from distortion. accurately centred. He brings in. 84 85 . Aristides may address the contemporary issue about the worth of the relationship between history and rhetorical praise" which is reflected in Lucian's treatise How to Write History. but now the mirror which is perfectly suitable to Athens is of course eloquence itself: 'Men anywhere on earth must of necessity think of oratory and of the Athenians simultaneously and they would never expel from their soul the city's image (xat !1TJMnors Ex~aAEi:v av EX 'tii~ '¢ux. clear. false colouring. Zimmermann 1999.E:ltOv'ta~). gleaming-bright.. the question of usefulness and what is. he says.. Lucian describes the ideal historian's mind through a striking comparison: 'Let him bring a mind like a mirror (. surely.ii~ 'to EL()WAOV. WO:ltEQ EV xa't6:lt'tQq> 'to'i~ A. In the part of the treatise devoted to advice. 87 Panathenaic Oration 397. Kilburn). How to Write History 42: 'Thucydides says he is writing a possession for evermore rather than a prize-essay for the occasion. 75-76. 86 Aristides uses the same image at the end of the Panathenaic Oration." See for example Marincola 1997. too. perceiving it in oratory as it were in a mirror'.AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 49 there. and misrepresentation'. after recalling Thucydides' famous assertions" and setting the historian's concern against the orator's. xa't6:lt'tQq> EOLxu'iav :ltaQaoxecrf}w 't~v yVW!1TJv. that he does not welcome fiction but is leaving to posterity the true account of what happened. the purpose of sound history: that if ever again men find themselves in a like situation they may be able. 86 How to Write History 50 (transl.).. Kilburn).6YOL~ E!1~A. Pernot 2oo5c. displaying the shape of things just as he receives them. . They may be criticized or interpreted allegorically. Then I focus on the Heracles myth.CHAPTER THREE ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS SUZANNE SAiD An exhaustive study of Aristides' mythology' would require a full book. since the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius was also fond of the hero and On Aristides and myths. the sons of Asclepios. distinguishing between its rhetorical uses and the transformation of its content according to imperial ideology. 1 2 . 70 the Thebans [9 and 10]. the panegyric of Athens and the celebration of the reconstruction of Smyrna. the appeals to the precedent of Heracles have justly been regarded as complimentary to Trajan. comparisons. For myths appear not only in full narratives but also in passing allusions. This myth is indeed the most prominent in Aristides' speeches.Jones 1978. 270. 636. 86." This may also be the case for Aristides. sumbouleutic speeches (70 the Cities on Concord). Moles 1983. 323 n. GanglofPs Dion Chrysostome et les mythes. 61. such as S. II. II7-II8. They serve as mere ornaments or may be drastically recast to suit the needs of the time. see Pernot 1993a. Moles 1990. In the kingship speeches of Dio. Heracles is not only celebrated in a hymn. 108. mutheomai and muthodes. Desideri 1978. 356 n. This exceptional presence may be explained not only by the popularity of the hero in the Greek world. examples. In this paper. who made him into his favorite hero. he also appears in other settings: hymns celebrating other gods (Athena. and a scathing attack (Against those who Burlesque the Mysteries ifEloquence [34]). muthologema. 762-772. Durry 1938. but also by his place in imperial propaganda. meletai (Orations 5 to 16: OnMaking Peace with the Athenians [8]. Gotteland's Mythe et rhetorique on the mythical examples in Attic orators or A. Leuctrian Speeches [II and 12]). I will only be content with merely giving some sense of Aristides' various ways of handling myths.Jaczynowska 1981. Sarapis) or sanctuaries (Eleusis). which suggest a rather critical attitude towards mythology. self-defense (Concerning a Remark in Passing [28]). I start with an examination of the occurrences of muthos. the Cecropes'.207: the tale (ltiii}o~) of the Sown-men. and muthodes in order to remind his audience that the characters" or the events" which he mentions are 'fabulous' or 'wonderful'. 14 45-415 1. E. In the Panathenaic Oration he opposes 'the Erichthonii. 4.348. that is 'the fabulous element (-ta f.96. not only to horses' (4I. and that he could give wings even to asses.' It is not only used for what we call 'myths' such as 'the tale of the Pamphylian Er' and the myth of the Gorgias. Crotonos and Phoroneus (2.69 and 2.II3. 17. 21.29: the tales (ItUi}OAOYliItU"tU) about the birth of Rhodes raised by the gods as a gift to the Sun." 'Myth' may be praised as a cryptic discourse that prevents the uninitiated from understanding a sacred truth. I. 11 The Phaeacians (25.2. muthologema. he may also use muthos in opposition to history. In the Hymn to DioT£YsOS the story of Dionysos bringing Hephaistos up to heaven is interpreted as a 'riddle' (U'LvLyItU) whose point is clear: 'that the power of the gods is great and invincible.' The two words may be associated.354. 8 36. 10 28. 6 26. I analyze Aristides' rewriting of the Prometheus myth.85' 9 36. Kriasos." To conclude." reports which are like 'the tales told by the nurses to their children when it is bedtime. with the narratives of human deeds and wars. 128). that is to historical victories. Muthos In Aristides' speeches muthos is not always the antonym of logos. 228. 25. For it provides the best illustration of an ideological recycling of a classical myth.$ 36. 12 27." Like the historians.5: the tale (ltiii}ov) about the Theban wall. 3 4 .Lut}w6T])' to 'the trophies on land and sea'.'? But usually Aristides uses muthos.6 but also for fables? or reports of impossible phenomena by a geographer such as the Massalian Euthymenes.g. 40) or the Gorgon (1." In the Letter to the Emperors concerning Lenz 1964. 23: mutlws is the equivalent of logos.7).9$ 46.18: the tale (ltui}oAOYTlItU) about the Trojan wall. 13 22. 2. 7 34. 5 21.7). lasos." He contrasts the making of 'myths'. that is the stories concerning the gods.SUZANNE SAID had himself portrayed as Heracles.3. 13. became even more beautiful.4.l(}-II: !-lV1JO''!h100!-lm II' ELXOVO~ ou !-lu'frcbllou~." In his speech 70 Plato in Difense if Oratory.354: 'The Erichthonii. 4.II. he dismisses with the adjective muthodes the most ancient Athenians myths.59." Aristides often indicates his distancing from the myths by introducing them with 8 ()~ lpaOL. became even larger and 'expanded on every side'. he also adds a skeptical comment.21 MyO'UOLv.3. after the Heraclidae have returned to the Peloponnesus'.29 Even in the hymns. 189. 24 34. for Athens. he distinguishes between Theseus.7-8. is now superior to itself.37.24 or W~ Myo~. which must be believed since it belongs to history. 38.L'Ul'toAoyOUOL. aAA' avuyxuLU~ 1tLO'tEUom.9. 16 17 .52. he sets the return of the Heraclidae as the beginning of historical times. 28 2. 21 37. 'if the myth hints at this'." as did Ephorus. which. 339. after its destruction by the Persians. See johrens 1981.3." and then introduces the myth of Prometheus by way of an excuse: 'if a myth must be told'. cf johrens 1981.ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS 53 Smyrna.25 But once he validates a 'myth' by quoting the poets as reliable witnesses and pointing out their consensus. OUl( IhL l\yEvEm. and Ps-Aristid. 2. 25 38. the Cecropes. where myths are a given in the pars epica. 14. 52. 2-IO. who.19 after comparing what happened to Smyrna.38.23 f. 'til II' UO'tEQOV 'HQuxAELllwv d~ IIEA01tOVV1]OOV XU'tEA'frOV'tOOV.394: EL liE IIEi: xul!-lu'frov AEyELV. In agreement with rhetorical treatises. 22 41. 23 1.IO. 29 2. 40.8. 20 Menander Rhetor I. Rhet." In the second Smyrnean Oration. to what happened to Pelops. 19 21. 18 Diod.1. once taken from the cauldron and put together anew.6. 26 46. Lysimachus and Alexander. 27 1. he completes the mythical simile with another one.4-5: xul 'til !-lEv d~ !-lu'frou~ avf]xoV'tu 'tOLUU'tU.Sic.207: EL c'iQu xul 6 !-lu'fro~ mum uLvL't'tE'tm.22 MYE'taL.1." In the Eleusinian Oration. Aris- 19-422.2.12. the fabulous stories ('til !-lu'frwll1]). II. when he opposes 'the things which go back to myth' to 'what happened later on. once destroyed. and its historical founders. I 1tEQl'twv !-lu'froollwv. aM' on AEyE'tm yEvEa'frm.P In the Panathenaic Oration. who began his universal history with the return of the Heraclidae. the mythical founder of Smyrna. 41.87. he not only puts the tale of the Sown-men into inverted commas ('just as they say the Sown-men did'). and Pernot 1993a. 763 n. 41. the sharing of the crops'. he introduces the story of the two gods. he introduces the usual mythical part with a cautious sentence: 'If these matters must be mentioned in detail and the myths must not be neglected (Et M bEL 'Kat 'tmv EV !J. Or again the deeds on land. which aL). but even Argo itself. Apollo as a hired servant or Hephaistos cast into the sea are also quickly dismissed. 12.v{toue. In the hymn 70 Sarapis the orator makes fun of the privileges of the poets who are allowed to 'put to use on each occasion whatever sort of subjects they wish. measures. as well as the ordeals of the gods and the stories which portray Ares in chains. 36 46.ma x..VT]<rllijVaL 'Kat LOUe. In the Hymn to Athena. he concludes his narrative of ancient myths with a dismissal: 'But why should one speak of ancient stories?'32 In the Isthmian Oration regardingPoseidon he uses a rhetorical question to dismiss the most famous legends of Corinth: 'Why should I mention Sisyphus.EQEL !J." In the Hymn to Heracles. 'tL~ av :n:EL'frOL'tO EQ cpeoviiiv. although 30 37. Corinthus the son of Zeus or Bellerophon the son of Poseidon or any other of the heroes or demigods? Or again those who afterwards invented weights. but also from all Greece'. 37 34.T] a'tL!J. the flying knight?'33 For 'these are old and fabulous stories'.u-raMcruvtu 'toiJ~ !-lu'frou~ Ei.11 .n:Eiv EL~ 'to !-lEcrOV 'to. 34 46.35 The sufferings of Ino Leucothea and her son.32: EL'tE Myov EL'tE !-lu'frov xe~ cpavm. 3l 37. The hymns to Sarapis.. not only the trireme. to Athena and to Heracles also criticize poetic myths in nearly identical terms. We must banish this tale (Myov) not only from the Isthmus and the Peloponnesus. 213. .27: El yae IIEi x.UO let us attribute to her olive oil. 29. !J. and the justice inherent in these. 34 Later on in the same hymn.. C£]ohrens 1981. 32 40 ..33. !J.59: &. 'tfj~ 'frEOU. especially when one is speaking about the gods..ui!-lu'friiillT].54 SUZANNE SAID tides sometimes expresses some reluctance to use them. 85. the so-called wings of Pegasus . and the story of how this city built the first ship." The tales portraying Heracles dancing among the Lydians or killing his wife and his children are denied any plausibility" as well. 35 46. with a cautious warning 'whether this part of the speech should be called a tale or a myth'.. and he who first dared to ride him.3°: aUa 'tUU'tu !-lEV :n:ut. 33 46. scales. appeared through her agency"? and concludes by opposing the elusive language of the myths to what can be said openly. See Kindstrand 1973. a health-giving drug. the child and his mother. since 'this is neither a holy or a pious story. Smyrna and Rhodes. 38 He proposes a definition of poetic topics which is indeed very close to the rhetorical definition of muthos as a tale which is neither true nor plausible. and Heracles in his two descents into the underworld (first to fetch Cerberus and second to freed Theseus) as well as in his fights against the gods are also presented as additions invented by poets who wanted to make the impracticable (ta.394: eL I'lE I'lei: Kat l-lu{}OV AEyeLv.fj~) description of his ability to move men with his music. In the Egyptian Discourse. 48 31.6 and 25.II2." This criticism of myths comes together with a criticism of the poets who 'composed' them ('twv <J'UV'frEV'tWV)42 in the Isthmian Oration. like 'dream'. 2. if one should wish to view it properly'. 41 34. who introduced the story of Prometheus as a muthos. a:n:oQorta-ra) practicable and possible (:n:6QL!1U 'Xut ()'UVU'ta. 43 36.23. From the matter itself it is clear that this is no 45. a metaphor for anything nonexistant such as the daily and nightly amusements of young men of his age for the serious Eteoneus." In the Hymn to Athena..31. 40 37. (J'Uv'freLvm)' and use these forgeries as embellishments: they cannot be reliable witnesses. . which were utterly destroyed. 212. 42 46 .~).33." This is the reason why Aristides. as opposed to historia which is true. 38 39 44 45 46 47 36.96.1. and to plasma which is a plausible fiction.48 concludes it by saying." After an earthquake.40 The same goes for the 'myth' of Orpheus attracting wood and stones.." or the wars for those who enjoy the Pax Ramona. which is interpreted as an exaggerated ()L' u:n:eQ~oA.70: EV dAAw~ I-lu{}wv 'ta~eL.ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS 55 they are untrue and sometimes implausible and without substance at all (iJ:n:o'frE(JeL~ .45. the poets again come under attack because they 'compose fabulous tales (!1v'fro'U~ . 20.9. Perseus. 26.. are said to have become mere 'myths'.TJ'freL~ oihe EVL<rte :n:L'frUVa. . See the texts collected by Barwick 1928." So it comes as no surprise if the Massalian geographer who told muthoi about Libya and was both charming and unreliable is said to be like a poet. oihe aA.)." 'Myth' even becomes. 'Let our myth end with a conclusion I think in no way dishonorable. the help given by the goddess to Odysseus. Bellerophon. See Kindstrand 1973.. while often giving a plainly negative value to muthos. for myth was a necessary adornment of a figured style. See also Isocrates. UAA' v:ltaQ). 11. In the Hymn to Athena. II: Elrfl-u. corrects himself and calls it a sacred and sound tale (A.49 In the same way Dio. t6QuEcri}aL xul i}UELV w.65: 'when he [Heracles] departed from mankind. Aristides makes Athens into a role model (:ltaQui'lELYl-ta 'tou ~Lo'U) for 2. makes it into an indispensable tool for the orator. 30: 'we shall omit.. Cf. who 'immediately proclaimed the establishment of temples to Heracles and that sacrifices be made to him as a god' and 'revealed it to Athens'. from the city. 55 Aristides may also give a new twist to an old myth in order to make it more appropriate to his purpose. although being natives of your country. after introducing in the first Kingship Oration the story of Heracles as a muthos. 54 9." But in his praise of Athens.5D-5 52: 'all the gratitude which Heracles received from other men came 1. 254-255.2 5.6yo~) which has only the form of a myth. Philippus 33.g.SUZANNE SAID vain myth or dream. it is Athens alone which is said to be the first 'to establish for Heracles temples and altars'" (a version also adopted by the meletai delivered by Athenian orators). 'tLVa axoucraL. 51 Kindstrand 1973. but factual reality (oux aAAw~ I-tu'fro~ mu'ta oM' ovaQ. ai}uvucr[u." But in the Panathenaic Oration. re 'HQUXAEO'IJ." However Aristides." whereas in the Hymn to Heracles the Athenians are preceded by Apollo. Moreover its flexibility. he received first among us [the Athenians] the same honors as the gods'.49: el 6' uQu ltiHI'Ov EthiAOL. Helen 23. Athens is said to be 'HQUXAEL It£V (J'\JVaL'tLaV YEvecri}aL 'tfj. 53 1. 55 4 0 . ltuUov 6£ LEQov xul UyLfj Myov OX'l']ItU'tL ltui}O'IJ AEy0ItEVOV.36: 'How is this conduct worthy of Dionysos and Heracles who..51 makes lavish use of mythical allusions in his speeches. E.TJyEL'tO VErn. i}Eip. 204.4 0 0 . 56 E. IO. see also 48-42. The Athenian hero Theseus was usually said to have modeled himself on Heracles. how Heracles was the first stranger to be initiated in the mysteries and how we were the first to establish a temple for him'. which is far superior to that of history. as demonstrated by the various explanations of the deification of Heracles. were first admired by us'.. For all men. it is of course Athena 'who clearly enrolled Heracles as a god among the gods'. agreed upon what was just'. Gotteland 200I. Isocrates. 360: 'The Athenians were the first Greeks to regard [Heracles] as a god' and 374 'they [Heracles and the Dioscuri] were the first strangers to whom the city revealed its sacred ceremonies.. 52 37. while they still lived among mankind. so that it clearly deified those to whom we now sacrifice'. in imitation of her. 1. 50 49 . the Lacedaemonian who favors showing mercy to the defeated Athenians reminds his fellow-citizens of their former behavior. It is only in the meletai that various episodes in the Heracles myth are used as arguments or examples to be followed by speakers who capitalize on the archaizing taste of the audience" and hark back to the most ancient past. which may be interpreted literally or symbolically and used as direct argument or as an indirect reference term in comparisons. II.EyELV. together with the Dioscuri." In the speech 70 the Thebans concerning the Alliance I. in order to obtain the Thebans' help against Philip. 60 8. and his association with the Athenian Theseus becomes a 'clear sign"? of it. how they welcomed the Heraclidae. which cover so long a period and are so numerous'J" Beginning with the myths. were the first strangers to be initiated by the Athenians. 9. and how Heracles.35. the Athenians similarly evoke 'all [their] acts which bear on friendship and trust. who were especially worshipped at Sparta." In the oration On behalf ifMaking Peace with the Athenians. Aristides displays his rhetorical expertise by exploiting all the possibilities of myth. 62 then the personal friendships which are the strongest: 'For what is more glorious than the fellowship of Heracles and Theseus. 59 8. who were the ancestors of the Spartan kings.18.30 • 62 9. 61 9. while sometimes using the well known rhetorical device of praeteritio and announcing their intention to leave the myths out. Bowie 1974.18: Em A.30 • 57 58 . or what 1. The Heracles Myth and Rhetoric In his speeches. they recall first the ties of friendship between Athens and Theban gods and heroes: 'We shall omit how we received Oedipus and how Dionysus came from you and met with Icarius and the gift which he gave him and how Heracles was the first stranger to be initiated in the mysteries and how we were the first to establish a temple for him'.ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS 57 Heracles 'when he formed that resolve on behalf of all mankind'. 30: EUOOfLEV. P On the other hand. Thus. 69 Pernot 1993a.SUZANNE SAID more opportune for the Greeks?'63 They conclude by using this former friendship. since the same episode can be used by two orators to promote two opposite policies. Heracles." In a second speech on the same topic. On the one hand Heracles. 768: 'les encomiastes aiment a comparer l'objet et les circonstances du discours a des figures ou des situations tirees de la mythologie. tells how the Athenians shared the mysteries with Heracles before all other foreigners. he says. and were the first to grant him the same honors as the gods. provides the best illustration of the flexibility of myth.' 67 68 . the same argument is used and reinforced by a reference to the honors given by the Athenians to the Theban Heracles and Dionysos 'who. as an example to be followed." Myth may be interpreted metaphorically. So the Athenian who speaks in favor of the Lacedaemonian alliance and reminds his audience of 'many old and more recent deeds' which the cities share in common beside their joining against the barbarian. Accordingly in the Hymn to Athena. when he departed from mankind. with its five successive speeches pro and contra. and 63 9.32 • 64 9. also demonstrated by the common campaign waged by Heracles and Theseus against the Amazons. afin de transferer a l'objet compare le prestige qui s'attache ala mythologie. 12. 37.65 The Leuctrian debate. II. 65 10. may be considered as Theban. were first admired (e'ftaul-tu<J'tl1')oav) by US'.33: 'tL ofivou I-lLI-l0UI-lE'3a 'to'u~ &QXl]Ylha~. 'it seems to me that nothing other is signified than Athena's declaration of her opinion to the gods that they should decree Heracles a god'. 66 11.25. as a descendant of Pelops and an ancestor of the Spartan kings. may be considered as a Spartan. according to the rules of epideictic rhetoric.67. 68 But myth is above all used by Aristides." as an appropriate reference in comparisons. the same argument is used (together with the reception of the Theban Oedipus) by the Athenian who pleads for siding with the Thebans.3 6. 65. Aristides offers a translation of the tales concerning the help given by Athena to the most extraordinary exploits of Heracles: 'From these actions'. although being natives of your country. who was born at Thebes and closely associated with the Theban Iolaos. given the ancient connections between Athens and Thebes. " Conversely." while Plato. Inst. 71 72 73 28. and his divine brother Heracles. . before they had jointly destroyed this one person.75 Aristides also displays his virtuosity by capping a first mythical comparison with another one that is more surprising.93. 76 3. 'that they [Heracles and Theseus] would not have chosen the campaign against the Amazons or any other war. if not like Heracles. .. he who in quite the opposite way . was at any rate like 70 Lausberg 1998." Thus in the speech 10 Plato: in Defense if the Four. In the same way the helmet and the shield of Diomedes which emitted fire serve as a foil for the true orators 'from whose very head the goddess [Athena] emits fire'. he says. but both the earth and the sea are failing as a source of plunder'. 75 9.66-67. For the anger of a comic poet cannot be likened to the wrath of a great hero: 'Is it not terrible. he who prevented them from babbling as far as he could'. quotes Quint. 191. is like someone who would put on the same level Iphicles. 74 When the Athenian orator of the melete 9 wants to demonstrate to his Theban audience how dangerous Philip is. accustomed all men to be orderly'. an inappropriate mythical comparison is harshly criticized..33.644. 8-4-9 (amplijicatio . of whom neither the Isthmus nor any race is inexperienced. the mortal son of Alcmene. who ranked Callicles and Pericles or Themistocles together. for Aristophanes to attempt to compare his jokes to the deeds of Heracles?'73 Myth may also be used as minus. 3. incrementum ex minoribus petit).. quae fit per comparationem. 'some utterly worthless men' (usually identified as the Cynics) who slander oratory are compared to 'a certain stage satyr who cursed Heracles. Pericles himself.672 • 3.76 In fact..ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS 59 thus it serves as 'a means for ornatus and pathos'. according to Aristides. he is not content with echoing the commonplace of Athenian rhetoric at the time of the Persian Wars and assimilating him to the Amazons. 74 Lausberg 1998. Because Plato unfairly accused Pericles of 'making the Athenians babblers instead of orderly. Aristides in his speech 10 Plato: in Defense if the Four compares him to someone who would say that 'Heracles accustomed men to be brazen and bold because he went about using his bow and club. he goes as far as saying that Philip is even more dangerous: 'I think'. 197. 0 earth and gods. and next hung his head when he approached'. 'since it is surpassed by the matter under examination'. according to Aristides. out of playfulness and at the same time perhaps in mockery of the Lydians'. 34. 'as a fourth argument'. so Xerxes also held the ground. is 'a combination of the uncombinable' eta U!1LX'tU !1LYVV~)-. that 'he became no worse a man in the circumstances of his dancing. is compared to a Heracles. who assimilates the orators to tyrantsan assimilation which. instead wrestled with an ass. he minimizes the importance of this dancing and gives a positive view of Heracles' motives: 'I cannot say whether Heracles danced among the Lydians.128 where a first original simile. the story of Heracles dancing among the Lydians is but a 'myth': 'The same writers [who report this story] also tell the following tale (!1u'froAoyovm) about Heracles. 'Iolaos who burnt the heads of the mass. who 'when ordered to slay the N emean lion. to quote the comic poet'. Plato. but Heracles also danced (wQx~au'tO) among the Lydians"! becomes the pretext of a display ofvirtuosity. and then by a second mythical simile 'and he did not endure the sight. thought that he was strangling the lion and that he was doing what he intended'. See also 1.60 SUZANNE SAID his henchman. But if he did. still it was a single day. then he adds.55. just as some of the poets say that Alexandros took a shadow of Helen. but could not take her. but he remained who he was' in order to emphasize the gap between the hero and these fellows whose burlesque dances (E1. 34." In the speech To Plato: in Defense qf Oratory. 79 In the speech Against those who Burlesque the lvIysteries. the traditional mythical simile is but a starting point for the elaboration of a surprisingly baroque comparison.v :7teL'frOL'tO di <jJQoVWV)?'82 Then. 77 78 79 80 81 82 2. as it were of some mythical Gorgon. but he was terrified'. and choking it. .69.oQXELa'frE) take place 'not 3. 'Yes. The objection is first dismissed because after all.59. that he murdered his wife and sons when he was in a condition which is not proper to mention. Aristides proposes a dazzling succession of alternative versions which all give a positive image of the hero. 'tL~ o. the pantomimes. 34. in which Aristides pours out abuses against 'those servile fellows.30 7. What sensible person would believe this (&." a comparison which also vividly bears out the dreadful character of the mob assimilated to the hydra. the dancers. but did not find the city' is capped first with a bon mot 'but he found it well at Artemisium and Salamis'.59. and other charlatans'J? he shows the full extent of his talent. by Zeus. An imaginary objection based on a mythical precedent. First. 3. Diodorus (4. 8.AR1STIDES' USES OF MYTHS 61 among the Lydians.88 The pyre and what comes before disappear as well." 34.a{}aQ{}E~ DV AEYE'taL 'tQOltOV." as well as the tales of how Heracles relieved Atlas. brought Cerberus from Hades and Theseus along with him. nor while internally sound.2 suppresses any allusion to Prometheus' disobedience: his Heracles releases Prometheus by persuading (ltElaa~) Zeus to put an end to his wrath.9.15.226.2: 'By the magnitude of time he expanded on the procreation. See Lenz 1964b. it was not even proper to praise in Omphale'. become a figure of speech invented by poets" and 'a hyperbolic (OL' iJJtEQBoAii~) way of saying that Heracles has searched through every land and every sea and has gone to every boundary and every limit and has neglected nothing beneath the earth nor as far as the heavens'. 40. and subdued the Giants when he aided the gods. 89 4o. 4. but by his wish 'to infuse into his offspring the largest and purest possible amount of his nature'. not to mention Heracles. 766). he presaged the exceptional might of the child who would be begotten. 86 Similarly Diodorus 4. See also Diod. Apollodorus. 87 4°. Bibliotheca 2.89 Some famous episodes are reinterpreted and moralized. The exceptional length of the night spent by Zeus with Alcmene is no longer explained by sexual passion. EQID'tL'X. He mentions Heracles' first exploit. They are replaced with a more acceptable 'purification'. because he went everywhere faster than anticipated' (36).Sic. nor for a single time. The Heracles Myth and Ideology Like his contemporaries. nor in mockery." The release of Prometheus. 85 Diod.Sic. wounded Pluto and Hera. 4. 90 4 0 .33) suppress any allusion to a possible rebellion (See Pernot 1993a. In the Panathenaic Oration the tale about the winged chariot of Triptolemos is also presented as a metaphor: 'Tradition told that the chariot was winged.2) as well as Dio (8.15. uv{}QomIDv 'HQa'X.Afj~ 'X. 88 40 .IDV ltOLTJ'taL IIQoIlTJ{}Ea~ re 1m' au'tOu AlJOIlEVOlJ~ OlJVE{}Eoav. every day'." but these serpents are no longer sent by Hera. lI : EltEI1\i] YUQ UltfjA{}EV E1." III. And in general he did not effect this union from erotic desire (ou'X.8. Significantly.60. 'which. he suppresses every suggestion of a conflict among the gods or improper behavior by the hero.7: E'X. the killing of the serpents which came up to his swaddling clothes.4.10.fj~ EltL{}\JIlLa~ 83 84 . Aristides attempts to recycle the myth of Heracles and make it into a valid paradigm for his contemporaries. In his Hymn to Heracles. I'lE 't01J1.1. 2. He caps his criticism with a new mythological comparison of their dances. but before all mankind. . 99 40. but also the air'. Dio 1. he cleansed the island of the wild beasts which infested it'. displaces from Theseus to Heracles the theme of usefulness and stresses the civilizing role of Heracles:" 'he found a means of expelling the Stymphalian birds who were damaging much of Arcadia. tilv TlIJ-EAAEV ou 'tou<. 17.. ." On the contrary.8.2: 'the extraordinary multitude of birds which destroyed the fruits of the country roundabout'. 91 C£ Gotteland 200I.25.8. 94 Isocrates 10. 4. aAAou<.T]IJ-EQOW: Diod.T]IJ-EQIDOU<." This is complemented by his drainage of the lands EVE%U) as he did in the case of other women but rather only for the sake of procreation ('ti'j<. 17.Sic.XIDQUV T]IJ-EQWOEV [127]).4: Heracles chased the birds 'to keep them from being a nuisance for the farmers in Stymphalus'. as is demonstrated by a comparison with former rhetorical versions.23. 84: [Heracles] 'tOu<. 95 Diod.24::n:ovou<. an achievement closely associated by the conjunction rs . WqJEAt]OELV.13.Sic. Libya which before that time had been uninhabitable because of the multitude of wild beasts which infested the whole land. E%OAU~E.Sic. and large parts of the adjoining desert.4. E1. and brought it all under cultivation (E1. who became a 'benefactor of the Greeks as well as of his homeland'93 by putting an end to the damages caused by the Marathonian bull. Dio compares the civilizing power of the law (ou'tO<.98 He also 'subdued the wild beasts whose multitude and hugeness prevented most of the countryside from being inhabited'.. 8. and Dio 47. 4. 92 Isocrates 10. xaL to the extermination of the tyrants and the annihilation of robbers on land and sea. on Heracles in Attic orators. 96 Dio 5. he stressed that these feats were 'of no use'" and contrasts them with the exploits of Theseus.) by him and made inferior to no other country in point of prosperity'.21.4 (2 ex. %ul :n:OVT]Qou<. Aristides. But between the Attic orators and the historians (Diodorus of Sicily) and orators (Dio Chrysostom and Aristides) who lived under the Roman Empire the emphasis changes. and 4." The mythical Heracles was right from the beginning a destroyer of monsters. 17+ In 75.5.17-4: 'he subdued Libya which was full of wild animals. killing the Minotaur and brigands such as Skiron and Cercyon.). C£ Diod. 93 Isocrates 10. XUQLV)'. 235-244. 6 'tl]V yfivTiIJ-EQOV :n:OLmv) to Heracles the civilizer (The true king in the third oration is also portrayed as a civilizer.T]IJ-EQWOEV) . 98 40.. and stopping the violence of the Centaurs. as if it were his duty to liberate (EAEV'ltEQOVV) not only the earth and the sea.5. 34. like Diodorus of Sicily" and Dio Chrysostom'" before him. See Dio 5.. UVi}QID:n:OU<. When Isocrates in his praise of Helen alluded to Heracles' labors. 29. 2q. was brought under cultivation (E1. 6 Ti]v i}UAUUUV %Ui}ULQWV.3: 'To show his gratitude to the Cretans. 4.25-29.6 (Iolaus). UVT]IJ-EQOU<. 97 T]IJ-EQowlE1. :n:mlio:n:OLLa<.SUZANNE SAID The labors are reinterpreted in order to accommodate the needs of a contemporary audience. 23.1.3. II4. which he 'purified' (E%(HhlQE)."? In other speeches as well.5. 101 40.1l1 but also toward barbarians and mankind in general.ro. See Gotteland 2001.227.1II-II 2.g. 109 40.18. lOB In Aristides.68.5· 104 Dio 1. 111 E.Sic. Dio 1.106 the setting of Heracles' exploits is enormously enlarged and becomes coextensive with the universal Empire of Rome. Aristides recasts his Heracles into a world emperor through the use of a vocabulary permeated with precise allusions to 100 See also Diod. E:ltLl~~E'tO)'lOO and his transformation of dry soils into fertile ones by irrigation. 276. Heracles' philanthropy is no longer directed only toward the Greeks. 3.. "EMT]VUr:. 63.21.60.3.5. 17. where the orator plays the part of a contemporary of Demosthenes and praises the hero for the help given to the Greeks. and Greece. 84. his Heracles had put an end to wars and factions among the Greeks and brought the cities together.31. 8.17. 103 Diod. See also Dio 1. 102 2. By making an expedition against Troy. Diodorus' narrative systematically emphasizes the injustice and the hubris of Heracles' adversaries: 4.109 to the whole human race. TIDV UYQLmV ih]QLlOV lIUt ltUQUV6~lOV uvlIQIDv. 239-244. 4. Isocrates 5. he extolled his philanthropy and his goodwill towards the Greeks"? and made him into the first champion of panhellenism. 101 This portrait of Heracles as a destroyer of both monsters and tyrants. 112 1. 110 40. which was in those days the strongest power of Asia. 19.5. "tOur:.g. who cares for justice and punishes the unjust is echoed in other speeches of Aristides!" and before him in the Universal History of Diodorus!" and the speeches ofDio Chrysostom. 4.6 (the draining of the region called Tempe).II4: T~V IjJIAUVi}QlOltLUV lIUt T~V EUVOLUV i]v ELXEV ELr:. 5.60.3 2.5. 106 9. 17. .Sic. 12.84. 21. where he killed the serpents and relieved the Thebans from the tribute paid to the Orchomenians. lOB Isocrates 5.ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS that were 'oppressed by rivers or lakes (oou !-tEv :lto'ta!-tO>v QEU!-tUOLV Tj AL!-tVaLi.!" At the same time. When Isocrates celebrated Heracles in his Philip.5: ~1J{}oM>yoiiOL II' ulJ"tov lIuI ronro ~LOii(JaL lIUt ltOA.II.E~ij(JaL TO yEVOr:. 105 E.105 as opposed to Isocrates and to the declamation 10 the Thebans I.52. Greece is but a starting point: The hero moves from Thebes. 107 Isocrates 5. 15. 38.'?' But in Aristides' Hymn as well as in Dio.3. 18.2.lTjliEV EIVUL AUJ.lJ.lLotJ~ EIVUL %ul "tOL~ VOJ.84.lTj"tfi.59.lTj{}ELTj "ta "tiiiv av{}QW:ltlOV :ltQUYJ.lEVELV. 63. In 30..!" and accustoming all men to be orderly and to abide by the laws'" clearly conveys the same message and demonstrates the integration of the mythical hero into a Roman order guaranteed by an emperor who is accordingly given by Aristides the title of %00""1]L~~.68: E{}L~lOV . as well as to Athens (1. whereas :ltQoO"tuO"la is applied to Rome (26.59.. :ltQoO"tuO"la).17.47-4116 Dio 1. 'for it was not possible to sack cities.lEv "tOL~ VOJ.52. 123 3. The same word. alludes to the universal 'empire' ()'UvumELu) of Heracles established 'by blending law with the force of the arms'!" and portrays it elsewhere as a 'protection' given to all men. in the Hymn.' is also applied to the gods appointed by Zeus to rule over the four regions of the universe in Aristides 43.60. ro8).121 put in charge of restraining the behavior of the cities either by laws or by force of arms. :ltuV"tu~ %OO"J.lO{}E"tTjO"EV). J. associated with 'satrap. 120 Aristides 50.4: "ta~ ilE :ltOAEI.. roO"tE "tfj~ E%ELVOtJ litJVUO"tEla~ J. 122 40. 119 40.84.404).lotJ~ "tOL~ O:ltAOL~ O'UY%EQUVViJ~.124 113 Diod. makes Herades (together with Dionysos and Perseus) into a harmost appointed by Zeus. has been tamed and transformed into a government official: Aristides calls him a 'prefect (U:ltuQXo~) of the region beneath the lunar sphere'j!'? assimilating him to the governor appointed by the emperor to rule over a region."! called him a 'king'115 and gave him an army. In his history Diodorus described Heracles campaigning like a Roman general.2: O:ltlO~ %oO"J. who rid the world of destructive monsters and matched crude violence with greater violence."? The portrait of Heracles as an embodiment of restraint.SUZANNE SAID contemporary political values.Sic. 117 40 .27 Dio. O"lOIjJQOVL~lOV "ta~ J. procreated by Zeus 'so that human affairs might be properly ordered'. 124 26. "ta~ liE "tOL~ O:ltAOL~.lOL~.1. 1151. 6: "toiJ~ VOJ. The same word is applied to Zeus in 43.l:ltQO"tEQOV J.116 Similarly Aristides. In the Hymn he is also portrayed as a 'legislator' (40.lU"tU. overthrow tyrants and give orders to everyone everywhere without military force' .. liB The tragic hero. Il3 and in the first Kingship Oration.75: 'prefect of Egypt'.36.29.lOL~ EJ. 3.6: "tip aQLO"t!p aQxov"tL %ul %oO"J.276: 'HQU%AEL "tip %OLVip :ltUV"tlOV :ltQoO"tu"t"[j (see also 1.l~"tE liB . 4.l~"tE AtJO"L"tEAEO"tEQOV XQ~O"Uo{}UL. 330.5: EVOJ. Dio rejected the mythical Heracles destroyer of monsters in favor of the political destroyer of tyrants. 114 Dio 1. See Moles 1990. 121 40. This transformation was already well on the way before Aristides. borrowing a metaphor from Spartan institutions. . 127 322b: 'they were killed by the wild beasts since they were in every way inferior to them . Pernot 1993a. See also To the Cities concerning Concord (23) 31: bELVQV YUQ ~ cn:ao~ ltuV'tuxii %ut {}OQf3iiibE~. as suggested by the emphasis on the silence of men as they perish. and WISsmann 1999. as in Plato.taLaJ)'. which was the charter myth of democratic Athens. and completely disorganized (:7tQo f..103. 322b-c: ltOA. and disorder (lbtaV'ta O'taOE«)~ xat {}oQu~ou xat &'taSLa~ dVaL f. 133 Aristides 2. As in Aeschylus.L'tL%~V YUQ 'tEXVT]V OVltlll ELXOV ~~ IlEQO~ ltOA.131 Moreover Aristides completely transforms the role of Prometheus. Prot.ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS rv The Prometheus Myth A reading of the Prometheus myth in Aristides 10Plato: in Defense ofOratory confirms the conclusions drawn about Heracles. there was in the beginning 'a great disturbance (MQu~o~) and confusion ('taQaxi]) upon the earth.. 2.208. they harmed each other'. 128 2. but the bigger led the smaller-nor could they maintain themselves against the other animals' .395: rocn:E nltlIJMvV'to <nYii. 131 26.127 but also Aristides' description of the world before the invention of oratory. 'when human affairs were falling into utter ruin'. which is part of political science. 132 C£ Prom Vmct.395. the impossibility of survival is no longer explained. topsy-turvy. Men neither knew what to do with themselves-for there was nothing which brought them all together. 129 Plato. by the absence of political science and the art of war.hE OU% EXOV'tE~ 't~v ltOA.tEv 'tfj~ Uf.P" A significant echo of this description is also to be found in the Roman Oration in the portrait of the world before the rule of Zeus. 58: qJlAay{}QlIlltO~. It best illustrates how Aristides succeeds in transforming the Protagoras myth. 125 126 .tE'tEQa~ &Qxfj~ av«) xat %a't«) OUVE'tE'taQa%'tO %at d%fj eqJEQE'to ['ta :7tQaYf.396: nEL ltlll~ rov qJlAav{}QlIlltO~. 133 but he is no longer a trickster and a thief who gave men either the fire from which they learnt all the arts or the knowledge of the arts that ensure a livSee Cassin 1991. into a justification of the Roman Empire and the power of the civic elite.L'tL%~V 'tEXVT]V..!" the Titan remains a 'friend of mankind'. 130 2. II. . 125 According to Aristides.EIlL%1] .l" but by the absence of rhetoric.126 This description echoes Plato's Protagoras. when 'everything was filled with faction.tEO'ta)' and before the Roman Empire: 'before your empire everything was in confusion. 128 Accordingly. uproar. 138 2.. .40 I. 2.!" preach internal as well as external concord. 322b: ~ /l1']I-lLOlJQyLXl] 'tEl(V1'].39 6: 'tOu re IIQol-l1']ftEw~ UYUai}EL~ /l[xmu AEyOV'tO~. Thus he becomes a precursor of Aristides. which was defined by Isocrates (a major source for Aristides' rewriting of the Prometheus myth. Like Dio. as amply demonstrated by J. 2. XUL YEvvuLO'ta'tOlJ~ XUL 'ta~ «pUOE~ EQQWI-lEVEO'ta'tOlJ~. 'mutual respect and justice' (aL()W re xat ()LXTJV).tUXOV I37 by oratory.tlpftEL~ . Wissmann)!" in democratic terms as the capacity to persuade each other. 139 that is. OUl( UltO 'tWV uvf}Qomwv ltE'. 135 2. and faction. he behaves like a good emperor: 'full of admiration for Prometheus' just speech'i!" he sends Hermes to mankind with a remedy. a vitality to be explained first and foremost by its inherited cultural value and its plasticity. which teaches men how to behave as members of a community. Oratory. 137 2. as in the Protagoras myth. Nicocles 5: 'tOU ltE[ftELV UAA~AOlJ~. the noblest. disorder. 139-143.!" is now working from the top to the bottom with orators who prefer law and order to confusion..66 SUZANNE SAID ing.397: 'toiJ~ uQ[O'tOlJ~. 2 0 9. This last example sufficiently demonstrates the vitality of myth under the Empire. 321d: ri]v EV'tEl(VOV OOlp[UV. prefiguring contemporary sophists who serve as mediators between the provincial cities and the imperial center. 139 140 141 142 143 2. 136 2. ltEQL rov 13[ov oorpinv.axov is not given to all."? So the Prometheus myth that was made by Protagoras into the charter for participatory democracy has become a justification of the power of the educated elite. As for Zeus. and prevent uproar. that is politics. and those with the strongest natures'. Wissmann 1999. It is replaced as a <pUQI. Aristides knows how to 'turn 134 Plato. Prot. but only to 'the best. uM' uu'to~ u«p' eUlJ'tO'u. the supreme 'tEX.vTJ. 'tl]V .EL) them both by maintaining order and introducing adornment.!" However this <puQ!J. who many years later moved Marcus Aurelius to tears with his description of Smyrna's destruction and succeeded in securing imperial funding for the reconstruction of the city..397: ltQE013ElJri]~ UltEQ 'tWV uvf}Qomwv. But this remedy is no longer. acknowledging the legitimate claims of others and setting themselves limits..235: EltEL 'tov EV x6ol-lCfl 13lov ltQo 'tfj~ u'tu!.397: LV' 01-l0U o«pa~ re uu'tOiJ~ XUL 'tOiJ~ aMolJ~ OW~ELV El(OLEV.[u~ uLQouV'tm. the members of the elite who are in charge of saving themselves and others.134 He becomes a self-appointed ambassador on mankind's behalf'!" and goes up to heaven to inform Zeus about the desperate situation of men. which holds together the cities and orders (XOO!J. EVa lIn lIQO<. one has to say. 145 Pernot 1993. oiim xaLUATJitEmv.145 144 Dio 5..ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS the myths in the right direction and make them into a parable of the real and the true'!" and mold them so that they will become a mirror of contemporary reality. True. that 'la position adoptee par le genre epidictique [en general et Aristide en particulier] n'est ni neuve ni originale .1: EAXOfJ. [Mais] il ne s'ensuit pas que ce message soit depourvu de force ni de subtilite'. Pernot. ..Eva 'toL<. 760. 'to Mov xaL lIaQa~aM6fJ. paraphrasing L... . Epist. In one of these he claims to have launched a polemic against Aelius Aristides: :ltQo~ 'AQLO't'EL{)T]V I-LaX0I-LaL. who were the great virtuosi of the stage. espouses with Lib." Libanius confined himself exclusively to the pantomimes. Libanius. as did their more ordinary colleagues." The debate between these two great sophists. 416-419 (with notes on 50l-503) presents excerpts from Libanius as probable fragments of Aristides' original speech. As some of the more austere Christian preachers complained. 1 2 .1 The sixty-fourth oration in the surviving corpus of Libanius seems to correspond with this description. 64.ro. 3 Lib. the author of resplendent prose hymns to Olympian gods. Orat. although he says that Aristides had tried to denigrate them by linking them with the mimes. for example. and music. Both mimes and pantomimes were important transmitters of Hellenic mythology and culture. who spoke lines and acted together with one another. They enjoyed enormous popularity throughout the Roman Empire. costumes. See. The pantomimes were individual dancers of balletic virtuosity who in solo performances enacted familiar myths with the aid of masks. is full of paradox. and scholars are generally agreed that this is the work Libanius sent to Demetrius. Moss 1935: Jacob of Sarug on the spectacles of the theater.W BOWERSOCK In 361 Libanius sent a letter to Demetrius of Tarsus to accompany the texts of two speeches he had recently written. It is a vigorous and lengthy assault on a lost speech of Aristides that had prudishly denounced the dancers known as pantomimes for corrupting their viewers. two centuries apart. the mimes. In his austere preaching against corruption from watching lubricious entertainments. Aristides sounds more like a Father of the Christian church than the dedicated polytheist he was. 615 Foerster. Behr 1986. they appealed to a diverse audience and linked together persons of different religion and ethnic background in theatrical pleasure.CHAPTER FOUR ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES G. by contrast. If 361 was the date of the speech against Aristides. it seems as if Libanius attacked him in his response almost as if he were. for boxers and pancratiasts. ibid. Subsequently he even undertook to terminate it in his native city of Antioch. arguing against an impeccable model such as Aristides would be in itself a feat of sophistic brilliance. 44.33. the Caesar Gallus. are the pantomimes more criminal than those who overturn altars. Furthermore. Aristides was. 6 Lib. 64. Babylas. In his speech Aristides had been C£ Wiemer 1995. Lib.' So how does it happen that Libanius took issue with an admired predecessor over an art-form for which neither he nor the apostate emperor had any sympathy? And why had Aristides himself shown such hatred for those popular mediators of Hellenism? To be sure. conspicuously at Daphne. steal votive offerings. an orator for whose achievement he had unbounded admiration.64. Christians did indeed go on such rampages. To some extent. and burn statues?" This curious register of miscreants actually seems to allude to Christians. disliked the dancers. 6g-'71 (Die Rede 'FUr die Tanzer'). On the speech and its arguments see Mesk 1909 and Molloy 1996. as he states explicitly and emphatically. 61 and II9. Libanius asks. Audiences are no more corrupted by what they see in the dances than they are by the vicious and bloody competitions of boxers and pancratiasts. destroy shrines. and Libanius perhaps relished the challenge. BOWERSOCK particular warmth a form of entertainment that we know he openly disliked and avoided. If the pagan Aristides in his puritanical mode of denouncing the pantomimes sounded rather like a Christian. He certainly managed to reduce Aristides' arguments to nonsense by showing that a few corrupt or effeminate performers could no more impugn the art of the pantomime than a murderous doctor could impugn the medical profession. like Libanius. whose cause Libanius strongly supported and whose memory he eloquently cultivated. 4 5 . the Syrian origins of many famous dancers roused Libanius to defend himself as a Syrian. For murderous doctors. YetJulian.70 G. when Julian's brother.' Furthermore. since pagans and Jews were not known to have committed misdeeds of that kind. near Antioch. Orat. it would have fallen in the early part of the usurpation of the emperor Julian. Orat. had undone the oracle of Apollo by importing into the temple precinct the earthly remains of St.W. and Aristides himself must have been well aware. as Libanius observes. we can reasonably deduce the provocation that led Aristides himself to condemn the pantomimes. This deduction opens up issues of sophistic competition and jealousyissues that we have long known were fundamental to the so-called Second Sophistic. see the still fundamental study of Robert 1930. as you say yourself. Where was it that you customarily worked up your numerous and splendid declamations? In what cities did you orate? Whose applause made you a star? I note that you did not choose Sparta as a workshop for your art. where the dancing profession is highly esteemed'. the Sparta of the second century AD was an utterly different place from the city of Lycurgus.80. the motivation for Libanius' curious defense of an entertainment he despised can only be left to speculation. with the help of his abundant references to Aristides' lost work and his occasional quotations from it. Lib. even so. Drat. although it is clear. 10 This means that in declaiming about the pantomimes Aristides had deliberately chosen to avoid all the important cities where he had him- 7 B 9 10 Lib. In his day the popularity of the pantomimes clearly vexed him. when he undertook to denounce them? Libanius offers a perceptive analysis: 'You claim to be giving advice to the Spartans alone because you know that the others would be annoyed by your speech. the land which. Aristides' sense of his high calling as a rhetor did not easily accept any comparison with less grandiose professions. out of all those major cities that welcomed pantomimes. Yet. nor did you release your words to flow alongside the river Eurotas. 64. . Smyrna. from the citations and from Libanius' commentary. But you used to go to the Hellespont.ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES 71 rude about Syrians. 64. We know that Aristides' speech was addressed to the Spartans. cf 80. as Libanius points out." Libanius assumes that to some extent Aristides chose that city as his addressee in order to invoke the high-minded austerity of the legendary regime of Lycurgus." This paper seeks to find out why. Drat. Ephesus. But. So why did Aristides turn to that city. that he did not actually go to Sparta to deliver it. 64. Aristides himself had never declaimed by the banks of the Eurotas and therefore had no attachment to Sparta. and to Egypt. Besides.IO-II. You even went to Rome. For the whole topic. Lib. first brought forth the evil. Drat.9. to Ionia. Pergamum.' But. . Orat. And yet they admired Aristides too.10 (pp. 64. Vit. . In his speech Aristides charged that pantomime dancing had changed over time for the worse. BOWERSOCK self enjoyed great success-Pergamum. Orat. ltIIW YUQ au'tov Ert.." There were even paragons of virtue among the famous pantomimes. In denouncing the tastes of the Spartans. 0001:' oux oI/)' 8 11 12 'tL UV E~~'tT]OE flE~OV. Did he choose to disgrace himself utterly by the encomium of a prostitutei''" As scholars have readily perceived. a famous dancer called Paris. since he had no connection with it. As far as Aristides was concerned. Orat. This treatment of a pantomime as a sophist by the great rhetor whose reputation was at the time easily the equal of Aristides' evidently Lib. Hadrian had sullied his reputation by an encomium of a whore. A master of rhetoric would have readily savored the potential of castigating the descendants of Lycurgus for watching pantomimes.E'tO xa'taQQlJnaLVELv EV 'tOL~ EY'X. According to Libanius.:.64. See especially Philostr. Smyrna.:. Ephesus.G. Aristides would not be offending a constituency that had ardently supported him. Yet Aristides had inveighed against one of his sophistic rivals for using his rhetorical prowess in honor of a deceased pantomime. 585-590 Olearius).'t' au'to nQOOELltELV ~~LlJ)(JE 'tOV 6QXT]01:~V." It proved easy for Libanius to contest these assertions: in rhetoric itself. He claimed that their sinuous.W. 8~ yE xat 'to. 'Even the man who was once conspicuous among us with the same name as the ancient herdsman in whose presence the goddesses were judged for their beauty was so lamented on his bier by the sophist of Tyre . He was safe with Sparta. Hadrian of Tyre. even contorted movement was an abomination that would lead viewers into bad habits.2 2 . Sopko 2.'! It is obvious that Aristides had protested bitterly because his eminent rival had treated Paris just as if he were a deceased sophist and even called him that.lJ)fllo~ 'to. Lib.41: . and no one was known to have become corrupt or criminal from watching a show. that eulogist was none other than Aristides's distinguished second-century contemporary.. change and innovation over time was fruitful. that by his day performers were little more than prostitutes on public view. nOQvolJ. EL OOlPL01:~V OLXOflEVOV E'tLfla. 64. 13 Lib.. For he did in fact call the dancer precisely that. 14 PIR2 H 4.28 and 43 (noQvOL).. Rome itsel£ These were all places that cultivated and admired the pantomimes. that no greater tribute could have been devised to honor a departed sophist. 31-32. Lucian wrote a famous essay in defense of theatrical dancing.EVaL 'tWV 'tQaYLxwv at OQXTJO"tLxaL. 16 Lucian. In Italy there were competitions for dancers.<flO'tEQOL£. We have no way of telling whether it was known to Aristides himself and served as some kind of irritant. During the reign of Lucius Verus. In his view they were contemptible panders to public pleasure. there were no competitions (aywvE£) for pantomimes although the dancers performed a repertoire of tragic themes. who appeared to be usurping the high prestige of public speakers. but Lucian's opinion was as positive as it was well informed.ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES 73 opened up a deep vein of resentment. both against Hadrian of Tyre himself and against the whole profession of dancers. For the relation of pantomime to rhetoric. The conjunction of the word tragic with a pantomime is reinforced by Lucian's observation that tragedy and tragic dance were almost indistinguishable: at U:JtOi}EOEL£ zorvcl a!J. De Saltatume." We may surmise that this happened at the Sebasta in hellenophone Naples. and perhaps also at the Capitolia in Rome or the Eusebeia in Puteoli. and the ones for dancers differed from tragedy only in that they were more ornamented'. The case of Hadrian of Tyre's eulogy for the deceased Paris clearly reflected the heightened prestige of pantomimes in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. the essay provides precious testimony. has now been generally vindicated as authentically Lucianic. says Lucian. there was one exception to the lack of thymelic crowns for them. and the essay may well have been known to Libanius in writing his reply to Aristides. For an important discussion of this work see]ones 1986. probably during his sojourn in Syrian Antioch.'> The authorship of this work. 6877 ('The court of Lucius Verus').) As Louis Robert demonstrated brilliantly in one of his earliest articles and one of his very few in German. . This appears to have been at least one of the sparks that ignited the flame of Aristides' rage against the pantomimes. :JtAT]V O'tL :JtOLXLAO>'tEQaL a-omL ('The themes for both were the same." 15 Lucian. the epigraphy of pantomimes in the later second century perfectly displays the technical diction of the trade. once doubted. In general. and it was no less clearly this prestige that bothered Aristides. De Salt. xat oUbEv 'tL bLaxExQL!J. and-worse still-were hailed as equal in artistic talent to sophists and rhetors. But. and they were sometimes known as 'tQayuwL. 17 Robert 1930. see Fouilles de Delphes 111.. SEC 1.). ro): honors to Julius Paris of Apamea 'tQuYL%ii~ %ELV'!](JEl1l~ U:n:O%QL't'!]V. L Magnesia (Kern) 165 eVQu{}1l0U.21 Towards the end of his speech Libanius. of the Graeco-Roman world.19 A dancer. or both). 20 Fouilles de Delphes 111. Iul.2. 687: eVQu{}llou. SEC XI. and possibly Rome or Puteoli. On rhythmic movement. It now appears that soon after Lucian wrote his essay on dancing the great agonistic festivals added dancing to the competitions. or EiJQv{}J10e. EVQU{}J10V 'tQuycp~Lue. probably echoing Aristides. The movement (xLvT]<JLe. as well as a treatment of the dancer's gestures (veuJ1u'tu).t" This technical language turns up significantly in Libanius in contexts that appear clearly to paraphrase or echo Aristides' original. calls the pantomimes 'tQuycp~oL It is evident that in his speech Aristides had resorted to the standard diction that was deployed in praise of the dancers of his day. Sahin 1975 (Heraclea Pontica. On one inscription from Heraclea Pontica pantomime dancing appears as 'rhythmic tragedy' ('tfie. Rhetoric.28. Apolaustos. no.64'59. Lib. Cf. kithara-playing. 55r: Tib.4 %Lvr](JEl1l~ EUQU{}1l0U. Orat. such as the great Apolaustus or Paris of Apamea can be called an actor (UJtOXQL'ti)C. O"tElpOe. 20-22: EUQU{}IlLa. The innovation in the eastern empire must have come between 165. albeit one with rhythmic movement. as Louis Robert already pointed out eighty years ago.. but. Orat.1. and a pantomime dancer can sometimes be called simply a 'tQuycpMC.) of a dancer is regularly qualified as rhythmic (evQv{}J10e.529 (Syrian Apamea) eVQu{}ll[ou]. Apolaustos. For VEUIlU'tU. 't[QuYL%ii~ eV]Qu{}1l0U %Lvr](JEl1l~ U:n:O%QL't'!][V]. and the reign of Commodus. 21 For %lV1]OL~ see note 18 above. of the Roman empire. the addition of dancing as a crown event came as an innovation in the second century outside of Italy (Naples.W. BullEp 1976. BOWERSOCK Let us observe some examples.). in addition to the characteristic language by which pantomimes were honored. 1272 and TAM V. cf. which is the latest date for Lucian's treatise.. during which the celebrated Tiberius Iulius Apolaustus boasted of being the first pantomime to win a crown at 18 For %lVT]OL~ see Lib. 64. poetry. 551: Tib. with photo). Observe Herodian 5. What the epigraphy also reveals. 721 (citing ReyCoquais 1973. BulLEp 1976. Blume! 2004. as we have seen. 838 ('tQuyrpl\ip ~Ll\l1lVlqJ). is precious information about the place of pantomimes in the international aywvec. ." It is also described as tragic ('tQUYLXi)). 19 Sahin 1975. trumpet-playing had long since secured a firm place in the thymelic aywvec.74 G. 192 e]vQu{}[IlOU.wI6 (Thyateira): eVQu{}Ilou.1. There is a whole section on xLvT]<JLC. both forms appear). lul. fCR 4. 55 and wrongly turns the mimes into pantomimes. Laodicea. 3 (Kent). were evidendy not the first for a pantomime.1.57 (-tL~ uv "tip flLfllp lJUYXWQ~OELEV E~W ljJl'}eYYEO'f}aL. Aristides' prejudice is evident in this passage." Hence it would be reasonable to assign the introduction of pantomime competitions either to the later years of Marcus or the early years of Commodus. I-tLI-tOL~." Among the winners are a pantomime from Sidon. 1. 25 Aristid. speaking performers. This chronology fits well with Aristides' intemperate judgment of both pantomimes and mimes in his extant speech XU'tll 'trov el. 183. This is a work that can be assigned to Smyrna in early 170. 398 n. see Behr 1981. 26 Behr 1981. Strasser 2004 discusses but does not add to the dossier on the introduction of dancers into the eastern agonistic festivals. 251. 'Who would allow a mime to speak off stage?' in order to emphasize the lowly status of such a person." His other victories in great cities. 27 SEC XI. as indeed they were." The dancers are clearly the pantomimes. 34 ~gainst the Betrayers of the Mysteries'). . in his translation of Aristides' speech. who please the crowds but are held in low regard.oQXouI-tEVWV (no. 756-759 and BullEp 1967. misunderstands the three nouns in Orat.. 370+ 693. a 'tQUyq>M~ ~L6cbvLO~. and all others in liberal education with dancers. Robert 1966b. but there is nothing here to suggest that pantomimes had yet been elevated to the level of agonistic competitions with honors that were accorded to the greatest rhetors of the age. Athens. This provides a slighdy later terminus post quem than Lucian for the innovation that so outraged Aristides.) 'Who would permit the pantomime to speak off stage?' One might also add that the article in this question is generic.24 Towards the end Aristides contrasts rhetors. ttuUI-tU'tO:7tOLOL~). and Sardis. as they are in the lost speech. It is obviously relevant to understanding Aristides' lost speech that one of the first documented examples of a pantomime in the international thymelic competitions comes precisely from Sparta. It came after 170. 2070-2071: first in Thebes. 838. Orat. whereas the mimes are. (observe that this is yet another such performer from 22 Fouilles deDelphes 111. cf IK Ephesus 6. nos. 24 For the date. 23 For another inscription of Apolaustos. including Ephesus. and magicians (OQXT]O'tUL~. 551. philosophers. on a midto-late second-century inscription detailing the accounts for prizes to contestants." Aristides even asks.55 and 57. mimes.ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES 75 Pergamum and in Thebes. Sparta. 38--40. The speech is described in the Fifth Sacred Discourse. reviewing Corinth 8. 34. 34. He compounds the error when he translates the question in 34. Corinth. He was explaining the role of the presiding magistrate." Similarly the inscription from Heraclea Pontica. a pentathlete and runner whom Pausanias mentions as honored with a bronze statue near Sicyon for his Olympic victories.tE'tCt O'CQoqJi'j£)'. painter. Oneir. 16. Hence it is instructive to observe that he registers pantomime dancing.. for the first time (ro :7tQ(inov). no.20. was. in his list of foreign competitors at Sparta (n.2). working in the later second century. Lib. and Appendix Iv. Iulios Apolaustos'). kithara-player. KaL OQXi]OElO<. IlE"tu O"tQoqJfj<. Moretti. I02-I04 (. 34 E. "tliiv EV AULKE~aLllovL UyWVlOV).G.6. and Ourania.61 and II9. encomiast. 31 Robert 1930. who invaded in the early years of the decade (IO.. and pentathletes. Claudios Apolaustos' is erroneously written for 'Tib. 18 above. refers to taking the 'the wreath of rhythmic tragedy'. to which he evidently alludes by the phrase 'dancing with writhing (OQXTJOL£ f. as well as the traditional runners and pentathletes. BOWERSOCK greater Syria). See Cartledge and Spawforth 1989.W. pancratiasts. 64.uO"tuQXlJ<. a trumpeter. Libanius resorts frequently to comparisons with athletes and Greek competitions. 848." Louis Robert had emphasized long ago the proliferation of contests in later second-century Sparta.g. Hence he michievously conjures up a male ath28 Pausan. 1. Spawforth. 30 We should note that the late-second-century star Apolaustos included Sparta among the cities where he took the crown.56 (p. His first book was written earlier (7.5). Orat. evidendy missed Apolaustos. to judge from various chronological indications. 114 (where 'Tib. 188 (Spawforth) with 264 n. 29 Pausanias was writing in the middle 170's: Corinth founded 217 years before (s.11. but the reference to Granianus occurs in the Konnthiaka. The language reappears in the third-century historian Herodian. 'Foreign agonistai at Sparta' (Spawforth) (232-233). Eurykleia. 163. 33 In arguing against Aristides. in other words pantomime. 33 See n. One of the winners is Aelius Granianus from Sicyon. 1957. as among the crown contests. 32 Artemid. This is probably another sign of the recent introduction of tragic dance into Greek thymelic competitions." Artemidorus.8. with its three festivals of the Kaisareia." His remarks clearly presuppose that Aristides took a highly positive view of boxers. .1. and the Costoboci. EV "tOT<. 2. author of our one surviving book of dream interpretations. There is little to be said for Spawforth's inclination to identify Granianus with Cranaus in Julius Africanus: cf. on his omission of Herodes' odeion for Regilla). who was called a xystarch there. who refers to 'rhythmic movement'.34. which we have cited earlier. 30 Robert 1966. JtEQL O"tEqJUVlOV. 64 Pack): JtEQL M JtUQQLXlJ<. 28 above)." So this suggests a probable date for the Spartan inscription in the last decade of Marcus. :ltEc'\WV'tU 'tWV Lib. such as that associated with Lycurgus. And finally.68-6g: . who plays the female role in sexual activity. Consequently Libanius can cunningly strengthen his argument by adducing the athletic prowess of pantomimes in accomplishing their formidable leaps on the stage. 64. Similarly. 64. and so Aristides' choice of the Spartans as his target may well reflect more than a simple desire to invoke old-fashioned austerity. Libanius' numerous comparisons with agonistic festivals may be taken to imply that Aristides had responded with particular indignation to the recent incorporation of the pantomimes in thymelic competitions." Accordingly. For him this public institutionalization of the dancers in the Greek festivals would have effectively constituted the elevation of a pantomime to the level of a sophist or rhetor. On present epigraphic evidence. rendered in absence.. 64. :ltEv'tuiH. Drat. Drat.98. Drat. Sparta was among the first to welcome this innovation in its festivals. 64. Libanius asks whether those who watch a bloody pancration or a fierce boxing match are inspired to go out and do likewise. or in Rome.ARISTIDES AND THE PANTOMIMES 77 lete. allowed Aristides the luxury of venting his spleen at what he perceived to be a debasement of traditional Greek aywver. 36 37 38 Lib.35 This is one of Libanius' many illustrations to show that one miscreant does not impugn an entire category. and so. in Athens. far beyond (as he points out) the ability of any pentathlete. who had long enjoyed a privileged place in Greek festivals.. But a little less than two hundred years later another of his enthusiasts called his bluff. 35 Lib. Libanius links pantomimes with trumpeters. precisely as Hadrian of Tyre had proposed in his eulogy of Paris. Libanius shrewdly observed that Aristides was in no position to denounce the audiences who had heard and admired him in Pergamum or Smyrna." Yet clearly Aristides approved of the pentathlon. to make his point. .mv f. without insulting his enthusiasts in Asia Minor." Again the presupposition of Libanius' comment is that from Aristides' perspective viewing such activities would be wholly acceptable.lUXQO'tEQU.II9.. Drat. Lib. Hence an address to Sparta.54: 'tu yuVaLXWV Ec'\O~E :ltOLELV. in response to the supposedly bad influence of dancers upon their viewers. duly oiled and garbed. he had to fix on a pantomime-loving city where he had not actually declaimed. . . . I have used Keil's edition. L.lOL XU'to.. long buffeted on stormy seas. leaves little room for ambiguity about his aspirations. moreover. IlExu liEmof. XLVII.Q 'toov ~f.I). XLVIII. OUf. whose translations I have used. those countless evasions of death attest the presence of a tutelary deity-Athena and Asclepius respectively" But why Helen? In Otfyssey IV. in the first lines (oUII' EL f. Keil proposed emending to ltuQ' EV. we can recall. see the contribution of Petsalis-Diomidis in this volume. Festugiere. For the importance of Aristides' travels to his understanding of the body. 3 EXamT] yo.lltLlt'toV'tU alt0YQaqJELV ~1301jAE'tO ~ 't~V 'tou t}EOU ltQOVOLUV IILT]ydO'frUL. arguing that the line was corrupted under the influence of the ltuQwv in the following line.lOL IlExu f. however. declaring in the first sentence: 'I see myself creating an account in the manner of Homer's Helen' (Or. roOU'lJ'tro~ I\i.56 and Or. ri]v 'EAEVT]V 't~v 'Of.lEQooV. see Schroder 1987.l Aristides' framework.489.' Yet Helen.2 Yet in what respects is the Otfyssey a model for Aristides' undertaking? The most obvious point of contact is the resemblance of Aristides' sufferings to those of Odysseus. and Schroder in retaining the ltuQwv of the manuscripts.l~Qou 'tOV Myov ltOL~OEO'frUL.CHAPTER FIVE AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY BROOKE HOLMES Many modern readers have found it improbable that the Hieroi Logoi are the product of literary ambition.2o. XLVI!'I).3). in which the six books of the Hieroi liJgoi are Orationes XLVII-ill.' dEV. it is Helen who selects a tale from 'all the toils of stout-hearted Odysseus' to tell his son Telemachus. Wilamowitz ably defended the manuscript reading by citing Or. is epic. . EXEL OUYYQUqJ~V. Behr. XLVII. II. just as each of our nights. Or. Translations from Aristides are my own unless noted. She is thus like an epic narrator faced with a vast archive of stories. 4 Aristides in fact cues the locus classicus of unspeakable epic magnitude. 2. Their author. In both cases. EL 'tL~ ltUQWV ~ 'to.lu. then.lE'tEQroV ~f.lEv yAooOOUL. who trafficked professionally in the great Greek writers of the past. 1 1I0xoo f. I follow Wilamowitz. cases where Aristides uses the plural (ol ltUQOV'tE~) to refer to those who were present at an event in question (the onset of an attack and an oratorical performance) and can corroborate Aristides' account. ('for each of our days. and more specifically that of the Otfyssry--that much is clear. had a story if someone who was there wished either to record what happened or recount the providence of the god'. XUL VUX'toov. Or. Numbers preceded by a T correspond to the testimonia in Edelstein and Edelstein 1945. 2 On the Odysseus theme. she recounts a time that she herself. or at least preserving the impression of. met Odysseus. He. to play an important role in interpretation and commemoration. Or. lIUt 'tou't' ~v 'tIDV EltL'tUYfLU'tIDV ltQID'tOV ('Right from the beginning. I will argue that the body is significant to Aristides precisely because it evades these practices.2). Helen. too. the approach adopted here diverges from recent work on the role of 5 vuvl lIE 'tOlJO{)'tOL~ ihElJL lIUt XQ6VOL~ UlTtEQOV O\jJEL~ OVELQIl'tIDV uvuYllu~OUlJLV ~fLa~ aYELv Ul)'tu ltID~ E~ fLElJOV (. . XLVIII. 4. a uniquely heroic and unfathomable intimacy with the divine. Or. when she was at Troy. In fact. In both of these areas.Now. In this paper. and his translation of suffering into a legible text capable of commemorating Asclepius's benefaction. she alone discovers his identity and compels him to reveal the secret plans of the Greeks (Od.' he is also interesting in preserving. XLVIII.BROOKE HOLMES as Aristides would have surely known. I suggest that his struggle to communicate what has happened to him draws attention to a tension within those aspirations between his identity as the author of the Hieroi Logoi and his identity as a devotee of Asclepius. Or. who had infiltrated the city in disguise. I focus on the two principal occasions for the expression of this tension: Aristides' dreams. In what follows. In the story she chooses to tell. albeit in response to a command from Asclepius. after so many years and so much time later. then. XLVIII.6g) is the occasion for ongoing divine attention. For although he wishes to give a public account of his remarkable life. {}EO~ Ult0YQUlpELV 'tU oVEiQU'tU. The prologue to the Hieroi Logoi gives every indication that we are dealing not with an artless collection of dreams and everyday minutiae but rather with a deliberate attempt to tell an epic story that requires all of the narrator's resources. Asclepius is preparing for this text from the beginning: E1Jtro~ E~ uQXfi~ ltQoEmEv (.2). is faced with a subject that is not only long-suffering but also uncommonly polymorphous: a body whose constantly changing face of disease ('t~v :ltOLXLA. is a narrator whose credentials rest in part on her ability to match the mitis of her subject with her own cunning intelligence like some dark Penelope. And this was the first of his commands'. In fact. dream visions compel us to make these things public'. we might expect the body. I argue that by analyzing how Aristides represents the difficulty of both interpreting and memorializing the body's suffering we can better understand his epic aspirations. through which he gains a privileged perspective on his symptoms. the god ordered me to record my dreams. In this respect. This skill turns out to be apposite to Aristides' task.250-264).LUV 'tfj~ vooou. is not simply Homer's double. since it is where suffering takes place. eventually. Gunderson 2000. to present the complex interpenetration of reality by the word of the god and the transformation of the diseased and imperfect text of Aristides' body into the lasting text of the Sacred Tales'. Much of this work has been spurred. Shaw 1996. 391: 'But the Sacred Tales record also the creation of a second text. Foucault 'techniques du soi' (1986.. op. Quet 1993. 282: 'the creation of a story from the minute details of [the body's] physicality paradoxically seeks to transcend its materiality and make it into a sign of divine favor'." These scholars have done much 6 On the body and elite (masculine) identity in the imperial period. Pigeaud 1991. and physiognomy" At the same time. 9 Miller 1994. 377-378 and Gasparro 1998 place the Hieroi Logoi alongside works by other imperial-age devotees of Asclepius. Castelli 1999. 261 (= 1995. the medical history of Aristides makes up a narrative of Asclepius' providence and favor. On first-person writing as a 'technique du soi': Foucault 1997a. Gigli 1977) have argued that the text is ordered by the logic of the dream. the Hieroi Logoi. Pearcy. Pernot 2002. 187): 'In Aristides' representation. symptoms that articulate a desire for 'the intimacy and privacy that cultural codes denied to men of his standing and profession' (200). For Aristides' relationship to what P. 8 It has also been described as a 'psychic text' of Aristides' struggles against cultural codes of masculinity. as well as the relationship of the Hieroi Logoi to other Greco-Roman first-person writing. all under the aegis of Asclepian oneiric practice' (189). at least in part. See also Perkins 1992. 1997b). see also Harrison 2002. bodies become texts on which the god's purposes and intentions are written'. On Aristides' relationship to contemporary autobiographical writing. looks beyond the 'text' of divine favor to 'the symptoms of a rebellion against [Aristides'] culture's construction of masculinity'. who finds in Aristides' ceuvre 'an insistent thematic move whereby oratorical writing and the symptomatic 'writing' of the body function as signs of each other. 173-199). arguing that Apuleius is a critical response to Aristides' model of religious autobiography. The increased interest in the day-to-day life of the body in the Second Sophistic was identified early on by Bowersock (1969. King 1999. cit. That text is often understood as a 'script' of divine favor that is then copied into the archive and.It is the body of Aristides himself In its illnesses and recoveries. see Perkins 1992 (= 1995. 7 On the literary and rhetorical character of the Hieroi Logoi.. however. The Sacred Tales. Hadot has called 'exercices spirituels' (1981) and M. the equation of Aristides' body with a text has become something of a commonplace. rhetoric. themselves.. see Bompaire 1993. see Pearcy 1988. might endure.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY Aristides' body in the Hieroi Logoi. scholars have become more aware of Aristides' literary selfconsciousness. Physical existence is transitory. an interpretation that combines the tradition of seeing Aristides' symptoms and dreams as evidence of his troubled unconscious with the equally prominent tradition of treating them as evidence of his culture's anxieties.. . 300. 8 See Pearcy 1988.4 on 'the unremitting discipline imposed on the actors of the small and unbearably well . and the contribution of Downie in this volume.' In this climate. 383. see Gleason 1995. medicine. Others (Michenaud and Dierkens 1972. 69-73). 184-204. by rising interest in the corporeal codes of identity in imperial-age ethics. Connolly 2007. See also Brown 1978. Miller 1994. many scholars have detected similarities between Asclepian therapies and those developed in secular medicine. see Festugiere 1954. 14. For readings of Aristides as an exemplar of his era. 6-8. 16-124. recounting a long history of such diagnoses by both medical professionals and philologists. Horstmanshoff 2004. with nos. Dodds 1965. and the two traditions shared disease terminology (Chaniotis. Aristides has high esteem for the historical figure of Hippocrates (King 2006.650-656 Ktihn=120. Gourevitch 1984. LiDonnici 1995. 334-335. 330 n. 169 nn. Reardon 197$ Brown 1978. Ancient sources saw continuity between Asclepius and the human physician. XLVIII. By restoring meaning to Aristides' sufferings. Bowersock 1969. Nevertheless.1-16. XLVII. 22-47. 62-64. 140-141).332-334.4.10 It is at this moment that Asclepius begins to offer Aristides another conduit of interpretation in the form of the dream. HazardGuillon 1983. 85-104. the remarks in Pigeaud 1991 and Andersson and Roos 1997 on the limitations of this retrospective diagnosis. and esp. through which bodily symptoms are transformed into symbolic narrative. For another example of an elite patient who resists being 'read' by the physician (though in this case the physician comes out on top). cit. medicine that explains diseases and remedies primarily in terms of physical causes inside the body and external factors such as diet or environmental conditions. The relationship between secular physicians and Asclepian priests was often symbiotic: see Edelstein and Edelstein 1945II. 10 That is. 71-75. 57). cit. andsupra. Nevertheless. and indeed. see Behr 1968. 48). op. It is also the case that Aristides was surrounded by physicians both in the temple precinct and away from it.41-45.. 18-19 [IG II/lIP 3798 and 3799]. the conflation of Aristides' body with a text needs to be questioned for the reason that within the Hieroi Logoi themselves. as far as he was concerned. indeed.5-6. this work has made clear the very importance of the physical body as a vehicle of meaning in those contexts. 69). the origins of this displacement lie in the failure of even the best physicians at Rome to make sense of his symptoms within the semiotic framework of contemporary medicine (Or. the dream allows Aristides to interpret and to overcome them. 3g-45. 23-24. 153-155. signs and stories are systematically displaced from that body's surface. 261-262). Gorrini 2005. They have also happily succeeded in shifting discussion from Aristides' alleged hypochondria to the historical meanings of the body and disease in both the cult of Asclepius and Greco-Roman elite culture. 38). Horstmanshoff 2004. Michenaud and Dierkens 1972. op. For retrospective diagnoses of Aristides' psychological condition. Moreover. Cf..BROOKE HOLMES to bring the different layers of the Hieroi Logoi to light. see the case of Sextus in Galen's On Prognosis (10. Asclepius was always the true doctor (Or. Chaniotis 1995. . II. for references. albeit lit stage of an ancient city'. see Gourevitch and Gourevitch 1968. As Aristides recounts in the second book. 22 Nutton). and the theme of medicine's limits is a Leitmotif in the Hieroi liJgoi. 165-168. often casting the god as the inventor of modern medicine (Edelstein and Edelstein. 13g-140.nn. particularly as time wore on (Oberhelman 1993. Boudon 1994. m 1:~ oI6~ 1:'liv ELY) AOyL<JJ. 12 Theater should be understood in literal terms here. Aristides appears to see the scarred or inscribed body as petrified in time without hope of renewal. 11 In addition to Or.lY)OEV).58 (citing Od. cited below. and particularly embodied experience. Aristides ceases to be equated with a body that serves as the passive object of medical interpretation and becomes a privileged interpreter of his mysterious sufferings. XLVII. quite the contrary. on the body itself: its ability to 'forget' appears synonymous with its recovery of health.56 (%u[.3) to be recorded in the archive.30 (dUu 1:OLVUV J. as a result of a shift from the theater of the sickbed to the theater of the dream space.59 (O(Ja~ OMEL~:n:W XLVIII.). Built into the Hieroi Logoi. XLVIII.).. On dQQy)1:O~ EUt}UJ. Or. Debru 1995. Drawing on motifs that were important over half a millennium of the cult of Asclepius. Or. was well acquainted with the theater. Recognizing both the forgetfulness of the body and the shift of signs from its surface to the dream can clarify its role within Aristides' epic project. is metonymic of all that Aristides wishes to represent as beyond the public record and sometimes beyond words altogether.I. see also e.lE~ ~J. In the second half of the essay. This is not to say that he does not represent the body as marked in sickness.113-114." Yet if information gained from the dream must be mapped back onto the lived body. cited in n.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY temporarily. see Or." The tension within Aristides' double identity as exegete-narrator and divine protege is thus realized through the elusive figure of the body. 132-134.g. .la%wv EXOJ. as a rhetor. at times. Rather. The central argument of this paper is that the body. 3.luQLa liv E'LY) MyELV cpuQJ. however.luihjOaL1:O %U1:ut}vy)1:WV avt}Q<ll1twv).. I begin by examining how.lC!J AUf3ELV EV oI~ T]J. is a sense that the body itself remains in shadow. Or. Aristides quite naturally assumes that the body is fully transparent to the god. IL. Perkins 1995. For the topos in the aretological tradition. and Aristides. I approach the complex relationship of the living body to its story from the perspective of commemoration. see Festugiere 1960. 158--159). XLVII. complete divine text. 1:L~ %EV E%ELVU mlV1:U yE J. a process that creates a story (Ollyygmpi]. No trace of this story remains. there is always room for error. insofar as the miracle of Asclepian healing involves ~QLt}J. Or.. Thus despite his advantage over other interpreters of his body.lLU.lEVU . Or. XLVII. he often remains uncertain about how to interpret his dreams. then. XLVIII.22. We have evidence of regular public anatomical demonstrations and rhetorical performances by physicians in the second century CE (von Staden 1994. he refers to found texts that imply the existence of another. 4.lEV 1:01:E. It is at this point in Aristides' life. in the dream archive and the public tales. The tension that results from that position may. The Odyssean slipperiness of the body in the Hieroi Logoi poses challenges of interpretation for both Aristides and his readers. the bedside scene of ingenious decipherment of which Galen. ro. He turns out to satisfy all of them. most extraordinarily. see Horstmanshoff 2004. then at Smyrna. and. remains so difficult to pin down. a generation after Aristides. as we have just seen. Interpreting the disease Dreams anddecipherment The chronological arcM of the Hieroi Logoi. lies in the failure of the doctors first at Rome. Writing happens elsewhere: in letters discovered in dreams. He seems to display the familiar persona of an elite Greek of the Roman period while. at the same time. undermining all attempts to turn him into an example. when medicine's trust in the body as revelatory of hidden truths-a trust shared by physiognomy and ethical selffashioning-proves misplaced. Aristides' body evades its stories. to understand or to alleviate Aristides' polymorphous pain. as is sometimes said. is so fond never occurs. he has been given many diagnoses. but also Aristides' divided position as both that epic's preternaturally perceptive narrator and its elusive hero. whether we adopt a traditional biographical-diagnostic approach or the more recent approaches that situate him within his cultural and historical milieu. help us understand why Aristides. but because it resists death. The physicians are left in an aporia. I suggest. on the bodies of other people. on votive offerings. that the god steps in to open up another 13 On the literary tapas of being derelictus a medicis. that body is a poor site for commemoration." No amount of purging or bleeding provides relie£ In the end. Aristides has been called many names.86 BROOKE HOLMES the body's regeneration. and then some. in turn. Those challenges are important to understanding not only the relationship of the Hieroi Logoi to their putative epic model. . 328-329 n. not because it is subject to death. 'I was aware of myselfjust as though I were somebody else. 'Xat Uottav6l-tT]v U:ltOAeL:ltOV'tO~ olel 'toli owl-ta'tO~. 157-170. 142-172). Nevertheless. an indication of impending death. Despite the epistemological debates among the medical sects. This period. qua dreamer. At this point. Aristides reports that as he was lying sick in bed. however. also sees the eruption of debates about the physician's ability to know what is hidden and the therapeutic usefulness of anatomical and physiological knowledge. We can begin to understand these transformations by looking at a dream recounted in connection with Aristides' near-death experience during the Antonine plague. Asclepius suddenly makes him turn over so that he is again facing outwards. Perkins 1995. In the second phase. That is to say. the body drifts away from the first-person speaker. the waking person who had been conscious of the body being left behind 14 Medicine's commitment to the idea that the symptom reveals truths of the physical body dates from the classical period (Holmes.39). WO:ltEQ av UAAq> 'tLVL. Translated into the terms of the theater. in Aristides they are opposed to the physicians' tactics of decipherment. 133-168. That dream also raises the question of the relationship between interpretation and salvation. at least in some quarters. In the first phase. the dream seems to end.'! The dream transforms not only the semiotics of bodily suffering but also the conditions of interpretation. when Aristides is still awake.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY means of understanding symptoms: the dream. by the anatomical investigations of the Hellenistic period.w :ltaQTptoAouttovv el-tav'tq>. Aristides dreams himself into the position of the departing player. . the dream's dramatic setting ('I seemed to be at the end of the play') still leaves a formal place for the subject of the earlier verbs 'I was conscious of' (:ltaQT]'XoAouttovv el-tav'tq» and 'I perceived' (Uottav6l-tT]v). forthcoming). however. XLVIII. reaching its pinnacle with Galen (Barton 1994. even as Aristides identifies with the disappearing body. and I perceived my body ever failing until I came to the last moment' (oih. This commitment is strengthened. EW~ EL~ 'tOuOXa'tov ~Attov. A useful overview of the consequences of these debates for medicine in the early Roman Empire can be found in Nutton 2004. Aristides turns towards the wall and falls to dreaming that he is an actor at the end of a play who is about to turn in his buskins. Aristides' brush with death suggests a relationship between the alienation from the self characteristic of illness and the self-interpretation that dreams make possible while also demonstrating his capacity. to move between the roles of sufferer and interpreter. Although dreams were used alongside symptoms in medical diagnosis. Or. 187-247. That abortive final act appears to signal that death has been averted. the interpretation of symptoms as expressions of an inner bodily truth continues to be the dominant model in the early imperial period. For the actor's exit paradoxically signals not the reunification of the self-reflexive pronoun (E!!UV'tl'p) with the first-person subject of the verb. implies that oneiric performance is crucial to life.88 BROOKE HOLMES now becomes the implied spectator of the dream performance and its imminent close. but impending death. namely the actor's moment of passage from the stage into the 'real' world.e.48). who reflects upon the visions (O'ljJEL~) in which he himself appeared. . remains alive. in which Athena appears and exhorts him to persevere. not only to the physicians. After the dream ends. Finally. they can be seen as variations on his near-death experience during the plague. the'!' again migrates back to the position of the watcher. Et~ 'toiioxu'tov ~A:frov. Even though the dream shows Aristides something he presumably already knows ('I am dying'). 15 Dreaming is treated by ancient authors as a kind of seeing (Oberhelman 1987. but also to Aristides himself For one of the basic premises of the Hieroi Logoi is that the body is besieged by invisible or mysterious threats: Aristides' sense that he has been violated is almost always belated. he is usually in the dark about what has caused his symptoms. thereby bringing the body to conscious awareness as a mysterious. then. Aristides again explicitly assumes the position of the spectator in order to recount both this dream and the following one. the very act of showing seems to release him from the crisis staged in the dream: the body left on stage remains in play. The dream thus translates the split self of the near-death experience into the relationship between performer and audience within the theater while shifting the weight of the'!' away from the audience to the performer. 15 What is perhaps most remarkable here is that the situation dramatized by this dream. a sense to which the dream gives metaphorical expression by equating life with dramatic performance and staging its final scene ('I had come to the end'. i. upon waking. alien entity. Since the tempests of Aristides' abdomen or his asthmatic attacks abruptly sever the reflexive pronoun (E!!UV'tl'p) from the first-person speaker. even then. The buskins dream gives us the beginning of an answer to this question. Aristides says just before the dream begins). The therapeutic value of the dream-stage makes even more sense when we consider that in a far more common scenario Aristides' sufferings are unintelligible. We might ask. why the stage is so vital to Aristides. In this dream Aristides already has a sense that he is on the brink of death. see Oberhelman 1993. The diagnostic dream (eVU1tVLOV) can be accommodated within this opposition. symptoms like dramatic pain or stomach trouble may simply exaggerate Aristides' more persistent sense of the inside of the body as a mysterious and strange place. insofar as it sheds light on a disease before it breaks into the patient's conscious awareness (Oberhelman 1987. In fact.e." Yet perhaps the most opaque and most daemonic part of the self was the inside of the physical body. as was the desire to access this concealed space. although the priority of psychoanalysis in this regard has been challenged in recent decades by genetics. vulnerable to violations that are not always immediately felt: even before symptoms. then. the dreams that comment on these tempests or attacks enable the body to be saved.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 89 Like the buskins dream. 18 On the ancient diagnostic or prescriptive dream. Yet they do so not by simply staging the crisis of illness. and the flourishing of neuroscience and cognitive psychology. 17 See Holmes. Aristides' projection of the self into the imaginative and dramatic space of the dream is consistent with his more general sense of the body as strange or alien in cases of disease. Notice that ancient dream interpretation has typically been distinguished from modern (psychoanalytic) interpretation on the grounds that the ancients cared about the future. the opposition between the modern unconscious and the (non-conscious) innards of the ancient material body. although I would argue that the non-transparency of the soul here is developed on analogy with the non-transparency of the physical body. That the soul has its own hidden recesses is an idea found in some Greek sources. 47). while we care about the past (Price 1990). the dramatic format of the dream generates interpretation that gives rise in turn to therapeutic action. medical imaging. Over the last century. 18 16 See Plato's remarks about the flourishing of repressed desires in dreams at R. At the same time Greek ethical philosophy becomes increasingly interested in the opaque parts of the soul in the Hellenistic period. at least from the fifth century BeE when that body definitively takes shape as a place where disease silently develops. 57IC3----<4. in the case of such dreams the opposition that I describe above between different kinds of unseen spaces in the self. Holowchak 2001. the Freudian unconscious has powerfully shaped how we understand the part of the self that is submerged below our everyday perceptions. i. forthcoming. In most cases. Aristides' perception of his body in these terms participates in wider Greco-Roman attitudes. is . there would be a need for dreams to provide a window onto this hidden space." The trust of laypersons and physicians alike in diagnostic and prescriptive dreams suggests that anxious uncertainty about the hidden body was widespread. IX. Nevertheless. and his physician: 'Daudet told us this evening that for a long time he had dreamed that he was a boat whose keel caused him pain. Harris has pointed out that the widespread interest in medicalanxiety dreams in antiquity can be correlated with the far greater number of health problems that the average person would have faced (2005. The persistence of this dream caused him to ask [Dr. Potain's response was to laugh' (Daudet 2002. In recent centuries. The vague or imprecise feeling of the body as something strange is transformed into the perception of a concrete object. Aristides might dream that a bone is troubling him. Indeed. something that can be seen and understood by the dreamer. information about the body comes not from the body but from the god. shortly into the first book.] Potain if this meant his spine was rotting. XLVII. for example.v. Or. The difference is that. w. XLVII. Despite the impasse of the doctors at Rome. Aristides recounts a dream in which the transparency of the body is literalized. In one dream. this validation has no longer been forthcoming: compare to Aristides' interaction with his doctors the following exchange between the nineteenth-century belle-lettrist Alphonse Daudet. in the cult. and that it needs to be expelled (Or. A dream may make Aristides aware of the fact that he has been defiled (l-t0A:uvl}fjvm) even before he. a visible anomaly.8). It may also be true that it was precisely because physicians validated the meaning of dreams as medical that so many dreams seemed to dreamers to be about the body. he becomes suspicious and vomits. just as the twentieth century saw an enormous investment of cultural imagination in the idea that our secrets about our neuroses lie in our dreams. while still worrying that he has not vomited enough and that there are other. or an invasive act-that is.go BROOKE HOLMES Concern about the hidden life of the body is fostered by the rise and dissemination of naturalizing medicine. but learns from the prophet Corns that they are poisonous. who suffered from syphilis.~ 'to :7tQaO'frEv oQcPTJv 'tu xu'tw 'tfj~ XOLA. . as in the cult of Asclepius more generally in the imperial period.28).LU~ u'tO:7tW'tEQOV ()LUXELl-tEVU. XLVII. Thus at one point. in the dream. he bends forward and sees that the lower part of his stomach is in a rather strange state (:7tQOXEX:UqJW~ be Ei.6). the popularity of diagnostic dreams in antiquity may suggest a similar cultural investment in the idea that the secrets of our suffering bodies lie in our dreams. Aristides is offered figs. access to the hidden life of the body-typically imagined along the very broad lines of the body described by humoral medicine-remains central to the Hieroi Logoi. he would turn on his side. unidentified poisonous figs as important as the past-future opposition.7). Sitting in a warm bath. 260).feels violated (Or. Dreams help the patient see into his or her body by creating contexts through which its experiences and states become visible. some assailing me at one time. 251. at least dimly.. Dreaming of the trapped bone. And just as Helen remembers cutting through Odysseus's disguise. where the 'I' is both actor and spectator. is always beset by danger that 'each of our days as well as our nights has a story' (Or. KUt O:rtm:E U:rtUMUYELTl 'tL'. ot mixvol VUK'tO'. ~(Juv. XLVIII. by situating embodied experience within a thicket of symbols.EsupuQ!!uxu) to counter the threats that he is constantly facing. although he suspects that some vomiting might be in order. Yet the dreams must almost always be interpreted. or rather something. the dreams also show Aristides the remedies (UA. he sets out by announcing that he wants to talk about his abdomen (vliv bE w~ EOXEV 'to 'toli ~'tQO'lJ bTJA. EKUO'tU 'tOU'tlOV UAESLqJUQIlUKU nEL :rtuQu 'to'ii itEO'ii KUt :rtUQulluitLm :rtuV'toLm KUt EQYCP KUt Mycp ('For the god signified many other things in the course of snatching me away from the threats always besetting me. 25). which came thickly every day and every night. the web of relationships and events in which the lived body is invisibly and treacherously embedded. and manifold consolations both in word and in deed'.wam :7tQo~ iJ!!a~ ~o'liA. the fig dream prescribes vomiting or fasting.o!!m.. and whenever one was freed from them. For each of these things antidotes came from the god. else. he is reporting in the Hieroi Logoi on the troubles of someone. Knowledge confers power: once dreams are interpreted. they lead Aristides to the appropriate therapeutic response. ' (Perkins 1992. some at another. XLVII. then. albeit through the medium of the dream.. Indeed. 20 'For Aristides. .54). 1995.. Like Helen remembering the toils of Odysseus. like Odysseus.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY (Or. ol UU'tOL. uv'tLAUIl~UVOV'tE'. XLVII. The message of the dream. Aristides recalls how he deciphered the mysterious suffering of the abdomen. and sometimes the same ones resurging. Here. Aristides' sense of distance from that self becomes the condition of his understanding of it. for example. we begin to glimpse how the splitting of the self in the dream can counteract the alienation from the body most visibly realized in disease. Or. others attacking in turn. With the transformation of the embodied self into a theatrical player within a dream. Moreover.. 178)." By determining how to act 19 :rtOAAU IlEV YUQ KUt UAAU E:rtEotiIlTlVEV 0 itEO'. KUt ~IlEQU'. E'tEQOL' KUt :rtQo.4). unlocks the mysteries of embodiment by bringing to light. id. although he is ostensibly narrating his own epic adventures.3). EK 'tillv EqJEO'tT]Km:lOV UIEt KLVMvlOV ESUQ:rtU~lOV. Or. 'to'tE /)E E:rtUVLOV'tE'. is to fast. EKUO'tTl'. then. UMO'tE UMOL :rtQO(J~UMOV'tE'. dreams were basically staging areas for physical treatments. carries with it a sense of bloodletting. Aristides thinks when he wakes up. XLVII." It is precisely because the body. The dream. ." These companions. XLVIII. how the substitution of a divine sign for a bodily one complicates Aristides' access to the truth about his body and the translation of that truth into the Hieroi Logoi. the information that dreams provide Aristides about his body's condition. For one thing. it is an unnamed person who has to tell him that there is no need to guard against bathing. who persuaded him to adopt their own misguided explanations of the dreams. also establish his authority as the narrator of the Hieroi Logoi.22). Or.. because the aition of On the interpretation of Asclepian dreams through puns and wordplay. he is the one 'trained in divine visions' (YEY'u!J. gains control over it.BROOKE HOLMES on the sick body. XLVII. is mediated by divine signs that themselves require interpretation. yet they are also objects of interpretation. after all. 183-185.Evo~ . where Aristides observes the strange state of his abdomen. see Oberhehnan Ig8I. come from a place as foreign as the disease itself In the warm bath dream. His capacity to perform this role is directly created by the shift from symptoms to dreams: Aristides alone. in fact. Aristides regularly asserts his unique ability to uncover oneiric meaning. verbal and visual imagery.vua!J. are not unlike physicians. 21 The scene and language are Odyssean. Let us consider. Or. Aristides believes he could have expelled his disease entirely (nuauv E. Dreams andobscurity Aristides' dreams grant meaning to the sick body. unlike the physician's. Aristides. Yet the 'evil council' episode also reminds us that Aristides' decipherment of a mysterious body. see Nicosia Ig88.. as Artemidorus's dream book makes clear. Although practices of dream interpretation were codified. not unlike his contemporaries committed to elaborate regimens of self-care underwritten by physicians. What this means is that his situation is even more complex than Helen's. then.E~UAOV 'tT]V vooov. and indeed the dreams themselves. whereas Helen relies on her own intuition in the (direct) encounter with Odysseus. These skills. and analogy. and although Artemidorus makes a point of stressing how easy divine prescriptive dreams are to decipher (IY. and their failure of understanding reconfirms Aristides' identity as the expert interpreter of his own body. on Aristides' interpretations of his own dreams. it is worth noting. At one point.38).72) had he not been led astray by the 'evil council' of his companions. as competitive interpreters of Aristides' suffering (via the dreams). recalling the episode in Book 10 where the companions open Aeolus's bag of winds. has the claim to autopsy. EV 'frEim~ (>-tlmOLv. E:7tEL'ta 'Katl-Ei:VaL 'tOV ()U'K't1JAOV ofJ'twot !-LEXQL 'tOii AaL!-Loii 'KaL 'tL EYXEaL 'Ka'ta ()TJ rwc E:7tLXWQLOV VO!-LOV. Etiological clues and treatment prescriptions are delivered by an 'attending someone' ('tLi. OVO!-LUOaL ()E au'to O~1JaL'tLav' 'taii'ta ()E umEQov oo~ ovaQ ()LT)YELattaL 'Kat 'tOu~ a'Kouov'ta~ tta1J!-LU~ELV xat MYELV oo~ aQa 'toii'to a'i:'tLOV ELT) 'tOii ()L'ljJfjV !-LEV.ovtu).EottaL 'Kat ()LU'KOVOV Eva :7taQamTJoaattaL 'to 'tTJ!-LEQov ELVaL. The 'tL~ :n:UQIDV is first mentioned at Or. we are led to see the origins of the disease as external to Aristides. the reader of the Hieroi Logoi has the impression of a strange symbiosis between the invasive object and the divine message. there is litde question that a drama of salvation requires the continual breach of the body's defenses. on the one hand. Or. !-LT] MvaattaL M :7tLELV. I do not mean to imply that Asclepius is somehow responsible for the disease. seeJones 1987. was the cause of my thirst. 't<p 'tQE:7tEattaL E~ o~o~ 'ta ortlc.g.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 93 his problems has nothing to do with bathing. XLVII.3· IL.." Given that the dreams arrive from a place outside of Aristides and given.22 Yet rather than doing so. and my inability to drink. (Or. Aristides imagines that some barbarians gain control over him. XLVII. that they are populated with shadowy informants.. and the barbarian ordered me to abstain from bathing and that today I produce one witness to this.2000. 23 See also e. too. and he called this 'oxusitia'..27)-of stay22 For the translation of lTt[~w as 'to tattoo' (rather than 'to brand'). "indigestion" or "foodturning-sour.I1.he put his finger all the way into my throat and poured in something according to a kind of local custom. and Aristides has been accused (or celebrated) more than once-including by his contemporaries (Or. :ltugwv) with a better grasp of what has happened than Aristides himself. Admittedly." as the later gloss shows-is of equally foreign provenance. XLVII. one of them approaches and makes as though he is going to tattoo him (M. No bathing and vomiting with relie£ Confronted with both the barbarian and his invasive gesture. In another remarkable dream. then. Later on [I dreamed] that I narrated these things as a dream and the listeners were amazed and said that this.uv :ltUgUOXELV Wi. it is the barbarian who delivers the presumably godsanctioned command to abstain from bathing. namely that my food was turning sour. on the other.S6. E'K ()T] 'tOu't01J E!-LE'tO~ re E()EL'KV1J'tO 'Kat :7tQooE'ta~Ev 0 ~uQ~aQo~ A01J'tQoii rs a:7toO)(. L. aA01JOLa 'Kat E!-LE'tO~ !-LE'ta QgmwvT)~. id. . In fact. Or. mi. From this [dream] vomiting was indicated. More interesting is the fact that the diagnosis-oxusitia.g) . . Quet 1993." What I want to stress here. 46. neither self in the split-self divide offers much familiarity. And unlike Helen. 239). there is always more that the stranger who magically appears beside him can tell him. the mysterious knowing stranger is instrumental not only in the initial interpretation 24 Festugiere 1954. 27. 55-56.g. we cannot reliably identify the 'attending someone' ('ttl. 40. 243. Unlike Odysseus in Helen's story. Or. although Aristides claims an authoritative position of knowledge about his body vis-a-vis other experts (physicians. As a result. 84. Yet even when he is defined as a knower.94 BROOKE HOLMES ing sick for the benefits that sickness brings. Aristides' metis depends on a muse. Gourevitch 1984. grasping the hidden experiences or condition of the body requires opening up channels of knowledge as mysterious as the passages through which the disease first entered. which eventually becomes the text of the Hieroi Logoi.86. XLVII. is complicated by a more traditional epic model in which the access to knowledge is partial. like Helen. 26 E. This knowledge is acquired indirectly within the theatrical space of the dream rather than directly rendering the lived body transparent or legible. That is. The idea of a stranger who knows more about the mysterious body than Aristides himself means that Aristides' identification with Helen. that position is always unstable on account of the gap that remains between what he knows and what the god knows. Thus." Whatever Aristides might see of the abdomen. has its origins in a space as estranged from Aristides as the disease itself 25 That is. By using dreams to decipher his suffering. Andersson and Roos 1997. who tells Helen all the purposes of the Achaeans (Od.7. Brown 1978. Behr 1968. Moments of confident interpretation are interspersed with moments of doubt (should I bathe? should I eati'). 58-59· Cf. if Aristides acquires knowledge neither intuitively nor.50-51. :n:ugwv) mentioned in the prologue who might be able to record what happened or relate the providence of the god. is simply that the story of Aristides' suffering. companions). redefines his sense of distance from the body to turn it into an object of knowledge. whose authority to tell her story is rooted in experience. In fact.41. 4. Aristides. but through his relationship to the divine Other. the body is never fully denuded of its secrets.256). Aristides is not fully at home. 37· 25 Note that hieroi logoi are marked 'as spoken or written manifestations of "the Other'" (Henrichs 2003. through his own mitis. Reardon 1973. however. as we have seen. The discovery of a piece of writing that confirms the truth of a story is a topes (Festugiere 1960.I. given that Aristides began composing the tales late in life. Yet they do imply that the dreams are part of a grand narrative of Aristides' life that unfolds under the sign of the god. Or. L. To the extent that the written things that Aristides discovers often express divine truth. 124-126). Or. see Henrichs 2003. II55-II63).50) its author. by the challenge of understanding the body through the filter of the dream. 385-386.28 It is unclear whether these discovered texts are anterior to the dream. XLVII. authority. See King 1999 on Aristides and the difficulty of writing about chronic pain. His task is simply to make this knowledge public. often sacred. XLVII.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 95 of symptoms but also in the composition of the story they generate. Yet the writing of the Hieroi Logoi is troubled at the outset. we learn that in writing the Hieroi Logoi.Lq>. on another occasion. As Aristides tells his foster father Zosimus within a dream. insofar as Aristides' past is itself a kind of alien wisdom. thereby functioning as a kind of script. see Pearcy 1988.4. The incompleteness of Aristides' knowledge comes into relief against a master text whose existence is implied by the bits and pieces of other writing that appear in the dreams and elsewhere. a MyeLv eMxo'Uv ovuQ. even before the loss of the archive.45. . L. av 0 {}Eoi.24. Aristides relied on Asclepius's assistance. II). XLVIII. 'Look! The things I dreamed that the dream said I discover written in a book' ({tEuaaL. it was patchy to begin with (Or. 1-4). he needs Asclepius as a muse: the Hieroi Logoi are composed according to 'however the god should lead and move' (8:n:lOi. XLVIII.3Q-31. well after his first doomed trip to Rome in 145 when he was around 26 years old. Or. in which everything that he has been foretold in a dream is written in detail (Or. with Pearcy 1988. ei'QLaxw yeYQUl-tl-tEVU ev 'tqJ ~L~A. Or. LI. he can remember but a fraction of his past woes. IL. Aristides repeatedly draws attention to the problems that plague the composition of the Hieroi Logoi: the magnitude and the number of his sufferings defy calculation and transcription (see above. cf.4. Aristides' difficulties as an autobiographical narrator with epic pretensions stand out as the particular difficulties of someone trying to capture an infinitely 27 On the relationship between the archive and the Hieroi Logoi. the archive that contained the decades of notes has been scattered and lost. 28 See also Or. they model the faithful record of events that the Hieroi Logoi should be. L. since his body had long forgotten its pains and his original records of the dreams were lacunose or had been 10stY So the knowledge for the text in our hands also originates outside ofAristides. am re Kat KLVfj. Or. indeed. n. Or. Thus.78). 2). On the association of writing with special. in the early 170S (see Behr 1994. and his body has constantly interfered with the composition of its history (Or.69). he finds a letter. In the preface of the second tale. 249. XLVIII. XLVIII. . And there seemed to be a good deal of intestine. just as on the entrails of sacrificial animals. LI. appear to be diseased. accordingly. XaL O'tL ~ <PLAOU!J. a body for a body. in this case the attendant simply points to where Philumene's story is already inscribed (eY'{EYQa!J. Philumene's dreamed body thus takes over the role of Aristides' own dreamed body in attracting signs 29 See also Or. then.a UV'tL O(b!J. The signs all indicate that Philumene had dedicated her body for his and a soul for a soul. 'Aelius Aristides'.55.!J. 'ta au'tii~ UV'tL'tWV E!J. As in hieroscopy.EVT] '\jJUxi]v UV'tL '\jJUxii~ XaL mU!J. The girl thus resembles. spaced apart. just like Aristides' lower abdomen in the warm bath dream.EVa. 387-389).WV. (Or. LOU :7tEQL au'tilv :7tQaY!J. Yet whereas Aristides had required the 'attending someone' to explain why his entrails are diseased. L. which turns out to be the meaning of Aristides' disease and his survival. her story for the future of his. It is true that she is cast as Aristides' surrogate. For indeed I was asking him. Gourevitch places the substitution narratives in the context of contemporary perspectives on Antinous' death (1984. as well other things announcing salvation and that Philumene had given a soul in exchange for a soul. XLVIII. The upper parts were healthy and in good condition. another example of the life-for-a-life logic. 77-78). and at the same time somehow I was looking at it. . These episodes have understandably attracted attention and are often interpreted as an unsavory sign of Aristides' megalomania or his psychological instability. were different naming marks. Yet the two also differ from one another in that Philumene's body is literally inscribed with the meaning of her disease and her death.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 97 au'ta OW'tT]QLaV E:7tayyEAAO!J. with nn. The girl's innards. it is his own name that he finds inscribed into (evEYEYQa:7tLO) his foster daughter's body. is the cause of my troubles and difficulty'? And he pointed out that place. and nearby. whoever he was. Pearcy likened Philumene's innards to Aristides' own diseased body (1988.).Evou :7taVLOi." In his pioneering reading of this episode.a'to~ UV'tEc'\WXEV. The oracles went something like this: nry name had been inscribed in this way. as Aristides says outright. 'what. The question posed is about Aristides' pains. 23) But the main point was that the whole affair concerning Philumene had been inscribed on her very body and on her innards. the matter written on Philumene's entrails turns out to be more about Aristides than about her.44. the sacrificial animal whose entrails Aristides had examined in the first dream.a'toi. 'Sosimenes' had been written as well. hers in place of mine. but at the end was a diseased part. And this was all pointed out by the one standing nearby. on the one hand. Philumene's fate and Telesphorus's ring suggest a relationship between inscription. XLVIII.98 BROOKE HOLMES that make the difficulties of the lived body comprehensible.27).tVeLV imEg ow'tT]gLa~ "COu :7tav'to~. A similar. gains new life. memory. Asclepius remits this demand and allows Aristides to substitute his ring (6mt'tvA. The fixed nature of the inscription is overdetermined as a signifier of the irreversibility of death. namely the gift of a life for a life. however.LO~) for his finger (Mx't'lJA. Or. counter-intuitive. Aristides cheats death. like the Philumene story.ta'to~ av'tou :7taga'tEf. and specifically her conversion into a text. we can see how the association of inscription with death might make sense in such a context. and cuts off a part of his body for the sake of the wellbeing of the whole (6eLv 6E xat 'tou oWf. On reflection. The fate may be averted if he completes a series of sacrifices. etymologies of Asclepius's name in Homeric scholia offer 30 Compare Or. and death in Aristides' imagination. As a result of her gift her foster father understands (albeit in a limited sense) his own trouble and. given the fundamentally important role of commemorative tablets and votives in the healing events that take place in the cults of Asclepius and other healing gods. points to the desire to protect the body from writing. at first glance. expresses her monumental act of substitution in the waking world. For it is precisely the body's conversion into a textual surface that appears to preclude its regeneration. Philumene also assumes Aristides' death. Such performances may be seen to persuade the gods that the demand has been satisfied: see Taussig 1993. releasing him from the story that is for her both the first and final sacred tale. The Telesphorus episode. Philumene's body offers a site where Aristides' story and Asclepius's saving grace may be both staged (as in the dream) and recorded (as in the archive and the Hieroi Logoz). Lrr (a dusting stands in for actual burial). less disturbing substitution that nevertheless also involves an act of inscription is found in an episode where Aristides learns in a dream that he will die in two days. Such a relationship may seem. XLVIII. most importantly. Fortunately. By assuming both the disease and the written word.30 By inscribing (E:7tLygu'ljJm) this ring with the words '0 son of Cronus' and dedicating it to Telesphorus. However speculative.O~). For it is as if Philumene's serving as a site of interpretation in the dream. .13-14 (the enactment of a shipwreck averts a real one). makes an offering of coins. but with a twist. and the promise to remember divine benefaction. Or. on the other. The problem faced by Asclepius. in healing cults. a 68=T26g. with Vermeule 1979. everything turns to bone. rigid'. Gods like Apollo or Hecate or Aphrodite might break into the mortal world via symptoms." For a god whose work lies in restoring to life. 33 Thus Aristotle reported-although he is not necessarily to be trusted-that Thales based his idea that the primary element of the world is water on the fact that the nurture (trophC) of all things was moist and that coming-to-be required the moist (Metaph. 98. Disease could also be represented in medicine. suggests.T]QOl. the site of his power is uniquely resistant to manifesting that work in any lasting way. Scholiasts commonly took the name to be the combination of the adjective <J'X. Hes. 270-276. however. Phys. 0 aXEAE'to~ 0 xa'teaXAT]XW~ <'lui 'tT]V aaaQxLav. op. 34 Ephemeral events such as sacrifices or.177. 121. id. 'AaXAT]:ltLO~ xa'ta. as the liquefaction and disarticulation of the body. Also the skeleton is that which is dried up through lack of flesh. 8386. Every god needs poetry and myth to keep their deeds visible in cosmic memory. however. O'tEQT]OLV !-tE'ta. Edelstein and Edelstein) Dried up means what is too harsh. 983b6). the nocturnal encounter with the healing god. Porphyry's account is paradigmatic:" 'to aaxEM~ O'T)!-taLvEL 'to a. an elaboration in materialist terms of the archaic concepts of 'limb-loosening' (A1J(JLI-LEA~I. in death. together with the word for gentleness. On the snake and the renewal oflife. 145.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 99 a useful point of orientation. is not simply the ephemerality of action and event.3. See e." Asclepius is a god of suppleness. For aXEMELV means to make harsh. and the alpha-privative. as the god of healing. however. see T70I. Archil. were often represented on votive offerings (van Straten 1981. 1992. capable of shedding its skin. Theophrastus conjectures that Thales privileged water as the principle of life after seeing that corpses dry up (Theophr.A. 31 32 . The very suppleness guarded by Asclepius. ~:ltLo'tT]'to~.) eras and death. he who by the agency of the medical art does not permit dryness. II8 0N). and the name Asklepios comes from this word with an alpha privative. fro I=DKII A 13). can index divine benevolence. Asclepius erases them from the body. makes the protection of memory a crucial question.yav aXAT]Qov. 703-706. 256-257). (Homeric Qyestions. Sapph. 'hard.. 1.g. Asclepius opposes the hardening and withering brought on by disease and death. xal. 0 <'lui 'tfj~ La'tQLxfj~ !-tT] Miv axEMwltm. that is. we find the idea oflife as something aqueous. Whereas health. aXEAAELV YUQ EO'tL 'to aXAT]QO:ltOLELV. like beauty. 137 (LP). as the symbol of the snake. Asclepius restores to life." In our earliest Greek poetry and philosophical speculation. the stated rationale being that. xal. labile. in fact. Th. nothing in it signifies See also T267---268. As a surge of recent scholarship has shown. 36 Compare the representation of the martyr's wounds as 'God's writing' at Prud. Steiner 1994. it is possible to see it as a promising sign for Aristides' eventual recovery of health. Peri. Yet it is precisely the before-and-after that is important to Asclepius: the very absence of the mark on the healed body belies its history of sickness and the intervention of the god. 306. The mutilated body could also be read in such terms (Gleason 2001. 306. Burrus 2003. Shaw 1996. Pi. a valorization that departs sharply from Greco-Roman ideas about the corporeal mark. Macr. Gregory of Nyssa. For the interpretation of that scar takes place against the backdrop of Christianity's valorization of the scarred. 3.a~ 'tWV oa1J'tO'u. 'tWV b' 'EM~VWV 'tOiJ~ EV'tL!-lO'tU- . Dem. replaced a painful sore that had appeared on the saint's breast after she had prayed for healing. 31. 154-159. narrowing one's identity to whatever was imprinted on the skin and locking that identity against the passage of time.100 BROOKE HOLMES its own history. Against Androtion 55. 10. Leg. not death. The difference between Macrina's scar and the Asclepian tabula rasa would seem to reflect a historical shift. throughout Greco-Roman antiquity a mark such as the tattoo cued subjection to a master. Aristides himself uses lTt[~w in the metaphorical sense of 'to defame'. and inscribed body in the first centuries CE. 854d. we learn that the scar. Through 35 See Frank 2000 and Burrus 2003 for discussion of Macrina's scar. 37 duBois 1991. 38 For this argument in classical Athens. but the renewal of life under the aegis of divine power.5-7). 404-408. which Frank reads as an allusion to Odysseus' famous OUA~ and a site for fixing Macrina's 'shifting identities' (s29)." Through Macrina's nurse. see e. Macrina wears the memory of this renewal on her own person.cited by Shaw 1996. then. We can contrast to the tabula rasa created by Asclepius's healing the almost imperceptible scar discovered postmortem on the body of the saint Macrina by her brother and the author of her fourth-century CE Vita." If we read Aristides' avoidance of the tattoo in the dream with the barbarians in this context. likened by Gregory to a mark (O'tLY!1U) made by a small needle. although cf Edwards 1999. The scar is identified as a sign (OT]!1ELov) and commemoration (!1VT]!1oo'Uvov) of God's removal of the pathos (V.135. on the valorization of Scaevola's scarred body in Seneca's letters. 7g-80). 'to abuse' (xat 'tWV !-lEV OtXE'tWV oMEva 1tll:I11:m:' ElTtL!. wounded.36 The mark signals.]ones 2000." The tattoo can thus be seen as concretizing the surplus of power that licensed the more general use and abuse of bodies deemed subhuman by masters and governments and effectively canceled the individual's claims to self-determination.g. lU%'tO<. . op.g. 27Q--272. aYOlvL~OJ. op. the integrity of the citizen or elite body.1 126 (E%EAE'lJOEV llE %ut avuYQll1jJaL 'tuum)=T432. Miniature molded body parts have been found as early as Minoan Age Crete. tc. cit.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY WI the spectacular performances of the early martyrs. see also Gustafson 1997.64. Lang 1977. 17-18=T43g-440. Asclepius's need for a site of commemoration independent of the primary site of his power offers one explanation for why he so often issues directives to create a record when dispensing cures. particularly the cult of Asclepius.. Gleason 1999. 305.lU%'to<.' Or." For most Greeks and Romans. nos.lEVO'lJ<. %u'tUJ. and criminals. I05-151. op. EAE'lJ{}EQla<. 41 Van Straten 1981. barbarians. in the fourth century BCE. Christians reclaimed the marked and tortured body as a site for the resistance to Roman power while at the same time investing the concept of subjection to a higher power with new meaning... A representative corpus of inscriptions can be found in the testimonia gathered in Edelstein and Edelstein 1945 (e. 43g-441). LiDonnici. IOQ-I04. cit. For an overview of the anatomical votives found in healing sites across the Greek-speaking world. they are widely seen as some kind of a dedication to gods with healing capacities (van Straten 1981. IG IV2. ~d you never tattooed any of your servants. van Straten 1981. 78-79. Religious tattooing had long been common among other peoples (Gustafson. it is incompatible with the mark.'? Ancient reports and archaeological evidence indicate that sanctuaries of Asclepius overflowed with inscriptions and votive offerings. van Straten 1992. IG2 II 1534.65. 432. esp. and they remain in use to this day in Greece. Shaw 1996. 98-I01. %OLVfj<. On the changing meaning of the marked and tortured body." Anatomical ex-votosboth molded forms and body parts executed in repoussee relief ('tu:itOL eYf-lUx:tOL. If Asclepian healing is to restore this integrity. In speaking of a 'new meaning'.Jones 2000. 9-IO).651. 'tuJto<. 42 'tuJto<. . 21Q-216. see Rouse 1902." By doubling body parts in durable materials-recall the substitution of Aristides' ring for his finger-these votives commemorate 'to'lJ<. 39 See esp.. but you have done as much as tattoo those who were the most honored of the Greeks and who fought on behalf of their common freedom .U<. I refer to Christianity's interaction with classical Greco-Roman culture. T428. 67. cit. 14-19 (votives from Corinth).. however. 198-202). I. op. i. Lou %ut Q'tL!. 111. EyJ. 41-47. the catalogue on pp.. xu'tUf-lux'tOL)-have been discovered in healing sanctuaries throughout the Greek world.e. 208-226. IG IV2. On other dedications to healing gods. %ut 'tOiJ<. Georgoulaki 1997. corporeal inscription was strongly associated from at least the fifth century BCE with slaves. particularly from the fourth century BCE onwards. 40 See e. see Rouse. 41. cit. fm:EQ 'tfj<. xvii. Georgoulaki. 9B---99.g. 2--6). yEYEV1]OaL. groups lacking in the corporeal integrity necessary for self-mastery and the mastery of others. IG2 II 1534. Anatomical votives begin to appear again in quantity with the rise of healing cults. LiDonnici 1995. Although their function has been disputed..1 122 XXV=T423. 146. cited inJones 2000. me. although he is happy to see such substitution as part of a later mentality (citing Or. a secondcentury CE papyrus fragment in praise oflmouthes-Asclepius. from time to time renewingits youth in memory. KUV 'tOTe. Or. ovolLU ~lLliiv EOOILEVOV. XLII. 46 On the Hieroi liJgoi as a votive. while a written record is an undying meed of gratitude.." Their suitability for memorializing lies precisely in their resistance to change. EltELI\~ yE uEvaoUe. l\KEOlllV O)(PEAEV Eu. since the god had called my speeches "everlasting" (me. see also van Straten 1981. / dT]ILOIILKT]e. Thus. Myoue. and presently perishes. Or. l\OKAT]ltLE.) into a safeguard against Asclepius's forgetfulness: 'to XQEOe. see Aristid.g. / YLVWOKELV.Eo{}aL ILUQ'tUQLT]V 0 ltLVU.102 BROOKE HOLMES survival. the preface of which bears remarkable similarities to the Hieroi Logoi. 236-238." Indeed.. 'as our name would live even among future men. ix Igl-lg8=T331) thi!1u'W~ Ti [fr]uoLu~ For every gift of a votive offering or sacrifice lasts only for the immediate moment. 21<F-2II. asserting that the votives played no role. L." [nu]ou YUQ [a]vub[OO]QEU 'tOY nUQuu't[L]KU !1[6]v[0]v aK!1a~EL KU [LQ] 6v. (P. these stories are not lost by disappearing from the body'" Nor is the body compelled to remember them by becoming arrested in time. An epigram of Callimachus playfully turns the votive tablet (ltLVU..7. 'tOile. XLVIII. as Rynearson 2003 argues. that thou hast received the debt which Aceson . On the votive as a 1Lvi'ilLu. ijv II' c'iQu M{tn [ltaAL] KUL ILLV UltaL'tfje.27). see van Straten 1981. Phdr. ('Know. in 'mystical substitution'. see Edelstein and Edelstein 1945II. UO'tEQOV uvf}QOJltOLe.aILEVOe. The success of such substitutions may have been related to a concept of the body as a collection of parts that could be exchanged. C£ Rouse 1902. 277d. may have also been thought to enable it. Col. Georgoulaki 1997. 0 {tEOe. 44 Pi. / qJT]OL ltUQE. The inscription inspires him to persist with his rhetorical career.45-47 where he inscribes a dedication with a couplet that comes to him in a dream. E'tUXEV ltQOOELQT]KWe.). 252.with Derrida 1980. see Quet 1993. Fixity is also.76-77. because inscriptions and texts stand 43 For the dedication of anatomical ex-votos in the hope of a cure. O:ry XI. 45 On the diffusion of the cult of Asclepius Imouthes in Egypt. while placing votives on the side of (ephemeral) sacrifice. YQUqJi] M aMvu'W~ xaQ[L]~ KU'to. 1381. Aristides' archive and the Hieroi Logoi similarly ensure that if each day and each night has a story. 72-74. Asclepius. Aristides accepts the topos of writing and immortality: see e. lOS. KaLQOV aVT]~aoK[o]uOU 'ti][v] !1VT]!1T]V. UltEXELe. of course.. at least in the early centuries of the cult. 194. an attribute of writing. 275c. heralds writing as the most suitable medium for committing Asclepius's deeds to memory. like Aristides' ring. 'to ltQo YUVaLKOe. EqJl'tUQ'tal bE 'tOY !1EMOV'tU. 41). suggests that the association between disease. 55=T522). see also e. But Echedorus fails to deliver the money. Compare the similar pattern of transgression and punishment in the form of disease in propitiatory inscriptions found in second and third-century CE Phrygia and Lydia. Some anatomical ex-votos are directly inscribed. the quizzical Asclepius responds by fastening the old headband of Pandarus around the lying suppliant's marks. thereby becoming the memory of the marks' erasure. Pandarus finds that his face is clean of the marks. then. 26 n. instructing him to remove it in the morning and dedicate it as an offering. however. the cult's emphasis was primarily on cure. The votive commemoration is erased. the patient can be recreated as a tabula rasa without the memory of Asclepius's deeds being erased. the tablet says it will bear witness'. VIII=T423. quite literally assumes the disease-letters as part of the patient's release." Pandarus arrives at Epidaurus bearing tattoos (O'tLY!1U'tU) on his forehead. V. rather than on blame and expiation. owed thee by his vow for his wife Demodice. at the moment that the god applies signs to the body's surface. 26 reads the two episodes as parts of a single story.t" The disease-inscription nexus is confirmed in the second part of the stOry.49 Pandarus gives money to one Echedorus to dedicate to Asclepius. he finds that both sets of letters are inscribed on his forehead. The case of Pandarus. which now bears the letters (YQ<l!1!1u'tu) that once appeared on his forehead. 50 For the punishment motif. Note that 30. IG IV2. . analyzed in Chaniotis 1995. 9 and 40 n. In a dream vision.1 121 Iv. and goes on to lie about it in a dream. On the whole.4.1 121 VI=T423' 48 The anatomical ex-votos themselves. only rarely represent diseased body parts (Aleshire 1989." Echedorus's discovery the following morning reverses his predecessor's: taking off the headband. others lacking inscriptions may have been placed on inscribed pedestals (van Straten 1992. he dedicates the band. whose aid Echedorus is seeking in the removal of his own tattoos. 3. and commemoration may have been part of the imaginative world of the Asclepius cult from an early point. hypothesizing that the Pandarus element was a votive inscription to which a priest may have added the Echedorus component. The votive. 49 LiDonnici 1995. 47 IG IV2. Epigr. 30.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY still. while the band itself is clean. with the comments of LiDonnici 1995. But if thou dost forget and demand payment again.g. corporeal inscription.5 in van Straten's catalogue are drawn from the problematic Meyer-Steineg collection. then. found in the third-century BeE Epidaurian miracle tablets. 24g-250). Call. the god wraps a band (or fillet) around the marks. I thank Christopher Jones for drawing my attention to this point. Upon removing the band. however. 47. And this Aristides does for four months.63). although the motifs gather new associations. Aristides finds that his knee does indeed have a small wound. XLVII. for example. Even cases where Aristides does actively engage the concept of the divine mark end up confirming his larger commitment to the body's capacity for renewal.tL{i~ QlUVEQ{i~. however. Aristides 51 Kee 1982 argues for a historical shift within the cult of Asclepius between the period of the Epidaurian inscriptions and the Hieroi Logoi. The flourishing of his talents suggests that the presence of a localized disease gives rise to a more general katharsis. and Aristides has the idea in his dream to tell Theodotus 'that you yourself made it a wound'.I3). Naturally. 52 See also Or. as in the bruising episode. Aristides dreams that a bull bruises him on the knee (Or. XLVII. where Sarapis appears in a dream with a lancet and shaves around the face. 'as if removing and purging defilement and changing it to its proper state' (olov AVl1a't' (upaLQoov xat xa{}aLQOlv xat l1E1:a[3uAAOlv Et~ 'to 1tQoai'jxov).104 BROOKE HOLMES The tension between fixed memorials and corporeal renewal that I have been describing would have always been available to cult devotees for thematic elaboration. as is true of so many of his diseases. Rather than causing trouble. Yet they persist with their advice to Aristides. approaches and cleans (aVExattUQEV) the bruise with a lancet of some kind. Early in the first book of the Hieroi Logoi. however. quite contrary to the advice of his human doctors. the god commands him to endure it-indeed. . Again. Aristides reports that a tumor suddenly appeared on his groin from no obvious source (an' aQxij~ oMEf.62). the cut disappears after the katharsis is completed. he is to nourish it ('tQEQlELV 'tOV oyxov. In the end. Or. The tumor brings with it an incredible burst of creativity that leads Aristides to declaim from his sickbed. rather than fulfilling a single role. the success of the drug in deflating the tumor causes the doctors to marvel at the god's pronoia. however. IL. suggesting that he allow them to cut away the loose skin left by the tumor. Or. A longer-lived and more spectacular corporeal mark appears at the end of the first book." Upon waking. Nevertheless. it seems to be beneficial for his upper body. His most trusted physician. what Aristides chooses to stress in the story is the dramatic reversion of the marked body to unblemished surface at the point when Asclepius makes clear to him that the time has come to expel the tumor with 'some drug'. Yet it is the relationship to the god that changes in his analysis: Asclepius becomes more central to people's lives. Theodotus. The basic imaginary of the cult remains quite stable." In Aristides' ceuvre it becomes a major theme. XLVII. Rather than telling Aristides to excise the tumor. no one was able to discover on which thigh the tumor had been. I close by briefly looking at Aristides' commitment to endless regeneration in light of both the incompatibility between the mark or sign and the body and the ways in which Aristides controls and circumscribes the public representation of his embodied experience. u"A"A' T]O'tTJV Ul-tqJO'tEQW xu'fruQw 'toL\. 375 for a reading of the tumor episode consistent with the one I offer here. 53 See Pernot 2002. the representation of disease as something foreign was counterbalanced by the belief that disease was a process by which constituent elements within the body grew dangerously powerful. cf Or. 'to uQxuLov. 'tau'tov. Or. a:n:umv. but both were entirely unscathed (pure. for example. The result of this godsent remedy is the disappearance of every last trace of the tumor. Although the elimination of a materia peccans played a key role in medical concepts of disease from the fifth century BeE onwards. 'so that after a few days had passed.53 The disappearance of the tumor dramatically demonstrates Asclepius's ability to return the body 'to its former state' (El\. 2-II for the overlap of these concepts in Greek explanations of disease. 54 Indeed. 55 See. who has ordered him to smear egg on the skin. erasure turns out to be closely related to a concept of regeneration that seems to deny the passage of time so central to the archive and narration more generally. Aristides. IL. forgetting. Lethe and katharsis The concept of being remade in the wake of illness runs as an undercurrent throughout the Hieroi Logoi.68." Moreover.47). we have seen.AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY perceives his physicians' strategy as divergent from that communicated to him by the god. OLO\.68). XLVII. Galen's arguments against Erasistratus's concept of causality . See also Niebyl 1969. r' ~v EVQELv EV O:n:O'tEQq> I-tTJQq> 'to qJ'ul-tu EXELVO EyEVE'tO. see von Staden 2007. For the medical idea of katharsis in the classical period. Throughout Aristides' writings. XLVII. a washing away. Or. and he ignores them.67) and to make everything the same as it once was (O'Uvi)YUYEV :n:av'ta el\. clean)' (WO'tE OALywv ~I-tEQWV :n:UQEA:frO'Uowv oMel\. the idea that disease developed inside an individual body could be used to buttress the 'care of the self' as an ethical imperative. 54 The classic account of 'ontological' versus 'physiological' concepts of disease is Temkin 1963. Health is an absence of scars. often casts the causes of his suffering as foreign elements that have breached the boundaries of the body. Or. XLVII. 6-16 on resistance to 'ontological' concepts of disease on ethical grounds in the Greco-Roman period. Indeed.. see Niebyl 1969. resists attempts to locate his symptoms within secular frameworks of interpretation. in his evacuation of the inner body. as we have seen.7!.I87-196 (142. he orders him to stop immediately. 56 Asclepius does.5 Hankinson) and Nutton 1983. XLVIII.73.is distinctively his own.g. In medicine. 60 Perkins (1992. In both cases.8.28). 18g-192) draws the comparison between the martyr and Aristides. 59 C£ Or.4. 300 ('the discourse in which Aristides is engaged . similarities arise from a shared cultural context rather than any direct claims of influence.106 BROOKE HOLMES the ethics of self-care eschews the idea of perfect unity: bodies naturally comprise opposed elements whose interaction must always be managed. so that the central imperative of medicine. an idea that bears some similarity to contemporary ideas of martyrdom and resurrection in early Christianity. Or. XLVII.59 Aristides' ability to survive the body's journey to the precipice of a void indicates his privileged relationship to Asclepius. such as considering the strength of the patient when undertaking therapy'" When the noted physician and sophist Satyrus-a teacher of Galen's-hears how many purges of blood Aristides has had. see also Dodds 1965. Indeed. command him to avoid certain foods or activities. XLVII. and is .60 The myth of Asclepius. Aristides. c£ Or. 254. 57 On the importance in imperial-age medicine of establishing the patient's strength before letting blood. He thus implicitly rejects the premise that his suffering is the outcome of practices over which he might be held accountable. The difference is that no dietetics handbook or physician can provide the information Aristides needs: the threats to his health are unpredictable and changeable. lest he overwhelm and destroy his body (Or.ov).3435). 58 Both Aristides and Satyrus accept the effectiveness of venesection but they take different views of it. Yet Aristides seems to think of bloodletting precisely in terms of expelling something foreign (e. as we have seen. 262-266. . C£ Shaw 1996. 'watch out'! (lpUAa!. it is because he can endure the diseased body's destruction that he is granted holistic renewal. 1995." His strategy works in tandem with his representation of disease as invasive and hidden and the corresponding emphasis on cathartic expulsion and rebirth. XLVII. as at Or. XLVII.3-146. Or. rather than aiding in the expulsion of a foreign body (Niebyl 1969). 68-76 (and pp. 42. 26-38 on the origins of the concept in fifth and fourth-century BCE medicine). after in On Antecedent Causes XY.58 Aristides responds that he is not master (%UQLO~) of his own blood and that he will continue to obey the god's directives. bloodletting helps eliminate excess. Aristides was often willing to go to extremes that expressly contradicted basic therapeutic principles of secular medicine. remains in effect. with the notable difference that Aristides wants life after death in this life. 180-181. IL. AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 10 7 all, made clear the dangers involved when philanthropic gods pursue more radical forms of resurrection." In An Address Regarding Asclepius, Aristides casts renewal precisely in the metaphorical terms of primeval creation. a.AM Kat ItEAT] 'tou oWlta'tO~ ahu'i>vtaL 'tLVE~, Kat c'ivbQE~ Myoo Kat Y'uvaLKE~, :n:QOVOL<;,l 'tOU {teou yEvEo'frm mpLOL, 'tWV :n:aQu 'tfj~ qJl"oEOO~ bLmp{taQEvtOOV, Kat Ka'taMyouOLv c'iMo~ c'iAAo n, OL ItEv a.:n:O 0't6Ita'to~ ou'tooot (jJQa.tOvtE~, OL M: EV 'to~ a.va{t~ltaOLV E~T]YO"'ItEVOL' ~ItLV 'tOLVUV OUXt ItEQO~ 'tou oWlta'to~, a.AA' a:n:av 'to ow Ita OUV{tEL~ re Kat OUIt:n:~~a~ au'to~ ebOOKE bOOQEa.V, Wo:n:EQ IIQoltT]{tEU~ 'ta.QXa'La MYE'tm oUIt:n:Mom'tOY c'iv{tQoo:n:OV. (Or. XLII.7=T317) But some, I mean both men and women, even attribute to the providence of the god the existence of the limbs of their body, when their natural limbs had been destroyed; others list other things, some in oral accounts, some in the declarations of their votive offerings. For us it is not only a part of the body, but it is the whole body which he has formed and put together and given as a gift, just as Prometheus of old is said to have fashioned man. The representation of Asclepius's work as the gifting of new body parts, rather than the salvaging of old ones, lends credence to the idea that the votive transforms permanent damage (the diseased body) into lasting memory and, as a result, gives the patient a fresh start. Never one to be outdone, Aristides declares that, in his case, his whole body has been destroyed and remade. In On Concord, Aristides' experience of renewal is extraordinary because it has happened so many times. 'I myself', Aristides declares, 'am one of those who under the god's protection, have lived not twice but many varied lives, and who on this account regard their disease as profitable' (eyw I-tEv oilv xat au'tol; eLl-tL 'tmv ou btl; [PE~L(J)XO't(J)V] u:n:o 'tq> t}Eq>, &JJ.. a :n:OAAOUI; 'tE xat :n:av'tOba:n:oul; ~LolJl; ~E~L(J)XO't(J)V xat 'tilv vooov xma roiito Elvm AlJOL'tEAfj VOl-tL~OV't(J)V, Or. XXIII.I6=T402; c£ Or. XLVIII.59). located in a realm of ideas and rhetoric separate from that of the Christian ideologues'). Shaw dates the dissemination of Christian interpretations of the endurance-pain (and torture)-virtue nexus in the elite Roman world to the first century CE (op. cit. 291296). Thus while it is true that Aristides' stance incorporates motifs from the cult of Asc1epius, we can also assume his exposure to contemporary concepts of, and debates about, suffering and healing, given his elite education, his travel, and the cosmopolitanism of the Antonine Age. 61 In most versions, Asc1epius is struck dead by Zeus's thunderbolt for raising the dead (T66-8S; TrOS-IIS). Notably, it is Sarapis who appears to Aristides in a dream about the afterlife (Or. IL.48). 108 BROOKE HOLMES The logic of regeneration shows up in dramatic ways in the Hieroi Logoi. In addition to continual purgation and innumerable enemas and bloodlettings, Aristides boasts of being operated on more than any other suppliant in the history of the Pergamene temple of Asclepius." These literal acts of cutting and reassembling vividly express the process that Aristides imagines takes place in less violent treatments. In the third book, N eritus, one of his foster fathers, dreams that the god tells him it is necessary to remove Aristides' bones and put in tendons, since the existing ones have failed (Or. IL.IS). Seeing Neritus's alarm at the prospect of such a surgical operation, the god gives a less shocking command: no need, after all, to knock the bones out directly and cut out the tendons at present; rather what Aristides requires is a change (&AAOLWOL~) of the existing tendons, a great and strange 'correction' (E:ltav6Q{}wOL~).63 To achieve this Aristides need only adopt the use of unsalted olive oil. What is particularly striking in the N eritus dream is the idea that starting over involves, in the first formulation, not the replacement of bones and tendons with new bones and tendons, but the replacement of hard (i.e. OXATlQ6~) bones with pliant tendons, as though the bones themselves were impediments to Aristides' reinvention (an idea that recalls the etymologies of Asclepius's name that we saw above). Despite the strong emphasis that Aristides appears to place on the foreign origins of disease, then, his belief in regeneration in fact exaggerates secular medicine's concept of a body complicit in the production of suffering. That is to say: it is not simply the invasive element that must be eliminated, but the damaged body itsel£ Purging the body's strangeness thus lays the groundwork for what is both a homecoming and a form of rebirth. or re YUQ VEW)tOQOL EV 'tou'tlp OV'tE~ ~AL)t[U~ )tUL :n:UV'tE~ ol :n:EQL 'tOY i}EOV i}EQU:n:ElJ'tUL UWL 1I~:n:o'tE ~T]lIEvu :n:w 'toov :n:uV'tWV OlJVELIlEVUL 'tocruii'tu 't~T]i}EV'tU, :n:A~V yE 'IcrxuQwvo~, dVUL II' EV 'tOi:~ :n:uQullo!;6'tu'tOv 'to y' E)tELVOlJ, aMU )tUL oo~ U:n:EQf3uAAELV 'to )tui}' ~~a~ UVElJ 'toov UAAWV :n:uQuM!;wv... ('For the temple wardens, having reached such an age in that place, and all of those who served the god and held appointments in the temple agreed that they had never known anyone who had been cut up so many times, except for Ischuron, whose case was the most unbelievable, but that our case went beyond even this one, to say nothing of the other unbelievable things', Or. XLVIII.47). 63 In the last two orations, we find similar instances where what must be changed is the mind (Or. L.S2) or 'the dead part of the soul' ('to 'tEi}vT])tO~ 't'i'j~ 1jJlJxfj~, Or. LII.2). In both cases, change brings divine communion. 62 )tUL 'tU!;EL~ EXOV'tE~ w~oA6yolJV aelius aristides’ illegible body 109 I have argued Aristides sees the lived body as resistant to both interpretation and the act of creating memory. The body is rather written into stories that are first staged in dreams then recorded in the archive. By interpreting these stories, Aristides is able to act on the body in such a way as to restore it to a primeval state of harmony in which the dissonance between an opaque interior harboring something foreign, on the one hand, and the person who suffers and seeks the meaning of that suffering, on the other, is eliminated, at least temporarily. The body is repeatedly released from death because, although it is recovered from obscurity through stories, it is never captured by any one story. At the same time, the slipperiness of the living body creates the need for a fixed text to memorialize the work of Asclepius. Even the casual reader of the Hieroi Logoi, however, cannot help but notice that that text does not always feel stable and fixed. It is often jumpy, elliptical, and defiant of chronology.64 Its disorder stages the breakdown in Aristides’ understanding of what has happened, the moments when he is unsure how to match representation to reality; its lacunae recall the breaks in the archive. The tenuous grasp that Aristides has on his lived experiences in the Hieroi Logoi confirms the body’s irrepressible strangeness that wells up in the gap between the dream and waking life, between the oneiric performance and the text. At other moments, however, what escapes narration is precisely the glowing plenitude of well-being that rewards successful therapeutic action. This plenitude cannot be captured by the negative figure of the tabula rasa. For the feeling of being restored to wholeness that Aristides describes after events such as the dedication of the surrogate-ring to Telesphorus have a positive charge.65 Such feelings are associated most strongly with ‘the divine baths’ that Aristides narrates, and indeed 64 65 τιν Castelli 1999, 198–202. See Or. XLVIII.28: τ δ μετ τ τ ρμ ν αν π λιν μ ς ρμ σατ εστιν ε κ ειν πως διεκε με α, κα π αν ε ς (‘After this it is impossible to imagine our condition, and into what kind of harmony the god again brought us’). As D. Gourevitch has observed, the word γ εια is found only once, at Or. L.69 (1984, 49). What Aristides gains following the successful implementation of dream therapies is described as αστ νη (Or. XLVIII.35; Or. IL.13; Or. LI.38, 90). ‘Physiquement’, Gourevitch writes, ‘ce bien-être obtenu grâce à la faveur divine, est un état bizarre, qui n’est pas particulièrement voluptueux, mais caractérisé par un sentiment de chaleur intérieure parfaite, et d’éloignement par rapport au monde extérieur’ (op. cit., 48); see also Brown 1978, 43; Miller 1994, 203–204. A kind of relaxation or sense of presence may also attend moments of inspired oratorical performance (e.g. Or. LI.39). 110 brooke holmes with all his encounters with sacred water.66 Like other events that exchange the damaged past for a unified and all-consuming present, such as the healing of the tumor or tasting the water from Asclepius’s sacred well, the baths are synonymous with lêthê: ‘So let us turn to the divine baths, from which we digressed. Let the pains, the diseases, εν ημεν τρεπ με α πρ ς τ the threats, be forgotten’ (ν ν δ λ υτρ τ ε α· δ ναι δ κα ν σ ι κα κ νδυν ι π ντες ρρ ντων, Or. XLVIII.71).67 In bathing, the body is restored to the conscious, first-person subject as a singular entity suffused with warmth and oblivious of all that is strange or painful. One famous passage in particular goes to some lengths in its attempt to describe the phenomenology of starting over: κα τ π τ τ υ τ ς ν νδε ασ αι δυνη ε η; παν γ ρ τ λ ιπ ν τ ς μ ρας κα τ ς νυκτ ς τ ε ς ε ν ν διεσωσ μην τ ν π τ λ υτρ σ σιν, κα τε τι ηρ τ ρ υ τε γρ τ ρ υ τ σ ματ ς σ μην, τ ς ρμης ν κεν δ ν, πρ σεγ νετ , δ’ α τ ι τ ν ρμη ν, ν ν τω κα π’ ν ρωπ νης μη αν ς π ρ ειεν, λλ τις ν λ α διηνεκ ς, δ ναμιν ρ υσα σην δι παντ ς τ σ ματ ς τε κα τ ρ ν υ.68 παρατε γ ρ ν δ ν περι αν ς ν πλησ ως δ κα τ τ ς γν μης ε εν. τε κατ ν ρωπ νην ε ρ σ νην ησ α ν ε ναι α τ , λλ ν τις ρρητ ς ε υμ α, π ντα δε τερα τ παρ ντ ς καιρ τι εμ νη, στε δ τω π ς ν πρ ς τ ε . (Or. XLVIII. ρ ν τ λλα δ κ υν ρ ν· 22–23) And who would be able to relate what came after this? For the entire rest of the day and the night until it was time for bed I preserved the state following the bath, and I sensed no part of my body to be hotter or colder, nor did any of the heat dissipate, nor was any added, but the warmth was not of that kind that one could obtain by human means; it was a kind of continuous heat, producing the same effect throughout the entire body and during the whole time. And it was the same with my mind. For it was no obvious pleasure, nor would you say that it was in the manner of human joy, but it was an inexplicable wellbeing that made everything second to the present moment, with the result that I seemed to see other things without even really seeing them. In this way I was entirely with the god. 66 The role of water in the cult of Asclepius (and in other healing cults in the GrecoRoman world) has long been recognized. For an overview of the different uses of water in the Hieroi Logoi, see Boudon 1994, 159–163. 67 See Or. XXXIX.2, where Aristides compares the water in the sacred well to ‘Homer’s lotus’. 68 Following ρ ν υ, MSS. Keil prints ρωτ ς following Haury’s emendation. aelius aristides’ illegible body 111 At such moments, the body becomes familiar without the mediation of the dreams, which are premised on self-estrangement in waking life. The outside world falls away, leaving only the divine embrace and a sense of inner unity.69 It is this experience of self-sameness—no part of the body, for example, is warmer or colder than the others— that is shattered not only by the disease, but also by dreaming and writing, practices that, as we have seen, are premised on self-splitting. In focusing Aristides’ attention wholly on the present, the baths stand outside of memory. To the extent that the baths stand outside of time, they are in a strong sense extra- or anti-textual: private and eternally present. Nevertheless, Aristides wants to narrate the baths and other such moments within the Hieroi Logoi. The fact that he does so reminds us that ‘the body’ of which I have been speaking is always an effect of the Hieroi Logoi, however much body and text are uncoupled within that work. When Aristides writes about his fully embodied communion with the god, he treads a narrow path between opening that relationship up to public interpretation and protecting the inimitable intimacy that leaves no place to the watcher, and between timelessness and commemoration.70 Following one outdoors bath, Aristides writes that ‘the comfort and relaxation that followed this were perfectly easy for a god to comprehend, but for a person, not at all easy to imagine or demonstrate ε μ ν κα μ λα in language’ ( δ π τ τω κ υ της κα ναψυ αδ α γν ναι, ν ρ πω δ ν λα ε ν νδε ασ αι λ γω π νυ δι ν, Or. XLVIII.49). The Hieroi Logoi are a testimonial to experiences that Aristides insists will always lie outside the public domain, experiences that nevertheless could not be celebrated as indications of divine favor without Aristides’ willingness to speak and write about them. Aristides’ difficulty in sharing the comfort gained through the bath restages the singular nature of his original experience. Several compan- See also Or. XLVIII.53; Or. LI.55. On the tension between the public and the private, see Miller 1994, 184–204. This tension can be sensed even more strongly against the backdrop of Albert Henrichs’ recent analysis (2003) of hieroi logoi, which were defined, Henrichs argues, by their commitment to the esoteric while also gaining fame, e.g. in the travelogues of Herodotus or Pausanius, as closed books. Aristides’ Hieroi Logoi, named through—what else?—a dream (Or. XLVIII.9), are cited by Henrichs as an exception to the rule (230 n. 71; 240 n. 115), although on closer inspection they appear to be consistent with Henrichs’ account of hieroi logoi. 70 69 112 brooke holmes ions, for example, once tried to imitate his fulfillment of the divine prescription only to find that their bodies could not tolerate the extreme conditions that it required (Or. XLVIII.76).71 As on other occasions where Aristides insists that only he is capable of understanding what the god says and fulfilling his commands, that capacity is confirmed through the failure of others. On the other hand, Aristides’ troubles as a narrator cue the impossibility of setting into time an experience that is defined by its resistance to narrative arcs that posit beginnings and endings.72 Of course, these experiences are not, in fact, unspeakable, despite Aristides’ use of this literary topos. Indeed, Aristides addresses the crowd following his bath at Or. XLVIII.82 with a speech inspired by Asclepius. Still, experiences of inner unity lie outside the logic of interpretation that governs the experience of the body in its opacity, where opacity ensures there is always something hidden to be (potentially) known and explained via a boundless divine text. Moments of communion with the divine participate, rather, in an ongoing cycle by which Aristides has his stories purged and washed from him as a condition of the renewal of life. Even Aristides, however, cannot remain with the god forever. However much time seems to stand still within his states of joy, pleasure ends, pain encroaches, and the body is again taken up as an object of interpretation and narration: story follows upon story. Thus, the body is Odyssean not only in its toils and its subterfuge, but in its refusal to stay at home in Penelope’s embrace: no sooner has it become familiar than it is attracted into foreign territory once again, like Tennyson’s Ulysses, for whom ‘the deep / moans round with many voices’, beckoning him back to the open sea with its waves, its strangeness. Unlike Odysseus, 71 Although barefoot runs and wintry baths were part of the usual repertoire of Asclepian cures, as Marcus Aurelius indicates (Ad se ipsum V.8=T407) and Aristides himself acknowledges (Or. XLVIII.55). 72 Aristides elsewhere uses the experience of drinking the sacred water to capture a sense of speech that would happen ‘all at once’: τ ς ν δ γ ν ιτ’ ν ρ , σπερ ν κ’ ν π’ α τ π νωμεν, πρ σ ντες τ ς ε λεσι τ ν κ λικα κ τι σταμεν, λλ’ ρ ν ε σε ε με α, τως κα λ γ ς ρ α π ν ’ ει λεγ μενα; (‘What, then, should be the beginning (of our speech), or, just as when we drink from the well, raising the cup to the lips we never stop again, but pour in the liquid all at once, so too should our speech everything all at once’? Or. XXXIX.4=T804). That the sentiment is a topos does not keep it from participating in a set of motifs central to Aristides’ œuvre. Water, he goes on to say in the same speech, is untouched by time ( ρ ν ς γ ν α τ πτεται, ibid. 9). whose critical eye and intellectual generosity have seen this project through from beginning to end. By displacing writing from the lived self. who supervised my mémoire L’écriture dans les Discours sacrés d’Aelius Aristide. to survive them. 73 . as well as to the members of my D. Croft ’73 Summer Travel Fellowships from Princeton University and a Mellon Fellowship for Assistant Professors. Thank you to William Harris for inviting me to take part in the conference at the Center for the Ancient Mediterranean at Columbia and for continuing to involve me in the world of Aristides. Alain Billaut and Danielle Gourevitch. and to Glen Bowersock. Aristides manages to keep his distance from his stories and. I acknowledge two Joseph E. whose comments on the written version of this article greatly improved it.73 I am very grateful to Heinrich von Staden. this epic hero travels without a scar: the past belongs wholly to the god and the archive.E.A. jury. which allowed me to complete this work under ideal conditions at the Institute for Advanced Study. Hakima Ben-Azzouz and Marie-Pierre Harder provided invaluable editorial assistance in Paris. to Brent Shaw. I would also like to thank Paul Demont. hence.aelius aristides’ illegible body 113 however. . 79–80. some two decades after the original illness that led him to his divine protector. I am grateful also to Brooke Holmes and Ewen Bowie for their help.g.3 And while the text is remarkable for the way it vividly reproduces * I would like to thank William Harris for the opportunity to present this paper at the Symposium and for his assistance in the revision and editorial process. however.9—but it is possible too that HL I and . The date of the composition of HL I is a separate question.chapter six PROPER PLEASURES: BATHING AND ORATORY IN AELIUS ARISTIDES’ HIEROS LOGOS I AND ORATION 33* Janet Downie Aelius Aristides begins the first of his Hieroi Logoi with what purports to be a diary of illness and therapy. 3 Behr 1968. not from the sanctuary of Asclepius at Pergamum—his most famous haunt—but from his ancestral estates in Mysia. Boulanger 1923. Cf. and to Christopher Faraone. ‘I want to reveal to you how it was with my abdomen. The Diary closes at HL I. 1155–1163.7– 60)—and sometimes the Hieroi Logoi as a whole—in the Asclepiadic tradition of prescriptive dreams and votive offerings. ν ν δ ς σ εν τ τ τρ υ δηλ σαι πρ ς μ ς λ μαι λ γι μαι δ καστα πρ ς μ ραν (HL I. Behr 1994.4). Aristides suffers from digestive problems. for the situation concerning my abdomen’). 2 E. for imperial activities and movements see Birley 1966). And I will give an account of everything day by day’.59 and II. Conjectures as to the date of composition are based upon readings of two key passages—I. Bowersock 1969. in early 166 CE. he proclaims. The s text is substantially that of the paper as presented.60: τ σα τα μ ν τ περ τ τρ υ (‘So 1 much. then. Perkins 1995.36) and to the presence of the emperor in the East (HL I. Shadi Bartsch and Ja´ Elsner for feedback on earlier versions. and he sets out to offer a serial account of his condition: ‘But now’. 483.33. Edelstein and Edelstein 1945. based on references in Aristides’ dreams to events of the Parthian War (HL I.1 From the outset. 38 and nn. descriptions of his night visions dominate the account. cf. 97–98. and as a consequence scholars have read Aristides’ so-called Diary (HL I.2 He writes. 55 and 56. Dodds 1965. A persuasive case for the later date of 175 is made by Weiss 1998. Festugière 1954. dates the Diary 4 January – 15 February CE 166. Elizabeth Asmis. argues that the Hieroi Logoi were written in 171. 19–20): HL II were written at different times. Cf. Castelli 1999. Contrast Quet 1993. 5 The setting of this dream in Smyrna is secured by a reference to the ‘Ephesian Gates’ at HL I. For reasons I explain more fully in my dissertation on Aristides’ Hieroi Logoi. In both Or. 23.30. Cf. and on his references to the ‘apograph’ see Pearcy 1988. and by reading the episode alongside moments of very similar polemic in Aristides’ Or. the first Logos is. Cadoux 1938. a deliberately public account with a rhetorical aim.4 Aristides is as much concerned with developing a professional self-portrait as with offering an account of divine medical care. suggests that the Diary of the first Logos has undergone little ‘secondary elaboration’ by comparison with dream narratives of the other Logoi. ‘To Those who Criticize him because he does not Declaim’.19–21 includes a declaration of his oratorical vocation that scholars have taken as key to understanding the passage. who maintains that the Diary of 166 was ‘choisi et peut-être conçu pour être publié’ by Aristides himself. see Aristides Or. Aristides describes a dream in which he sees himself in conversation with an athlete. In this paper I examine the rhetoric of Aristides’ self-presentation in a narrative episode from the first Logos. 181–182. 4 On Aristides’ realistic portrayal of the syntax of dream language see Gigli 1977. Dorandi 2005 suggests that HL I is the work not of Aristides at all. I take HL I to be genuine. Adopting a Socratic pose. but of a later interpolator. a comparison of the two texts also reveals what is distinctive about the Hieroi Logoi and its narrative of physical experience.11. For gymnasia in Smyrna see Aristides Or. 47. . a youth in training at one of Smyrna’s gymnasia.20. 18.116 janet downie the uncertainties of dream language. On Aristides self-consciousness about the compositional status of his text. 29. Del Corno 1978. However. At the same time. Aristides questions the youth’s assumptions (HL I. self-evident pleasure.6. On baths as an outstanding feature of the Smyrnaean landscape.18–21. Aristides’ dream account at HL I. Cf.5 The subject of their conversation is bathing—a pursuit which Aristides’ interlocutor takes to be an uncomplicated. 220. 1616–1618.20. I suggest we can appreciate the rhetorical point of this juxtaposition by considering its place within the broader narrative of bathing in HL I. Midway through the Diary of the first Logos. Nicosia 1988. I believe. 33. 181. 17. 306. Dorandi 2005. 33 and HL I Aristides draws on the precedent of Socratic self-portraiture as a way of presenting professional claims. his argument—based on the heterogeneity of this portion of the text and on its narrative confusion—is difficult to accept. 1610. 17. Yegül 1992. 219–220. But previous readings have not offered an adequate account of what Aristides achieves by reporting this assertion in the context of a dream concerned with the sensual pleasures of bathing.11. I dreamed that by the statue of Asclepius himself a young man—one of the athletes.6 Aristides gives an oratorical cap to the conversation in his own mind: ‘What are the pleasures of the bath house’. Then. But to begin we should examine the associative logic of the dream itself. at the conclusion of this exchange. still inside the dream. I asked if it was better to bathe even in there. For in fact. So indicating to him the sea. He was praising large ones and considered such things the pleasures of life. παντα κα μικρ ρις’. ‘compared to the pure intellectual joys of one who dedicates himself to rhetoric?’ I will come back—at the end of this paper—to what ensues. τ σα τη κρε ττ ν. ‘Then it’s not’. Aristides ends up making the surprising decision to indulge in the very activity he has repudiated (I. κα μα νεν ησα πρ ς μαυτ ν ς κα πιδεικνυμ νω π υ καλ ν ε πε ν τι τ ν μ ν λλων ν ρ πων α δ να κινδυνε υσιν ν τινων ε ναι δ να .20–21). He agreed that in that case too it was preferable [to bathe] in a small place. ‘In a small place’. I said. he said. by which Aristides exposes the absurdity of the young man’s assumption that life’s physical pleasures should be enjoyed on a large scale. or in a small place. δ μ κα αρ ς ρα ν ρ π υ ε η. while he strongly censures bathing as ‘the pleasures of swine’. And at the same time I thought to myself that also if one were declaiming somewhere it would be well to say that the pleasures of other men risk being the pleasures of swine. ‘ ν η. ‘a general rule that the greater is preferable. still unbearded—was lecturing about bathing establishments. he reflects. but my pleasure is purely that of a man. δε ας τ ν λατταν ρ μην ε κα ντα α μειν ν λ εσ αι. ην. since I keep company with—and rejoice in— words (logoi). And again. How does Aristides’ total rejection of bathing relate to the Socratic-style exchange that precedes it? 6 Implied by the phrase κα μα νεν ησα. ‘ κ ρα. λλ’ στιν τις μικρ . ν μικρ . στις σ νειμ τε κα α ρω λ γ ις. μετ δ τ τ λ μνην τιν δει α κα ρ μην ε κα ν λ μνη μικρ ’. ν μικρ . but there is also some charm in the small’.proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 117 α ις δ δ κ υν πρ ς α τ τ Ασκληπι νεαν σκ ν τιν τ ν γυμναστικ ν τι γ νει ν περ αλανε ων διαλ γεσ αι. The dream contains a miniature elenchos on the subject of the size of bathing sites. . συνε ρει κ ντα α τι α ρετ τερ ν τ ν τ γε με ν α ρετ τερ ν. or in a small place. And after this I pointed to a harbor and asked whether it was better in a harbor of that size. τ μεγ λα δ παιν ντα ν α τ κα τ ια τας τιν ς τ ς π λα σεις τ υ τι μεν ν. the two studies that take some time to interpret the passage have concluded that the episode at HL I.10 there remains the issue that in his rhetorical comment on the dream elenchos. They read the dream encounter with the young athlete as representing a homosexual solicitation through which erotic energy is sublimated in intellectual pursuits. cf. Michenaud and Dierkens 1972.9 Besides the fact that it is difficult to take the sprawling narrative of the HL as a study in literary miniaturization. he focuses his attention on the logical conclusion of the elenchos—that there is a certain charm in the small.1). their overtly psychoanalytic approach misses the ironic humor at work here and precludes any recognition of Aristides’ deliberate construction of an ethical dichotomy between bathing and declamation. and neither offers an adequate account of Aristides’ deliberate conjunction of bathing and oratory.8 Weiss relates this to a literary aesthetic of smallness in Callimachaean terms. 11 Michenaud and Dierkens 1972. Aristides does not draw distinctions between different kinds of speaking or writing. cross-references this passage with Or. immensity and incommensurability—not an aesthetic of smallness—are the pervasive themes (e. take this dream as corroborating their hypothesis that Aristides’ oratorical activities are compensation for fear of real social engagement. 49–52 takes the dream as ‘a symbol for the [stylistic] program’ of the Hieroi Logoi. Michenaud and Dierkens.11 However. here. 7 Weiss 1998.7 However.g. 10 When Aristides uses water metaphors to talk about oratory and writing.29–31. ad loc.118 janet downie Scholars have noticed Aristides’ highly self-conscious expression. He suggests that the Hieroi Logoi were composed as an essay in the ‘plain style’ as part of a bid for a position on the imperial staff (perhaps as tutor to the young Commodus) when Marcus Aurelius visited Smyrna in 176 during a political-diplomatic tour after Avidius Cassius’ uprising in the East. Behr 1981. ad loc. and dismissing the ‘long fast leap’ Aristides makes between the dream’s two parts. 88. rather. of his intellectual allegiances. 33. he contrasts the so-called ‘pleasures of swine’ with oratorical culture in its widest sense: logoi. . 8 Weiss 1998. Keil 1898. on the other hand. Charles Weiss reads the passage as an allegory of literary style. 9 Weiss 1998. HL I. make Aristides’ opposition between bathing and oratory crucial. Weiss’s reading does not address why Aristides represents the very broad categories of bathing and rhetoric as moral opposites. 211–212. 50.19–21 is ultimately symbolic—either of literary aesthetics or of suppressed sexual desire. and suggests that it alludes to the plain style of the Hieroi Logoi themselves. On the rarity of references to Hellenistic authors in Aristides’ writings and those of his contemporaries—and the few exceptions—see Bowie 1989. 13 Villard 1994.57. Instead he presents a long series of dreams that require interpretation and seem. second. a ‘drying’ regimen was considered the appropriate corrective in some cases. Villard’s lexical analysis of Hippocratic texts shows that louesthai can indicate many different external therapeutic activities involving water. Regimen in Acute Diseases 18. then. Bathing was believed by the Hippocratic writer of Places in Man 43 . the rhetoric of Or. 43 n. other ways to describe the action of refraining from bathing in Greek. There are. of course. I suggest we should consider two contexts for the dream: first. the Diary of Aristides’ digestive complaints is framed by the god’s prescription for restoring balance in his body: alousia. The only ancient author whose record approaches this is Galen (fifteen occurrences over his entire corpus). Alousia From its first entry. record simple abstention from bathing. to suggest that he ought to bathe. 52. The first of these dreams immediately follows Asclepius’ command of alousia (HL I.6): ‘And on the twelfth of the month the god prescribes abstention from baths’. where Aristides characterizes bathing as a luxurious activity in order to highlight the ethical value of oratory. In the Hippocratic Corpus. for example. ‘abstention from baths’. in a number of cases. since abdominal disorder was understood to result from an excess of moist humors. In the Hippocratic treatise The Art 5. In the Hippocratic context.13 For. the therapeutic motif of alousia (‘abstention from baths’) that structures the dream narrative of HL I. sleep and wakefulness and so on. bathing and abstention from bathing (alousia) appear in a list of polar opposites that guide medical treatment—including eating much and fasting. all citations but one occurring in the first Logos. Affections 53. only some of which involved immersion bathing. Aristides uses the word alousia sixteen times in the Hieroi Logoi.proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 119 To understand Aristides’ deliberate combination of bathing and oratory in this passage. μ λ ειν. Dating to approximately the same time as HL I.12 This therapy makes sound medical sense in the ancient context. 33. on the whole. λ υτε ν. But Aristides’ Diary does not. where Aristides makes the care and cultivation of his body part of a strategy for self-presentation. finds the following verbal locutions: λ υτρ ν ε ργεσ αι/απ εσ αι. 9. Villard 1994. Oration 33 presents the physical concerns of epidemic illness and of luxurious living as a testing ground for intellectual commitments. The thematic parallels help to show what is at stake in HL I.7): 12 Δωδεκ τη δ τ μην ς λ υσ αν πρ στ ττει ε ς (I. is concise shorthand for the prescription. see especially: Regimen 2. exercise and rest. Alousia. 16 VI. its opposite. LSJ (s. says that when a dreamer sees himself standing in excrement or mud it means either that his humors are in a bad state or that his bowels are full. 14 This passage gives an example of the frequently complex syntax of the HL. Or. was a logical concomitant of fasting. Galen uses the verb to talk about colors that stain. in Aristides’ corpus its moral overtones (cf.30: treatise On Diagnosis from Dreams (VI. attending primarily to how dreams index the state of the body. in the Hippocratic corpus. 535e). all [my body] seemed full and my breathing was like an asthmatic’s so that. Straightaway. Cf. . And when I got out.14 The term molunthenai is rare in the medical context. ρ (discussed below. without some doubt (though I did seem to be actually defiled [molunthenai] in some way).5. Artemidorus investigates the significance for the dreamer’s social life of various dreams of ‘defilement’ (ii.15 Although Aristides is not explicit about the details of his vision. 15 The medical uses of μ λ νω are limited: in his treatise on the composition of medicaments. Plato speaks of the person who is ‘defiled’ like a wild pig by his ignorance (Rep. 29. While diaphthora can refer to ‘corruption’ of a physical sort (see LSJ I.v. by which Aristides attempts to render dream logic in language: narrative and interpretation quickly merge. but this sense is easily extended metaphorically or symbolically to the moral sphere. a moral resonance. μ λ νω refers to physical defilement. Basically. water was necessary. alousia. I spent some rather unpleasant time in the bathhouse.26). those who dream that they spend time in dung or mud—either they have bad and malodorous and putrid humors inside. CA ‘stomachic disorder’).29. rather. we might imagine an excrement dream of the sort that Artemidorus and Galen both describe. After this there was corruption (diaphthora) from night onwards. but it seemed nevertheless a good idea to bathe.16 According to Artemiand by Galen to help people obtain nourishment from food. thus. and it went on to such an extent that it scarcely let up a little before noon. in the context of dream interpretation and in conjunction with diaphthora it acquires. 33. Galen.832–835K) Galen cautions that a doctor can err by interpreting in medical terms a vision whose significance pertains to a non-medical aspect of the patient’s life. especially because if in fact I had suffered this [defilement]. then. the related μωλ νω describes swellings that suppurate. however. LSJ I. Aretaeus.835K: ‘For.3 ‘moral corruption’) are marked: see Or. and a ‘doubt’ (huponoia)—since bathing would presumably be contraindicated by his digestive problems and by Asclepius’ previous instructions. and by Avotins 1982). Aristides describes himself as hesitating between the ‘notion’ (ennoia) that a dream of defilement signals the need for a bath. here. I immediately stopped taking nourishment.) for attestations of both the physical and extended (or metaphorical) senses.120 janet downie After this there came a dream that contained some notion of bathing— not. to begin with. or an abundance of retained excrement in their digestive system’.27 and Or. Cf. In his 34. 22. in spite of the explicitly medical framework of HL I.26: ‘…[excrement] indicates despondency and harm.proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 121 dorus.20 Several dream episodes accommodate both issues in the same narrative space. Medical and dietetic writings of the Imperial period partly reflect the great popularity of public and private bathing facilities. however.34. Dreams in which bathing is linked with a social scenario: I. As we have seen. it is also part of Aristides’ social world: a number of narrative vignettes in the Diary feature conventional bathing in purpose-built bathhouses. Just so. particularly if the excrement stains. I. particularly in the ‘Platonic Orations’. 18 Artemidorus ii. Seizing upon water as a conceptual link between the social and medical realms19 he finds little success. 20 Oratory is part of what Aristides refers to as the ‘secondary business’ (π ρεργ ν) of his dreams (I. On the rudimentary state of bathing facilities in earlier periods. whose interest in the interpretation of dreams covers the whole range of symbolic meanings.27.35. 19 On Aristides’ eclectic approach to dream interpretation see Behr 1968. I.18. For a sense of the ethical value with which Aristides invests oratory.18 Although the Diary is oriented around physical concerns.21 So. and Nicosia 1988. see Milazzo 2002. bathing and abstention from baths might be explained in either medical or social terms. a dream involving excrement (animal or human) may portend sickness. Sohlberg 1972. Such lack of systematization and consistency in the actual deployment of dream theory was probably common (Harris 2003). Aristides’ account of his dream of defilement points towards a persistent area of ambiguity in the first Logos. as the bath leads to physical discomfort.22 Physicians like Galen offer nuanced and complex advice on precisely how to calibrate Artemidorus ii. many of Aristides’ dream accounts seem concerned less with physical therapeutics than with social and professional situations. cf. rather than to successful regulation of the moist humors.16). I. who relied heavily on baths in medical treatment.50. in order to make an ethical point about oratory. I.26 surveys a range of possibilities. 21 Other dreams that combine oratory with bathing: I. 171– 195. I suggest that he highlights this feature of contemporary health and recreation deliberately. while Aristides’ preoccupation with bathing seems at first to belong to his therapeutic concern with alousia. and—when it stains—illness’. 22 Fagan 1999 suggests that the increased interest in bathing as therapy in the Roman period was spurred by Asclepiades of Bithynia.17 but as a symbol of impurity it may also pertain to a variety of issues relating to the dreamer’s social life. 43. Aristides responds to this dream as if it marks impurity: he takes a bath. 17 . as implied by the discussion of bathing in the Hippocratic Regimen in Acute Diseases 65–68 see Villard 1994. 201–202. by the time balaneia were in existence.64: ‘Our distant ancestors did not consider [dreams about] bathing a bad [omen]. for example. and his rejection of warm baths is the hallmark of an abstemious regimen of self-care: he disparages public bathhouses as ‘men’s senility’ (1. And they thought that the balaneion indicated disturbance (tarache)—on account of the tumult that arises there—and harm (blabe)—on account of the sweat exuded—and even mental anguish and fear because the skin and the appearance of the body are altered in the balaneion’.31. 25 i. as we see in Philostratus’ Life of the first century sage Apollonius of Tyana. he says. in this text. he emphasizes this is not to be overdone (131B–D. Philostratus.24 It seems that bathing was such an important part of social life that there were perhaps few health conditions for which it was decisively proscribed. A similar apprehension about the link between bathing and luxury seems to underlie Plutarch’s cautious advice on lifestyle and regimen in his ‘On Keeping Well’: the bath is better avoided if you are in good health. with Boudon 1994.24.23 Celsus also recognizes the wide dietetic and therapeutic possibilities of different kinds of bathing. it remains somewhat surprising from a social perspective. The association of bathing with luxury made it a useful tool for rhetorical denunciations of contemporary mores. The model Apollonius makes philosophy his way of life. to the Cynic lecturer Demetrius. 23 24 . 127E–F). and those of his contemporaries. For they were not familiar with bathing establishments (balaneia).122 janet downie bathing procedures to each health situation.26 Similar principles are attributed. And then. But later generations. ascetic position—a possibility that his own writings. Artemidorus. Aristides’ abstention from bathing would appear to be partly a principled. they take a bath when they are about to have dinner. describing a progression from the primitive practices of the hardy ancients to more decadent Roman habits. Fagan 2006. 26 Cf. And now the balaneion is nothing other than the road to luxurious living. and others even bathe after they have eaten. While Asclepius’ prescription to Aristides of alousia fits the logic of humoral medicine. And while there may be a place for warm bathing in recovering from an illness. support.4). even if one did not bathe. identifies contemporary bathing with luxury:25 … But now [too] some people will not eat before they have washed. cf. since they bathed in [tubs] known as asaminthoi. who waged a campaign against the excesses of the Emperor Nero partly by declaiming against bathing on the premises of the new imperial See Galen’s De sanitate tuenda III. considered it a bad [omen in a dream] both to bathe and to see a bathing establishment. VA 7.16. and Marcus Aurelius 8. then. 33. when the plague was at its height and the god ordered me to come forward. which would make it roughly contemporary with the period covered by the Diary of HL I.30 Inscribing his speech consciously in a Greek tradi- Philostratus. to the contrary. Aristides is nevertheless frequently concerned with defining and defending oratory as a profession. in which Aristides contrasts the athlete’s interest in bathing with his own intellectual pursuits.28 In this Oration Aristides defends himself against accusations that he has been less than fully engaged in his role as a public speaker.19–20. 102). Conventional bathing in elaborate public and private facilities was a social institution of the imperial era that could be made to bear ethical weight.30–31 (Avotins 1982) indicate a date after 165. VA 4. are effeminate men who defile themselves with extravagance. 1168 n. Aristides’ preoccupation with bathing in the first Logos belongs within a whole contemporary culture of the bathhouse. 33.29 Defining and defending his practice of rhetoric. contrast Boulanger 1923. Aristides himself uses bathing as part of an ethical polemic in his Oration 33. he said. ostensibly for a friend of Aristides’ who is about to set out on a journey (on the possible recipient see Behr 1968. too. as Behr argues. Even if. The dating of Or. that his deep commitment to oratory as a socially constructive force is clear from the fact that he continued to declaim in Smyrna. and especially his own practice of it. The core of Or. 33 has been dated to around 166. but references to the Antonine plague at 33. 33 anywhere between 165 and 178. 30 Or. Or. 22c). 102 n. Aristides’ issues of immunity were over by 153. see Bowersock 1969. 33 is not secure (Behr 1968. And what I am about to say is informed by the same intention—that you should know I did not think it 27 28 . 124 for a critique of Mensching’s hypothesis). 36– 41).6: ‘In fact. and we shall see that this polemical text sheds light on the dream conversation at HL I. The addition of a prologue makes it an epistolary propemptikon. for the story of Aristides’ several attempts to contest public duties assigned to him.27 In brief. who dates Or. 33 is an apologia.proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 123 gymnasium in Rome: bathers.42. It is not clear that Aristides had such a specific situation in mind (see Behr 1994. 162. 102 suggests it was written before Aristides’ return to Smyrna in 167. even when the plague was at its height in 165. Aristides argues. 29 Some scholars have taken this piece to be a response to renewed attacks on Aristides’ claims to liturgical immunity (Mensching 1965. Behr 1968. ‘To Those who Criticize him because he does not Declaim’. perhaps intended for an audience of Aristides’ students in Smyrna (Avotins 1982). Professional Apologetics in Oration 33 On the basis of references to the Antonine plague.6 and arguably at Or. I have spoken to you about these things before. 33. then. 33. you don’t want to tell yourselves the truth: that it’s not possible for people who love jewelry or who are attached to bathing. he makes a point about his own ethical persona. 2 and 3. to understand the serious pursuits (diatribas) of oratory. 31 Aristides’ deep familiarity with Plato’s Apology of Socrates is clear especially in his Platonic Orations (Or. 34 He draws attention to the courtroom fiction: ‘I speak. if you will—or a well-intentioned censure ( πιτ μησις π’ ε ν ας)’. is an apologia. Underscoring the contrast by his word choice. 33: skiamachein.5). but rather reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of his way of life. It’s other people who make declamation (logoi) a matter of small concern’. For those to whom I should address what I have to say are not present’.31 Aristides calls his oration both an ‘apologia’ and ‘a well-intentioned censure’. In the apologetic context of Or. Milazzo 2002). 33. Plato Ap. I realize. . then. Aristides turns the tables on his accusers: they are the ones who are at fault for preferring baths to more dignified pursuits (Or.34 His defense is an ethical one: like Socrates he bases his self-portrait on claims that he has always been concerned primarily to foster the highest human faculties of intellect and spirit. somehow.124 janet downie tion that has Socrates as its source. or who honor what they should not. then. it seems to me. 33.3: ‘Shadow-boxing. Refuting the charge of failing to make public appearances. and then you are amazed if you miss some of the speakers. is what is called for. Early on. Conventional bathing is introduced as a sign of the degenerate luxury that is the opposite of all Aristides claims to stand for. in which he is compelled to defend his professional conduct against unspecified accusers. On Aristides’ use of Isocrates see Hubbell 1913. Gigante 1990 briefly discusses Socrates as a model for Aristides in the Hieroi Logoi. 33 Or. Isocrates appropriated the Socratic apologia tradition for rhetoric (Ober 2004).32 and he borrows from the opening paragraphs of Plato’s Apology the first word of the defense portion of Or. Aristides constructs a fictional court scenario. 32 Or. as if these men were present and I were addressing them’ (Or. 34: ‘What I have said. But. most of you spend your time (diatribete) around the bathing pools. ‘shadowboxing’.25): Instead of going to listen to declamations. 33.33 Reprising Socrates’ assertion that his appearance before the jury is not primarily a consequence of the immediate charges against him. Aristides insists that wasting time (diatribete) at the baths is the opposite of responsible intelright to sit idle in those most precarious times. when Aristides invokes the contrast between the pleasures of the bathhouse and the intellectual discipline of oratory. 18d. Cf. as Plato says—those he accepted. 33. 33. by the gods. 761c–d. Aristides’ portrait of Homer makes him representative of an old-fashioned austerity diametrically opposed to the sumptuous ease of Imperial-era balaneia that seduce Aristides’ degenerate contemporaries. but he permitted no further luxury. 33 by encouraging his audience to derive their satisfactions from the best part of life—oratory of course. Although he was born the son of the Mysian river Meles—so the legend goes—Homer did not spend his life swimming idly about. undesirable ethical choice now combines bathing with a reference to ‘swinish pleasures’ and recalls HL I (Or. as a passionate desire for jewelry. His image of the opposite. ‘dry’ (auchmeron)—so Aristides once again links the parching effects of a regime of alousia with the ethical virtue of rejecting luxury. So that if we are of the portion who are saved. but fail to live up to the model they claim. The legendary poet is said by his modern admirers to have accepted only baths that were medically necessary36—and even these were to be ‘improvised’. Lg.31): Take pleasure in the finest things of life as long as possible. 36 Plato. Aristides sketches the responsible attitude toward bathing in a passage that makes reference to Homer. but rather lived a life so rough (auchmeron) that clearly he was generally satisfied with access to basic necessities. when Aristides considers ethical behavior in light of the ultimate stock-taking—death. in fact. we will be saved among the finest pursuits—study and oratory—and we will not be wallowing in our accommodation to the swinish temperament night after night and day after day. he suggests. But if we are not [of the portion who are saved]. Homer appears here as an ascetic model for the true orator:35 his ‘rough’ or ‘squalid’ way of life is. not taken in the kind of well-appointed kolymbethrai that Artemidorus refers to.proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 125 lectual endeavors (diatribas). . for the purpose of helping ailing bodies. bathing appears as oratory’s opposite at the climax of Or. is there some profit in bathing while one is alive ([an activity] that surely 35 Part of Aristides’ point is that contemporary orators themselves circulate these stories about their ‘ancestor’ Homer. but renounced such activities for greater pursuits (Or. 33. Or. An immoderate dependence on bathing is as pathological.29): … Homer himself was not satisfied to dwell on his father’s banks and to swim along with the fishes who were his brothers (as their story goes). By way of contrast. Aristides closes Or. the gain will be everything that each person pursued up to that point. Because of its associations with luxury. And baths that were improvised and. the sophists say. literally. 40 By pointing to the fact that one can be bathed after death but cannot participate in the oratorical community after death. as he reflects on the dignity and immortality of the soul. Aristides draws a clear distinction between activities that are purely physical and those higher ones that are mental or spiritual as well. Thus traditionally associated with plague (on this traditional aspect of plague writing. Plt. as Aristides’ opponents pursue it. 69c. 42 The connection between washing and purification was deeply embedded in Greek 38 37 . 33. he reverses the expected distribution of pleasure and profit: intellectual activities are pleasurable.38 In the context of a heightened awareness of mortality related to the crisis of the Antonine plague.53. see Duncan-Jones 1996). presumably. Compare the end of Plato’s Phaedo where. 81d.30–31. 22. Tht. Phd. Aristophanes. 309a. with discussion by Avotins 1982. For the association of mud with the uninitiated in Aristides see Or. The description of bathers as swine. whether they should live or die.41 Bathing. Phd.10. 82e: ν π ση μα α κυλινδ υμ νην. cf. Phdr. Cf. Avotins points out that Aristides echoes Thucydides here—specifically the passage in which he describes the effects of the epidemic on Athenian morals (Th. Here. On allegorical interpretations of Socrates’ final moments in this dialogue see Crooks 1998. but when it comes to oratory (from which one is necessarily debarred after death) it’s a thoroughly distasteful idea to take pleasure in this during life. famously subordinated in this dialogue to face-to-face dialectic are described as ‘rolling about’ (κυλινδε ται) indiscriminately even among those unable to understand or appreciate them. 39 Or. 145. HL II. Socrates takes a final bath as an anticipatory funeral rite. Avotins 1982. 363d. to the moral degeneration 2. 172c.39 Aristides urges his audience to avoid the kind of social degradation that so often accompanies epidemic illness and to make the finest human preoccupations their most urgent concern. It is the pre-occupation of a non-initiate. Ra. 275e. while bathing is a profitless pursuit that Aristides associates with ritual treatment of the dead body. cf. is the inverse of intellectual elevation and spiritual purification. He also reads ρ at 33.42 My thanks to David Traill for suggestions on the translation of this passage. both by speaking oneself and by attending when someone else is speaking?37 This statement of priorities—favoring the practice of oratory—is essentially the same as the one Aristides makes to himself ‘as if he were declaiming’ at the end of his dream conversation with the young athlete in the first Logos. cf. evokes a common image of the unregenerate mortal condition used by Plato in several contexts—notably in the Phaedrus—to describe the life lived without philosophy. 69–71).126 janet downie awaits the deceased).30 as a reference to destruction caused by the Antonine plague. 257a. where written speeches. 40 Avotins 1982 argues that σ ειν in this passage implies physical survival of epidemic illness. R.38–39 and Weiss’s discussion of Thucydidean echoes (Weiss 1998. rolling about in the mud. 4). 41 Plato. ρ also alludes. 19–20 are. ε μ ν ν. κ γ . We have seen that Aristides does not take Asclepius’ original command to refrain from bathing (HL I. Aristides’ dream goes on to describe (and prescribe—we are led to believe) a decidedly pleasurable warm bath (HL I. κα ς ν σαμεν. to which Aristides briefly alludes here. At any rate. For broader discussion of this distinction and its implications. especially 163–166. From early on. cf. are explicitly concerned with Aristides’ own health. λ υσ μην κα μ λ’ δ ως. however. but in mind’ ( λ υτρ ι λλ ν ω κα αρ ν). κα μ ι δ εν παρ’ λπ δας μ λα ψυ ρ ν ε ναι. 212–213). μ λ ετρ ς. when he describes rival orators defiling their vocation. The Hieroi Logoi. thought—not least in the context of the cult of Asclepius. α δ γνωρ ων τ τ δ παρ λ ν ε σω.20–21): δ κει δ’ ν τα τα λ γειν νεαν σκ ς περ τ αλανε υ τ πρ ς τα ς μ ι ρ ναι π πειραπ λαις τα ς ε ς Ε εσ ν ερ σαις. including a first-century CE lex sacra from Lindos (Sokolowski 1962. πιστ ς τ δε αμεν τ ψυ ρ τ ς. In fact.— τω δ συν σ αι ε ς ραν κτην ς τηνικα τα σ αλ στατ ν ν κινε σ αι… π ρευ με πειρ μην τ δατε. 336). and after his round rejection of bathing as a swinish pleasure. the verse-oracle of Sarapis (Merkelbach 1995. and with a mind and tongue that are true. The metaphorical framework of religious initiation. see Chaniotis 1997. . similar. I suggest. π λιν ε ρ ν τερ ν ν ερμ τ ρω κω νειμ ν ν μ λλ ν. after his conversation with the young athlete at I. and so he faces the challenge of explaining how his therapeutic and physical activities reflect on the professional vocation he values most. a distinction could be made between purification of the mind and purification of the body as. T. but in mind’ ( γν ς ε ρας ων κα ν ν κα γλ τταν λη | ε σι ι. 85): ‘Enter with pure hands.proper pleasures: bathing and oratory Socratic Posturing 127 In Or.318. The issues in HL I.” ην. where water appears to have figured prominently (Parker 1983. in the inscription that is said (by Porphyry and by Clement of Alexandria) to have greeted visitors to the fourth century temple at Epidaurus: ‘purity (hagneia) is to think holy thoughts’ (Edelstein and Edelstein 1945. no. plays an important role also in the polemical Orations 34 and 28.113–114. the young man seemed to say these things concerning the bathing establishment that was near the gates leading to Ephesus. for example. however. κυαν ν δ κα δατ ς γα ν. 108) that specifies one should enter the temple ‘clean not through washing. The distinction is a prominent trope in leges sacrae from the Imperial period. ς δ δε ν. clean not through washing. 33 we see Aristides using bathing and oratory as polarized ethical terms and drawing on a Socratic tradition of polemical self-portraiture in the context of epidemic crisis. κα τ λ ς δ ναι—π τε γ ρ δ κα λλ τε αρσ σαι.19–20. cf. λλ ν ωι κα αρ ς). κα μα γιγν μην τε ν τ ερμ κα πεδυ μην.6) as the starting point for a simple narrative of ascetic self-restraint. “καλ . il se permet l’après-midi un bain chaud et agréable.21 Aristides takes a crucial step beyond the basic dichotomy of bathing and oratory that played an important role in Or. II. stopping at the cold pool I tried the water. With the narrative of this transgressive bath at I. By claiming independence from the ethical schema set out in the preceding dream narrative. And contrary to what I expected it seemed to me not to be very cold. And at once I entered the warm chamber and began undressing. Aristides decides to bathe and asserts his ethical independence from the categories of intellectual and physical activity he has so polemically set out. once Aristides has defined his separation from conventional bathing through the narrative of alousia in the first Logos.128 janet downie and in the end it seemed to me that I should give them a try—for when else indeed would I be so bold if not now? Thus.71– 80. And I bathed with much pleasure. 60e–61c: π πειρ μεν ς τ λ γ ι). II. . setting aside its associations with luxurious indulgence so that he can appropriate it for his own purposes of self-portraiture. I decided upon the sixth hour as being the safest time to move about… We started out. And I said. 45 Episodes of extraordinary ‘bathing’ are described at HL II.45.46–55. he prepares the way for the catalogue of extreme and paradoxical baths that will be crucial to the quasi-heroic healing narrative of the second Logos. and when we arrived. When I went in. he can incorporate this concept of abstention from bathing into a paradoxical physical regimen that combines outdoor plunges into wintery rivers. but dark and pleasant to look upon.24. I found in turn another in the warmer chamber that was milder. 33. and the result is positive: a very pleasant experience in the bathhouse. II. Aristides has begun the work of defining the physical practice of bathing in his own terms.44 For. In an ironic reversal. chose absolument exceptionelle dans les Discours Sacrés’.45 For all of this he claims Socratic precedent 43 In his decision to ‘test out’ what the dream message suggests Aristides again follows a Socratic model: at the end of his life Socrates resorted to trial and error in the matter of the god’s command to compose poetry (Phd.19–23.43 In this episode. 88 comment: ‘Ayant affirmé publiquement son éloignement de tout plaisir sensuel dans le bain. He decides to ‘test out’ the dream’s apparent prescription in spite of his intellectual reservations. then. harbors and wells with taxing regimes of purging and fasting and with extraordinary intellectual discipline. On Aristides’ response to the dream Michenaud and Dierkens 1972. 44 HL II. ‘Good!’ as if to acknowledge the excellence of the water. 33 both give moral weight to the motifs of bathing and abstention from baths. So that whenever I think of Socrates coming from the symposium to pass his day in the Lyceum. at the end of his Diary. Symp. 47 Symp. And I stretched it out usually into the middle of the night at least. . 174a (Aristodemus meets him—unusually—straight from the bath). I passed my days in an almost irrational manner: writing and speaking and examining what I had written. Krell 1972. and the ones that I endured later that winter. Aristides wants to suggest that. went barefoot. taking a correspondingly [minimal amount of] food.47 Through the dream narrative of HL I. like Socrates. or regularly stood stock still.48 In this paper I have argued that at HL I.46 Already we have seen Aristides taking on the role of the philosopher in his conversation with the young athlete earlier in HL I. unaffected by inclement weather and deep in meditative thought. 65. 176c. in the context of the broader theme of bathing and alousia in HL I and. and alluding to the Socratic figure of Plato’s Apology in the ethical justification of his intellectual pursuits in Oration 33. Aristides makes arch reference here to the Socrates of Plato’s Symposium: the Socrates who could drink copiously without getting drunk and share a bed with Alcibiades without compromising his principles—all in the same spirit with which he endured the physical rigors of battle at Potidaea. whether he drinks little or much: Plato. I think it no less fitting for me to give thanks for strength and endurance in these things to the god.59): But beyond all the fasting at this time.19–21 specifically. And when abstention from food followed upon vomiting this was what was encouraging: diligence and serious occupation about these [pursuits]. the kind of life he led during this period of illness (HL I. near the end of the first Logos we see Socrates invoked as the hero whose ethical seriousness is so solid it passes every physical test—whether of excessive strain or excessive luxury. on Socrates’ ‘peculiar bodily habits’ as a challenge to physiognomic approaches to ethical assessment. with reference to Aristides’ professional polemic in Or. and the even earlier [fasts]. Now. The first Logos and Or. 33. second.19–21 Aristides’ narrative has a deliberate rhetorical aim that can be understood. 48 See McLean 2007. and in both texts Aristides alludes to Socrates as 46 Socrates will not be affected.proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 129 when he summarizes. first. and then on each occasion pursued my customary routines the next day. he moves beyond conventional moral categories. cf. In Or. He articulates an ethic of alousia and bathing that will ultimately serve the larger apologetic project of the Hieroi Logoi. 33.130 janet downie a model. Aristides’ vocation as an orator—and specifically his professional engagement during the epidemic crisis of the 160s CE—is linked to a Socratic concern for the soul. In the Hieroi Logoi. . in which his intellectual vocation and physical experience are linked. but in HL I he uses it to claim a certain kind of liberty in his physical pursuits. Aristides has Socrates’ example in mind again. We also have an account of this episode in Aristides’ Sacred Tales. which had been damaged in an earthquake in 161. his body and his oratory. 51. and how these are intertwined with the concepts of the body and the divine. but when viewed in combination offer fruitful insights into Aristides’ outlook on himself and the world. It will be suggested that viewing Aristides’ corpus in the light of the Sacred Tales reveals the author’s profoundly religious outlook.2). Panegyric in Cyzicus. Travel and the body are often explored separately. Aristides delivered a speech in the city of Cyzicus at a festival to celebrate the restoration of the temple of Hadrian. In the first four chapters of the Panegyric in Cyzicus. Aristides introduces the themes of the divine. I then go on to explore these themes more broadly in Aristides’ work.chapter seven THE BODY IN THE LANDSCAPE: ARISTIDES’ CORPUS IN LIGHT OF THE SACRED TALES Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis In the late summer of 166 A.D. This question is significant not just for a nuanced understanding of the Sacred Tales itself. but also for the corpus as a whole. His longstanding and ongoing relationship with the god is suggested further by mention of other instances in the past in which he has received help from the god in difficult circumstances (2).11–17). The speech itself survives in the corpus of Aristides’ writings as Oration 27. focusing primarily on the treatment of the themes of travel and landscape. The theme of his body arises in the reference to . 27. and I argue that they are significant throughout the corpus. This example of the use of the Sacred Tales to illuminate aspects of Aristides’ corpus finally opens the broader question of the relationship of the Sacred Tales to the rest of the orations. I begin this essay with a detailed reading of these two accounts.. a work written about four years later in 170/171 on the subject of the favours that he had received from the god Asklepios (Or. The divine is established as central in Aristides’ statement that he is speaking at the command of the god Asklepios (Or. Aristides then proceeds to a geographical ekphrasis (Or. the Hellespont and the Propontis (8). and subsequent readings enact (and re-enact) the divine / human relationship. 6). or rather between every sea upon which men sail’ (σ νδεσμ ς τις σα τ ς αλ ττης κατ ρας. Moving on from the seascape.5–15). and indeed of mapping. as if it were a kind of navel stone at the point between Gadira and the Phasis’ (τ ς γ ρ αλ ττης ν μ σω κειμ νη συν γει π ντας ν ρ π υς ε ς τα τ ν. its public delivery at Cyzicus. The centrality of its location both geographically and in terms of the movement of people is further emphasised by the statement that it is ‘located in the midst of the sea. μ λλ ν δ π σης ν ν ρωπ ι πλ υσι.A. It presents the orator’s motivation in delivering this oration. 46). Aristides self-consciously draws attention to the activity of his speechmaking in the statement that he is extemporising—something which he was notoriously unwilling or unable to do—and he repeats this statement at the end of the speech (3.1 It is also said to be located in the midst of three seas. But in this case. The structure of the description of Cyzicus mirrors the process of movement and travel in that it starts with a passage on the situation of the city (its broad geographical context). Aristides first locates Cyzicus within a seascape: it is said to be located between the Euxine and the Hellespont. In this way the speech itself. It is an epicentre of travel for sailors (6). τ ς τε π τ ς ε σω πρ ς τ ν ω παραπ μπ υσα κα τ ς ω εν πρ ς τ ε σω. This introduction is important. 1 Translations are by C. The divine element is first established in the landscape by a reference to the foundation of Cyzicus by Apollo (5). perhaps more than others. is never neutral. . and sets the tone for the entire speech. ‘being a kind of link between the two seas. 27. continues with a more focused section on the city and culminates with a specific description of the temple of Hadrian seen from up close. and the actual content of his speech as emanating from Asklepios. Lake Maeotis (the sea of Azov). it brings all mankind together. this weakness is said to be overcome on Asklepios’ orders (2). the traditional termini of ancient geography (7). σπερ τις μ αλ ς τ μετα τ π υ Γαδε ρων κα Φ σιδ ς). the description imposes a particular and one might say even peculiar geographical hierarchy on the landscape. Behr.132 alexia petsalis-diomidis his physical weakness as a potential impediment to making the speech. escorting some from the inner to the outer sea. and others from without to within. his overcoming of his physical difficulties. The process of describing. 1. The use of 2 E. This first section is like a broad cinematic panning shot. There are sacrifices. and in particular for the long walls between the city of Athens and Piraeus. Strabo 9. so the citizens of Cyzicus are said to mould the landscape by exporting marble from the quarry at Prokonnesos to adorn other cities (15). as if the gods were competing against one another on behalf of the safety of the city. But its primary meaning of ‘legs’ should not be ignored.2 This Attic association may have made it particularly appropriate in the eyes of Aristides. by writers such as Strabo and Plutarch. and simultaneously vivified by religious processions and rituals. and the temples have divided it up. It implies viewing the landscape in the form of the human body and the close linking of the two. processions. σκ λη (11). υσ αι δ κα π μπα κα πρ σ δ ι κα εραπε αι ε ν μετ τ ν κα εστηκ των εσμ ν … (Or.g. an aerial view of the geographical context of the city. a peninsula and a continent.15. Plutarch Kimon 13. κα α τ ν νε διειλ ασιν σπερ μιλλωμ νων τ ν ε ν πρ ς λλ λ υς π ρ σωτηρ ας τ ς π λεως. but also introduces the idea of transformational viewing. but does not describe them. Aristides then refers briefly to the beauty of the public buildings (13). The causeways linking Cyzicus to the mainland are referred to as ‘legs’. This not only opens up the question of its geographical status. 27. it has now been all parceled out.14). Instead he presents his religious vision of the city ‘as the work of one of the gods’ (τ ν κρειττ νων τιν ς στι π ημα) and ‘sacred to all the gods’ ( ικε γ ρ τις π ντων ε ναι τ ν ε ν ερ ): σπερ γ ρ κατ κλ ρ υς πασι ε ς ηρημ νη π σα δ μεμ ρισται. Just as the topography of Cyzicus is effectively rearranged by the manner of Aristides’ description. For as if it had been set aside and allotted among all the gods. It was used in the sense of walls. The camera then zooms in to focus on Cyzicus proper (11–12). and more significantly by the construction of the enormous and beautiful temple of Hadrian (17).the body in the landscape 133 Cyzicus is then situated within the landscape (9–10). This choice of word is interesting. . Centrality is here replaced by the concept of a perfect mixture of geographical features including mountains. Aristides plays with the idea of Cyzicus simultaneously being an island. and divine services under established codes… The land of Cyzicus is envisioned as physically made up of the sum of its sanctuaries. plains and rivers. parades. signal fires. many times greater than other temples. ε δ λει τ τ ς αστ νης κα τρυ ς.19–20).134 alexia petsalis-diomidis marble from Prokonnesos for the construction of this temple is envisaged in terms of the transferral of most of the island of Prokonnesos to Cyzicus. 27. And although it is so great. Formerly sailors used to judge their position by the peaks of the islands. Πρ κ ννησ ς α τη. and again that the temple’s precinct was big enough to be a city. . But the temple fills every vista.17). specifically through sailing. its beauty exceeds its size. part on an upper storey. as it were made not as an additional adornment. τ ν σει. underground and hanging. beauty and awesome nature of the building through a series of metaphors that transform the temple: α ης ν τ ν μ ν λ ων καστ ν ντ νε τ παντ ς ε ναι. κα μ ν ις μ ν π ργων πρ ς τ ς κατα ρ ντας. and you alone have no need for beacons. and part in between in the usual position. 27. λλ’ νε ς πληρ ν παν τ ρ μεν ν τ ν τε π λιν κα τ ν μεγαλ ψυ αν τ ν ντων α τ ν μ δηλ . but actually to be walks. The section on the temple proper is not a systematic description of the kind Pausanias gives in his Description of Greece. it is possible to view this very great temple like three-storied houses or like three-decked ships. τ ν λλων ν δ ι τις· ν ν δ νε ς ντ δ ν δε λαμπτ ρων δ πυρσ ν δ τ ν ρ ν ρκε . λλ’ επ τηδες ε ναι δρ μ ι πεπ ιημ ν ι (Or. τ ν δ νε ν ντ τ παντ ς περι λ υ. and the temple the whole precinct. δρ μ ι δ π γ ν τε κα κρεμαστ δι’ α τ δι κ ντες κ κλω. ντ γ ρ τ ν κι ν τ ν τριωρ ων κα τ ν τρι ρων π ρεστιν ρ ν νε ν τ ν μ γιστ ν. There are walks which traverse it all about. For part of the spectacle is subterranean. Not only is Prokonnesos reduced in this way. τ μ ν γ ρ α τ μ ν λλων π λλαπλασ να. τ δ’ περ ς. α τ ν δ τριπλ ν τ κατ γει ς στι α. But now the temple is equal to the mountains. κα τ σ τ ς ν καλλ ων στ ν με ων (Or. ‘This is Prokonnesos’. σπερ κ ν πρ σ κης μ ρει. Κ ικ ς δε. If you wish to consider the comfort and luxury which it provides. much less so of the kind found in modern guidebooks. ‘Here is Cyzicus’. Instead it conveys the size. and towers for those putting into port. μ ση δ νεν μισμ νη. The human intervention in the landscape of Cyzicus is here experienced through the process of travel. and whatever other island one beheld. τ ν δ’ α περ λ ν τ νε π λεως π ρ ντα γ γνεσ αι. and at the same time reveals the city and the magnanimity of its inhabitants. but the outline of the land is radically altered by the new temple: πρ τερ ν μ ν γ ρ τ ν ν σων τα ς κ ρυ α ς τεκμα ρ ντ πλ ντες. You would say that each of the stones was meant to be the whole temple. and itself of a threefold nature. dwelling in particular on the concord between the two rulers (22–39). 41). and in this way suggests the experience of sacred space through physical movement. was neither visible nor accessible. I turn now to the Sacred Tales. the surface of the earth and underground is conveyed by offering the audience the vision of the temple transformed into ‘three-storied houses’ or ‘three-decked ships’. between good order in a man’s life and in a city (41).11–17). and the appellation of all cities as ‘sisters’ δελ α (44). to consider Aristides’ account of delivering this oration in Cyzicus (Or. and the precinct as large as a whole city. A large portion of the speech is then devoted to praise of the ruling emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.3 Finally Aristides chooses to highlight the walkways that traverse the temple and are actually in use. the temple the size of the precinct. In this respect Aristides’ speech mirrors the temple. The height of the temple and its occupation of the air.the body in the landscape 135 This series of comparisons has the effect of playing with the relative dimensions of the temple in the mind of the audience. 51. according to the archaeological evidence. . There follows a description of Aristides’ physical condition. 251–252. there is also a reference to the festival at Cyzicus called the ‘Sacred Month of the Temple’. In this state he receives a revelatory dream in which the doctor Porphyrio praises him to the citizens of Cyzicus and encourages them to gather and listen to him speaking—an echo of the Homeric episode in which Athena persuades the Phaeacians to assemble and listen to Odysseus— 3 On the archaeological evidence of the temple see Schulz and Winter (1990) and Price (1984). not unlike the earlier vision of the landscape as the human body (11). and the emphasis on the activity of viewing the building is suggested by the use of the term α ‘spectacle’. In these parallels Aristides employs the analogy of city and person. The story opens with a chronological reference that locates the episode within the timeframe of the Sacred Tales narrative (‘after a little under a year and a month’). effectively suggesting a series of magnifications to the effect that that each stone is the size of the entire temple. The passage is revelatory in its description of the underground area of the temple which. catalogue entry. Finally the speech seems to come full circle in its return to the theme of the city of Cyzicus in a series of comparisons between the concord of the emperors and the concord of the universe and of cities (35. his troubled sleep and inability to digest anything (11). as both oration and building celebrate the figure of the emperor. The initial statement about his poor health also overshadows the narrative: his ability to endure such a tiring journey despite his inability to sleep and eat is also implied to be the result of divine favour. 4 See Odyssey VIII. riding on into the night. τ ν μ ν τ ν συμ σαν περ τ ν λ γ ν μ ν ν ν κα δε κνυτ ν τ υλευτηρ ω. and spends most of the night sitting on the couch in his travelling clothes. Again precise distances are given: the night stop was 120 stades from Cyzicus. Aristides offers a detailed description of the furniture in the room in which he spends the night and comments on its cleanliness.1–25. μ δ’ 51. indicate the profoundly physical way in which this journey was experienced. Aristides then arrives at a village. and he had already completed 320 stades (14). Aristides then describes his arrival at some warm springs. Both the details of the journey and of Aristides’ physical state are presented as significant indicators of divine charis in the light of the initial revelatory dream. τ των κ σαντες. the leisurely pace of the journey. but is forced to stop by a lake because his servants are exhausted. the time of departure. And here we come to climax of the story. λλ κα στερ ν ν τ πανηγ ρει.16). But it is not only through his body that Aristides receives divine favour on this journey: his oratory is also encompassed. We are told a number of details relating to the journey: there is mention of the order to the servants to pack. but being forced to continue his journey with a few attendants because it was so crowded that he could find no shelter (13).136 alexia petsalis-diomidis and then Aristides finds himself in a theatre (12). Aristides’ insistence on these details.4 This dream prompts him to depart immediately for Cyzicus. the mode of transport (riding in a carriage). . He decides to proceed. the passage about composing and delivering Oration 27: κα μ ι παραμ ι ν ν της π ρε ας τ τ λ γω πρ σ ειν. ν δει τ ς Κυ ικην ς πιδε αι κατ τ ν τ νυπν υ μην· στε κα π ι η τω ν σπ υδ ν παρ τ ν δ ν τ ε ρισκ μενα α ε ναλαμ ν ντι. He then relates in a tone of triumph that at daybreak he got up on his own and finished the journey (15). and we are given the precise distance traversed (40 stades). he is equally concerned to give an account of his bodily state: he is thirsty and dusty. including minutiae relating to his body such as the state of his travel clothes. ε δε εν ν παραγεν μεν ι κα δι ν ν τ ς τ ι τ ις διατρ ειν (Or. but also at the festival. so that I even composed it in this way. always recalling the ideas which I had conceived during the trip. This journey also. Those who were present. not only when it was presented in the Council Chamber. The story concludes with an account of the return journey to his estate at Laneion. The god’s command for him to set off is experienced as a refrain praising the water at his estate. for example. The threads are here interwoven very tightly. the total distance travelled (400 stades) and that he arrived the next day at Laneion (17). there and back. He notes that his return journey was similar to the journey to Cyzicus: in both cases he left on the same day he received the divine command. at about the same time. undertaken at the command of the god. and both journeys were uninterrupted. We are given the specific time of arrival at an outlying farm on his estate. a mention of the fact that he had not eaten. would know the enthusiasm which was shown toward my speech. Fundamentally it can be explained by the fact that the return journey no less than the journey to Cyzicus was ordered by the god and its successful accomplishment is ascribed to him. and those who heard about it from these. But it also reflects the importance of the journey as a round trip. then. Aristides was undertaking the journey to Cyzicus on account of a revelatory dream. He concludes the story with the statement ‘And thus took place my first journey to Cyzicus and my stay δ υ κα διατρι ς τως there’ (κα τ μ ν τ ς πρ τ ρας ε ς Κ ικ ν σ εν. But it is not so pleasant for me to linger over such things. delivered not once but twice. the Sacred Tales can with justice be called a pilgrimage text. The divine. 18). Aristides’ decision to include the rather uneventful return journey and not end on the note of oratorical triumph in Cyzicus is interesting. for which Aristides is giving thanks through the composition of the Sacred Tales. is one of the many divine favours bestowed by Asklepios. his consolation during the arduous journey was to turn his mind to the speech. in the emphasis on one major journey to a sacred centre . and the Sacred Tales as a whole can be read as a series of such sacred journeys.the body in the landscape 137 And my consolation for the journey was in giving my attention to the speech which I had to present to the Cyzicenes in accordance with the prophecy of the dream. his body and his oratory are intimately connected. and it was a great success. The Cyzicus episode is presented as a sacred journey. As a literary retrospective narrative of these events. the actual speech was later composed by recalling ideas he had conceived during the journey. The fact that Christian and Islamic models of pilgrimage differ from Graeco-Roman ones. is a resounding no. The themes of landscape. and I now set out the evidence for this. effectively I have used the latter as a guide. indeed a commentary. and his conception of the divine as the driving force in his life. literally. his intentions during the journey. to illuminate the Panegyric. Forthcoming. and in this sense it is also a public text. the processes of composition of his speeches. 2005. his interlinking of landscape and body. how typical is this sort of interpenetration between the Sacred Tales and other orations in the corpus. What clearly emerges in both texts is Aristides’ preoccupation with landscape and travel through it. however. I would argue. and Petsalis-Diomidis.5 Oration 27 is a public speech.6 The text as a whole is teeming with references to location— where Aristides was at different points of the stories—and to his jour5 See Rutherford 1999. My initial decision to focus on the themes of travel. as has sometimes been thought. In the account of the journey to Cyzicus we have the inside story. should not prevent us from identifying it as such. eds. the subject of his thoughts. Holmes’s paper in this volume. travel and the body are prominent throughout Aristides’ corpus. Elsner and Rutherford. On this comparison see B. 47. . delivered at a civic festival and subsequently published.138 alexia petsalis-diomidis and on the penitential dimension. and where does it lead us? Is Cyzicus a special case? The answer to the latter question. landscape and the body in the Panegyric were partly inspired by the prominence of these themes in the account in the Sacred Tales. a narrative relating to the interior of Aristides’ body (his digestion and sleep) and the internal processes of his mind (including the interpretation of revelatory dreams. It is self-conscious and polished and by no means private musings. 6 Or. It is.1. travel and the body important in the rest of Aristides’ writings? And more fundamentally. focusing first on the Sacred Tales and then on other orations. the Sacred Tales may have reached a smaller number of people—there is no indication that it was delivered to a mass audience—but there is evidence to suggest that it was published. concerned with matters very personal to Aristides: divine epiphanies and communications vouchsafed him. and later the process of composition of the speech). But two questions immediately arise: to what extent are these themes of landscape. the internal processes of his body. The Sacred Tales opens with a comparison between Aristides’ sufferings (cast as the achievements of Asklepios) and the toils of the archetypal traveller Odysseus. Or.g. but conversely some of the journeys inspire him to compose. It is also representative in its interlinking of the themes of the body and oratory with the divinely inspired journey.1–6 (journey to Aliani).78. 9 E.11 channels flow.65 (sailing across the harbour at Smyrna).8 The account of the journey to Cyzicus is typical in its inclusion of details. 50. his illness is repeatedly said to prevent him from making speeches and from travelling to cities in order to deliver them. Or. and by this means the woman is saved from death. such as the state of the weather. Or. 13 E.1 (journey to Epidauros). 47.7.56. Or. Or.1–3. often painfully.17.61–68). Or. 49.1–6.1–10 (journey ‘to the land of Zeus’).3. the lanJourneys in the Sacred Tales include: Or. 49. but paradoxically it is undertaken for physical healing: many stories in the Sacred Tales refer to the fact that although Aristides was unable even to get up from his bed.12 and tempests occur (τρικυμ αι). Or. 51. 52. 10 E.3–4. Or. 47. Or. 42–55 (second journey to Cyzicus). 21. 48. 50. Travel in the Sacred Tales is generally presented as being particularly difficult and dangerous for the sick Aristides. Cf. 20 (ordered to go and worship the statue of Zeus at the hearth of his foster fathers).1–12 (journey to the Aesepus). 11. the route and stop-offs on the way. The god constantly communicates with Aristides. 18–37 (journeys to Pergamon. 8 Or.g. 64.69. In one instance Asklepios orders Aristides to go from Pergamon to his old nurse Philoumene. Or. 31–37 (journey to Rome and return via Delos and Miletos).g. 48. 49. ordering him to stay put or to travel somewhere. 47.19–23. 50. 12 E. he went on to travel great distances with the help of the god and to experience an amazing sense of well-being.g. Or.7 Fundamental to the purpose of these stories is the presentation of Aristides’ relationship with Asklepios. 11 E. Or. 42. 47. they are also experienced. Or. 56–57. 83 and 103 (summoned to Pergamon).10 and Asklepios’ communications more broadly are seen to benefit his oratory. Simultaneously Aristides’ body is often described as a landscape. 7 . 22. 48.7 (journey from Smyrna to Pergamon). Or. 16–19. 7–14 (journey from the temple of Zeus Asklepios to Lebedos).13 In the story of the tumour (Or. 38. Or. a space in which channels of breathing and eating become blocked. 62. 47. 51.9 As far as oratory is concerned.g.6. the usual result is the alleviation of physical suffering contrary to expectation and a sense of union with the divine. In the Sacred Tales journeys are not only undertaken for the purpose of bodily healing. 11–18 (abortive journey to Chios). 60–70 (journey to Rome and back). through the medium of the body. 78 (journey from Pergamon to see his old nurse Philoumene).the body in the landscape 139 neys. 48. Smyrna and Ephesos). 11–18 (first journey to Cyzicus). bathing in the sacred well). Or. 62. divine epiphany). and says that ‘the source of this discharge was located above. suggesting that the miniature landscape of the Asklepieion also played an important part in the unfolding of Aristides’ relationship with Asklepios. 47.32 (the lamps in the temple). 50.31–37.14 There is a profound sense in the Sacred Tales that Aristides’ relationship with the divine unfolds within the landscape of the Roman Empire.16 It is true that Aristides does not offer a systematic description of the sanctuary. 47.60–70.15.17 However. 21–23 (story of the ointment of Tyche.g. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus. Or. his therapeutic and oratorical experiences. 50. but also beyond to Italy and then back via Delos.140 alexia petsalis-diomidis guage of gardening and irrigation is used: Asklepios orders Aristides to foster the growth. 28 (consumption of a drug ‘at the sacred tripod’). as there are references not just to journeys in Asia Minor. and he refers only in passing to the magnificent new temple of Zeus Asklepios in the context of a dream about the man who financed it. for example in the feeling that his teeth were falling out of his mouth and his intestines were hanging out of his body.30 (the temple warden Philadelphus in a dream sees Aristides in the sacred theatre).g. anointing himself in the open air. the next night runs three times around the temple and then bathes in the well). 49. L. Or. 49. The body is also frequently imagined as fragmenting. 14 15 .28.15 (ordered to resume oratory in the stoa near the theatre). 74–76 (he smears mud on himself by the sacred well and bathes there. 63. 31 (he dreams that he is in the propylaia of the temple. 16 See Hoffmann 1998a and 1998b. ‘real’ and oneiric. 71 (he sleeps between the doors and gates of the temple. and in his dreams of being ordered to cut out pieces of his body. 47.18 This relationship is presented as the lynchpin of Aristides’ life. Or. 48. 50. Or. 18 E.63).g. driven by this relationE. 77 (smears himself with mud and sits in the courtyard of the sacred gymnasium). Some commentators have been disappointed by his apparent lack of interest in the sanctuary and the major building projects that were taking place at about this time.27.15 The Pergamene Asklepieion where Aristides spent two years at the command of the god also features prominently.7 (he was undergoing incubation in the temple of Zeus Asklepios). Or. and he takes his leave). including oneiric and ‘real’ events at specific locations in the sanctuary e. 17 Or. and these gardeners did not know where they ought to turn the channels’ (ε ναι γ ρ τ ε ματ ς τ τ υ τ ς πηγ ς νω. stories that occur in the sanctuary are full of references to specific buildings and areas. Or. 66 (dream in which companions go towards the temple. τ ς δ κηπ υρ ς τ τ υς κ ε δ ναι τ ς ετ ς ρ τρ πειν. Or. 48. Telesphoros’ temple). both in Aristides’ ‘real’ and oneiric life. Or. 21. I turn now to consider the themes of travel and landscape in orations other than the Sacred Tales. fragmented vision of the sanctuary. Or. 23.79–84. often at Asklepios’ command. Or. Or. for example. Or. and 35 (river).19 In Oration 36. 25 E. a speech written to celebrate the arrival 19 E. 42. 92–95. the emperor and Asklepios. He adopts a traveller’s changing perspective in his description of landscape. Or.23 The image of the helmsman occurs frequently. The Smyrnaean Oration I.31 (road).18 (Asklepios). in the case of the city of Ephesos and of the Roman Empire as a whole. Or. 24. 26. and is associated with Rome. men cross the Aegean in order to see ‘contests and mysteries’. Or.4 (Asklepios). especially 48–56. he is in Laneion).g. First. also occur not just in but through the medium of the landscape.6 (he escaped the earthquake because the god ordered him to go to his estate).24.1 (again he is not able to deliver the speech in person to the Rhodians—on account of his health). 44. 115 (ship). Or.g.the body in the landscape 141 ship with Asklepios.111 (the river Nile). 20 Or.26 Aristides’ treatment of the theme of travel is intimately combined with the idea of viewing the landscape. 36. 23 Or.20 The theme of safe travel as one of the blessings of Roman rule recurs numerous times. Or. 33. 42. his journey to see the cataracts of the Nile. 44.99. The Egyptian Discourse. undertaken in 142 A. Or. 35.2 (he is absent as usual because the god guides him). the theme of travel: there are numerous references to Aristides either travelling or refraining from travel. 19. 43. 26. . Or. close-up.g. Or. 26.18.28 (Asklepios).22 Aristides uses the idea of territory being measured according to the time it would take to travel there.68 (Rome).100. 20. Or. his body and the world. Or. Or.4 (ship). 36. and are described as rivers and ships travelling through the landscape. I traced this in the case of Cyzicus. 26. Speeches made in thanks for a safe journey: Or. 21 Or. 35.37. 46. there are extended descriptions of Aristides’ journey up the Nile. 33. but a specific. 22 Or.2 (the Saviour restrains him from addressing the assembly in person. 24 E.21 Travel is associated with religion both in the image of festivals continuously moving around the Empire and in the statement that despite their fear of travelling.14.91. Or.24 Aristides himself is often paralleled with the traveller (and wise speaker!) Odysseus. 30. Aristides does not offer us a comprehensive picture.D. Or. Or.18. 26 Or.25 His speeches or arguments are imagined as choosing paths (literally roads).14–15 (the emperor). 26. 28. Or. and there are even more compelling examples. and several of the speeches are said to be fulfilling vows to gods in thanks for saving Aristides during a journey. such as Oration 17. 1. 17.6. So numerous are the treasures of paintings all about it. κα δε ς τως πε γεται στις ρ τ πρ σω τ ς δ κα αλμ ς δε ι π ι μεν ς.17). for example in the comparison of different views of a landscape and the rhetorical discussion of which is best. 26. Or. Or. and here its beauty can more closely be counted and measured.28). κα πρ ελ ντι μικρ ν π λις α ις σπερ παραπ μπ υσα να α νεται. Or. which is occasionally but never fundamentally satisfied. E. While traveling about the city you would find wisdom and you would learn and hear it from its inanimate objects. . landscape and reading it is beautifully expressed in Oration 46.20. 46. Or. But far more frequent are expressions of Aristides’ unsatisfied desire when viewing a landscape.2. τ δ μετα λλει τ σ μα. 46. following the movement of the traveller. there are quite simply many examples of geographical 27 28 Or. The Isthmian Oration: Regarding Poseidon: νδ δ ν κα κ κα μ ν ν τε τ γυμν σ κα κα ’ δ ν λ ν ν ε ρ ις κα παρ τ ν ψ ων μ ις σειας· τ σ τ ι ησαυρ γραμμ των περ π σαν α τ ν. 17.7. and what was to his left before his gaze.4–5. π ι π λ ψει τις. 23. 19. In this case the changing views are directly related to the premise of the walk through Smyrna.25. τ μ ν κατ’ ριστερ πρ τ ς ψεως (Or. And further the gymnasiums and schools are instruction and stories. And when you have proceeded a little ways. shifting that before his eyes to his right.28 Moving on to the theme of landscape proper in orations other than the Sacred Tales. And no one is in such a hurry that he stares straight ahead at the road and does not change his view.142 alexia petsalis-diomidis of the new governor of Asia. indeed man-made. 22. but the theme occurs in more abstract ways. Or. Or. 18. where the description of Smyrna follows the course of a walk.g. 17. In this speech there is a specific emphasis on the changing views of the landscape.27 The idea of moving through the physical. and this theme I would connect to his ever repeated desire for union with the divine. the city again is visible as if it were escorting you. wherever one would simply look. κα γ γνεται δι’ λ ττ ν ς ντα α δη ρι μητ κα μετρητ τ κ λλη α τ ς. τι σια κα διδασκαλε α [κα ] μα ματ τε κα στ ρ ματα (Or. his inability to see it from all angles and truly possess it. κα κατ τ ς δ ς α τ ς κα τ ς στ ς. throughout the streets themselves and porticoes. 79. Or. 23. 18. Or. Or. 36. 32 Or. the city of Smyrna is likened to a variety of pieces of clothing. 17. Or.97. the feet of Smyrna set firmly on the beaches.8.3.9. 17. Alexandria to the necklace or bracelet of a rich woman.21–26 (the Isthmus). and to the crown of Ionia. 21. 14. 46.33 The landscape is envisaged not only as parts of the human body but also as specific adornments of the body. passim (the Nile). 23. Smyrna as the eye of Asia. 30 Or. Cities can be sick. 17.5.30 There are analogies of the land.10.9–10 (the Eleusinian sanctuary). and Corinth to Aphrodite’s girdle. 44. 19. 9. 19. and glades.17. 20.8. 20. These include cityscapes. Or. From the plethora of images of the landscape as the human body in Aristides’ corpus I have chosen two more elaborate examples to 29 Or. Or.13–25 (Pergamon.10.4.25.21. the sea as the eye of Smyrna. 83–84.19.31 but more frequently to a part of the human body. 31. Or.45. 21.3. Or. the Koinon of Asia set in the navel of the whole empire. Or. 21. Or.6–17 (Cyzicus). 23.9. 33 Or.16. Or. Examples include the harbour of Smyrna as the navel and bosom of the city. Or. 22. 39. Or. the Aegean sea beginning at the islands in the south and ending in the Hellespont. 26. 26. Or. . seascapes and descriptions of individual buildings. Or. 34 Or. and to the pendant and necklace of all Greece. Smyrna and Ephesos). 31 Or. the sea to the belt of the Roman empire.31. 21. 46. Or. Or. 23. 92–95. 26.the body in the landscape 143 ekphrasis. 18. the sea (of Poseidon) as a mother’s lap. Or.13. including an embroidered shirt. 46. 24. Or. a robe of the Nymphs and Graces. Or. Or.34 The likening of cities and other landscape features to adornments of the human body implicitly creates the image of the underlying geographical landscape as a vast human body.29 The frequent occurrence of this theme suggests that to some extent ekphrastic tropes construct Aristides’ thematics. 32. Or.10. harbours. Or. passim (the well at the Pergamene Asklepieion). a veil of empresses and crown of emperors. passim (Smyrna). as in the example of the σκ λη of Cyzicus. landscapes.6– 13 (Rome). Or. its beauty extending ‘from head to foot’. 17. One of the ways in which he repeatedly describes the landscape is in terms of the human body. 27. Or. 18. 21.4. Or. 21.10.10. such as Rhodes on account of internecine strife and the world before the era of Roman rule. passim (the Aegean). Or. the river Meles is compared to a necklace.19. 19.7.9–12. 24.13.38. 26. Or. 39. 44. Or. Or.24. For example. Or. landmark or city to a whole person (as in the example of cities as sisters in the Panegyric in Cyzicus). Or. 22. 24.32 The use of the image of a fragmented body for the landscape has particular resonance in the case of the descriptions of Smyrna and Rhodes shattered by earthquakes and political instability in Rhodes. nor such as to wander off its course. But the landscape / body analogy is interestingly inverted later in the speech where ‘all former men. 27. beside the city’s leg. 10. who does not dare to be farther apart from it.6–8.144 alexia petsalis-diomidis quote here.21–23. and having these should think that he has what he wished’ (κα πα ν δ παραπλ σι ν σπερ ν ε τις σ ματ ς πι υμ ν γεν σ αι κ ρι ς νυ ς τινας κα κρα λ ι ντ λ υ τ σ ματ ς κα τα τα ων ειν ιτ περ λετ . as it were. In Oration 26 Regarding Rome imperial conquest is expressed in terms of grasping the body or parts of the body: in the case of the Athenians and Lacedaimonians ‘their experience was the same as if someone.35 The idea of the citizens of Cyzicus mould- 35 Or. for example in the ideas of the centrality of the navel or the preciousness of the eye. for it has. Or. 36.43). should get hold of some nails and hair instead of the whole body. σ εστ ν μ ν α τ ς τ ν ρωτα. there is a lacuna at this point of the text.7. Or. Corinth and the Aegean sea are at different times envisaged as the centre of the world. ruled over. but it is like a sort of lover of the city. Or. 44. 21. stretching itself. I think. as it were. στε α τ εν ρμη ε ς α τ κα πα εται. . Or. only the naked bodies π πλε στ ν γ ς ρ αντες of their people’ ( μ ν νω π ντες κα σπερ σωμ των γυμν ν α τ ν τ ν ν ν ρ αν.87–93. a ceaseless love for it and guards it ceaselessly.2–3. It is implied that the Romans grasp and enjoy the whole body. παρατε νας κ λω τιν τ ς π λεως αυτ ν. but the sense is clearly that in contrast the Romans rule over cities. Or. In addition. and at a microcosmic level. The use of images of parts of the body is one way in which this is achieved. (Or. 46. every location in Rome can be experienced as its centre. Indeed. 61. so that it begins and ends here. Through his descriptions Aristides imposes his own geographical hierarchy on the landscape. 26. τε. 13. even those who ruled the largest portion of the earth. μαι. σ εστ ν δ τ ν υλακ ν ων. λλ’ ικεν ραστ τινι τ ς π λεως τ λμ ντι μακρ τ ραν π γ γνεσ αι. the Meles is not erratic.92). To counterbalance this image of imperial conquest Aristides also gives us one of lovemaking in The Smyrnaean Oration (II): κα μ ν δε πλ νης γε Μ λης δ’ ς π ιτ ν. 26. 26. in his desire to obtain mastery over a body. 26. Aristides’ shifting perspective on geography results in the literal relocation of the centre of the earth in a number of speeches: Rome. Cyzicus.15). Or. and then considers the parts of the city rising high in the hills: στ’ ε τις α τ ν ελ σειε κα αρ ς ναπτ αι κα τ ς ν ν μετε ρ υς π λεις π γ ς ρε σας ε ναι λλην παρ’ λλην. Or.8–9. 40. one beside another.g. Or. ναπληρω ναι τ τ π ν ν μ ι δ κε κα γεν σ αι π λις συνε ς μ α π τ ν Ι νι ν τε ν υσα (Or. the grandeur which towered above would be no less than if another world were described in the one place.13 and Or. which are now aloft in the air. 17. 1. 39 Pliny Natural History 36. upon the earth. 36. 102 (Romans). This wonderfully vivid sifting and re-configuring of the landscape finds echoes not only in Pliny the Elder’s image of all the buildings of Rome gathered together ‘in one great heap’. Or. 43. the Aegean is envisaged as containing cities and countryside in its midst.8).39 but also within Aristides’ 36 Or.15. Therefore if someone should wish to unfold all of it and to plant and set the cities. I think that all the now intervening space in Italy would have been filled up and that one continuous city. for example in the fording of rivers and the establishment of post stations in deserts.101 ‘For if you were to gather together all the buildings of Rome and place them in one great heap.38 A more extended example of such transformational viewing can be found in the case of Rome. For example.37 Images that convey the impression of a landscape not through detailed description but through transformational images (such as the temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus as a three-storied house or three-decked ship) occur in many orations. 9. 38 Or. while the islands themselves are likened to ships of rescue and ships for Leto on her way to Delos.11–15. Or. 26.43 (Persians). extending to the Ionian Sea. using the Homeric image.91.the body in the landscape 145 ing their landscape through quarrying at Prokonnesos and building the temple of Hadrian is also present in passages of the ordering and rearranging of the landscape by the Romans.101. Aristides emphasises the interconnectedness of the landscape. . Or.8 (Smyrna). 14 (the Aegean). 23. 19 (Zeus). Or. σ ν ν ν Ιταλ ας διαλε π ν στιν. the Pergamene Asklepieion is described as the hearth of Asklepios in Asia and as the harbour of Pergamon. 44. especially sailing. Aristides first presents the city of Rome as snow poured over the landscape. would have been formed. 23.4–6. 37 E. 26. the city of Smyrna is imagined translated into heaven. in passages that describe the creation of the universe by Herakles and Zeus.36 Both in descriptions of landscape and in references to travel.’ (Loeb translation). 12–13 (Herakles). 17 (the Pergamene Asklepieion). and on the cosmic level. 51. αιρ ν δ κα κατ’ α τ τ κ ματα κα κατ τ ν κει τητα τ τ π υ τ τ πω (Or. Or. 46. 49. 50.24). More broadly Aristides’ interest in the themes of travel and landscape was by no means unusual in the literature of the Second Sophistic. which includes a substantial section on how to praise a country and city. mention of various temples to him dotted around). especially 4–6.22 (Muses and Graces inhabit Smyrna). 42 Or.56–67 (topography of Athens). where divine charis is located in a specific feature of the landscape. Or. but also in the idea of the divine sons of Asklepios travelling throughout the earth and offering their divine aid universally. 44. I was pleased.17–19 (description of Black Sea down into the Aegean. as Apollo and Artemis inhabit it).146 alexia petsalis-diomidis corpus. But the sense of the divine within the landscape again is not limited to the Sacred Tales.55–56 (cosmic visions). 39 passim. Or. Certain buildings seemed to have been added and the name of the place to be Elephantine from Elephantine in Egypt. 40 41 . In such passages the landscape is reconfigured through divine charis. unlike the heroes Amphiaraos and Trophonios who are limited to the vicinity of their oracles.42 Such place-related religion and immanent revelation of deities can be found in other second-century texts such as Pausanias’ Description of Greece and Philostratos’ Heroikos. 23. described as the god’s co-worker). 14–15 (the sacred well in the Pergamene Asklepieion. κα ν μα ε ναι τ ωρ ω Ελεαντ νη π Ελε αντ νης τ ς ν Α γ πτω. Or. Or.48. the Isthmus is the headquarters of his kingdom). Pausanias’ Description of Greece and Menander Rhetor’s On Epideictic Speeches. there appeared the Temple of Apollo.21 (Nymphs and Muses in and around Smyrna). 38. Or. which is on Mount Milyas. A brief comparE. a detailed discussion of the location of Elephantine and a refutation of Herodotos’ writings about the springs there. 47. 11.20–21 (sons of Asklepios travel throughout the earth). but is fundamental to Aristides’ writings. Regarding the well in the temple of Asklepios. Or. and the dream reveals the divine either directly in an epiphany of the god or in the form of a prescription for Aristides’ body. and further examples include Oration 39. 20.41 On the twenty-sixth. Aristides writes: Π μπτη α νετ μ ν τ ερ ν τ Απ λλων ς τ ν τ ρει τ Μιλ α· δ κει δ κ ματα ττα πρ σγεγεν σ αι. It was traced in the case of Cyzicus. Or. Compare Or. 16 (the Aegean is full of temples and paeans). 36. in a number of oneiric evocations of specific landscapes and cosmic geography in the Sacred Tales. 20 (everywhere is his temple.40 For example.50–54.14 (land of Cyzicus parcelled out amongst the gods). its precise location in the landscape. both because of the buildings themselves and because of the similarity of the one place to the other. with Poseidon riding on his chariot. Examples include the ancient novels.11 (the Aegean is full of sweet music. Or.g. 27. but I will here limit myself to a suggestion of direction. although it is a wonderfully neat example of the dovetailing of the Sacred Tales with another of Aristides’ speeches. In particular Menander Rhetor advises orators to locate the country or city in relation to the surrounding territory and geographical features. however. such as political events. Fundamentally all the speeches are connected to events in Aristides’ life. Pausanias does not refer to the practical details of his journey and rarely alludes to his feelings or thoughts. Menander Rhetor’s Epideictic Treatise I Book II has much in common with Aristides’ geographical ekphrasis. personal experience and divine revelation is original. acquires an unparalleled prominence in the corpus of Aristides’ orations. there are remarkably few landscape descriptions. and includes statements in which a territory. 30–32. 22–25. Again. while transformational descriptions of the landscape and personal journeys are wholly absent from the advice of Menander Rhetor. 346.the body in the landscape 147 ison between Aristides’ approach to travel and landscape and those of Pausanias and Menander Rhetor is instructive.1–7. deaths of friends. I turn now to consider very briefly the second question of how representative the example of Cyzicus is as far as interpenetration between the Sacred Tales and other orations is concerned. 351. I would argue that Cyzicus is not a special case. Despite the importance of the idea of the landscape of Greece in Pausanias’ work. Aristides’ approach to travel and landscape can thus be situated within a broader cultural sensitisation to the subject and even within similar literary tropes. On Epideictic Speeches. While the Sacred Tales focuses on 43 Menander Rhetor. such as the state of his health and his travels in order to deliver orations. By contrast. but his linking of travel and landscape to the human body. This is a question with far-reaching implications for the interpretation of Aristides’ corpus. In contrast Aristides inserts himself into the landscape by imitating the process of travel in geographical ekphrasis and by describing his experiences of travel ranging from the details of his lodgings to intense moments of divine epiphany. earthquakes. and instead the text follows the bare linear structure of a periplous narrative.43 The latter theme. .4–6. city or harbour is compared to the human body or parts of it. and to external contemporary events. There are various degrees of interpenetration to identify. These same events may be referred to in the Sacred Tales and equally in other speeches. The relevance of this theme to the other orations is evident not only in Oration 33.10. Against Those Who Burlesque the Mysteries. 48.50 To this end it reveals the extent of Aristides’ constant bodily sufferings and the god’s constant commands. 42. 50. Panegyric in Cyzicus). Oration 34.23 (Alexander of Cotyaeum and the emperor). 47. In Defence of Running. 52.56. Or.21).78– 79) and Alexander of Cotyaeum in Oration 32.42 (reference to the Macedonian man’s dream of singing a paean to ‘Herakles Asklepios’. Panathenaikos.25 (Athena saving him from the plague). Or. 51.49 Most fundamentally the Sacred Tales as a whole is an apologetic text.75 (he receives letters from Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. 50. the emperors frequently (e. in particular Orations 17–21. Or. Funeral Address in Honour of Alexander. it also intersects with public events such as earthquakes and the plague.38–43 (earthquakes).6.16. is mentioned.3 (possible allusions to Oration 1.88. and Or. 46 E. An Address Regarding Asklepios and Oration 28. also referred to in Or.4. Against Those Who Burlesque the Mysteries and Oration 41. 48 Or. Dionysus. 36–38 (dream of Marcus Aurelius). 28.g. Panegyric in Cyzicus. and Aristides’ teacher. in a dream). 23. 47 References to pilgrimage to Asklepios at Pergamon and to pilgrims known in the Sacred Tales: Or. 51. 49 Or. To Those Who Criticise Him Because He 44 Or. such as Oration 27. 133.39 (reference to delivering Oration 34. in the Sacred Tales public figures such as the emperors appear frequently. Or.148 alexia petsalis-diomidis Aristides’ interior both in subject matter and approach.46 these figures also appear in other orations. Or. Or. confirming his immunity from public office). 50. both of which prevented him from writing and delivering speeches on many occasions. Or. 28. and amazing feeling of ease during delivery). 49. 50 E. 51. Or. Or. and Oration 26. On Rome. 50.48 and there are references to the Sacred Tales in Oration 42. 45 Or. and the plague is also referred to.47 There are also numerous cases of specific cross-referencing between the Sacred Tales and other orations. some of which survive.25 (composition of Oration 41.g. See also Or.41. 40. 36. Concerning a Remark in Passing.45 Similarly. the grammarian Alexander of Cotyaeum.g. . Or. 51.116–118. Or. 33. 23. In the Sacred Tales there are references to the composition of orations. 46–49 (dream of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus). Athena and Dionysus). partly aiming to silence those who criticised Aristides for not declaiming often enough.23. Fellow pilgrims at the Pergamene sanctuary appear not only in the Sacred Tales but also in a number of orations. for example in the stories of Aristides stopping the spate of earthquakes and of Athena saving him from the plague.44 The earthquake that destroyed Smyrna also features prominently in other orations.16 (composition of Oration 27. e.51 At the same time.1.52 But whereas these are brief and may appear conventional. Where does this discussion lead us? I suggest that it offers us the model of using the Sacred Tales as a guide to reading Aristides’ corpus not only in a specific way. Or. In the orations themselves there are countless references to divine commands to take up the challenge of certain topics. Or. actual prompting with specific phrases in dreams (Or.g.26). exercises of ‘unseen preparation’ (Or. as the god’s communications begin and continue with great frequency on account of the former but gradually become beneficial to the latter. Or. 20.the body in the landscape 149 Does Not Declaim. and this directly connects the work with the actual extant orations.21 and 105. as a key interpretative text that reveals Aristides’ essential outlook. Or. 30. especially in Book IV.2. 22. 36. but also in a fundamental way.g. Or.1. Or. one of the key themes of the Sacred Tales is that of the god’s help to Aristides in improving his oratory.1. suggestions of particular topics of composition (Or. which deals directly with the issue. Or. 26.59). 24. 21. 32. and how these relate to Aristides’ body and the divine. Or.27 and 29).25–27 and 39–41). passim. 50. 33. reveals the way in which a symbiotic relationship develops between Aristides’ ill-health and his oratory. oneiric introductions to the great authors of the past (Or. and divine inspiration during delivery (Or. 4. 50. The Sacred Tales. including exhortations not to abandon oratory (Or.22).1.14. 50. Concerning Concord that the area of Pergamon where the sanctuary of Asklepios was situated was ‘the most honoured of all and ever in my mind’ (τ δ’ 51 52 Or. E. A reading of the Sacred Tales prompts us to take very seriously the statement in Oration 23. At various points in the Sacred Tales Aristides discusses in detail how the god effected this improvement. 50.1. pleas for divine aid. Or. as I hope to have demonstrated in relation to Oration 27. . Or.2. 50. Panegyric in Cyzicus and in relation to the theme of travel and landscape. and references to direct divine inspiration on the way.14). 50. 28. but also in numerous other instances where the speeches open with an apology for the fact that Aristides himself is not delivering the speech on account of ill health or at the commands of the god.39). the narrative of the Sacred Tales reveals in depth the intimate processes of composition underlying the other orations. 46.124. 50. Eventually this complicated relationship between ill-health and oratorical success is interpreted both by Aristides and apparently by the orator Pardalas along the lines that he became ill ‘by some divine good fortune’ (τ η τιν ε α) in order to improve his oratory (Or. and the passage in Oration 46. κα σ εδ ν τ ς πλε στης μ ι διατρι ς τ ν λ γων περ τα τα σης. . his own body and his oratory. 46. The Isthmian Oration: Regarding Poseidon ‘when I am mindful of the divine everywhere and when most of my lectures. Or. Or. Aristides’ deeply religious outlook can then be recognised throughout his corpus as the prism through which everything is viewed and indeed transformed. more or less. most importantly the landscape.3). 23.150 alexia petsalis-diomidis π ντων τιμι τατ ν κα δι π σης ε μν μης μ .14). are concerned with this’ ( μ παντα τ ε υ μεμνημ ν ν. Spengel). and Alexander of Cotiaeum’s ‘On the Difference between Praise and Encomium’ found at Rhetores Graeci 3. we can tease out elements of the complex relationship between epideictic rhetoric. plus Dio Chrysostom Or. esp. 28. This includes holding office. with the exceptions of Tacitus Agricola 1 and Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 11. 245–248.chapter eight ARISTIDES AND PLUTARCH ON SELF-PRAISE Dana Fields This paper concerns the two longest and most elaborate discussions of self-praise that survive from Greco-Roman antiquity.1. and serving as an ambassador to other cities. The texts that discuss this issue are predominantly Greek. and in the course of which Dio manages to assimilate himself to Nestor—a strategy that rivals Aristides’ for self-aggrandizement). to refer to direct involvement in civic or provincial institutions and the fulfillment of civic or provincial responsibilities. here and throughout this essay. it is crucial not to overlook the fact that all of the advice. for discussion of Pliny’s use of mitigating strategies in self-praise and the place of self-praise in Roman culture more generally. the emperor. while taking into account their differences in aim and genre. 57 (a defense of Nestor’s boasting. it also means taking an active part in ensuring the well-being (however tendentiously defined) of the city in its internal affairs and in its relations with other cities and the imperial authorities. See also Gibson 2003. where brief mentions appear.2 1 Περ τ αυτ ν παινε ν νεπι νως and Or. performing public benefaction (voluntary or otherwise). More generally. The focus of each work is on the arguments for or against self-praise (and in Plutarch’s case helpful how-to tips). At the same time. and the selfjustifications expressed by these texts take shape against the political and cultural background of the high Roman Empire. . 199–201 for other sources on periautologia and self-praise more broadly. Περ τ παρα γματ ς. and political involvement.16. See Rutherford 1995. 2 I use the terms ‘political’ and ‘politics’ (as they apply to the actions of an individual) in the narrow sense. By comparing two figures who position themselves in such strikingly different ways in relation to the agonistic elite display culture of this period. which serves as a preemptive deflection in case the same charge might be brought against Dio himself. Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise and Aristides’ On an Incidental Remark. or one of the emperor’s representatives.2–4 (ed.1 I propose to read these texts in a way that sets each author’s treatment of the topic against the social and political contexts that these same texts depict. self-promotion. the complaints. is a concern that appears frequently in texts of the Roman imperial period. LIII 1689 (on which see Dickey 2003). Aristides’ On an Incidental Remark is by contrast defensive and polemical rather than didactic. allegedly provoking the censure of an unnamed critic.g. Herculanus was known also for his patronage locally in Sparta and to various other Greek cities on a scale comparable to the benefactions of Herodes Atticus. Self-Praise in the High Empire It has been commonly observed that self-praise. friend to Hadrian.3 Plutarch sets out reasons why self-praise is off-putting to others. On the dating of Plutarch’s works. Julius Eurycles Herculanus L. 29. though. interest in this topic originates earlier. situations where it is acceptable. but I would also like If the addressee Herculanus is in fact C. no. As one might expect. from third century Oenoanda SEG XLIV 1182 (B). or periautologia (literally: talking about oneself). see Jones 1966. and ways to use it without offending (or avoid using it altogether). and first senator from Sparta (under Trajan). 110–111. See Halfmann 1979. in which he defends his comment by giving reasons for and examples of justified self-praise. self-aggrandizement and other issues related to aristocratic competition are also prominent in honorific inscriptions. 4 See Pernot 1998. Cartledge and Spawforth 2002.4 My primary question in this paper is what use Plutarch and Aristides in particular make of this theme and what this tells us about how each author envisioned the role of the prominent man in relation to his society. descendant of Spartan dynasts who received their local rule and their citizenship from Octavian. Vibullius Pius. though it does not necessarily follow that self-praise is not an especial concern in the Roman period. which he regards as the least problematic mode of self-disclosure in such a situation. Aristides apparently committed a faux pas while presenting a speech in honor of Athena. who in turn convinced a friend of the rhetor to criticize him privately. see e. as has also been demonstrated. He inserted into his written remarks some extemporaneous praise of the speech he was currently giving. See also Most 1989. 3 . arguing that throughout Greek literature talking about oneself to strangers must take the form of a ‘tale of woe’. The situation that prompted the work can be gleaned from the text as follows: during his period of ‘incubation’ at the temple of Asclepius in the mid 140’s CE. On an Incidental Remark represents Aristides’ public response to this criticism.152 dana fields Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise is an instructional treatise probably written during the first decades of the second century CE. 6 Rutherford is followed for the most part by Pernot.aristides and plutarch on self-praise 153 to raise the question of what this preoccupation with praising oneself means more broadly during this era. such a pervasive concern with how to talk about oneself suggests not individuals alienated from society. including a six-year exile to Kazakhstan. which leaves the individual unsure as to how much selfassertion is allowed (1981.. esp. an interpretation that cuts loose the problematics of self-praise from their historical moorings (1995. see Jones 1940.5 to Ian Rutherford’s view that the issue is merely a matter of rhetorical decorum. Sartre 1991. For a study of the robust political culture of Asia Minor in the High Empire (from which we have the preponderance of our epigraphic material). 140–188 (though see also the reservations of Burell 2005.7 Epigraphic sources reveal copi- It is not unreasonable to suspect that this interpretation was colored by Bakhtin’s own experiences under Stalin. However. Salmeri 2000. Diverse interpretations have appeared over the course of the last century regarding the amount of attention that the problem of self-praise receives during the high Roman Empire. 106–108). 132–135). even to the point where this engagement verges on blood sport (as we will see in the course of this paper). Rutherford is right to say that ‘most of periautologia tradition in rhetoric is the working out of a problem of decorum created by a conflict between the social pressure to assert oneself in public and the social criticism of excessive assertiveness’ (ibid. 201). 69–76. These range from Mikhail Bakhtin’s perception of a widespread alienation of the individual from his society. at 117). Cf. see Dmitriev 2005. this fundamental tension was shaped to a large degree by the political and social environment of the imperial Greek cities. who locates the problem of periautologia in the tension between its usefulness and its ‘dénonciation unanime’. his contemporary E. the agonistic pressure to self-promote and the opposing forces of social unification that aim to prevent any man from becoming too conspicuous must be examined with reference to the particular historical contexts that give meaning to these forces. After all. 7 For surveys of local politics in the Greek East. Habicht 2005). Dodds’s view of the second to third centuries as an ‘age of anxiety’ in Dodds 1965 (and Swain’s historicization of that claim: 1996. For Plutarch and Aristides. and for an examination of the role of local officials as represented in inscriptions detailing civic offices in the province of Asia.R. but just the opposite: an elite culture in which people are intensely engaged with others. 5 . 193–204). Millar 2006 [1993]. see Mitchell 1993. Ma 2000. 126–133. 170–191. the prevalence of the concern with selfpraise shows the individual (qua individual) making sense of his place in relation to society. 117–122.6 In my opinion. esp. (1998. 198–217. but during this period the emphasis becomes more narrowly focused on the sphere of oratorical performance as such.g. and Aristides. but I do not mean to suggest that they are identical to their roles. id. 39. 32. class conflict. see e. Sheppard 1984–1986. Or. The political dimension of self-praise is illustrated by the way these authors’ treatments of the topic tap into a larger tension between behavior that is advantageous locally and behavior that is advantageous 8 See Millar 2004a [1988].10 The role to which each author lays claim plays a large part in determining his approach to the long-standing problem of negotiation between the extremes of self-glorification and restraint in a highly competitive society. caused by aristocratic infighting. 328 on the elusive definition of the ‘free city’. Plutarch produced some sophistic works. see below. 241–248. or other factionalism. 2004b [1981]. for Dio. the potential for Roman intervention always loomed. each man takes an active part in shaping the meaning of his role) and generally a matter of self-presentation: in spite of the common contraposition of rhetoric and philosophy (traceable back to Plato). 46. while Aristides displays in his writings a very thorough knowledge of Plato’s arguments (rather than just his style).8 Some of the greatest threats to the stability of the Greek cities were internal rifts. Furthermore. much as Aristides might dispute that label). but the limited autonomy of these cities reduced their scope of action in external affairs. except among the few ‘free’ cities. Greek elite culture always had an agonistic bent. 203.154 dana fields ous internal political activity in the Greek East. there was at least some degree of direct oversight by Roman magistrates. Furthermore. we should also acknowledge that the contrasts between their texts arise in part from the cultural role in which each of the authors generally chose to present himself—Plutarch as instructive philosopher and Aristides as rhetor (or ‘sophist’. I argue that Plutarch’s and Aristides’ respective self-positioning in relation to this epideictic culture helps elucidate the complicated interrelation of literary and political activity in the Roman era. 34. 10 In framing this essay. provides an overview. There are of course limits to how typical we can take them to be. 9 For Aristides and Plutarch. the roles themselves are malleable (i.e. . which provided elite orators with a trope to use (opportunistically or not) in their attempts at controlling the urban masses.9 As a result. At the same time as we recognize the influence of the socio-political environment in which Plutarch and Aristides wrote. as shown in the writings of Dio Chrysostom. as well as epigraphic and numismatic evidence. I take Plutarch and Aristides to be representative to a significant degree of the cultural roles they adopt. Plutarch. and I acknowledge that each was an idiosyncratic intellectual in his own right. 50. See also Philostratus. 19. Aristides represents what later became for elite Greeks the dominant mode of public life. for a reading of Aristides’ evasion of office as prioritizing Asclepius over all else. and Behr 1968. Secall. 5–9. Resistance to office: Or. in his connection with the emperors more generally: Or.) 2002. the contributions of Stadter. On evasion of local offices (and their accompanying liturgies). For the philosophical background of Plutarch’s political prescriptions. and Trapp (ibid. This should not be too surprising in and of itself—it is practically a cliché at this point to say that the Greeks inhabited a culture carefully attuned to judgment in the eyes of others14—but it is Aristides’ lack of interest in discussing why self-praise creates problems and what effect it has on its listeners that makes the attention to these issues so noticeable in Plutarch. de Blois et al. Plutarch: the Value of Harmony When reading Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise against Aristides’ work on the same theme. (eds. Dodds’s importation of the concept ‘shame culture’ from anthropology (1951. cf. Pernot. de Blois. Plutarch’s writings convey the message that within the polis the time for fierce competition and its accompanying self-promotion has passed (though self-praise always had to be handled with care. 176–179 in this volume. For more on Plutarch’s relation to his political context.) 2004. 13 Pride in having given speeches to emperors: Or. including the imperial authority. Beck. 42.12 In further support of this point we can note. Vitae Sophistarum 582–583. but a self that exists in relation to others and is maintained with others’ judgments in mind (1996. 128). Aristides’ pride in having given speeches before emperors and his resistance to taking up local office.71–108.13 By comparing these two authors we can attain a better perspective on the tension inherent in the very issue of self-praise and on the range of approaches to it that were available to prominent Greeks of the High Empire. and Cook.11 By contrast. 28–63). Note also Swain’s insistence that the interest in the ‘self ’ during the Roman Empire does not include a conception of an isolated individual.aristides and plutarch on self-praise 155 in a broader imperial context. see Jones 1940. 12 See Swain 1997. one aspect of Plutarch’s piece that becomes particularly striking is its orientation toward the external viewpoint. Swain 1996. for example.14. esp. 111. as his examples from orators of the classical period illustrate). see Aalders 1982. 142–144. 14 Cf.). pp. Stadter and Van der Stockt (eds. 135–186. see the papers of Hershbell. 184–190. 11 . in which ambition aimed at the imperial center took priority over local participation and benefaction.1. 16 It is almost as if the braggart is his own flatterer. (547c–d) In all these circumstances one cannot be too cautious. his lack of attention to others’ reactions. ντελεστ τη δ τ των ε λ εια κα υλακ τ πρ σ ειν τ ρ ις αυτ ς παιν σι κα μνημ νε ειν. and proclaims ‘we are appropriately disgusted at it’ (ε κ τως δυσ ερα ν μεν. it is as if by nature that we are 15 The Greek text of Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise is Pohlenz and Sieveking 1972. In trying to elucidate why self-praise is such a problem at the close of the work. μ τε συνεκπ πτ ντα τ ς πα ν ις μ τε τα ς ρωτ σεσιν αυτ ν πρ ϊ μεν ν. therefore any praise of him must be flattery. neither allowing oneself to be drawn out by the compliments nor led on by the questions. unjust character. ς ηδ ς τ πρ γμα κα λυπηρ ν πασι κα λ γ ς λλ ς δε ς τως πα ς δ αρ ς. The man who promotes himself in this way is also taken to exhibit shamelessness and a selfish. 539d). Plutarch maintains his focus on others’ reactions. unpleasant (τ ν ηδ αν. the text of Political Precepts is Hubert and Pohlenz 1957. 539a). δ γ ρ ντες ε πε ν τι π σ μεν λλ κακ ν π τ ν α τ ς παιν ντων σπερ σει αρυν μεν ι τ πρ γμα κα ε γ ντες παλλαγ ναι κα ναπνε σαι σπε δ μεν. that comes under attack. and with equal shamelessness. One reason for this judgment is the fact that the auto-encomiast forces his listener into a choice between two undesirable reactions: to stay quiet and seem envious. For though we cannot say that we have suffered any ill other than having to listen to the self-praise. . Plutarch states: Εν πασιν ν τ τ ις ε λα ητ ν ς νι μ λιστα. The best means of caution and guarding against this is to pay attention to others praising themselves and to remember that the matter was distasteful and painful to all and that no other speech is so annoying or offensive. emphasizes its role in inciting both hatred and envy. 16 The speaker demonstrates he is unworthy of praise by boasting. it is precisely the selfcenteredness of the auto-encomiast. 539b). that is. Throughout this list of criticisms.15 He draws an even stronger connection between how one presents oneself and how others react when he scolds that ‘praise of oneself is most painful/distressing to others’ (λυπηρ τατ ν. In reference to manipulative types who deliberately provoke someone into glorifying himself. or to join in the praise and act as a flatterer (539d).156 dana fields These other-oriented strategies are apparent in the ethical terms Plutarch uses to describe self-praise: he calls it offensive ( πα ς. 539c). inflating himself just as inappropriately as a flatterer does for others. 68d. 70e. 71b. 58a. and ‘oppressive’ ( αρυν μεν ι). Yet Plutarch is only able to account for the unbearable heaviness of auto-encomium by attributing it to ‘human nature’ ( σις). 102. The emphasis on both self-mastery and the monitoring of others in this period has been widely recognized. However. 66e. Here. 57a. The words used to convey the offense itself emphasize its weighty quality: it is ‘heavy’ ( πα ς). as he continues. 39–95). Plutarch occludes the evasiveness of his recourse to the mysterious and unquestionable ‘way things are’. In using images of physicality to understand the effects of self-praise.18 The preceding passage highlights not just the effects of self-praise but also the vigilance over oneself necessary for avoiding the error. n. υλακ and related forms: 50e. he implies. This is especially so in the wake of Foucault’s influential analysis (1986. and those advantages will not come under threat. Plutarch’s avoidance of making this revelation explicit is as telling (if not more so) than if he had said it outright: if the wealthy and prominent can keep quiet about their privilege. this passage stresses the inexplicability of the irritation that the act causes. See Whitmarsh 2006. as illustrated by the example of a resentful parasite (547d). it becomes apparent that this so-called ‘natural’ reaction is a cover for the resentment caused by others’ flaunting of their social or material advantages. 56f.19 Plutarch follows with a tip for achieving that aim: All translations are my own. Plutarch reveals that he is concerned with the reactions of less privileged ‘others’ as well as those of the reader’s aristocratic fellows. 19 The language used to prescribe this vigilance also appears in Plutarch’s How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend.17 As an explanation for the offensiveness of self-praise. but esp. ‘burdensome’ ( αρ ς).aristides and plutarch on self-praise 157 oppressed at the matter and try to escape it. 71d. 25. 61d. 72d). as elsewhere. passim. See below. However. which takes this preoccupation as indicating the relocation of ethical self-definition among elites to a more internallyoriented plane (which he describes as an intensification and valorization of the relations ‘of oneself to oneself ’). suggesting a quasi-physical dimension to the effects of self-praise. the society as a whole will be more stable. and we are eager to be set free and to breathe again. Foucault’s explanation of the phenomenon in terms of the individual’s declining political efficacy has been seriously questioned in light of evidence that the political environment of the Greek cities continued to foster robust 18 17 . another text highly concerned with negotiating the tensions inherent in elite (and would-be elite) interaction and with keeping watch over oneself and others (ε λ εια and related forms in this connection: 49a. Swain 1999.158 dana fields ν μνημ νε ωμεν. ‘ λλ τρι ς… ψ γ ς’. 89. as well as Sympotic Questions 2. The last sentence of the text (as quoted above) reinforces (and complicates) one more fundamental and recurrent theme: self-praise is justified if it has some end that promotes the collective good. 21 Cf.g. 546f–547a. 22 See also 539e–f.22 But this ending also throws into question the assumptions of the entire work by raising the possibility that self-interest is also a justifiable reason—if one local involvement. Republic 389b. The tricks of shifting focalization in both these works illustrate the importance of keeping watch over others as training for monitoring oneself. τι τ ς δ ις πα ν ις λλ τρι ς πεται ψ γ ς ε κα γ νεται τ λ ς δ α τ ς κεν δ ας τα της… ε με α τ λ γειν περ ελε ν αυτ ς τ ς κ ντας. 20 See also 540a–b. 459d. manages to suggest both criticism from others who are annoyed at having to listen to selfpraise and the implicit criticism of others that praising oneself entails in a context where competition is perceived as zero-sum. ν μ τι μεγ λα μ λλωμεν (547e–f) If we remember that censure of others always follows from praise of oneself and that the end of this empty self-glorification is the opposite of glory… we will avoid speaking about ourselves unless we intend some great advantage to ourselves or our listeners. This ambiguous expression. π’ ελ α τ ν ρ μ νων. see also 414b–415d). while didactic in tone. Plutarch moves from discussing annoyance at others’ self-praise to strategies for avoiding the act oneself. α τ ν. See e. 544d. Both authors share the aim of political expediency. This ‘we’. 630c–d on annoying self-praise.21 The implication is that one must be able to imagine one’s actions from an external point of view to determine the correct (i. Both readings illustrate Plutarch’s great sensitivity to the volatile nature of agonistic elite culture. 546c. the least offensive) behavior. demonstrating that the proper regulation of the self and of private life was viewed in the high empire as a prerequisite for the management of public life.1.20 In the course of this conclusion. . Plutarch’s language here echoes that of Plato in his discussions of the exceptional ‘noble lie’ ( π’ ελ α τ ς π λεως. migrating throughout this work between the producers of self-promotion and their audience. but despite this switch he maintains the first person plural. It is indeed crucial to Plutarch’s aims and to the kind of advice he is giving that the desirable action is the one least annoying to others. and thus creating a double perspective. Plutarch’s use of a similar tactic in How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend.e. is also slippery in its identification. epigraphic. 1. 544d. 544b). 195–218. Plutarch explicitly states that harmony should be an aim both in interaction with one’s equals and in one’s relationship with the masses (hoi polloi). while the masses’ envy is prompted by the self-praise of a public speaker. 546f–547a.2. Furthermore.e. 1.25 By comparing Plutarch’s presentation of harmony in the Political Precepts to that in On Inoffensive Self-Praise. see Kurke 1991.4. Plutarch himself urges that a man should never go into public life to glorify himself but rather to serve his community with its best interests as his aim (798c–799a). In expressing his concern not only about aristocratic phthonos but also about mitigating strategies for dealing with that envy. illustrating a parallel between the social function of his text and that of Pindar’s apotropaic treatment of (human) phthonos. at the opening of the Political Precepts. 24 On this definition of phthonos. However. Swain 1999 on Plutarch’s depictions of the interrelation of domestic/interpersonal 23 . Plutarch echoes Pindaric themes. i. this ending also points to the fact that tension still remains between the value of selfpraise to an individual and the social forces that discourage it. and.6. 615c–619a. Plutarch’s Political Precepts can also be used to throw further light on why the issue of self-praise is so relevant to Greek politics under the Roman Empire. envy explicitly among elites: 540b. which would in turn exacerbate the problem.24 Terms such as μμελ ς (literally: harmonious in the musical sense) come up fairly frequently and are set in opposition to the unattractive quality of self-love and the undesirable envy of others (542b. 709d. Plutarch’s interest in harmony on an extremely local scale. 546c. The advice in On Inoffensive Self-Praise is geared overall toward maintaining social harmony and diminishing envy (phthonos) at αυτ ν παινε ν a local level. 26 Expressed as homonoia: 824b–e. Envy among elites is mainly discussed as the cause of self-praise. esp. see Konstan 2003. At this point we must note that Plutarch’s suggestions in On Inoffensive Self-Praise are generally aimed at the man taking an active part in local politics.23 The title itself in Greek is Περ τ νεπι νως: On praising oneself without engendering the odium that accompanies too-eminent success. among fellowdiners. 7. we can see that for Plutarch the value of social harmony lies in its necessity for maintaining local stability. and in a musical metaphor: 809e. in Sympotic Questions. 25 Envy and resentment of hoi polloi specifically: 542c. 620a–622b. See Sheppard 1984–1986 on the importance of homonoia as an ideal in the works of Plutarch and in this period more generally. for an analysis of Pindar’s strategies for counteracting envy.26 He illustrates this when he cautions that ambition ( ιλ τιμ α) Cf. in fact. as attested by literary. A generous reader might grant Plutarch that the true statesman’s interests are always in some sense the public interest. and numismatic evidence.aristides and plutarch on self-praise 159 manages to self-promote without causing a negative reaction. 27 and urges local leaders not to involve Rome in order to assert themselves over their rivals— this tactic results in more subjection to the Romans than is necessary and weakens the authority of local governments (814e–815a). Plutarch once again shows his concern over the dangers of class conflict: he warns that faction in the sense of quarrels between the elites and (as he puts it) their ‘inferiors’ can destabilize a city.22). 824f–825f. This emphasis. 819e–820a. 29 815a–819d. that Hubert and Pohlenz prefer ιλ νικ α at 811d. and more specifically the kinds of justification Aristides produces. 816c–d. The idea that self-praise is justified by the nature of the man speaking is a theme that pervades the text. to avoid Roman intervention (Or. suggest a view of self-praise that focuses more on the qualities of the man speaking and less on his social context. Aristides’ work devotes far more space than Plutarch’s to providing justifications for self-praise and shows almost no interest in the reactions of the listener. Exercising discretion in talking about oneself is crucial to maintaining the limited independence that Greek cities enjoyed.29 Seen against this background. 24. 823e–824e.9–10. but Aristides sets it out most succinctly in this formulation: ‘I believe it is a homonoia and the smooth running of a city. at the same time as it helps safeguard the advantages of the wealthy and prominent. Aristides repeatedly insists that it is his own talent as an orator. that enables him to make comments in praise of himself. (N. rather than from aristocratic rivalry. 815a–b. and cites the current ‘weak state of Greek affairs’ as a reason to be especially careful in maintaining internal concord (homonoia).) 28 This advice is supported by episodes from the history of the Roman conquest of mainland Greece as depicted in Plutarch’s Life of Flamininus 12. along with the inspiration and favor of the gods.B. 815a.160 dana fields and contentiousness ( ιλ νεικ α) destroy a state. Aristides on ceasing from faction. Cf. . Cook 2004 on the way Plutarch’s preferred rhetorical exempla in the Political Precepts also emphasize harmony. Plutarch also notes that this ambition and contentiousness are equally destructive to a statesman’s career: 811d–e. it becomes clear that the importance of not offending with self-praise during this period is so much more than a strategic way to make friends and influence people. we find a very different emphasis from that of Plutarch.28 As in On Inoffensive Self-Praise. Aristides: Self-Promotion in the Service of Truth Moving now to Aristides’ On an Incidental Remark. 27 809c. which implicitly locates the value of speech in its truth-content and thereby denies the importance of its role in social interaction. κα σ ρ ν ς γν ναι τ ν αν. 32 On Inoffensive Self-Praise 546b. How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend 48e–49a.34 In connection with this. νδρε υ δ μ η ναι τ λη ς ε πε ν. The clause at the center of the sentence suggests that speaking well of oneself is equivalent to speaking well of someone else. σκ τ δινι δ π ς ντα α κρ ατ ς κα κ ει τ ς γ νηται. ‘I understand oratory better than the critic and those like him and am more capable of judging what deserves praise than a member of the audience’ (κα μ ι παρ ει περ τ των μειν ν σ κα τ ν σ πρ σ μ ων π στασ αι. See also 4–5.aristides and plutarch on self-praise 161 trait of an intelligent and moderate man to know his worth.32 Clearly this sense of caution is not shared by Aristides. Early on in the speech. he presents the matter this way: if the critic thinks Aristides is a better judge than himself of what is suitable to say in a historical declamation in the person of a famous ancient orator. he has to guess at the character of figures like Demosthenes. the statement quoted above (145) relies on two other suspicious assumptions. who proclaims. On Tranquility of Mind 471d–e.31 Here we can compare the attitude of Plutarch.33 Besides the belief that one can be clear-sighted about oneself. self-knowledge for Aristides is closely tied to an understanding of the art of oratory. and of a brave man to speak the truth unafraid’ ( ρ ν μ υ μ ν γ ρ.30 The assumption that underlies the first part of this statement is one that recurs often in this speech: self-knowledge is reliable. μαι. 14. μαι. how can he think that he is a better judge than Aristides when it comes to what is suitable for Aristides to say about himself ? While. δικα υ δ τ πρ π ντα κα α τ κα τ ρ ις π δ ναι. As this statement suggests. 118. no matter what effect it has. and of the just man to pay himself and others their due. 145). 33 The μαι in ‘τ δ’ μαυτ σα ς. 150–151. See also 11. 34 Cf. who warns in On Inoffensive Self-Praise and elsewhere that self-love makes self-knowledge extremely difficult to attain. 30 31 . he thinks he knows his own character clearly (6–7). 120). as Aristides says. the belief underlying the final phrase is that speaking the truth is valuable in itself. Plutarch on the limited circumstances (καιρ ς κα πρ ις) that might allow this approach: On Inoffensive Self-Praise 539e. π σταμαι’ is likely sarcastic. On Dio. 11. By the same logic.118–127.35 Aristides accuses his critic of disallowing candor entirely if he prevents Aristides from praising himself (at least without showing that the self-praise is untrue) (47). who is implicitly an impostor because he praises himself dishonestly. parrhêsia. τ ν λα να.2. π σαν τ ν ναντ αν ρ εται δ π υ εν τ λη λ γων. Cf.38 Aristides even goes so far as to claim that his speech (or any true statement) cannot be blameworthy on the very basis that it is true when he reminds his audience that insult is not illegal. Plutarch On Exile 607c–d. With this ‘fanciful etymology’. only slander. 85. In one instance For more references to parrhêsia. 179–183. 72. ‘braggart’. 88.162 dana fields These assumptions are part of a tendency throughout this speech to reframe the issue of self-praise as a matter of frankness. ως πεστιν τ τ ψευδ λ γειν. Dio Chrysostom 1.23. see Goldhill 1991. As Aristides says: τω τ νυν κα τ ν ν ρ πων σ ι ε ιλε ς κα τ ν μ λων πρ υσιν. This ‘braggart’ is entirely opposite to the direction the truth-speaker proceeds. λλ’ γ νται τ ς λ τας π π ρ ας π λλ ψευδ μ ν υς κα κατ τ ν τ ς ρε ας α τ αν π ι σαι τ ν μα τ τ σ ε γεις. he would not justly be blamed. also Strabo 1. he continues. The pun relies on similarities between λ της (beggar/wanderer) and λα ν (braggart) and builds off a much older pun on λη ς (truth) and λ της. see MacDowell 1990. 38. Cf. see 53. is based on the fundamental premise that assertions should fit what they refer to (in this case. 37 Behr 1981. ‘if someone praises himself. 14. the quality of Aristides’ oratory) rather than the social context in which they take place. which connects the λα ν with πλ νη (wandering)! On Homer. (49)36 All men dear to the gods and excelling their fellows are not ashamed to speak the truth. κ α σ ν νται τ λη λ γ ντες. δικα ως ν ι μ μψιν. but they believe that beggars tell many lies out of poverty and because of their need have made up this name which you shun. 7. which is first attested at Od. Segal 1994. 162. so long as he does not tell lies’ ( τως δ’ ν περ αυτ τις ε ημ . 35 36 . 384 n.37 the ‘god-cherished’ truth-speaker is set up as the opposite of the λα ν. 38 On the history of the term λα ν.1. Another ploy Aristides uses to shed a more positive light on his behavior is the depiction of his self-praise as having philanthropic motives (a tactic which is in line with Plutarch’s advice). Cf.9–11. 13. 50).9. This argument. like many of those that Aristides makes about himself in this speech. the braggart. see Whitmarsh 2001. Aristides: Divine Sanction In addition to the admirable qualities of frankness and benevolence that Aristides claims for himself. In a metaphor that oozes condescension. Institutio Oratoria 12. as when. 119). and even the Muses.6. he groups himself among those dear to See also 103. Seneca Major Suasoriae 3. Phaedrus 234d–e. Aristides’ comments about his connection to the gods range from the general. Ion 534c. Quintilian on Plato as divinely inspired. 39 40 . Aristides’ argument rests in part on the notion that his self-praise is indirectly praise of these divinities and that barring him from remarking on the greatness they have allowed him to attain is in some sense to disallow praise of the gods themselves. 105.39 This formulation once again depends on Aristides’ superior understanding of the oratorical art. In other words. According to Aristides. to soldiers in a battle line who have been surrounded and are thrown into confusion (120). Rhetoric 1408a36–b20. help from the gods is part of what makes a man great. in connection with ‘what is fitting’ (τ πρ π ν). Athena. Therefore the act of self-praise is characteristic of a man who is ‘completely forthright and generous’ (κα αρ ς πλ ν κα ιλ ν ρωπ ν.24.10. Honesty therefore includes attributing this excellence to the gods that made it possible. he compares his naïve audience. Precedents for divine inspiration of oratory include: Plato as skeptical of oratorical inspiration. See also Cicero De Oratore 2.aristides and plutarch on self-praise 163 he even proposes that he is duty-bound to point out what is good about his speech since otherwise the crowd simply would not be capable of noticing all of its fine elements. his speeches are so good that they practically attack the listener with a barrage of excellent techniques! Only with Aristides’ help can the audience survive this onslaught by learning the true value of his oratorical skill.40 and (as we have seen) a great man must be honest and open about his greatness. another factor that is crucial to justifying his self-praise is his self-presentation (in this speech and elsewhere) as both a favorite of particular gods and the recipient of divine help. much less judging which of its qualities are most deserving of praise.193–194. in their ignorance at how to judge his speeches. for example. 245a. Aristotle on the ‘enthusiastic’ style. in Aristides’ case these are Asclepius. 147. 25). with Asclepius as their common patron (κα μ ι π ντες τ ι μετ’ κε νην τ ν μ ραν τα ρ ι σ εδ ν νησαν. through the medium of a dream. to aid him in composing the speech in her honor—and he insists that in praising himself he acknowledged the goddess’ inspiration (20–21). Asclepius tells Aristides which ancient authors he should study. not only because of the god’s encouragement of his practice. bolstering his image as rival to the ancients.82).12. For the god as guide. but also assimilate Aristides’ source of inspiration to that of great literary figures of the past. 158.44 Likewise.41 to the very personal. Asclepius sets himself up as an equal to the great ancient writers. He also tells of how his oratorical powers increased. 50. 102. See also Asclepius’ dream message at 116. 44 See also 53. identical to one that appears at Or. Or. 50.45 and refers in that work to dreams in which he found himself speaking ‘better than I was accustomed to and saying things I had never thought’ (π λλ δ’ α τ ς λ γειν δ κ υν κρε ττω τ ς συνη ε ας κα δεπ π τε νε υμ ην. Like Hesiod. see also Or. 45 See also Or.24). Early on in his speech on the ‘incidental remark’. 43 Here as elsewhere. 42. Or. as at the end of the speech when he refers to Asclepius as his patron or protector (πρ στ της) and his only guide (παιδαγωγ ς. Aristides explicitly compares his oratorical inspiration to the poets’ relationship to the Muses. 156). on other occasions he recalls dreams that tell him he even excels them. and Aristides says that from then on those authors were like comrades to him.52. These dreams not only provide a connection to the god. 48. τ ε πρ εν σαντ ς.43 Oratorical assistance from the gods often takes the form of a dream in Aristides’ writings.14–15). Aristides presents himself as visited by the goddess in a dream—Athena herself in this case. Aristides further emphasizes the importance of these dreams to his self-fashioning as a great rhetor when he states that he later incorporated these exalted dream orations into waking See above p. 41 42 . 94. Aristides relates how. but also due to the god’s more specific instruction in that training: for example.8. 75. 50.164 dana fields the gods. Aristides attributes his own speeches to Asclepius in the Hieroi Logoi (Or. 50. 50. the god encouraged and even commanded him not to give up his oratorical training while he was convalescing in the temple at Pergamum (Or.42 This image of Asclepius as a teacher and patron is one that appears frequently in the Hieroi Logoi. both famous for their transgressive manner of worship. the more common trope of poetic or rhapsodic possession. 9–50. and it fills him with intensity and warmth and cheer (114). stating: στ’ ε κα μηδ να μηδ’ ’ ν ς ε δ υς ε μεν ε πε ν π’ α τ τι ρ ν σαντα. as he claims. Aristides seems to be playing on the traditionally poetic triangulation of possession-prophesy-(misunderstood) truth. borrowed. which has a number of implications. is like an automaton. like an object moving by the force of its own inertia (111–112). σ δ’ α τι τ σ μ λ ν α τ τ τ ρ ς. ‘This is the one font of oratory’. τ ς λη ς ερ ν κα ε ν π ρ τ κ Δι ς στ ας. μηδ’ ν ναγκα ν τ ν λ γων τ τ ι τ ν π ημα. μ ς δ’ ε ς τα την ε ς ν ν γεν. See Detienne 1967. from contemporary Platonizing philosophy. Aristides absolves himself of responsibility for the offense he caused. Against Those Who Burlesque the Mysteries of Oratory.25).46 By this tactic. 48 See also 105. He compares those possessed to priests of Cybele (109) and Bacchants (114). Aristides informs his audience that even if there were no precedents for selfpraise. 110). he says. (117) 46 Cf. once set in motion. He also claims that inspired speech. 542a–b. the god is truly in control. implying that all others are shams.aristides and plutarch on self-praise 165 speeches and calls the dreams ‘the most valuable part of my training’ (κα μ ν τ γε πλε στ ν κα πλε στ υ ι ν τ ς σκ σεως τ ν νυπν ων ν δ ς κα μιλ α. And it is not the speeches of Aristides’ alone that are heaven-sent. For one thing. 50. it possesses his soul like a drink from the springs of Apollo. ‘the truly holy and divine fire from the hearth of Zeus’ and the speaker is figured as an initiate (λ γων δ’ α τη πηγ μ α. 34. It also simultaneously censures anyone who criticizes Aristides’ remark for defaming the mystical art of oratory as a whole. heightening the suggestion of the god’s presence: the light of god comes over the speaker. . 255 n.47 The upshot of this collection of mixed metaphors is the generalized connection between oratory and divine possession. it defines the true rhetor by his communion with the god. A more extreme version of assistance from the gods takes the form of divine possession during the course of an oratorical performance. Aristides goes so far as to use divine involvement to trump the other arguments he himself is making. the metaphor of Or. Aristides describes this experience as a series of quasi-physical sensations. according to Swain (1996. since. Or. 47 Cf.48 To stress even more emphatically the importance of the god in sanctioning self-promotion. divine possession would be enough to justify it. κ ν τ πρεσ ε α δ π υ συμ ρ ν π ι με α. as depicted in Plato’s Ion 533d–536d. 5). the extensive length and the public performance of his response to what was originally a private critique further adds to the promotional value of the text. Aristides: the Critic’s Critic Next we will examine the relationship between these defense tactics and Aristides’ self-promotion. as well 49 50 . issues of truth and frankness figure large in the Antidosis. even if we could name no one in any genre who was proud of himself. It has been noted that Aristides performs a sly maneuver in this speech by using the premise of a defense against the charge of self-praise to praise himself further. victorious athletes. Aristides strengthens his claim to be the consummate public speaker. 260–263.49 For instance. which is itself modeled on Plato’s Apology—see Norlin 1966. Isocrates explains this choice by stating that he is trying to avoid phthonos. and even Zeus himself. what is more.166 dana fields Therefore. and if this condition were unnecessary in oratory. Ober 1998. For an extended discussion of envy in the Antidosis and in Isocrates generally see Saïd 2003. 28–29. Likewise. Antidosis 8–14 provides a classical model for the same tactic. mythical heroes. xvii.51 Regardless of Rutherford 1995.50 Selfaggrandizement is even implied by the premise of the speech in that it rests on Aristides’ claim to be so famous and important that he is the subject of others’ conversations. 203. You. by the assertion that this behavior is the orator’s defining characteristic. Aristides’ polemical rather than didactic tone and his explicit discussion of himself dramatically change the effect of these examples. Given that a very large portion of this text is taken up by literary and historical examples of self-praise that Aristides uses to justify his own. and the speech is indeed full of ruthless self-promotion. but the god led us now to this—we would not count this privilege as a misfortune. We might even suspect that there was no such critic and that the whole issue was invented purely for the sake of self-promotion. And. an aim that Aristides does not seem to share. But. Too 1995. would criticize what is the very token of an orator. the effect of the counterfactual construction above is both to overwrite the earlier arguments and to prove twice over that Aristides’ self-pride is defensible. Nightingale 1996. 192–193. but one in which the author is open about the fictionality of the attack against him. however. conquering armies. the examples Aristides uses implicitly compare him to (inter alia) great poets. as in Aristides’ text. Though Plutarch uses several of the same sources to discuss self-praise. 51 Isocrates. 145. 61. see Whitmarsh 2001. and even nausea-inducing (πλε ν ναυτι ν. vindictive. and. 3). and speculate that he would probably like his children to turn out like Aristides (155). A claim of divine favor is after all one more type of boast. 55 See also 8. Similarly.55 On the whole. For more on rhetorical apologetics in Lucian and in the High Empire more generally. the author suggests that his critics may accuse him of inventing the story of his greeting gaffe merely for the sake of display (epideixis)—a reaction he provocatively seems to encourage as an indication of the quality of his prose (19). 291–293. self-promoting speech. 14. Cf. Another method Aristides uses to promote himself in this work is a series of vicious attacks against his anonymous (and possibly invented) critic. 53 In contrast to Aristides’ close relationship with them. 54 This comment can be taken to support the view that the critic is non-existent or the reading that sees Aristides as deliberately suppressing the critic’s name. 79–83. Cairns 2003. Defense of ‘Portraits’. Isocrates’ invention of a name for his pretend prosecutor at Antidosis 14. id. at the end of Lucian’s A Slip of the Tongue (another contentious response to having committed an embarrassing error in speech). above all else.aristides and plutarch on self-praise 167 whether one believes the premise of this speech. insolent. it is clear that On an Incidental Remark is a sharply competitive. in need of re-education (μεταπαιδε ειν. Aristides seems highly concerned with individual glory throughout. 244. 135).52 In addition. 97)54 who ought to be pleased if he is even allowed to attend Aristides’ speeches in the capacity of a slave ( λλ’ γαπ ν σ ι πρ σ κ ν. also Lucian’s works in the genre of apologia (defense speech): Fisherman. 97). 1). even as he attributes that glory to the gods and presents it as a conduit for their glorification. in some instances more explicitly than in others. a meddler ( ριστ ν ντα κα συκ ντην κα περ εργ ν. 95). 52 The text does seem to suggest that the man’s name was intentionally excluded. ε κα ν κ τ υ τ ει παρ σ α τ ς γιγν μ ν ις. as Ober 1998. 2005. 103). and Apology. 264. More explicitly competitive remarks characterize the critic as wretched and far from the gods ( λιε κα π ρρω ε ν. . 73. Cf. every item of vituperation against this critic can be taken as an attempt to increase the status differential between him and Aristides. Aristides’ avoidance of mentioning the critic’s name could be interpreted as part of an attempt to belittle him. 258. a slanderer. or even an elaborate fiction to give the impression of belittling.53 call him a ‘nobody’ ( δε ς. a subtle hint that there was no such critic. which have raised comparable suspicions that the attacker is a fabrication. See 3. This abuse includes suggestions that the critic is ignorant ( μας. 113. g.15 on the value of friendship. esp. 24.430. 24. One might argue that the problem in this passage is that contemporary Greeks (compared to children trying on their father’s shoes or garlands) do not merit this pride. Or. this time on the potential for private quarrels to spiral out of control and cause large public problems: 824f–825f.56 For Plutarch. 23. 59 Or. their cultural roles and related generic aims cause them to approach the issue in strikingly dissimilar ways.57 This attitude is not completely foreign to Aristides58—there are a few speeches where he promotes concord between Greek cities and avoidance of faction within then59—but his presentation of himself in On an Incidental Remark clearly takes no interest in interpersonal harmony. such as Marathon or Plataea. pp. sizeable differences in the authors’ attitudes become apparent. individual glory is more important. 2. 168 below). see Franco in this volume. a tactic that challenges his audience to condone his behavior or discard some part of their cultural tradition. On Or. while both authors are negotiating the same tensions inherent in the issue of self-praise. in the context of Aristides’ self-promotional harangue. philosophicallyoriented piece focuses more on social cohesion while. but in fact it is their ancestors in whom they take pride—it is only the actions to which this pride leads them that are inappropriate to the ‘present times and matters’ (παρ σι καιρ ς κα πρ γμασιν. Here we can once again compare Plutarch’s Political Precepts. because the reaction they incite is harmful to the common good in the circumstances of Roman rule (814a–c).4 on what he characterizes as the rare opportunity to make his oratorical practice useful. 814a).60 18. Overall. Overall. referring to oratory that is characterized by contentiousness ( ρις) and is not beneficial to the audience (Or. 232–243. 58 Though cf.168 dana fields Comparison: Perpendicular Lives? When we set these two texts against one another. 152. and also Or.1). In fact. e. quoted on p. by contrast. Aristides puts much less emphasis than Plutarch on homonoia between individuals. 60 Cf. Differences also become apparent when Aristides calls justified pride a particularly Greek characteristic. 23. Here we might compare the pragmatic advice of the Political Precepts. 27. 24. To Plato: In Defense of Oratory for self-referential comments on the limited relevance of contemporary oratory (Or. such ‘Hellenizing’ ideology is beside the point: he is less interested in discussing whether a man merits pride in himself than in the modesty and subtlety that make possible harmony and political expediency (factors that could have real effects on how the Greeks lived under Roman domination). Plutarch’s didactic. which urges local officials to avoid topics fraught with a kind of nationalistic pride. 23. 56 57 . the opening of Aristides’ On Concord between the Cities scorns exactly the sort of behavior he is displaying in On an Incidental Remark. according to Aristides. 183–184). if we remember that decorum is never just decorum. 545c. as narrated in the Hieroi Logoi. 542c. In this passage and throughout the speech.65 Furthermore. as in Plutarch’s work on self-praise. For Aristides. 23. 149. whereas these texts See above p. is the point at which not saying what is inspired becomes unbearable and impossible (115). also Plutarch’s role as priest of Delphi. his relationship to the god even figures into the determination of oratorical kairos. as I suggest above. Aristides’ avoidance of public office. the critical or opportune moment. that is. raises the question of whether we should read these actions as a claim that Aristides’ allegiance to the god is a higher priority than responsibility to his fellow citizens.aristides and plutarch on self-praise 169 Let us return now to Rutherford’s suggestion that the issue is a matter of decorum. see Quet 2006.61 There is something to this. 539e.62 kairos. Cf. The great lengths to which Aristides goes to avoid public service are aimed partly at establishing his cultural status. We should note as well that Aristides does in fact get involved in the affairs of Greek cities to some degree. Or.64 But it is significant that he is willing to contribute only in the role of an orator and a go-between rather than providing any material help himself.80. his speech on behalf of Rhodes after a similarly devastating earthquake.g. for example in his intervention with Marcus Aurelius in favor of aiding Smyrna. 64 On the letter to Marcus and Commodus. characterizing Aristides’ connection to Asclepius as a religious identity raises methodological problems concerning ancient religion that cannot be addressed here. Stroumsa 2005. and the speeches on concord mentioned above. see Stadter 2004. 65 Cf. for the claim that oratory is a preferable kind of benefaction! 61 62 . since exemptions serve as official confirmations of their recipients’ perceived value. which was a part of (rather than something set apart from) his public career. 546b. In some sense the tension between Plutarch’s approach to self-praise and Aristides’ lies in an implied contest over the definition of what is suitable. 63 This can be interpreted as supporting the view that religion took over as the primary determinant of identity in late antiquity (see e. Instead of referring to fitting one’s speech to its context or providing what is necessary for the public good at some critical juncture. However. whether the social context or the man speaking is more important for determining what is appropriate. it is clear that Aristides’ position in this pseudo-debate is one that considers fidelity to himself (and thereby to the god) to be the highest good.63 In considering these stances we can perhaps also look to the ways Plutarch and Aristides depict their own lives for parallels. 68 See above n. 318. Each of these works is trying to persuade its audience or reader of something.68 These very different approaches to civic involvement illustrate the wide gulf between the priorities of Plutarch and those of Aristides regarding public life. see Jones 1971.2) where he strikes a careful balance in presenting himself as both prominent abroad and loyal to home. Swain 1991.66 the Hieroi Logoi and On an Incidental Remark set Aristides’ rhetorical career at odds with any political participation required of him. 67 66 . On Plutarch’s public career. the orations of Dio Chrysostom addressed to eastern cities. Likewise. 3. discussed most explicitly in the Life of Demosthenes (2. When we look at Plutarch’s and Aristides’ texts in conjunction with one another. 130). taking his advice on public selfassertion also involves privileging broader social stability over individual self-promotion. 1996. For an extended discussion of self-presentation in the opening of the Lives of Demosthenes and Cicero. benefaction being another form of self-aggrandizement (hence often denoted by the word ιλ τιμ α). Conclusion: the Cost of Self-Praise Versus its Value What then do these two approaches to the issue of self-praise tell us about the contemporary concern surrounding writing and talking about oneself and about imperial-era political culture more broadly? The divergence between Plutarch’s and Aristides’ treatments of the issue can largely be attributed to the vast difference in the cultural roles they play as well as the genres in which they choose to work. In Plutarch’s case. and 28–30.170 dana fields blend self-promotion and political involvement. 171–172 for warnings against the credulous acceptance of reports in the Suda and Syncellus of various imperial honors awarded to Plutarch in his dotage). By comparison.67 Perhaps also significant is Plutarch’s address of On Inoffensive Self-Praise to a great benefactor to the cities of Greece. a strong connection emerges between how one talks about oneself and what position one takes in relation to the political and social environment. although the reader is of course free to interpret the dedication as an attempt to correct the behavior of a man who bragged too much. 25–26 (contra Russell 1968. 20–21. if one excuses Aristides for praising himself Cf. id. 32–34 (though cf. But these roles and their associated genres do not exist in a vacuum. see Zadorojnyi 2006. we might note Plutarch’s active public career. and that gap also matches the disparity in their treatments of the issue of self-praise. Brunt (1994.aristides and plutarch on self-praise 171 on the grounds that the nature of the man speaking is enough to justify what is said. 70 On Inoffensive Self-Praise 543e–f. Bowie (1982. An imperial-era Greek author’s discussion (and use) of self-praise therefore serve as an indicator of how he is handling this tension and to what degree he places his priorities with his own reputation or with the good of his community. The task of the politician in this period is trickier and more fraught than ever.B. tend to selfpromote. 29–44) emphasizes in response that this participation was simply part of normal elite activity and did not in itself set the ‘sophists’ apart. the political context creates another means of framing the issue by necessitating at least the appearance of solidarity on the part of the elites in order to maintain local stability and avoid Roman intervention. See also Heath 2004. and this negotiation necessitates putting limits on self-aggrandizement (as well as on other techniques of rhetorical display). 547e. in its privileging of the status of the individual. 277–331. passim. 69 See Bowersock 1969. according to Plutarch. 34–35). .71 A rhetor who takes an active part in political life must negotiate between the requirements of these two contexts. See n. The way to avoid these restrictions. Rather. and the same rhetorical skills needed for political effectiveness can be used to much more self-serving ends if the educated and privileged man chooses not to engage in local politics. as is illustrated by ample literary and epigraphic evidence. while rightly skeptical of taking details from the literary sources at face value. ‘Sophists’ are among the social and cultural types who. this requires taking a stance that puts less value on public responsibility. and the avoidance of political responsibility. is to dodge one’s political responsibilities. on the continuing relevance of rhetorical training to various aspects of public life in the second and third centuries. that philosophers are mentioned too (547e)! 71 As Heath has convincingly demonstrated.70 but I want to make very clear that I do not mean to draw a facile correlation between epideictic. 26. as complementary to and often coexisting with participation in epideictic performance. At the same time. serves as one frame for discussions of self-praise in the Roman imperial era. 69 above. self-praise. but this critique only supports my general point. I do not mean to suggest by this that the agonistic elite display culture of the High Empire is as a whole fundamentally incompatible with political engagement—far from it. as Aristides does.69 My point is rather that the culture of agonistic selfpromotion associated with epideictic oratory. but esp. many options were open to those with rhetorical training. But N. overstates the case for dismissing reports of the political significance of the ‘sophists’ for the Greek cities. The flip side of this response is the rhetor who. ‘does not easily appear before the people with his oratory and engage in political disputes.172 dana fields Because the statesman to whom Plutarch directs his advice operates within the larger hierarchy of the Roman Empire. the participants of the Aelius Aristides conference. but devotes himself to his city all the same (Political Precepts 824e). but for the public the stakes as a whole are considerably lower. I am particularly grateful to conference organizer William Harris for allowing me to join such a distinguished program. given the ‘weak state of Greek affairs’.72 72 My thanks go to Tim Whitmarsh. Joseph Streeter. Marc Domingo Gygax. since he sees that the government is now differently constituted’ (Or. When an orator does not take part in political discourse. Simon Goldhill. there is plenty at stake for himself because of the value of his rhetorical skill for self-promotion. Plutarch’s ideal statesman recognizes that modesty is necessary for the politician.430). in Aristides’ own words. he must of necessity be more careful than his classical predecessors in avoiding contentious self-promotion so that the remaining local Greek autonomy might not be lost. and the editors and anonymous readers of this volume for suggestions and critiques. . 2. part three ARISTIDES AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE OF HIS TIMES . . he celebrated the advantages of Roman rule. in his speech To Rome. as well as the public and ceremonial conditions of performance. id. Robert called. that Aristides is representative of the fidelity of Greek-speaking elites to the Roman Empire. in a phrase that summarizes the spirit of the age.2 Therefore. my attention was 1 2 Robert 1970. Pernot 1993a. ‘la symbiose gréco-romaine dans l’empire romain’. All of these facts are known. an ideology that he himself shaped and spread with the aid of epideictic rhetoric. Scholars have often said and written. He contributed to what L. and of course. possessed Roman citizenship and had numerous contacts with influential Romans and even with the imperial court. Reading and re-reading Aelius Aristides. the subject of the present paper may seem paradoxical. in the Funeral Oration in Honor of Alexander of Cotiaeum. and he asked the gods to keep the imperial family in their favor. epideictic rhetoric gave political messages persuasive force. and I myself have contributed to some extent to establishing them in regard to the rhetoric of praise and to the speech To Rome in particular. He repeatedly expressed the greatest respect for the emperors.chapter nine AELIUS ARISTIDES AND ROME Laurent Pernot Aristides sang the praises of the Roman emperors and of the Roman Empire in many of his works: in the Smyrnean Orations. 16. and rightly so. 1997. On account of its elevated language and cultural and moral authority. in the Panegyric in Cyzicus. in the speech To the Cities Concerning Concord. It is thus necessary to begin with some preliminary comments. Such a display of loyalty is not surprising from a man who was a member of the provincial nobility. . with a view to the edition being prepared for the Collection des Universités de France by an international team based in Strasbourg.1 Aristides’ works are marked by the ideology of concord and consensus. The doctors were powerless to help him. it is necessary to take into account a reason drawn from historical sociology. Here it will be enough to indicate an idea that deserves a much longer discussion. . Aristides chose to describe it in precisely this way in his Sacred Tales. he suffered greatly. nor did they completely adhere to it. there are two reasons that make it possible and likely. nor did their privileged position within the Roman Empire blind them to other aspects of their situation. since it was at that time that his illness first began (or. even the Romans. 24. a sort of malaise. the series of illnesses that would overshadow the rest of his life). cracks and doubts regarding the Empire and the emperors. his stay in the capital was extremely difficult. became the cemetery of his hopes’. and it is very possible that the authors’ experiences were.176 laurent pernot piqued by passages that seemed to me to contain dissonances. circumstances that could have exerted an influence over the way that he judged the city. where Asclepius took over the responsibility for his care. Behind the brilliant façade. certain complex factors were at work. despite seeing advantages in it. as he himself wrote in his Sacred Tales. These passages betray. There is always dissatisfaction: it 3 Behr 1968. In brief: it was not the case that in accepting and cooperating with Roman rule. The first reason is of a personal and psychological order. Generally speaking. the stage of his ambitions. The time spent in Rome. and after a certain amount of time he ended up going back to his homeland. in reality. the Greeks were deeply satisfied with it. more precisely. In any case. often implicitly. Rome was first associated with sickness and failure. looks like a failure. Behr described with these expressive words: ‘Rome. During his first stay. during which he probably delivered his speech To Rome. they seemed to be worthy of an explanation.3 One should not overlook the fact that. that Aristides could have had reservations about or hesitations towards Rome. Rome disappointed Aristides. One should not accept too quickly the impression of enthusiastic support for Rome that some ancient speeches give. a priori. more complicated. The Greeks were convinced of their distinctiveness and their superiority in regard to other peoples. a sentiment that C. in Aristides’ personal history. When Aristides went to Rome in 144 AD at the age of 26. Second. In Rome.A. P. It is neither a matter of frontal attacks. 163–257. Here. it is interesting to note that some scholars have recently begun to take into account the less obvious aspects of Aristides’ writings and their polyvalent meaning. Unlike rebellious and philosophical types like Dio and Lucian. It is not intended as a study of the immense and much disputed question of the relations between Greeks and Romans as a whole. in which Aristides writes about significant dreams and biographical events. for instance. then. Indeed. Aristides outwardly resembled an applied panegyrist. uttered critical judgments of the Roman Empire or fostered a difficult relationship with it. id.6 The present study will examine the emergence of an ambivalent attitude. id. It should be clear to the reader that this is a case study. some Greeks of the Imperial Era had mixed feelings towards the glorious Hellenic past and the Roman Empire. 108.aelius aristides and rome 177 would not be wise to postulate total unanimity or uniformity. 4 On these mixed feelings see e. On the one hand. in some of their works and in some periods of their lives. phenomena that did exist in other contexts in the Roman Empire.5 It is more a question of psychological complexity and subtle undertones. first in passages from The Sacred Tales. the cooperation and accord between Greeks and Romans within the Roman Empire was a reality. I. MacMullen 1966. Giovannini-Van Berchem 1987. and then in passages from other discourses. where the thoughts of the author seem to be expressed in veiled terms. 1997. 401–408: ‘Selezioni e omissioni’. are two reasons that might lead one to think that it is not impossible that Aristides could have had ambivalent feelings towards Rome. Rudich 1993. Yet even good students can have misgivings. in Fontanella 2007. Veyne 1999. We are not speaking of opposition or dissidence.664–665. on the other hand. . 17–21. Franco 2005. 5 Fuchs 1964. and it could certainly be enriched by the addition of other passages. Bowie 1970. 2005.g. This dossier is composed of texts that have never before been put together. Schmid 1887–1897. 3–22: ‘Scrittura pubblica e scritture nascoste’.4 It is well known that authors like Dio of Prusa and Lucian. Quet 2002. nor of being ‘pro-Roman’ or ‘anti-Roman’.38–40 n. II. centered on Aristides alone. 86–90: ‘Les silences volontaires d’Aelius Aristide’. W. D’Elia 1995. Schmid in von Christ 1920–1924. Reardon 1971. Desideri. the good student in the class. 6 Klein 1995. 13. ‘κα τ τ ε ς μ ι παρ γγειλεν μ ιλε ν τωσ ’· κα λλ ις’. Alexander delivers an address to the emperor. the future Marcus Aurelius. twenty-two years later according to C. the grammarian Alexander of Cotiaeum. When Aristides went to Rome in 144. To Rome and The Funeral Oration in Honor of Alexander of Cotiaeum. Aristides. ς κα α τ ς πρ σελ ν ιλ σαιμι. Aristides Rebels in the Name of Asclepius Dreams and a Biographical Anecdote Our first text. ς. ‘ ρκε ’. and then the emperor responds. ‘Asclepius is better than all to worship’. ‘I am content’. the author recalls the eminent role that Alexander had with regard to the emperors. Translations of Aristides are from Behr 1981–1986. In his dream. η· κ γ σ γησα. he was welcomed by his former professor. It is a dream. ‘the god has also instructed me not to kiss in this fashion’. For I was content to say so much about myself. and the situation turns upside down. κα ς η.A. has a dream that takes him back to these past events (Alexander has been dead for fifteen years). ‘In addition to other things’. . ‘κα μ ν εραπε ειν γε παντ ς κρε ττων Ασκληπι ς’ (Or. is an account of a dream. And he said. There is a hint of these events in two speeches. as do the members of his entourage. the Emperor wondered why I too did not come forward and kiss him. Then it is Aristides’ turn to speak. who was living in the capital as one of the tutors of Prince Marcus.23). In 166. 7 Throughout this paper I have used the editions of Lenz-Behr 1976–1980 for Orations 1–16 and Keil 1898 for Orations 17–53. ‘πρ ς ν τ ς ην. And he replied. as well as how he helped Aristides during his visit. that has its roots in actual events from Aristides’ life: πρ σειπ ντ ς δ κ μ κα στ ντ ς α μασεν α τ κρ τωρ. 47. however. I was silent.7 When I too saluted him and stood there. And I said that I was a worshipper of Asclepius.178 laurent pernot 1. κ γ ε π ν τι εραπευτ ς ε ην τ Ασκληπι · τ σ τ ν γ ρ μ ι ρκεσεν ε πε ν περ μαυτ . for unknown reasons. he sees Alexander introduce him to the reigning emperor. In the Funeral Oration. who was Antoninus Pius at the time of the events recounted in the dream. taken from The Sacred Tales. I said. The ceremony at court included speeches (this rhetorical aspect of the situation in particular held Aristides’ attention). Behr’s dating. giving as grounds for their refusal the ties that unite them to their God. Fronto. 130 n.39. about two weeks later. One is tempted to compare this scene—mutatis mutandis— to stories of the acts of the martyrs. There are numerous sources that note the custom of saluting the emperor by means of a kiss that could be placed on the hands. Aristides should have kissed the emperor (the Greek word used is the verb ιλε ν). The text does not say any more about this. he says. the privilege of kissing the emperor is attested to most notably by Fronto. Aristides adopts a peculiar manner.3. in any case. 11 Compare Or. and his behavior is attributed to his bond with Asclepius. with the commentary of Van den Hout 1999. 3. 124.14. the eyes. Antoninus recognizes in Aristides the quality of a εραπευτ ς (using the verb εραπε ειν). 47. τω μ ι δ κε αυμαστ τις ε ναι κα κρε ττων κατ’ ν ρωπ ν’. the mouth. ην. ‘a worshipper of Asclepius’ ( εραπευτ ς). even of rebellion. and it illustrates a similar attitude:11 επ νδ τω πως· ‘ στ”. refusing to submit to court protocol and to pay the expected homage to the emperor. 48. μ λιστα δ νδεικν μεν ς τ ν Ασκληπι ν κα τ ν Σ ραπιν (Or. the general sense of the scene is clear. The commentators on this passage have not found a precise explanation. an attitude almost of insolence. The following text is about a dream that Aristides had in 166. in which one sees Christians refusing to sacrifice in the context of the imperial cult. that arouses surprise in the Emperor. 10 See also Musurillo 1954. Ad M. it is all a dream. Schröder 1986. that devotion to Asclepius comes before the respect due to an emperor. See some contrasting views on the significance of this word in Festugière-Saffrey 1986. Caes. the neck or the chest. and everything ends well. as he is invited to do. 26 n.8 But Aristides refuses to pay homage to the emperor by giving him a kiss. 51. luckily for Aristides. 185. 27. The reason he gives for his refusal is that it is the will of Asclepius: he is. without getting angry. 242 for pagan parallels. His identity as a devotee of Asclepius has given him a reserved attitude.aelius aristides and rome 179 According to court etiquette. ‘ε μ γεγυμνασμ ν ς ν ν ε αις ψεσιν. But. In the court ceremony. κ ν μ ι δ κ αδ ως δ πρ ς α τ ν τ ν πρ σ ψιν ντισ ε ν. 8 9 . λεγ ν δ ε ας ψεις.38).9 and the god has ordered him not to kiss the emperor in this manner.10 Here. so we do not know why exactly Asclepius established this ban. and he accepts. meaning especially Asclepius and Sarapis. in technical rhetorical terms. . it is because he was used to seeing the gods that he can ‘easily’ look at the sovereigns: he who can do more can do less. 12 Pernot 1993a. Aristides does not assimilate them. He then adds that his divine visions have prepared him for the occasion and given him the ability to endure the gaze of the two sovereigns before whom he is standing. The word ‘exercise’ (ε μ γεγυμνασμ ν ς ν) is a flattering means of expression. that is to say the apparitions of Asclepius and Sarapis that he has seen in his dreams. I think that I would not easily endure this spectacle. I said. and the spectacle presented by the kings. I said ‘divine visions’. So wonderful does it seem to me and greater than man’s estate’. When he appears before emperors and the kings. that is to say a brief address serving as an introduction to the recitation of a longer work and containing compliments to the audience. a preparation for the vision of the sovereigns. above all. he is crowned with the glow of his relationship with the divine. he remains detached and distant since there is in him a spiritual richness by which he measures everything else. Aristides describes himself as being. The vision of the gods was an exercise. In his dealings with temporal authority. These words are certainly intended as a compliment.180 laurent pernot I spoke somewhat as follows: ‘Therefore’. ‘if I had not been trained in divine visions. But if he is comparing the two types of vision.552. In his dream.12 In this address. This speech. As in the preceding text. Aristides tells Marcus Aurelius and Vologeses how happy and flattered he is to have the privilege of giving a reading of his works before them. is a δι λε ις or πρ λαλι . II. This time Marcus Aurelius appears to Aristides (evidently. He carefully distinguishes between divine visions. Aristides sees himself giving a speech addressed to the two sovereigns. since Aristides emphasizes the superhuman character of the sovereigns and compares the spectacle that they present to those presented by the gods. Vologeses III (whose presence in the dream is explained by the fact that it occurs during the time of the Parthian Wars). a man of Asclepius. the sophist was very preoccupied with emperors). together with the king of the Parthians. On the contrary. but it does not imply that it is easier for Aristides to look at the gods than it was for him to look at the kings. and added. As at Or. γν μη δ εωρ σ Sophists 2. and when he had tested my speech. περησ ε ς δ α τ κρ τωρ τ ει λικωτ τω… (Philostratus. written by Philostratus fifty years after his death. κα ασιλε . η. Emperor.45). As at Or. ‘so that you may well be amazed. Wright). Once again. η. Aristides invokes. ‘Would that there were also an audience of about fifty present at this speech’. these things which you now say have been foretold to me by Asclepius’. υλ μ ν υ. τα τα νυν λ γεις μ π τ Ασκληπι πρ ε ρηται’ (Or. τ νδρ ς ς πλ ικωτ τω τε κα σ ‘δι τ σε’. ‘σ γε. These analyses may allow a passage of Philostratus to be clarified by giving it its full weight. and inquired: ‘Why did we have to wait so long to see you’? To which Aristides replied: ‘A subject on which I was meditating kept me busy. while facing the emperor.23. 113–114. ‘ τι μ π κρεμανν σ ω ητε ’. displays a sense of superiority that comes to him from his company with the divine. Aristides evokes the surprise of the emperor (who is Marcus Aurelius here): α μασεν. κα κρ ατα γεν σ νται. ‘If you wish. 47. one that takes place a little later than the others: δ α μασ ν τε [κα ] πειρ μεν ς τ ν λ γων ντ π ντων τε η τιμ σ αι ρημ των α τ ς κα πε πεν ‘τ τ ις τ ς λ γ ις ε πρ σ σαν κρ π λα ν. there will also be an audience and’. Aristides. Philostratus says that he received this anecdote directly from Damianus of Ephesus. What the emperor says had already been predicted by Asclepius. 47. ην. He was amazed. in his connection to political power. . his own relationship with Asclepius. who was a student of Aristides:13 πρ σειπ ν δ α τ ν α τ κρ τωρ Αριστε δης ‘ ε ρημα’. The Emperor was greatly pleased with the man’s personality. ‘ ραδ ως ε δ μεν’. And I said in reply.9. Lives of the The Emperor addressed him. 13 Another version of the same anecdote can be read in the Prolegomena: Lenz 1959. I said. The extract is taken from the biography of Aristides. so unaffected was it and so devoted to study… (trans. 51. as a written text proves (that is to say the parchment on which Aristides noted the premonitory dream that Asclepius had sent to him).aelius aristides and rome 181 A third passage is again the account of a dream.23 and 38. he said that he valued it at any price. and when the mind in absorbed in meditation it must not be distracted from the object of its search’. ην.2 [582]). ατα σ ν κα πεντ κ ντα’· κ γ ασιλε . ‘ αυμ σης. σ λει. κα πως γ”. a justification in terms of higher preoccupations.14 to uncertainty on Aristides’ part about the proper protocol to follow from a political point of view. and the emperor’s acceptance of this justification. to Aristides’ intellectual reflections and his preparation of a speech. the structure of the anecdote is similar to that of the episodes in his dreams: the absence of Aristides. on this suggestion. near the end of Aristides’ life. Aristides’ excuse for not presenting himself to the emperor earlier is that he was absorbed in a ‘meditation’. In any event. The fact that Aristides was looking to obtain an exemption does not signify. His devotion to Asclepius. in particular. He wrote about the struggle himself in his Sacred Tales: approximately half of the fourth Tale was reserved for this judicialadministrative saga. in the Greek-speaking world of the second century AD. by itself. The story does not tell us what this meditation was about. In Search of Immunity Let us now consider the biography of Aristides and the problem of his refusal of official duties. We know that other 14 See Civiletti 2002. any opposition to Rome. It was due. taking advantage of the legal measures that provided an exemption for rhetoricians working as teachers. The great man is sought out and eventually brought before the emperor. and he was eventually successful. a ‘contemplation’ ( ε ρημα). 569. as some scholars have suggested. rather. Such duties were offered to Aristides several times in Smyrna and in the province of Asia. the wealthiest citizens were obliged to fulfill official duties by paying costly public and honorary expenses in accordance with the system of euergetism. Marcus Aurelius is passing through the city and is surprised that Aristides has not yet come before him to greet him. 571–572. It is well known that. All of these texts converge to give the impression that Aristides took on an air of detachment in the face of his obligations as a Greekspeaking public figure and a Roman citizen. He expended a great deal of effort on obtaining the ‘immunity’ ( τ λεια) from public expenses that he so desired. the surprise of the emperor. could prevent him from paying the respect due to the emperor.182 laurent pernot The scene takes place in Smyrna in 176 AD. It is doubtful that the episode was due. . but each time he got out of this responsibility. 50. they take him at his word and propose to put him in charge of the service to the god to whom he has said he is particularly attached. but he refuses. like Aristides. 36. but who held himself apart on the margins of society and ordinary professional life because he was bound by membership in a superior order. By means of a speech. 15 Bowersock 1969. it is. It seems as though the Smyrnaeans were looking to catch Aristides in his own trap: since he has invoked his relationship with Asclepius. I suggest. whose talent was recognized. Bowersock. to obtain this privilege. that is. he chose Asclepius. Aristides felt that he possessed two identities: his identity as a public figure and his identity as a protégé of Asclepius. G. the assembly offers him the priesthood of Asclepius. because he had reason to do so. .100–102 illustrates. Behr’s chronology—and it ties together the twists and turns of the affair as a kind of comedy. The passage is an excerpt from the exemption narrative as the process is just beginning in 147—Aristides is 30. a reason that is made clear from the whole narrative of the Sacred Tales. Aristides’ preference for Asclepius is what Or.A. one did not flaunt behavior that could pass for a refusal to fulfill one’s obligations. quite rightly. his arguments had something to do with Asclepius. If Aristides displayed prolixity.W. that is. according to C. When he had to choose.aelius aristides and rome 183 rhetoricians and sophists were looking. has observed. Act Two: After Aristides refuses the high priesthood. by his ties to Asclepius. that the narrative is exceptionally detailed: ‘Thanks to [Aristides’] prolixity. Aristides does not say exactly what arguments he used to decline the nomination. in view of the logic of the entire passage.15 In general. Probably. we know more about his case than anyone else’s’. What is amazing it that Aristides discusses it at such length. Aristides constructs his own image of himself: the image of an exceptional man. who undertook an in-depth study of this episode in Aristides’ life. Act One: The people and magistrates of Smyrna nominate Aristides for the high priesthood of Asia. By speaking at length about his efforts to avoid paying public expenses and about the problems that pitted him against his fellow citizens and the Roman authorities on this subject. through his rhetorical talent. he manages to persuade the assembly not to choose him ( πεισα). δ’ ερ σ αι ν μ ειν ε ναι πρ τερ ν. as in a sophistic debate. The reasons for Aristides’ refusal were many. without the god. for the Smyrnaeans. as Act Three shows. forcing Aristides to call on the governor of the province. The argument is completely turned around. Public life and concern about general interest no longer counted for him. the Smyrnaeans make another attempt. They marveled and yielded. Aristides’ behavior appears to have been dictated by Asclepius. absorbed as he was in his exclusive relationship with the god. For Aristides. Aristides himself emphasizes the skillfulness of his response. it is a reason to refuse (since he can do nothing without the permission of the god. service to Asclepius conflicted with integration into the city. who gives him at least temporary respite. and in this case. Aristides’ submission to the god was so great that he did not want to do anything without his permission. an order that he has not received: κα δα ε δ κιμ σας ς πεκριν μην· ην γ ρ ς δ ν τε λαττ ν ν τ’ ε η πρ ττειν μ ι νευ τ ε . τε με ν ν α τ τ ε . as if dispossessed of himself. and therefore it was not possible to think even of serving as a priest. which allows him to win over the Smyrnaeans. Therefore. πρ ν ν α τ π ωμαι τ α μασ ν τε κα συνε ρ υν (Or.184 laurent pernot But our sophist had other resources. He was deprived of autonomy. such permission is lacking). Later.102). until I had inquired about this from the god himself. which risked being very expensive. In comparison with the dream texts examined above. One discerns a financial reason: if the temple of Asclepius was under construction. For I said that it was impossible for me to do anything. on the contrary. The close relationship between Aristides and Asclepius is. he declines the new proposition. But above all. as the text says. his devotion to Asclepius was the main reason. the priesthood would have entailed covering some of the construction costs. Resisting bit by bit. either important or trifling. saying that he needs an order directly from the god to accept the offer. 50. these passages reveal a new angle on Aristides’ reluctance to fulfill his social duties. There were also psychological reasons: Aristides showed during his entire life that he had a solitary. Thus Aristides turns his fellow citizens’ arguments upside down. δ’ And I know that I found approval with my reply. a reason for him to accept the priesthood. irritable temperament. . Apsines. as well as the priesthood. dating from the Hellenistic Age to the Imperial Age and Byzantium. He resists all types of functions. municipal magistracies. This important concept offers a key to a rhetorical reading of some of the passages from Aristides. figuratus) do not designate figures of style. and even the priesthood of the imperial cult. The reservations. it is necessary to bring into play one last aspect of a rhetorical nature. figurata oratio). and second because a frank expression of distance from Rome was inconceivable for a man of his social standing: it would have cost him his position in society and could have put him in danger. In this specialized use. By ‘figured speech’ ancient rhetoricians mean cases in which an orator has recourse to a ruse in order to disguise his intentions. There also exists in Greco-Latin rhetoric a theory and a practice of indirect expression that carries the name ‘figured speech’ ( σ ηματισμ ν ς λ γ ς. It is a form of resistance to all official responsibilities. the terms σ μα or figura (with the verbal forms σ ηματισμ ν ς. had to be expressed in a roundabout way. which placed him outside the political and social system. first because Aristides might not have admitted these reservations to himself. Messages in Veiled Terms The Rhetorical Notion of ‘Figured Speech’ To complete this analysis. and the Pseudo- . figuratus sermo. Many theoretical texts. but assume a particular significance and indicate a process that consists of saying one thing to mean another. Dream narratives and autobiographical accounts. but also when he is confronted by his city and his province. If we admit that Aristides had reservations about Rome and the Roman Empire. these reservations could only be expressed in a subtle and implicit manner. if there were reservations. Among Aristides’ contemporaries writing in Greek on the subject were Hermogenes (or Pseudo-Hermogenes).aelius aristides and rome 185 Aristides’ resistance to these duties appears not only when he is confronted by the emperor. are two such oblique methods. which we have been looking at until now. 2. deal with the technique of figured speech. using indirect language to communicate the point that he wants to make in an oblique manner. 9. the orator wants to avoid attracting the anger of the audience and putting himself in danger when he has something unpleasant to say. ancient and modern. Probl.2. but feels obliged to respect certain norms lest he upset his audience. This trail has hardly been explored. but with gentleness and soft words. security and propriety. a grand orator and an expert in rhetorical matters. Chiron 2003. with technical validation. In the first case. then. 22. and he emphasizes: γ μ ν γ ρ 16 Hermog. Hal. Milazzo 2007. Such is the situation. in Pernot 2007a and Pernot 2008. of introducing a supplementary level of meaning into the debate. Ps. Ahl-Garthwaite 1984. It is a technique of doublespeak. 17 Demetr. Calboli Montefusco 2003.13. Meth. Rhet. Desbordes 1993. see Ahl 1984. . 8–9. that is to say. he does not feel afraid. finally. 82–85. the type called ‘contrary’. was not ignorant of the notion of figured speech. as passages from Demetrius’ On Style and Quintilian indicate. There were different kinds of figured speech.17 Thus rhetoric furnishes us with a concept whose usefulness is not slight. for example. This technique was used not only in schools of rhetoric and in literary criticism. Schouler 1986. as can be seen in the Elder Seneca and Philostratus. Inst. Or. In the second case. and fail to accomplish what he has set out to do. On Style 287–295. consisted of saying one thing while making another meaning understood. Morgan 2006.186 laurent pernot Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Inv. The verb σ ηματ εσ αι appears in his work. according to the theoreticians.16 Figured speech was widely used in Latin and Greek declamation. because Aristides.. Heath 2003.-Dion. The main reasons why an orator resorted to these ruses were.74. 46–125. which was particularly acrobatic. Apsines On Fig. 4. It is logical to apply this key to Aelius Aristides. More references. another kind. and in particular those of the rhetorical authors of the Imperial Age. that rhetoric made available to its practitioners. On figured speech. since figured speech has been studied by scholars primarily from a narrowly technical point of view. consisted of saying the opposite of what one really wanted to say and hoping that one would be understood by the audience a contrario. compromise his message. called ‘oblique’. Quint. for one who must accuse a superior while recognizing that it is not in his best interests to do so openly. One consisted of saying what needed to be said. Aristides is talking about his own method of debate against Plato. but also in actual discourse. if figured speech can indeed allow us to better decipher ancient works. aelius aristides and rome 187 αιν μην δ’ ν α τ ς τ ς ναγκα ις π τ μως τ λ γω ρ μεν ς. ε πρ πεια. We will come back to this device later. Hal. the genre of the fable. This long list can only be itemized in a cursory manner. Such techniques were. It must be restored to its intellectual context. religion. allegorical interpretation.2). which offers another case of double meaning. from Oration 28. 28. 4. Or. while couching this reproach in terms of flattery by saying that he could give excellent classes…if he only wanted to. who are reproaching him for not giving classes in oratory. judicial interpretations taking into consideration the spirit behind the letter of the law. Still another passage. The author is addressing his adversaries. He unveils their tactic by saying: λασ ημε τε μετ’ ε ημ ας (‘you malign me with your praise’). is more or less the same as the previous quotation. Or. and medicine. which is constituted by the precise techniques of encryption and deciphering that had currency in the ancient world. Socratic irony. .2. For ε πρ πεια in figured speech. the notion of ambiguity ( μ ι λ α). that is. appearing in literature. 18 8. Nevertheless. these examples prove that the Ancients were used to understanding speeches without having to have every word spelled out for them.-Dion. a narrative incorporating an implicit or explicit meaning. see Demetr. On Style 287–288.25). philosophy. λλ πε εισμ νως κα σ ηματι μεν ς τ πρ π ντα (‘Even in the neces- sary points clearly I did not argue brusquely. The practice and the theory of the double entendre are ubiquitous. Ps. for example.18 Aristides also isolates another type of figured speech. Rhet.33). but with restraint and in a decorous way’. 33. and the interpretation of dreams. σ ηματι μεν ς τ πρ π ντα. are probably an allusion to the sort of figured speech that consists of softening the blame in order to respect social propriety. censure disguised with apparently favorable words: π λλ τ ια τα αρ ετ τ παραδ ασ αι τ ν α τ αν μ ς (‘he attempted to ingratiate himself in many such ways so that we might admit the charge’. Let us also add as a subsidiary consideration the fact that figured speech is to be seen in a larger framework. enigmas and oracles that called for deciphering and interpretation. But Aristides sees through their game: he is perfectly aware that they are only praising his talent as a teacher to better reproach him for not practicing it. The last words. law. an expression that defines the strategy of disguising blame as praise (Or. or the stories surrounding the founding of Rome. literature and language. In more than thirty pages. before examining specific passages. the relations supposedly shared between the Greeks and Romans. Aristides 19 See e.20 The orator starts by emphasizing the difficulty of the subject. Tsitsiridis 1998.188 laurent pernot In the field of rhetoric. We will present remarks on an entire discourse.g. architecture. through an allusion to Homer. representing approximately one hour of speaking. It was taken seriously by most readers. The Implicit Significance of To Rome Both in its structure and its style. 51–82. Coventry 1989. Méridier 1931. In all these respects. then describes the place and situation of Rome. art. Clavaud 1980. nor does he speak a word of Latin. He contents himself with refering once to Aeneas. Loraux 1981. a striking example is offered by the funeral oration delivered by Socrates in Plato’s Menexenus. He does not mention a single Roman proper name. Aristides’ demonstration is in accordance with encomiastic norms. 20 For the following analysis see Pernot 1997. He says nothing about the history of Rome. the Scipios. The presentation involves a large number of comparisons. This speech purports to be an encomium of Athens from the point of view of the city’s historical and political achievements. whose very conception and construction are revealing. Caesar or Augustus. He next praises at length the civil and military organization of the Empire before finishing with a brilliant synthesizing tableau. Aristides finds a way to say nothing about the origins of the city. and only in recent times has it been fully recognized as ironical and parodical. But the speech is interesting for what it does not say. He completely neglects its monuments. Now it is time to return to Aristides’ texts. Consequently. . one has to deal with a series of deliberate choices. 5–53. To Rome follows the rules of the rhetorical encomium.19 The case of the Menexenus illustrates the possibility that a rhetorical speech could play with the rules of praise and convey concealed messages accessible only to part of the audience and some readers. He says not one word about Romulus. How should one interpret these omissions? It would have been appropriate to mention such points in an encomium of Rome. the tone is admiring and hyperbolic. 2. there is a second series of notable omissions in the speech: omissions concerning the Roman conquest. for instance. et contigit utrumque (‘I therefore 21 22 . By reducing Rome to nothing more than a governmental power and neglecting the rest. Fontanella’s conclusion in this volume. of course. in the judicial sector. the provinces to which he belonged. he imposes a Hellenocentric point of view on the speech. Aristides is very careful not to express any contempt for Roman history and civilization: he simply does not talk about them. religious. In addition. and historical facts (those which concern Rome. the city from which the rule over the provinces was exercised. there might be such a ban on speaking about a case of incest. Or. mythological. or. about past crimes protected by an amnesty law forbidding mention of them.23 On this traditional play see Rochette 1997. He says nothing about the Roman conquest or the military and political processes that led to the installation of Roman rule over the Greek world. more precisely. a device attested to in the rhetoric of figured speech. The theory of figured speech concerns the case where the orator is confronted with a heavy and well-known situation. which leads him to avoid local color. Along the same lines. The only Roman fact that interests Aristides is the rule that Rome exerts over the Empire. This is why the speech To Rome is actually a discourse in honor of the Roman Empire and the manner in which this empire exerted control over the Greek world. see F.74: Ita ergo fuit nobis agendum ut iudices illud intellegerent factum. delatores non possent adprendere ut dictum.21 But he does not develop this idea.22 What is brought into play here is silence. and. The theorists of figured speech observe that sometimes orators can be confronted with a ban on speaking that they do not have the right to break. Inst. since there are abundant references to Greek mythology and history). as well as all the artistic. At the very most he allows himself to allude to the traditional play on the word μη. which would be indecent to mention. eloquent silence. 9. in the public domain. of which he does not have the right to speak and to which he can refer only implicitly. He chooses to consider only the current state of affairs and the present functioning of the Empire in the political domain. which means both ‘Rome’ and ‘force’ (in section eight). the Roman links to the Greek-speaking provinces. or about a deed at the limits of legality. Aristides avoids saying that the Roman Empire was forced upon the Greeks. 23 See for instance Quint.aelius aristides and rome 189 wants to see Rome only as the imperial capital. . so that the hearers understand and it is not a subject of reproach to the speaker’. and it incorporates a certain audacity. trans. but in the figure of giving a different opinion we also imply what cannot be spoken by the way the speech is composed. Russell). I succeeded on both counts’. but the informers could not seize on any explicit statement.13. Probl. the secret that everybody knows about is that of the ‘ruling power’. Aristides weighs his praise. namely the material benefits of Roman peace. see Montiglio 2000. The device of ‘figured speech’ that is implemented here could be had to plead in such a way that the judges understood what had happened. to express this opinion directly. that its history and culture do not matter. 24 According to the title of Oliver 1953. a deeply realistic and embittered message if one knows how to read between the lines. On Fig. but Aristides could not allow himself to speak about it openly. (Rabe 206): κατ μ ασιν δ στιν. we can believe. ταν λ γειν μ δυν μεν ι δι τ κεκωλ σ αι κα παρρησ αν μ ειν π σ ματι λλης ι σεως μ α νωμεν κατ τ ν σ ν εσιν τ λ γ υ κα τ κ ν ε ρ σ αι.24 This heavy truth weighed on the speech. Aristides suggests that the Empire is a system imposed on the Greeks from the outside and that the Greeks have submitted according to the rule of the stronger without feeling any admiration for Roman civilization and culture. Apsines. As for the rest. and that the only important issue. the encrypted message of To Rome. he made it understood indirectly. in the eyes of the Greeks. is the reality of the authority to which they are subjected. Therefore. The Hidden Key We can now turn to the examination of some scattered passages that express Aristides’ disenchanted attitude towards the Roman Empire. an omission so drastic that is becomes significant in itself as the carrier of a hidden message. As it was too risky. Aristides thought. Such is. ς ε να τε ν σαι τ ς κ υσι κα μ πιλ ψιμ ν ε ναι τ λ γ ντι· (‘It is by implication whenever we are not able to speak because hindered and lacking freedom of speech. 27 (Patillon 120): κατ παρ λειψιν κα π σι πησιν (‘by omission and abrupt pause’). To summarize. Aristides suggests that Rome consists merely of the imperial power that it exercises. He therefore proceeded by means of an omission. 4. he makes himself understood without having to spell out his meaning by suggesting that Roman culture does not matter and that Roman rule must be endured with pragmatism.190 laurent pernot In the case of To Rome. this speech is much less flattering than has previously been thought. Kennedy). On significant silence in general. trans. and he concentrates on what he approves of. Hermog. Inv. In any other speech.aelius aristides and rome 191 called the ‘hidden key’. he comes back to the Macedonians in order to emphasize that they.6= Usener-Radermacher 335). would be quite a grave error. or so he says. according to Pseudo-Dionysius. He reviews the history of the city from mythological times to the battle of Chaeronea (338 BC). to introduce at the end. it involves a particularly recherché variant on the general method of saying one thing while suggesting something different. τ π’ λλης π σεως πεπεικυ ας πρ τερ ν ε π ντα π τ λει ς π ρεργ ν ρρ πτειν τ ν κει τ ραν π εσιν. I would like to draw the attention to three passages that fit this definition. In a brief chapter dedicated to the honors received by Athens. which produces the effect of an inverse proportion between the essential and the incidental. It is a question in this case of slipping a parenthetical remark into a speech that casts a new light onto the whole argument. ‘The City is Almost as Fortunate as Before’ In the Panathenaic. The process is analyzed by Pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The orators who use this process. begin by developing at length an opinion that the audience already agrees with. is that all that is vice elsewhere here becomes virtue. then throwing out ‘as an afterthought’. A development on the dissemination of the Attic dialect follows. on account of a lack of time. σ ν πραγματε εται. that prodigious art. 9. who perceived the model of this process in the texts of Homer and Plato: ‘What is this art? It is. τ’ ε εν τ ς Ελλ δ ς τ ν ρ ν … π δ τ ς π ντα ρ στης κα . But the peculiarity of ‘figured speech’. In this passage he slips in two sentences about the present situation to show that once again Athens enjoyed special treatment: τ σ τ ν τ ρως π λις πρ ττει τ ν ν. Aristides sings the praises of Athens. incidentally. as the theorists are fond of repeating. after having spoken on a subject that carried conviction. τ δ τ ς λλης ε δαιμ ν ας μικρ δε ν παραπλ σι στιν α τ τ ς π’ κε νων τ ν ρ νων. which is the one in which the orator truly believes. he stops. which established the rule of Macedonia over Greece. such unevenness in composition. Here. the most pertinent subject’ (α τη ν τ νη τ ς στι. after defeating Athens. ‘at the end’. Rhet. and then the orator seems to remember that the history of the world did not stop in the fourth century BC. an additional point. treated the city with particular consideration. it (sc. ν κα μεμν σ αι δε κνυσιν τι. and he makes it clear that the new situation is due to the ‘current empire’. Yet they raise the essential question Dindorf 1829.335. Aristides acknowledges that the situation of Athens has changed. these remarks occupy a total of ten lines. that is to say the Roman Empire. 335). 25 26 . he extols the happiness of Athens under the power of the Roman Empire. again concerning the present situation of Athens.321). because it is set free from the political and military responsibilities that it had assumed before and enjoys honors and supremacy among the Greeks. Is everything better then? Let us take a look at the text more closely.308–309.332. On the contrary. But for the rest. and has fared in such a way that no one would readily wish for its old state instead of its present one. If one gives to these words their full weight. 1. when it held the empire of Greece… Under the one (sc. and he displays his own loyalty by expressing the wish. λλ’ μεμν σ αι μ λλ ν κα αυμ ειν πρ σ κεν (Dindorf 1829. ει τ Ελληνικ τ ρ α α ντ τ ν Now the only difference in the city’s condition is that it is not involved in troublesome affairs. Athens) has precedence over all the Greek race. and one would not ‘readily’ ( αδ ως) wish for it to return to its former state. III. Aristide expresses no criticism. 312. Or. III. στε μ αδ ως ν τινα α τ παρ ντων συνε ασ αι (Or. and take note of two nuances: Athens is today ‘almost’ (μικρ δε ν) as happy as it was in the past. In the same passage. the phrase ε τω κα τ των λ ν μεμν σ αι (‘if someone wishes to mention these points too’) also conveys the impression that the current state of affairs is not the favourite subject of the orator. they betray some reservation and throw doubt on the encomium of Rome being pronounced. In sum. which is in every way the best and greatest. The scholiast rightly comments: κ τ ε πε ν ε τω κα τ των λ ν α τ πρ σ εν. 1. which he does not name (although the scholia on this passage do). the city is rid of all the inconveniences of power and only the advantages remain. empire) at present existing. in accordance with the custom of praying for the immortality of the Empire. who prefers to praise the past. ε κα τ παρ ντα αυμαστ . 311. twice. it is almost as fortunate as in those times.192 laurent pernot μεγ στης τ ς νυν κα εστηκυ ας τ πρεσ ε α παντ ς κα π πραγεν τως. that this power would last forever.26 Out of a hundred pages of mythological and historical account.25 Following the method to which we are beginning to become accustomed. Under Roman rule Athens is happy. Yet although Aristides speaks of himself in the third person. which was the heart of the problem of Greece under Rome. who embodies all of the qualities of rhetoric. the situation of all the Greeks). If someone should be of such a nature so that he does not easily appear before the people with his oratory and engage in political disputes. The argument is conducted in the terms that Plato had established. Aristides did not want to keep silent on the subject. he does not hesitate to take his audience into his confidence. but neither did he wish to address it head-on. ‘Seeing that the Situation is Other’ In the speech To Plato in Defense of Oratory. He deemed that it would be cleverer and more prudent to resort to the strategy of ‘figured speech’ by slipping into his text. . 2. He comes to refer to his own case as an example of a life consecrated to eloquence in all of its purity. Aristides turns to the figure of the ideal orator. through Athens. μηδ περ π λιτε ας μ ισ ητε ν ρ ν τ ρως ντα τ πρ γματα…(Or.aelius aristides and rome 193 of the situation of Athens in the Roman Empire (and.430). For precisely this reason. At the end of his work. in which Aristides presents a detailed defense of rhetoric in response to the accusations that Plato brought against it in the Gorgias. Aristides offers an assessment of the Greek situation under Rome identical to that found in the Panathenaic Oration and expressed in the same terms: ‘the situation is other’: ε τ νυν τις κα τ ι τ ς γγ ν ιτ ς ητ ρικ ν ων ε ς μ ν δ μ υς αδ ως μ ε σι ναι. words with far-reaching implications. and it is by drawing on Platonic concepts and examples that Aristides tries to make his point of view triumph in a refutation conducted across the centuries. and suggest that the evaluation of this situation. is not so simple. wealth or any other form of material success: this example of a disinterested way of life may serve as an argument to refute the reproach of flattery that was often addressed to the followers of rhetoric. untouched by concern about popular favor. That ‘almost’ (μικρ δε ν) is a nugget of truth. since he sees that the government is now differently constituted… The Defense is an immense treatise. sketching the portrait of a person who is at the same time an orator and a good man and writing the words printed above. fleetingly. It was up to his audience and his readers to discover it and draw conclusions from it themselves. 28 The words signify that the situation has changed between the time of Plato and that of Aristides. which is thrown in as though it were an afterthought. in view of the issue of ‘figured speech’. for example. and probably a period of political abstention and withdrawal related to the author’s illness and his exclusive devotion See Flinterman 2002.29 Leaving aside for the moment the problem raised by Plato. since the Greeks are now under Roman rule. rather. 91–92. insomuch as the Greeks orators of the Roman Era. it gives it another dimension. Aristides finally refers to current events. nullify the debate. He acknowledges the political situation and recognizes that this change has had an impact on rhetoric. contrary to their predecessors of the Classical Era. deserves a detailed reading. are no longer in a position to treat the important issues that concern their lives and the functioning of their cities. or as ‘Longinus’ does in the treaty On the Sublime. rightly. 27 28 . 136 n. With this remark. The concept of a ‘remark made in passing’ is important in Aristides: see Or. love of subtlety. The aspects of rhetoric that Aristides deals with earlier in the speech by means of the Platonic schemas (the political. or Plutarch in the Political Precepts. as Tacitus does. 31. which Aristides did not want to write for reasons of his own and about which we can only speculate. keeps presenting itself through the ages. which is complex. philosophical and mystical worth of rhetoric) have lost none of their topicality in the second century AD. he does not at all intend to undermine his own argument. Everything that he has said previously remains valid because the debate about rhetoric. 28.146. Perhaps there already was an allusion to the Pax Romana in section 411. Let us understand what Aristides wants to suggest here. III.27 The words that count. in the translation of C. are the last ones: ρ ν τ ρως ντα τ πρ γματα (‘seeing that the situation is other’.430. the scholia on this passage: Dindorf 1829. It invites the reader to examine the changes that have occurred during the Imperial Era and to make an inventory of those in the sphere of rhetoric. II. Pernot 2006.194 laurent pernot The whole passage. The reader has had to wait until section 430 of the discourse to come across this remark. These reasons have something to do with discretion and prudence. Such an inventory would be the subject of a long speech. or. 255–256. therefore. according to Aristides.A. 29 So. The present remark does not. Behr: ‘since he sees that the government is now differently constituted’). in the Dialogue on Orators. but is in reality of great importance. is that this sentence could also have been aimed at the Roman Empire. The historical context of the declamations is the Sicilian expedition as it is depicted in books six and seven of the history of Thucydides. but in his own way: he suggests its importance through a remark made implicitly in one sentence. For it preserves itself ’ (ν ν δ’ ντα α δ κα κ λλιστα δ ι τις ν ς ε ν τ ρ μα τ ς ρ ς· α τ γ ρ αυτ ν σ ει. ‘The Divine Quality of Empire’ Our last example is taken from the Sicilian Orations.31 Such a comparison was made all the easier by the fact that the word meaning ‘empire’. means to say that the annexation of Sicily would be valuable to the stability of the Athenian Empire as a whole. however. a debate took place in the winter 414–413 BC in Athens before the public assembly to decide if it would be expedient to send a second army to help the first. as the argument begins to come to an end.aelius aristides and rome 195 to Asclepius. the sentence applies to the Athenian Empire. Or.30 In the first Sicilian Oration. 5. is the same in Greek in both cases. Aristides was fully aware of the pertinence of his subject. the second in favor of recalling the expedition. namely the changes that had occurred in Greek rhetoric as a result of Roman rule.40–71. and he carefully compared these two empires in To Rome. In this context. In addition. The strategy was clear for those who knew how to listen for it. Indeed. ρ . Aristides imagines the speeches that could have been delivered on that occasion. Since the Athenian expeditionary corps sent to conquer Sicily had encountered difficulties after its arrival on the island. since it would consolidate its power. we suddenly read the following assertion: ‘Now here one would see best the divine quality of empire. however. The hypothesis that comes to mind. He was keen to address it. . the passage from the Sicilian declamation contains themes that are found in To Rome— 30 31 On these texts see Pernot 1992. Aristides conducted parallel analyses of the Roman and Athenian Empires in the speeches To Rome and The Panathenaic Oration respectively. which are a pair of antithetical declamations concerning an episode from the Peloponnesian War. The orator. his first orator opining in favor of sending reinforcements.39). Or. who is speaking in favor of sending reinforcements. 26. We may read it as a compliment to Rome. as history has proven. 5.196 laurent pernot the divine nature of the Empire. 5. These details radically modify the encomium. if there is one. at first glance. Compare Or. the passage from the Sicilian declamation is revealed as encomium engineered to self-destruct. p. and the Empire collapsed. 34 Above. The Sicilian expedition failed. immediately after stating that the Empire is divine. The subjects are unfortunate and oppressed. thus proves to be ambiguous. if we consider only the first line of the excerpt. And there is more: not only is the Empire cruel. the wishes formed for its health32—and a precise verbal echo connects the two texts. 26. δ π λλ κατ λλ λων π ρ υσιν.39). but in complete despair they will regard as their good fortune every evil which does not exceed the present one.103–109. it is also perishable. Athens lost the Peloponnesian War. the orator presents it in a less favorable light: σπερ γ ρ ν τ ς δ ις κ ις ν μ ν κα δυ ν κ ταιν αλεπ ν ρ σασ αι. In fact. they will have no refuge. But perhaps the reality is more complex.56 (μ ν ντες . but many servants are a foil against one another. We may also imagine that the text suggests an opposition between the situation of Athens in the fifth century BC and that of Rome in the second century AD (Rome being superior to Athens in the art of governing). rule rests upon force. But we can also see here. For just as in private homes it is difficult to employ one or two servants. λλ π ν τ μ περαιτ ρω τ παρ ντ ς κακ ν σπερ ρμαι ν γ σ νται τ ς λ ις πειπ ντες (Or. 181. a parallel between the Athenian and Roman Empires. In this case we are dealing with praise that turns to blame in a way that conforms exactly to the process analyzed by Aristides himself in the passage from Oration 33 mentioned above.34 Notably Or. praise for Rome. Upon examination.39 ( δ π λλ κατ μ ν π’ λλ λ υς π ρ υσιν α τ ς). discrete homage paid to the reigning power. so in empire the number of the enslaved strengthens the power of those who have added them to it. 26.33 If the declamation has a contemporary resonance. The allusion to the Roman Empire. and this will seem more plausible. it would seem to be. 32 33 λλ λων π ρ υσιν) with Or. τω κ ν τα ς δυναστε αις τ πλ ς τ ν δεδ υλωμ νων ε αι τ ν σ ν τ ς πρ σειλη σι· π ντες γ ρ ν κ κλω δεδ ασιν λλ λ υς … ειρω ντες γ ρ ν ρωπ ι π λλ κα παντ δαπ γ ν ς υσιν π στρ ν. For everyone fears each other in turn… For when many men of various races have been defeated. aelius aristides and rome 197 The word ‘divine’ ( ε ν). 4. λ γ μεν (‘Problems are “opposed” whenever we are arguing for the opposite of what we actually say’). since it is lacking the two qualities essential to divinity in the minds of Aristides and his contemporaries: concern for mankind and eternity. Kennedy. deserves consideration. For those who knew how to read it. No matter what one says. empires can fall apart.2 (Usener-Radermacher 296). Inv. the complete opposite of divine. and the course of events will show that the Athenian Empire is destined to disappear (therefore it is not eternal). Ps. stood up to Marcus Aurelius. as Thucydides had already done? Or are we not dealing with an argument with broader implications. the man who. one that suggests that the value of the Roman Empire could be a matter of dispute? Regardless of what one says.-Dion. Hermogenes: ναντ α μ ν ν στιν.36 Is the point of this speech only to denounce the deceptions and the dishonesty of the imperialists of the fifth century BC. but perhaps the Roman Empire as well) lacks both philanthropy and immortality.13 (Rabe 205). No matter what they say. trans. which appears in the classificatory schemas of the theorists of figured speech. no more than about the speeches in honor of the Roman Empire. 8. in reality. The Empire (the Athenian Empire. he delivered a philosophy on empire. in his dreams. Aristides also writes that every empire rests on inequality and the law of the . Aristides. The orator indicates that the Empire inspires fear and despair in its subjects (therefore there is no solicitude towards mankind). The beginning of the sentence celebrates the Empire as divine. Rhet. used in section 39 of the first Sicilian Declamation. the Empire’s aim is not the wellbeing of its subjects. might have revealed with a sort of bitter irony and in a text where such sentiments would be least expected that he had no illusions about the generosity or the immortality of Roman supremacy.37 35 36 37 Hermog. ταν τ ναντ ν κατασκευ ωμεν. Hal. It is impossible not to be suspicious towards an argument that appears so self-contradictory in light of its precise correspondence to the device of the ναντ ν (‘opposite’ or ‘contrary’). but the rest of the passage and the following events show that it is. The pious Aristides does not use a term like this lightly.35 Pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus: τρ τ ν σ μ στι τ ς λ γει τ ναντ α πρα ναι πραγματευ μεν ν (‘A third figure consists of making sure that the opposite of what one says is effected’). the passage suggests. the panegyrists can be mistaken. That is why we. A friend asks Maternus if he intends to suppress what could have given rise to such a negative interpretation: An ideo librum istum adprehendisti ut diligentius retractares et. 23. let us quote a passage from Tacitus’ Dialogue on Orators. The concept of interpretatio put forth here is important. ς κελε ει τ ν τ ν κρειττ νων περ λ ν ν εσ αι κα ν πρ ς τ γ μεν ν (‘…the law of nature. sublatis si quae pravae interpretationi materiam dederunt. to some extent. must learn to read between the lines. Or. This passage is not related to rhetoric but to tragedy. not of nature. Peterson). The advantage of ‘figured speech’ consists precisely in the fact that.306: πασα γ ρ δ π υ εν ρ τ ν κρειττ νων στ κα παρ’ α τ ν τ ν τ ς σ τητ ς ν μ ν (‘For every empire obviously belongs to the stronger and is contrary to the very law of equality’). strongest. since it necessarily requires a certain amount of speculation about the interpretation. which commands us to endure the excesses of the stronger and to live in accordance with our leaders’).38 Multiple layers of comprehension and an absence of certitude are inherent features of ‘figured speech’. if not better than the first at least not so dangerous? (trans. The study of the unsaid must be conducted with prudence. the modern scholars. 38 As happened to Quintilian’s delatores: see above.125: … τ ν τ ς σεως ν μ ν. 1. Maternus. intending to cut out any passages that may have given a handle for misrepresentation. and that the differences between the various empires are differences of degree. Or is it with the idea of going carefully over it that you have taken your drama in hand. has presented a tragedy titled Cato. Dial. sed tamen securiorem? (Tac. n. a matter of appreciation. . 28.198 laurent pernot Conclusions To conclude. W. emitteres Catonem non quidem meliorem. Certain people understand the overtones. which has displeased the emperor and the court because of the contemporary allusions that they believe they have recognized in it. the famous advocate and poet. and then to publish a new edition of ‘Cato’. and thus has the advantage of reminding us that the problem of the unsaid in rhetoric is part of the larger problem of the unsaid in literature. others do not. 3). it disconcerts the censors by making a simple and univocal interpretation impossible. See Or. because it shows that the unsaid is. pushed to a certain degree of refinement. But Maternus refused to change his text. and even those who do understand them may be incapable of proving that they exist. eloquent silences. it is important to probe these remarks in his works. and hidden keys—that permitted him to slip discrete messages into his works. which are not on the same level. As a Greek. Aristides seems to have felt a sort of tension as a result of the discrepancy between his situation and the opinion that he had of himself. and history. he remained Greek. Even though he cooperated with Rome. The reservations did not form any conscious system or program. The occasional betrayal of Aristides’ unease about subjects that touched on the contemporary political situation deserves our consideration. Pernot Forthcoming. culture. autobiographical confessions with the character of aretalogy. He was the protégé and the servant of Asclepius. The moments of dissonance were of limited scope.aelius aristides and rome 199 In the case of Aristides. even if Aristides was surrounded 39 Sfameni Gasparro 2002. From this identification come the jolts of pride. One may wonder how Aristides’ reservations interacted with the approval and the loyalty that he felt towards the Roman Empire in other respects. The rhetorical notion of ‘figured speech’ offers us an objective standard with which to read texts that may admit of multiple layers of meaning. He belonged to a ruled people. one discerns an intense religious experience. He could therefore distance himself from the rules of encomium. Behind the official image of a Greek-speaking public figure. . These two identities. if we consider the passages presented above. but revealed its inner tensions. on the contrary. and the embittered remarks that we see here and there and that cannot be ignored (as one might be tempted to do if one accepts Aristides’ protests of loyalty at face value). Aristides’ reservations towards Rome were due to two reasons: he was Greek and he was a disciple of Asclepius. Indeed. they did not command the whole of Aristides’ mind. but one that regarded itself as superior on account of its language. Fundamentally. the reservations expressed by this important figure were consistent with the high opinion that he had of his art and himself.39 This was a solitary experience. religion. the cunning phrases. Certainly there was a kind of contradiction. an attitude of reserve towards Rome becomes apparent. as well as with his conviction that he had a message to deliver. and his relationship with his god was close and constant throughout his entire life. 203–253. But Aristides was not a Greek like the others. made him pull back. Aristides has a number of resources—such as dream narratives. who are gifted with supernatural powers thanks to their proximity to the divine and who played a charismatic role in society. in a very interesting way. which is impossible to answer fully in the space allotted. Apuleius.1. 41 Philostr. Finally. Antiochos of Aegae. As we said at the beginning. fellow worshippers and his companions at the Asclepieion. like Aristides. Some of them could have clashed with Rome. If one has a strong personal identity. And yet. The testimony of Aristides is particularly enlightening as concerns the strength and the specific details of the religion of Asclepius in the second century AD in the Roman Empire. De propriis libris 3. When we read the Sacred Tales.40 Figured speech was widely used. Peregrinus leads us to the Christians. Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists contains several anecdotes about sophists standing up to the emperors. one risks not knowing one’s place in the laws of society. soph. in which the authority of Asclepius is invoked. Hermocrates of Phocaea). whom we can consider in terms of sepa40 See also a similar anecdote. for example. concerning Herodes Atticus. lived a life of deep personal commitment and selflessness.11 (561). but which is nevertheless worth asking.g. among those Greek orators who were likely to voice criticism about Rome. there is another question. and it is very possible that among them were those who. if we go back to the different points addressed in this paper. 2.41 The devotion to Asclepius was widespread among intellectuals (e. we get the impression that we are dealing with a very unusual personality. Aristides did not define himself by membership in a community. Vit. in Galen. it is possible to draw parallels between Aristides and his contemporaries every time. as well as to the Empire and his relationship with the emperor. In one case. Polemo of Laodicea. The question is just how original Aristides was compared to other men of his era. even if they did not write a work comparable to the Sacred Tales to publicize it. as Apollonius of Tyana and Peregrinus of Parion did. This is what happened to Aristides.4–5.200 laurent pernot by friends. We observe. . that for Aristides. but by his individual course of action. one finds. Dio of Prusa and Lucian. Aristides’ case also displays parallels with the contemporary personas of the holy man and the thaumaturgist. Philostratus considers the possibility of figured speech in an address to Marcus Aurelius. devotion to Asclepius ended up in conflict with his civic duties to Smyrna and the province of Asia Minor. Aristides was ready both to accept and to rebel against the Empire.42 42 I warmly thank Professor Brooke Holmes for her editing of this text. Aristides is at times reminiscent of the martyrs. emaciated. and his vague desire to rebel against the emperor. but that there are points of encounter and similarities between Christians and the orator that can be explained by a common spirituality (on a general level) and by the spirit of the times. One could compare the periods during which Aristides lived as a recluse— chaste. unbathed. but also because they build bridges between him and contemporary trends. Through his suffering. Therefore.aelius aristides and rome 201 ration from society and resistance in the face of imperial power. . the expressions of malaise that can be observed in Aristides are interesting not only because they reveal his own inner tensions. Like some Christians of his time. This does not mean that there was a Christian influence on Aristides. and willing to renounce everything for his god—with a certain type of asceticism and the life of a hermit. his willingness to bear witness. . 1. Among the ‘posterity’ who took on the task of delivering this judgement on the Roman Empire we can obviously count the Mysian rhetor Aelius Aristides. honour or profit that will result from their action. most definitely determining that the city and its empire were worthy of ‘praise’ not ‘blame’. Fontanella (Pisa.2 he pronounced in Rome his encomium To Rome. .4) that it is impossible to form a definitive judgement on the victors or the defeated if one only considers ‘simply the results of the military conflict’. and will show posterity whether Roman power is to be judged worthy of praise and imitation or of blame … Neither historical actors nor those who write about them should think that the aim of every undertaking is to win and to subjugate everyone else… in fact all men act with the aim of obtaining the pleasure. probably in 144 AD under Antoninus Pius. 1. p. and consider the reactions of the defeated and their behaviour towards their rulers… For it is clear that this will show our contemporaries whether the domination of Rome is to be avoided or rather to be desired.chapter ten THE ENCOMIUM ON ROME AS A RESPONSE TO POLYBIUS’ DOUBTS ABOUT THE ROMAN EMPIRE Francesca Fontanella In the so-called second introduction of his Histories. but in 146 (the year of the destruction of Carthage and Corinth). It has been translated by W. Harris and I would like to thank him also for giving me the opportunity to publish this paper.1 He maintains (3. Therefore I must add… an account of the subsequent policy of the victors and how they ruled the world. by F. Some 300 years after Polybius. Polybius explains the reasons that led him to end his work not in 167 BC (the date when Rome completed its conquest of ‘the whole inhabited world’. 2007). and comm..V.5). But the link between Aristides’ speech and Poly1 This paper draws on the conclusions reached in my commentary on To Rome: A Roma. 2 Cf. because it has often happened that what seemed to be the greatest successes have as a result of misuse brought the greatest disasters in their train…. my comm. as he originally intended. 79. trans. behind its detailed references to passages of Polybius. and also of Roman thinking on the problem of what made the extension of Roman power to the whole world not only ‘just’ but also ‘advantageous’. he says so explicitly (To Rome sect. And they suffered the consequences dictated by a law of nature ( σεως ν μ ς): hatreds and plots on the part of people who were treated like this. he shifts attention from the city to its empire ( ρ ) with a transition that emphasizes the superiority of the Roman Empire over the empires of the past: ‘it is not easy to decide whether Rome’s superiority to other cities of its time. 40–57). These were their rewards. Aristides on the other hand introduces at the very beginning of these comparisons (sect.204 francesca fontanella bius’ Histories is not merely an interesting a posteriori indication of how the Greek élite had shifted. Polybius (1. After an opening passage describing the size. magnificence and prosperity of the capital (sects. 15–23). Aristides. 24–26) and the Macedonians (sect.1) had differentiated Rome’s dominion from that of the Persians. 27). both its [the Persian Empire’s] size and what happened during its existence. 15). simply by reference to their size and duration. the characteristics of the Persian Empire are examined and then condemned without the possibility of appeal: These then were the ways they enjoyed their famous power. 13). while the subjects underwent all that which the subjects of such men must of necessity undergo… A boy’s good looks caused his parents to be afraid. 15) the criteria that were formulated in Polybius’ second proem: let us consider everything in order. from problematical support for the Roman Empire to enthusiastic acceptance.2. by the time of the Antonines. The comparison with past empires starts with the Persians (sects. Spartans and Macedonians. To Rome lets us see. intends to judge the Empire by reference in part to the relations between rulers and ruled and by the benefit it may provide to both. A response that takes account of centuries of Greek political theory—in so far as it was relevant—. continues with Alexander (sects. a new interpretation of Roman power that seems to constitute a conscious response to the historian’s doubts. like Polybius. and ends with the various hegemonies of Greek cities (sects. and defections and civil wars and constant strife and ceaseless rivalries. as if they ruled in consequence of a curse rather than in answer to their prayers. 4–13). is the greater’ (sect. or the Roman Empire’s superiority to past empires. That means that we must examine both how they enjoyed their conquests and how they treated their subjects. a wife’s good looks had the same effect . On the basis of these criteria. 9 and 11 and 13. τ δεσπ τικ ν πρ σ κ ντ ς. 1. In fact he combined with his theory of the anacyclosis of constitutions a ‘biological theory’5 already detectable in Anaximander6 and widely favoured by Greek thinkers. also with respect to the Persians. 291e. 7 Walbank 1972. 115.polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 205 on her husband. 6 12 B 1 D–K.7). τ λ ν π λεσαν κα τ κ ιν ν ν τ π λει. understood almost as a necessary unfolding of effects following from causes. 8 Walbank 1957–1979. Zeno. (It was widely diffused in Greek thought: in its more general formulation it amounted to no more than the statement of a natural law that determines the birth. like that of Sparta.4. 74 n. on poverty or wealth. for example. 27.7 though ‘by the Hellenistic period it was identified with the Stoic ε μαρμ νη’). See. κατ σιν (6. 9 As is well known. growth and degeneration of everything.13) and σεως κ ν μ α 6.6. that τ λε ερ ν λ αν ελ μεν ι τ δ μ υ. 6. 20–21). Klein 1983. 6. but cf.2: ναγκα ως κα υσικ ς).2).g. I. I. It was not the biggest criminals but the wealthiest who were condemned to destruction (sects. Chrysippus.8 Aristides therefore seems to have followed Polybius in attributing the manner of a state’s evolution to a law of nature that is reminiscient in both works of the Stoic concept of the ε μαρμ νη.6. that Polybius too. Aristotle (Pol. 160.5. According to Xenophon (Mem. depending on whether it is based on violent constraint or free acceptance.4. 645.2.10. 3 4 . 5 Walbank 1957–1979. 142. 4. SVF 2. also Rep.9. tyranny and kingship.12).4 We recall. for the assimilation of the terms τ ρανν ς and δεσπ της see further Laws 859a). with the sources.9 thinking that in this case was echoed not only by Cf. 6. however. and on law or illegality (Plt. 1285a) emphasizes the difference between a ασιλε α … κατ ν μ ν. the Persian king is already called δεσπ της in the sense of absolute ruler in Herodotus (e. δ’ παγαγ ντες μ λλ ν τ Plato also distinguishes two kinds of monarchy.10) to indicate a natural and therefore necessary unrolling of political-constitutional changes in the various states (cf. 576e. several times used expressions such as υσικ ς (6.90. 912–1007. The mention of a ‘law of nature’. and Plato (Laws 697c) asserts. SVF 1. I 101–102. may certainly make one suspect Stoic influence on this passage of Aristides. 645.9. when he spoke about the birth of the various forms of government and of their degeneration (at the beginning of Book VI). Aristides’ conclusions about the Persians were also inspired by classical Greek thinking that distinguished between the δεσπ της and the ασιλε ς.1. and Pohlenz 1948–1949. 6.2. such a distinction had already been formulated by Socrates.3 given in particular the Stoic identification of the λ γ ς not only with σις but also with the ε μαρμ νη. υσι δ’ α ται τ ν δ ναμιν π σαι παραπλησ αν τυρανν σιν …. τ ς δ αρ ρ ις δεσπ τικ ς (the source of this story must and an λλ μ ναρ ας ε δ ς.4. according to Plutarch in De Alexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute (Mor.8. Hidalgo de la Vega 1998.87. 1. in a Stoic fashion. . 11 The distinction between ασιλε ς and δεσπ της or τ ρανν ς was made use of by the first emperors. 329b). and. connects the victory of Thebes at Leuctra in 371 BC with the mistakes made by the Spartans and the hatred that all the Greeks felt for them (To Rome 50). with a description of the distinguishing characteristics of the rex and the tyrannus).11–13. 283–318) constructed a theory of the monarchical form of government as distinct from the tyrannical form of government (1. They did not proceed in a reasonable manner towards great objectives. 29–43. 51). which Polybius gives voice to in 4. 12.11. Aristides’ assertion (in the same passage) that it would have been better if the Cadmeia had stayed in Spartan hands and if Sparta had not been defeated by Thebes is more comprehensible if one takes account of the fact that public opinion. Tac. and when it is extended to cities and nations. 10 Polybius claims (6. Here the traces of Polybius are easily detectable in certain judgements about Greek history: Aristides. Ann. by Seneca (Clem. Cassius Dio 57. extending to all of them ‘what has been said about the Athenians’ (sect. Aug.2) refused the Latin title of dominus and the Greek δεσπ της. 53. 2. While it is more plausible to suppose that Aristides draws here on Greek political thinking of the classical period. but only one that is recognized by the common will of its subjects and rules more by persuasion than by terror or violence’. without having to rely on Polybius as an intermediary.9). also André 1982. seems to αι παρ’ ν ις ε σ ασιλε αι τ ν αρ ρων. It is theorized. For the term ‘master’ applies properly within the circle of a private household. have been Eratosthenes. 27. 45. Finally.22.43–44): cf. as is indicated by Strabo 1. 23). 1023–1051. that seems not to apply to the sections concerning the comparison between Rome and the hegemonies of the Greek cities. who according to the sources (Suet.77.2) that ‘one cannot call every monarchy a kingdom. by the younger Pliny (Paneg.27. since it is impossible to be good subjects if the rulers are bad rulers. 2. 3.43).206 francesca fontanella Polybius10 but also in Roman political thought:11 The reason was that the Persians did not know how to rule and their subjects did not cooperate. with the distinction between principatus and dominatio). Aristotle advised Alexander to behave τ ς μ ν Ελλησιν γεμ νικ ς. Government and slave-management were not yet differentiated: king and master were equivalent terms. the general judgement of the Greeks given in To Rome.4. had firmly condemned the surprise occupation of the citadel of Thebes carried out in 382 by the Spartan general Phoibidas. like Polybius (6. and by Dio Chrysostom. Tib. the role is hard to keep up (sect. who in his Orations on Kingship (on which see Desideri 1978. . and at knowing how to deal properly with both prosperity and adversity. where the Greeks are recognized as being superior to all other peoples in wisdom. perhaps Anaximenes of Lampsacus. it would have been among the Greeks. however. 6. 51). But to surpass the barbarians in wealth and power. and when they tried they failed (To Rome 51). everything on the ship goes perfectly. when he emphasizes the inability of the Athenians to rule in peace-time: And what has been said about the Athenians is perhaps also true for all the Greeks: they were better than anyone at resisting foreign rulers. But when their confidence comes back and they begin to disregard the officers and debate among themselves….polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 207 echo12 the observations formulated by Polybius in Book VI. If it had existed. who hypothesizes that Polybius and Aristides used a common source.44. both with respect to the extent of their power and with regard to their political importance. it has recklessly got into trouble in times of peace and tranquility (Polyb. What this σ α and σω ρ σ νη consist of is made clear in section 51. who certainly distinguished themselves above all other peoples in every form of wisdom. how Aristides. while recalling Polybius. seems to me to constitute an irrefutable argument in favour of your valour as well as the most glorious subject for my oration (sect. then some of them let out the sheets while others disagree and furl the sails… Something similar has happened a number of times to the city of Athens: having been saved from serious dangers by the valour of the people and its leaders. 12 Cf. 41). which has been extended in the meanwhile to all other peoples (sect. but they were not trained to rule. I well know that Greek achievements will appear even more insignificant than the Persian ones I have just examined. at defeating the Persians and the Lydians. The Athenian people behave like a crew without a captain: as long as fear of the enemy or the threat of a storm prevails on the sailors to cooperate with each other and obey the captain. and the Greeks in political wisdom and moderation (σ α κα σω ρ σ νη). in giving their judgements on the Athenians. But see Fontanella 2007. 924.3–5). In fact this art is a discovery of your own. and the Romans in ‘knowing how to rule’: I wanted to show precisely that before you the art of ruling did not even exist. sanctions the superiority of Rome over the Greeks and draws on motifs that belonged to Roman imperial ideology. The sections of To Rome dealing with the comparison with the Greek world show. 114–117. Oliver 1953. because of your knowledge how to rule. indeed an essential precondition for the realization of ‘good government’: What had eluded practically everyone before was reserved for you alone to discover and perfect. 58). while recognizing Greek primacy in science and literature. pacique imponere morem. 15 Gabba 1979. The same judgement recurs in a passage of To Rome in which Aristides firmly ties the vastness and power of the Roman Empire to Roman superiority in the art of governing. parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. on which see Ferrary 1988. we can fairly confidently say that Aristides is now making use of the Roman point of view.1–5)14 and then rendered canonical by Vergil (Aen. while. for just as in other spheres the skills come to the fore when the material is there. claims superiority for the Romans with respect to social and political institutions and the art of war. the Panaetian origin of the justification of Roman imperialism in Book III of Cicero’s De Republica. the empire flourished and increased justly and reasonably (sect. And that is not at all surprising. experience necessarily accrued. in his work Περ τ κα κ ντ ς and taken up by Cicero in De Officiis. 847–853): excudent alii spirantia mollius aera credo equidem.15 Even one who denies. so when a great empire of surpassing power arose.208 francesca fontanella In this case too Aristides’ judgement recalls Polybius Book VI in some ways: the latter of course linked the success of Roman expansion to the superiority of Rome’s form of government over the constitutions of the Greek cities. in such a way as to make Roman expansion unproblematic. 3. Rep. memento hae tibi erunt artes. Desideri 2003.13 which had previously been set out by Cicero (Tusc. orabunt causas melius. caelique meatus describent radio et surgentia sidera dicent: tu regere imperio populos. 6.37–39. In this last half-sentence one can. hear an echo of the theories elaborated by Panaetius in the mid-second century B. Romane. skill too accumulated and entered into its composition. Because of the empire’s size. 1. 16 Cic.Disp. But since Polybius’ comparison does not concern methods of ruling subject peoples. and each was reinforced by the other.16 has to admit that Panaetius apparently taught the Romans in Περ τ κα κ ντ ς Cf. uiuos ducent de marmore uultus. 363–374. Where the author. I think. like Ferrary.C. 13 14 . which distinguishes it from all other peoples.19 At Rome this theory was taken up by Cicero in Laelius’ speech in Book III of De republica. defends the legitimacy of the Roman Empire on the basis of the premise that Ferrary 401–424. for example. and you prescribed for all men rules and fixed arrangements (sect. Pol. 1255a: τι μ ν τ νυν ε σ δ δ λ ι. Arist. The best alternative [to ruling] is to be governed by one’s betters.. esp.18 however one wants to understand the Aristotelian concept of a law of nature. is explained in sections 68 and 91 of To Rome by means of the well-known theory of the ‘natural’ rule of the ‘better’: It is not safe to rule without power. μ ν γ ρ λλ ι πρ μ ν δυναστε σαντες ρ ς ντες λε ερ ι κα ν δεσπ ται κα δ λ ι λλ λων ν τ μ ρει γιγν μεν ι … π τ ρ ειν ε ς γεν μεν ι). In particular. 72–75. where we find the famous demonstration that slavery is according to nature. The idea that there exist by nature some men fit to rule over other men who are destined to obey. 91). For you alone are rulers according to nature. Rome’s ‘imperial vocation’. like the philosopher Carneades in 155 B. and you invented a constitution such as no one ever had before. for a parallel to the whole of section 91 ( με ς ρ ντες … κατ σιν. so to speak… Since you were free right from the start and had immediately become rulers. τ μ ν γ ρ δυν μεν ν τ διαν α πρ ρ ν ρ ν δεσπ ν σει. τ δ δυν μεν ν [τα τα] τ σ ματι π νε ν ρ μεν ν κα σει δ λ ν· δι δεσπ τη κα δ λω τα τ συμ ρει.polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 209 that power is only legitimate and durable if exercised with justice. is certainly traceable to the Politics of Aristotle. 68). and that greatness and glory are only genuine if they are founded on justice and subordinated to reason. that is to say in the interest of the subjects. 424.17 Aristides clearly thought that Panaetius’ lesson had been thoroughly absorbed by the Romans (De off. but you have by now shown that this is in fact the best situation (sect. see. had condemned Roman expansionism in the name of iustitia. 1252a–1255a. in his reply to Furius Philus (who is made the spokesman of Carneades’ complaint). Fassò 2001 [1966–1970]. and that their empire had grown ‘justly and reasonably’. and that this unequal relationship is in the interest of both parties. 1254a: κα ε ς κ γενετ ς νια δι στηκε τ μ ν σει τιν ς μ ν λε ερ ι π τ ρ εσ αι τ δ’ π τ ρ ειν. 17 18 . Pol.C. 19 Cf. in reply to the criticisms of those who. you equipped yourselves with all that was helpful for this position. Arist. 1252a: … ρ ν δ σει κα σει κα ρ μεν ν δι τ ν σωτηρ αν. 1.13: ‘nemini parere animus bene informatus a natura velit nisi … utilitatis causa iuste et legitime imperanti’). Laelius. 50. 21 Gabba 1996. divide into those who affirm and those who deny the mediation of Panaetius and/or Posidonius in adapting it to the Roman Empire. 3. I. The law is that those who are εσ αι τ superior will always rule over those who are inferior: μ τε π τ ει κατ τ ε κ ς γεν μ νη ( σεως γ ρ δ ν μ ς πασι κ ιν ς. ν δε ς καταλ σει ρ ν ς. 23 Capelle 1932.5. See Phil. Gabba 1996. populi Romani est propria libertas’. Pohlenz 1948–1949. 14–15.19: ‘Populum Romanum servire fas non est. Modern scholars. Walbank 1965. 58 and those of Posidonius in sects.5. Hal.23 The possible echo of Panaetius traceable in sect. in section 20). 98–101. 68 and 91 could therefore allow us to identify a Middle Stoic influence on Aristides which probably came to him through Dionysius.2 had clear-cut precedents in Cicero. . 297. that is to say to a theory that found its most complete ancient expression in Stoicism: we find this theory mentioned in two fragments of Posidonius22 from which I think that it is reasonable to deduce that he used exactly this kind of argument to justify Roman imperialism. II.210 francesca fontanella nature dictates that power should be exercised by the best people. 172. 206. ρ ειν ε τ ν ττ νων τ ς κρε ττ νας) (Dion. 58 and 91 and of Dion. 24 Cf. 118 and 143–146. 363–381. 1. while almost unanimously recognizing the Aristotelian origin of this theory. in this case the Romans. Fontanella 2007. Walbank 1965. 211.2). (vol. 172. Later on. 13–15.24 We should remember in any case that the arguments of Aristides in sects.20 Since Augustan times this formulation had become ‘canonical’. 172. Against: Strasburger 1965. 1. I.Rom. Garbarino 1973. Ant. Ferrary 1988. justly and in defence of the interests of the weaker: ‘An non cernimus optimo cuique dominatum ab ipsa natura cum summa utilitate infirmorum datum?’ (Cic. 37–43.37). 44–45 and n. 25 This idea of Rome’s vocation to rule other peoples persists in Cicero’s last works. Gabba 1990. p. 98–104. it is possible to recognize a more specific reference 91 writes κατ to the theory of a law of nature (a reference that is explicit earlier. Hal. who certainly knew and made use of the works of both Panaetius and Posidonius. Dionysius of Halicarnassus was to exhort his readers not to grieve over the fact that they had to submit to the power of Rome. Gruen 1984. Gabba 1996. 6. 22 Poseidonios F 147 and F 448 Theiler.21 so it is difficult to identify the source from which it reached To Rome. with the latter’s comm. Kidd 1988. quem di immortales omnibus gentibus imperare voluerunt … Aliae nationes servitutem pati possunt. 385).25 20 In favour: Capelle 1932. De rep. on the grounds that this had come into being in a just and proper way and was like a natural law that time cannot destroy. But when Aristides in section σιν. 351–352. I. The model of the ‘mixed constitution’ was present in the Greek political debate from the fourth century BC. 26 . cf. you will conclude that it is a perfect aristocracy. without the disadvantages of any of them.27 It was taken up by Peripatetic and Stoic thought in the third century out of ‘a desire to define the relationship between the ασιλε ς. 211). while Aristotle (Pol. If you consider the power of the people and how easily they obtain everything they desire and ask for. the ruling class of the cities and the mass of the people within the new Hellenistic π λις’. apart from the single fact that it avoids the mistakes that the people make. Pernot 1993a.1 and 64). though that does not mean that in Aristides’ case the theme lacked ideological content (either in To Rome or in the Panathenaikos). 359–360 Russell and Wilson.2.3. remarking at the same time how in each of these phases the three elements were to a certain extent combined. However your political system is not like any other but is a mixture of all of them (κρ σις πασ ν τ ν π λιτει ν). you will see the man who possesses the most perfect monarchy. as we can see from both Plato and Aristotle. I. you will think that it is a democracy. to the transition at Athens from monarchy to aristocracy and finally to democracy. 15. sects. who had asked himself the question ‘how and with what form of government (π ς κα τ νι γ νει π λιτε ας) the Romans had in only fifty-three years conquered and subjugated almost the whole inhabited world’ (6. 1.383–388) Aristides applies the scheme of the mixed constitution. free from the evils of tyranny and above the prestige of a mere king (sect. Polybius had identified It is to be observed that in the Panathenaikos too (1. In fact the description of a city’s political system and in particular praise for its mixed constitution were considered obligatory themes in panegyrics on cities (Menander Rhetor 1. 1273b) applies it to Solonian Athens. 28 Carsana 1990. thanks to whom the people are able to obtain what they desire and the few are able to govern and wield power.3.28 The first person to have applied this schema to Rome (and therefore not just to any π λις but to an imperial power) had been Polybius. though in a diachronic fashion. hence it is precisely this system of government that has turned out to be successful. But when you look at the overseer and chairman of all this.polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 211 The passage in which Aristides interprets Roman constitutional arrangements as a ‘mixed constitution’26 shows once again how he reworked a tradition that went back to classical Greece but had subsequently been elaborated and transformed in both the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. If you look at the Senate deliberating and exercising power. 27 Plato (Laws 712d) interprets the Spartan political system in this fashion. 90). 78. Senate and people). and not. auctoritas. 32 Carsana 1990. un filo che lega Polibio.212 francesca fontanella the monarchic element in the Roman system in the consuls. Ferrary 1984. 59 of To Rome as the αρι στερ ν τε κα γενναι τερ ν κα δυνατ τερ ν element. though it may rather oddly evoke one of the ‘degenerate’ regime forms.30 But let us remember that Cicero too. 29 . 30 ‘La citazione ‘sintattica’ del testo […] sta forse ad indicare […] una continuità di rapporti tra Roma e gli esponenti delle classi dirigenti del mondo greco. seems almost closer to a Ciceronian view (though his reference to Polybius is beyond doubt). The appropriation of these themes in To Rome can be understood as a response to the doubts raised by Polybius in But at the end of the passage Aristides mentions not the Senate but the ‘few’: the use of the term λ γ ι.11–18).12). knew and used the Greek historian’s work. 2.57). 31 Cf. in speaking of a κρ σις πασ ν τ ν π λιτει ν.31 Aristides. libertas) present in a single united ruling class. nonetheless makes it possible to interpret the aristocratic element in the Aristidean mixed constitution in a wider sense. as in Polybius. the aristocratic element in the Senate and the democratic element in the popular assemblies: a system of reciprocal checks between these three elements was able to maintain them in equilibrium in such a way as to make this form of government stable and not liable to decay like ‘pure’ systems of government (cf. not least because To Rome makes it obvious that the Polybian principle of reciprocal control and equilibrium ‘has been replaced by a hierarchical system’. 74–75. but also that he had made his own the essential arguments that had been worked up in both the Latin and Greek worlds in defence of the Roman Empire. 6. had made a ‘mixed and moderate constitution’ the basis of his ideal state—though it was a constitution based on the interaction of three principles (potestas.29 and the reference to the text of Polybius is undeniable (see especially 6. ad Elio Aristide. though he never cites Polybius explicitly. The passages of To Rome examined so far show that Aristides. Polyb.69.11. oligarchy. already defined in sect. in De republica (1. storico greco vissuto all’epoca degli Scipioni. by identifying it with the governing class of the whole empire. Undoubtedly Aristides’ identification of the aristocratic element with the Senate looks like a rhetorical anachronism that owes much to the classical model of the mixed constitution and to Polybius. originario della Misia nell’età degli Antonini’: Carsana 1990. the person ‘thanks to whom the people are able to obtain what they desire and the few are able to govern and wield power’.32 which is a unified system because it is headed by the emperor. on the equilibrium of three juxtaposed powers (consuls. it is natural that those who hold office treat people not as foreigners but as fellow-citizens. Here. so far have you extended the name of the capital city (sect. You have instead divided humankind into Romans and non-Romans. but you have not given yourself airs about this and you have made it wonderful not by excluding people from it. 58–70). but Aristides’ answer to Polybius seems even more explicit in the sections of To Rome that immediately follow the comparison with the hegemonies of the Greek city-states (sects. You have made ‘Roman’ the name not of a single city but of a whole nation.33 The terms employed by Aristides to describe disaffection towards the rulers ( ν ς and μ σ ς) are used by 33 One recalls that not being capable of extending their citizenship to other peoples is given as the reason for the ruin of the Greeks by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (2. Being great. Not even those who are excluded from positions of power nurture resentment (μ σ ς). Hence No envy ( ν ς) enters into your empire: you in fact were the first people to rise above jealousy. Given that there is a single system of government shared by all.17. but rather you have sought out a population worthy of it. having made all things generally available and having conceded to all who are capable of it the chance of taking their turn in command as well as being commanded. he identifies in the diffusion of Roman citizenship the characteristic ‘that more than any other deserves to be noticed and admired.2) . For you no longer divide the nations into Greeks and barbarians. 63). There has emerged a single harmonious system of government (μ α ρμ ν α π λιτε ας) that includes all … (sects. and not just of a single nation but of a nation that is a match for all the others together. 59). and under your government even the mass of the population feels safe from those who hold power among them… For your rage and vengeance ( ργ τε κα τιμωρ α) immediately catch up with them if they dare to upset the established order. Thus it is natural that the present state of affairs pleases and suits (κα ρ σκει κα συμ ρει) both the poor and the rich and no other way of life any longer exists. 65–66).polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 213 the so-called second introduction to his history. as if this were a single city-state. where Aristides emphasizes the hatred that the various hegemonic Greek city-states aroused against themselves. and indeed you have demonstrated the absurdity of that distinction—for your city by itself is more populous than the whole tribe of the Greeks. because there is nothing like it in the world’ (sect. you have created a great city. first of all. These sections obviously balance sections 44–46. 138. 308. 66 of To Rome (κα γ γ νε μ α ρμ ν α π λιτε ας παντας συγκεκλεικυ α) is verbally reminiscent of Polyb. 68). and aware of the fact that they had fought to no purpose against shadows. refers in Polybius to the rage of the subjects towards tendentially tyrannical power. so all of them are attached to you and fearfully take care that no one falls down from the clinging mass: they are more likely to fear being abandoned by you than to think of abandoning you themselves (sect. which directs it towards those who ‘dare to overturn the established order’. 948. because of which all previous wars have been engaged. and no more think of parting from you than ship-passengers think of parting from their helmsman. A final ‘Polybian citation’ is perhaps detectable in sect. Just as bats in caves cling to each other and to the rock. Volpe 2001. Finally. the historian speaks of ρμ ν α: τ ια της δ’ σης τ ς κ στ υ τ ν μερ ν δυν μεως ε ς τ κα λ πτειν κα συνεργε ν λλ λ ις. peace reigns throughout the oikoumene: Peoples no longer struggle for empire and supremacy ( ρ ς τε κα πρωτε ων).8) to refer to the disaffection that arises when the ruling power ceases to pay attention to the interests of its subjects and thinks only of its own profits. thanks to the Romans. live voluntarily in peace.18.214 francesca fontanella Polybius (6. Here Aristides may have had in mind Polyb.1. . 118 n. στε μ π λιτε ας σ στασιν: cf. and R. and people began to put trust in the altars of the gods’ ( ε ν ωμ π στιν λα ν)’. Klein in his edition.56. 103 of To Rome: ‘once you arrived… laws appeared. 34 The end of sect. 6. Senate. 6. which in turn leads to attempts to overthrow it: ‘thus they ν ς) and hostility. There is no such disaffection towards the Romans. like quietly running water. 11.34 So great is the convenience of the Roman Empire for the subject peoples that they all stay close to you. Some people. then hatred (μ σ ς) and violent provoked envy ( anger ( ργ ). people). according to Aristides. and in Aristides too targets those who abuse their power. πρ ς π σας συμ α νει τ ς ν τ’ ε ναι τα της ε ρε ν με νω περιστ σεις δε ντως ειν τ ν ρμ γ ν α τ ν. Others do not even know that once they had an empire—they have forgotten the fact: just as and also by Claudius (at least in the account that Tacitus provides of his famous speech on the extension of the ius honorum to the notables of Gallia Comata: Ann. where δεισιδαιμ ν α towards the gods and the π στις afforded to oaths are recognized as strong points in Roman society: so Oliver 1953.7. ργ . it is not in the latter writer expressed by the subjects but by the central Roman power itself.24. à propos of the mutual relationships that exist between the various elements in the Roman political system (consuls. which leads to the degeneration of monarchy into tyranny. where. until monarchy gave way to tyranny’.4). pleased to have put an end to troubles and misadventures. While rage. 38. that ‘nullam ab se neque belli externi neque domesticarum discordiarum calamitatem afuturam fuisse.35). They cannot say how they reached this state. 159–191.66) describes Athens as ε περ πρωτε ων ης γωνι μ νην. asserting (probably in the footsteps of Panaetius)37 that ‘wars are only to be undertaken in order to assure peace without injustice’ (De off.39 Demosthenes too (On the Crown 18. and they can do nothing but marvel at it. however. . De off. or one would prefer not to. 38 Cf. allows us to understand better another aspect of Aristides’ response to Polybius’ problem about the Roman Empire. Tacitus likewise makes Petilius Cerialis say in his speech to the Treviri and the Lingones that 36 37 κα τιμ ς κα δ δυναστε ας. Harris 1979. and sees Philip as initiating war π ρ ρ ς κα 35 See for instance Cic. 1. fr. 69). Brunt 1978. and above all to the Greeks.38 In To Rome. Cf. si hoc imperio non teneretur’ (Ad Q. They feel like a man who was dreaming a moment ago and suddenly wakes up to find himself immersed in a new reality (sect. 165–175. with Brunt 1978.34). 69–71). all this problematic is absent: what matters is the present. 1. Cicero seems not to have been able to make up his own mind about what constituted iustae causae for war. 194.polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 215 in Er the Pamphylian’s myth. Just this eulogy of peace. the city-states that were already on their own funerary pyre as a result of their mutual rivalries and struggles came back to life in a moment as soon as they all accepted your hegemony. a world hegemony in which. the Romans brought peace. Gabba 1990. contrasted with the lives lived by the various peoples before the advent of Rome. 1. 410–415. Cicero later on took a moralistic stand. How this situation had been arrived at. It is obvious that when he refers to those peoples that had fought ‘for empire and supremacy’ Aristides intends to refer in the first place to the ones whose histories he has sketched in the opening sections of his encomium. 39 The idea that the Romans have brought peace to peoples who have shown themselves to be incapable of attaining and preserving it by themselves is already to be found in the letter of Cicero to his brother in which he observes. Macedonians and Greeks. and hence the wars de imperio only seem to concern the past of other peoples and not that of the Romans. from at least the time of the Second Punic War. peace reigns (sects.35 But the Romans too were well aware (as can be seen in the pages of Cicero) that they too. one cannot (as Aristides remarks) say. 177. that is the Persians.1.36 How the Romans of that time saw their wars is a matter of some controversy. To everyone. had fought wars de imperio. theoretically at least. with regard to the province Asia. or at least Plato’s. Ferrary 1988. at least in public. thus demonstrates how Rome’s rise to power was in a sense a fulfillment of the objectives that the Greeks themselves had pursued but had not succeeded in achieving. 41). . Aristides prefers not to speak about these events. that is to say to the time when ‘the common misfortune of all Greece had its beginning and its end’ (3. it had to assert itself in the cultural domain and so as loudly as possible’ (Swain 1996.40 Aristides’ attention is centred on a present in which Greece enjoys the fruits of Roman rule and on a past that could be said to have fully justified that rule.216 francesca fontanella Aristides. The reader may wonder whether this silence about Rome’s methods of conquests indicates not so much approval of Roman hegemony however it was achieved but rather. Bowie 1970. The silence in which Aristides covered the history of the Hellenistic period is of course to be connected with the archaizing and classicizing elements in the style.6). Though this tendency definitely has the effect of reminding the hearer of the glorious literary-historical past of Hellas.41 But another consideration will have played an even bigger role—that it was better not to bring up now a period that was one of the most problematic.5. In fact. 41 Cf. and ‘since Greek identity could not be grounded in the real political world. the interpretation of this allusion as an intentional challenge to Roman rule should not be generalized. ‘It fell to the political dominion of the Romans to bring about that consortium of cities united by a shared consensus to master city—the only possible way of unifying the Greek world’. as Pernot argues elsewhere in this volume. There is complete silence on the other hand about what stood chronologically between the two periods in question—Rome’s conquest of the Greek world. ‘terram vestram ceterorumque Gallorum ingressi sunt duces imperatoresque Romani nulla cupidine. citations and often in the subject matter of the authors of the Second Sophistic. from an ‘ethical’ point of view. having sketched in the preceding sections the unsuccessful history of the Greek hegemonies. but extended his history to the last of the Macedonian Wars and to the Achaean War. during which Rome combined acts such as the proclamation of the freedom of Greece by Flamininus in 196 with acts of brutal imperialism such as the destruction of Corinth in 146. Polybius reserved judgement on that period. 89).74. ‘by recreating the situations of the past the contrast between the immense prosperity and the distressing dependence of the contemporary Greek world was dulled’ (Bowie 1970. sed maioribus vestris invocantibus quos discordiae usque ad exitium fatigabant’ (Hist. 40 Desideri 2002. in the history of Rome.2). tacit resignation in the face of a power that it seemed no longer possible to question. 4. 149. together with the evidence of coins. id. the subjects approached by the orators were escapist (although perhaps no more escapist than a conference of classical scholars today). These texts ‘can only be understood when read in conjunction with other speeches in praise of cities’ (Bowersock 1969.1 Beyond its literary interest. the rich and brilliant virtuoso prose of the Greek sophists. On the surface. central and local power. provides historians with invaluable material for the study of civic life. Having examined the Smyrnean Orations elsewhere. The connections between higher education and social power. 16).chapter eleven AELIUS ARISTIDES AND RHODES: CONCORD AND CONSOLATION Carlo Franco Introduction The prosperous civic life of the Greek East under Roman rule may be seen as the most complete development of Greek civilization in antiquity. rhetoric and politics. social and political dimensions continue to attract the attention of contemporary scholars. inscriptions. thereby opening the door to historical analysis. and archaeology. and its cultural. In this context. 1993. but on many occasions the sophists’ speeches were closely connected to the time and place of their delivery. Whitmarsh 2005. other writings of his appear worthy of careful study. Aelius Aristides rightly ranks among the most interesting and intriguing personalities: apart from the fascinating Sacred Tales and the solemn Encomium To Rome. rulers and subjects.2 They are good case studies for examining the impact of natural disasters on the Greek Anderson 1989. 1 2 . In this context the so-called Second Sophistic played a crucial role. are becoming more and more evident. I will focus in this paper on two speeches about the ancient city of Rhodes that are included in the Aristidean corpus. To the Rhodians on Concord. primarily on stylistic grounds.5 After an exordium. 143 f. the sequence of the two Rhodian speeches reverses their chronology: Oration 24. which razed the city in 142 AD. Guidoboni 1994. Local context: Papachristodoulou 1994. we may claim that their speeches met above all the emotional needs of the cities: lamenting the disaster and preaching moral values. In his 1898 edition of Aristides’ works.3 The Rhodiakos In modern critical editions of Aristides’ works. Leaving aside the momentous problem of the sophists’ political efficacy. there is a heartfelt exhortation to endure the disaster (11–16). 3 4 . But it was precisely in such emergencies that the educated discourse of the orators played a pivotal role. The earthquake and its effects are vividly described in the central section of the speech (17–33). It is at once a commemoration of the ruined city. 25. The size and beauty of those poleis were sometimes darkened and challenged by serious crises. ‘Il n’y a aucunement lieu d’analyser le discours Aux Rhodiens’ (1971. Bruno Keil asserted. 14. After a series of historical examples (57–68). In order to examine those texts from a historical point-of-view. the orators tried to restore mutual confidence and concord. 235–236.4 Oration 25 was delivered in Rhodes some time after a tremendous earthquake.218 carlo franco cities in the Roman Empire. a memorial of the catastrophe. The speech has been often disregarded because of its similarity with Oration 23: according to Reardon. it ends with the appropriate peroration (69). with an empathetic narration of the most ancient traditions of Rhodes and a forecast of the reconstruction (50–56). 818. 371. 134). following Boulanger 1923. and an exhortation to the survivors. the Rhodiakos. 5 Chronology: Behr 1981. 126 n. was apparently delivered more or less five years after Oration 25. thereby preserving the deepest values of ancient civic life. it is expedient to observe their proper chronological order by considering the Rhodiakos first. that the speech was not written by Aristides. which goes on to reassess the importance of Rhodes and the duty of endurance (34–49). Leopold 1986.1–10). as well as the social tensions that these disasters revealed. The oration then turns to a consolation. which laments the total loss of Rhodes’ former greatness and beauty (Or. The Rhodiakos is not considered at all. as in Plut.3). Or. 420–421) found the Smyrnean Monody and the Eleusinian speech divergent from the ‘normal’ Aristidean style. 8 Aristides’ style was perfectly consistent with the Atticist mode.6 has heavily conditioned the critical evaluation of the text: the speech has generally been considered a spurious and tasteless piece. 371 (with analysis of the structure). 341–342. but also Or.25. The highly mannered use of topoi is studied by Pernot 1993a. 16 and n. 11 According to the author of the Rhodiakos. A rhetor was not bound to consistency in the evocation of ancient deeds.2.4.9–11: see Puiggali 1985. 12 In the Smyrnean Orations Aristides gives three different accounts of the origins of that city. namely that the extant Rhodiakos is spurious and that the original Rhodian speech was delivered in Egypt and subsequently lost.10 Nor do small factual discrepancies with other Aristidean works support the attribution to a different author. 46.33).11 Consistency was not the mark of the genre. Glor. 1. 175–178. The bulk of the evidence adduced against an attribution of the text to Aristides was discussed and rejected by Jones. 1.v. 29 ff.7 It may be useful to remember that. important scholars like Dindorf and Schmid judged the Rhodiakos perfectly appropriate to the style of Aristides.12 If we were to adopt consistency as a criterion Anderson 2007. not to say historical. Cortés Copete 1995. 345D. This seems allowed by Men. For a different hypothesis. 72. 425 ff.8 Recent studies have reconsidered the question and shown that Keil’s condemnation was too hasty and probably wrong. quoting in a note not only Or. 48. 25. Hell.29. II.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 219 Keil’s judgment. according to Paus. Cortés 1995. that dictated the choice of material to the orator. 9 Jones 1990.254) says that they were ‘little more than fifty’ (sixty. deprived of literary. the Rhodiakos shows no remarkable difference from the other texts of the Aristidean corpus (Jones 1990). 6 7 .64. Cortés Copete 1997.32). 1). On the treatment of the events of 404/3 BC by the authors of the Second Sophistic: Oudot 2003. 2. Norden (1909. 91.32. the Rhodiakos receives only a short mention in Boulanger (1923. see Behr 1968. 25. the kairos. Diod. Ath.9 Upon careful scrutiny. value. General introduction: Behr 1981. 37. vol. index s. As unauthentic. According to the careful analysis in Schmid 1889. whereas Aristides (Or. 25. accepted until recently. the members of the democratic group that recaptured Athens in 403 BC were seventy in number (Or. no element of content and language was seen to conflict explicitly with the authorship of Aristides.435. Keil 1898. see Xen.33.. 14. and Or. It was the special occasion. before Keil. choosing between several traditions according to the circumstances and the different aims of his speeches: Franco 2005. Rhet 2. 42. even in historical narratives: ad tempus orator retractat sententiam. The contradiction is of slight import and should not be used as a proof against the Aristidean authorship of the Rhodiakos. II. 374 n. 10 Much was made of the allocution to the daimones (Or. as was wisely observed. But if this is the case. so the silence about Aristides’ previous involvement with Rhodes may be not so relevant and should be considered in a wider context. 24. despite the fact that he refers to his actions on behalf of the city. 56). why did he fail to quote his previous speech about the earthquake? Here. as the more common usage suggests.14 ff. Five years later. that is. On Concord. Aristides does not refer to any prior declamation given on the island. . I will discuss at greater length later what the real motive for these choices may have been. various answers.3. as well as to some prior visit paid to Rhodes (Or. is duly recalled. The meaning of these words has been much discussed: should we understand ‘for the first time’. Rhodian delegates again came to meet him. 17. have been given. Aristides criticizes the ‘cursed’ sophists because they ‘persuade you that even Homer’s greatest quality was that he was the son of the Meles’. the earthquake is briefly alluded to only at the beginning and at the end of the text. the study of these texts would face a mountain of contradictions. and needed encouragement. as though it had been forgotten and completely obliterated by the rapid renaissance of the city. 53. Moreover. Aristides met the Rhodian ambassadors who were seeking help after the disaster (Or. which have underlined the difference between oral performance and written texts and between public and private declamations. where the very reason for the reconstruction of the temple. The speech is fully oriented towards the present situation of Rhodes. but not the form of the aid given.13 The strongest argument against the authenticity of Oration 25 is based on a debatable argumentum e silentio: in the speech To the Rhodians. 21. So it might have seemed inappropriate to recall the earlier disaster. There may be a more compelling explanation. he says that he is addressing the Rhodians tên prôtên. presumably in Pergamum this time. or ‘for the present’? Whichever interpretation is chosen. 24.3). stasis. in the same way. which is precisely one of the greatest sources of civic pride prized by Aristides in the Smyrnean Orations (Or.29. The same attitude appears in the Aristides’ Panegyricus to Cyzicus. viz. 13 In Or.8). This attitude may explain the omission in the Concord oration: Rhodes faced a new crisis. The oration On Concord is remarkably reticent about many themes.220 carlo franco for judging a speech’s authenticity. 33. an earthquake. too. and requested help for their city in the name of prior relations: the meeting in Egypt. receives no mention at all. the expression seems compatible with the attribution of the Rhodiakos to Aristides.. Or. When he was in Egypt. for example. Up until the day of the earthquake. with other works. nor that of style. At the beginning of the speech. the orator recalls the ‘many great harbours’. in fact. and above all ‘the circuit of the walls and the height and beauty of the interspersed towers’. the ancient renown of Rhodes had remained largely intact: although the glory of past sea battles was irremediably lost. provides irrefutable evidence against the authenticity of the Rhodiakos. All translations of Aristides are from Behr 1981. VAp 6.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 221 In addition to relevant similarities to the oration On Concord. The first theme worth consideration in the text is the description of Rhodes. Or. a customary detour for tourists on the Nile. 25. as well as several stylistic echoes.26.25): this may be a fresh memory. he says. the temples and the statues. . Philostr.1–8. 207.17 All this material follows the familiar 14 Linguistic and philological analysis does not always definitively confirm or reject the debated authorship of ancient texts: see as a case-study the ‘Tacitean fragment’ created and discussed by Syme 1991b. the bronzes and the paintings. 17 Or. the Acropolis ‘full of fields and groves’.14 Indeed. 25. the author of the speech compares the rumble of the collapsing buildings with the noise produced by the Egyptian cataracts (Or. Aristides saw the cataracts. 36 passim. like the beauty or sea power of Rhodes. and authorship of the Rhodiakos is also consistent with Aristides’ biography. 15 Arist. It is high time to abandon such a theory. the triremes and the bronze beaks ‘along with many other glorious spoils of war’. 16 Cortés 1995. I will for the time being maintain a neutral designation and speak of ‘the author of the Rhodiakos’. for. when he went to Egypt. ‘all the rest of the city was preserved purely pure’. In the description of the earthquake. All of these similarities led a specialist like Keil to express the bizarre hypothesis that Aristides himself imitated the Rhodiakos (allegedly the work of a different author) in his Smyrnean orations. the debate on its disputed authorship is showing signs of reaching a generally accepted conclusion. the Rhodiakos could plausibly have been delivered during the journey back from Alexandria to Asia. which obviously refers to the days before its destruction.15 Thus.16 To sum up. I will assume that the speech was written by Aristides. since neither the analysis of content. which might eventually outnumber the alleged discrepancies. the ‘many handsome docks’. But in order to avoid bias in the analysis of the text. The diction of the Rhodiakos is compatible with Aristidean authorship. the Rhodiakos shares many themes. as in the case of Dio’s speeches for Tarsus or Nicomedia.7.8. Civ. 25. At the beginning of the Imperial Age. The author of the Rhodiakos is fully aware of this situation. what the city was’ (2). it was possible’ (Or. . 2. 1. During the last century of the Republic. Cic. others in dry dock. 20 Pirates: Flor.5 reports that the ‘roadsteads had been hidden and forbidden to the people for a long time’. 11. however.1–3. Thus. or Aristides’ for Smyrna: Classen 1980.41. App. not a false one. the description is not a mere literary essay. and eventually prevailing. 14. creating an idealized image of the city.2 (Lentulus): Rhodiosque navis complures instructas et paratas in aqua. BC 3. Fam.4. but if one wished to launch and sail any of them. seems an elegant way to describe the present state of the Rhodian navy: the docks and the huge triremes are preserved. Caes. as in the Venetian Arsenal: Gabrielsen 1997. the Rhodian navy had been marginalized by the increasing. did he see precisely. the Rhodians were still fighting against the pirates and collaborating with Caesar. the size and strength of the Rhodian navy had been reduced to insignificance.19 The time of its thalassocracy. role of Rome. Although largely conditioned by rhetoric. the orator can transform the remains of the sea power into a justification for eulogy: for Rhodes has ‘sensibly 18 This attitude allows us to undertake a historical analysis of these speeches. 25. Let us first consider the naval structures. 132 f. Rhodes and commercial routes in the Imperial Age: Rougé 1966.89. Alexandria: BAl 1. Bouffartigue 1996. but not all of them are actually in use.222 carlo franco pattern of the laudes urbium and reveals a high level of rhetorical artistry: its function is to prepare us for the subsequent reversal of destiny and the total destruction of all the city’s treasures. the glory of ancient Rhodian sea power was still considered among the greatest and best-preserved sources of Rhodian pride. statues and monuments. 21 But see Cic. so far as it is known from literary and archaeological evidence. Fam. as it were in storage.5.2.3. was over. since he praises this state of affairs as unique to Rhodes among the Greek cities: ‘only when one was with you. 19 Strabo 14. not only hear. 37 ff.20 But after heavy depredations at the time of the siege by Cassius in 43 BC. After the great battles of the Hellenistic age. Only commercial exchange and the local patrolling of the islands still under Rhodian rule continued.3–6.21 So the author’s reference to triremes.15.1.1.102. The task of an orator in front of a civic community was to choose relevant aspects of the local reality and to reshape them. 15. 12.18 Thus it is possible to compare aspects of the speech with the actual city. in order to preserve its secrets. 12. ‘some ready for sailing.4). 13. 34.2 Hense [= Stob.23 it is tempting to suppose that they were abandoned after the earthquake.103–104. piani di alaggio’. the helmsman. η σαι δ τ γ νει τ ς ν σ υ.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 223 given up its empire’.991 Wachsmuth-Hense]. to aid the race of the island.13). QF 1. 22 23 . Surely. 508 Skutsch [dum clavum rectum teneam. very apt for a popular assembly.24 The memories of this great past provided the Rhodians with considerable moral strength. capannoni dei neoria. the author of the Rhodiakos quotes an old local saying: Καιρ ς δ ν ν ε περ π τ . was particularly fitting for a Rhodian public. 10: ‘bacini di carenaggio. see De Souza 1999. without losing any of its structures or its name (8) and without diminishing the greatness of its ancestors.13]. 85. and especially in consolatory texts. ς η ειμα μ νης α τ τ ς νε ς κα καταδ σεσ αι πρ σδ κ ν τ τ δ τ ρυλ μεν ν. 201 = BullEp 1946–1947. Poseidon. keeping in mind the words of your fellow citizen. Sen. στ ναι δ πρ ς τ ν τ ην λαμπρ ς. 24 AE 1948. 319. The brave man was also limênarchês. Ep. that I will lose my ship on an even keel’. Other occurrences of the saying were collected first by Haupt 1876. which is widely attested in the classical writers. σ ι τι ρ ν τ ν να ν καταδ σω (25. who. The Rhodiakos also reveals a rich display of traditional wisdom. the sailor’s phrase.33 [‘Neptune. seizing and handing over for punishment the piratical band active at sea’. navemque gubernem = Cic. 31.4 [aut saltem rectis. Enn.2. Needless to say. to save yourselves from these circumstances. ν υμη ντας μ ν τ ν τ π λ τ υ κυ ερν τ υ λ γ ν. Now is the time. O men of Rhodes. who patrolled the area of the Rhodian Chersonese and ‘provided safety and security for sailors. Recourse to examples of ‘vulgarized philosophy’ was common enough in sophistic rhetoric. when his ship was tempest tossed and he expected that she would sink. νδρες Ρ δι ι. 25 Pernot 1993a. A decree possibly dating to the beginning of the third century AD honours an Ailios Alexander. Cante 1986–1987. 156. A preliminary list ranks: Teles 62. numquam hanc navem nisi rectam’]. λλ’ Π τειδ ν. 603. 218–219. no one could possibly have forecast at the time of the speech that the Rhodian navy would recover something of its former glory when in the third century AD the seas became less safe. made that famous remark: ‘Know well. 8.22 Archaeological excavations have revealed significant traces of the dockyards beneath later Roman structures.25 See also Dio Or. 181 n. and to stand gloriously against fortune. II. As a witness to the fierce character of the citizens in the face of extremely serious situations. σ σαι μ ν μ ς α τ ς κ τ ν περιεστηκ των. Ep. and elastic—particularly suitable for military engines. 1. 1. 5. vel nervo funes.26. but the author of the Rhodiakos does not mention this phase of Rhodian history.28 In the tradition of war stratagems.15.5.3.4. Plb. 81.4. 2001.5e. 117 ff.67 (Thasos). Cons. before the Age of Alexander. 4. See Gabrielsen 1997. And a few years later. I.26 Actually the spoils exposed in Rhodes were not all the result of military operations. Marc. 6. 9. ‘and of old you showed to visitors the engines of war made from the shorn hair of your women. Wiemer 2002.5. some ‘taken from the Etruscans’ pirate fleet. 10. 108 f.2: ad ballistas capillo maxime muliebri. 2. Rhodes had fought against the pirates already in the fourth century BC. to Rhodes’ ancient strength: ‘bronze beaks’ and ‘many other glorious spoils of war’. The chronology is somewhere blurred: Walbank 1957–1979.10 (Carthage). Isid.5. Plin.9. quem obruit mare clavum tenentem et obnixum].224 carlo franco As a complement to the memories of past sea power. Or. Decl. and the approach is largely generic and selective. and it was a wonderful thing’ (κα π λαι μ ν τ κ τ ν γυναικ ν τ ν π κειραμ νων μη αν ματα δε κνυτε τ ς πιδημ σι κα αυμαστ ν ν. 2. 3. for example. Orig. in a system of raids in the eastern Mediterranean.. Of the sieges. some from the campaigns of Alexander.27 Other events in the local history enjoyed even greater renown. the favor was returned by the Rhodians. Prov.3 [At ille vel in naufragio laudandus. the use of female hair during sieges was seen as a sign of dramatic emergency and of a shortage of resources. 176 n. since Rhodes had taken part.32). as has been recently argued.24. 27 Gabrielsen 1997.56.17.10. 25.3 (Salona). Max. strong. e.2. Strabo 14.89. 8. Epist. 26 Diod.31. and had won power and glory.56. 28 Heron Belopoiika 30. SHA . Quint.15. 19. Tyr. BC 3. 511–512.3. and anecdotes about different cities. 87 ff.7. Polyaen. 7: no evidence for women’s hair in Plb. id.11.3).29 Thus the machine is quoted as a brilliant aut semel ruere]. See in general Vitr. who allegedly sent several tons of (female?) hair to Sinope as help against the attack by Mithridates. Apparently female hair was commonly used for torsion catapults in the Hellenistic and Roman epochs: Heron asserts that such hair is long. 4. 20.9. Frontin.2–3. (both quoting Ennius). among many other gifts. in 220 BC.g. 5. n. King Seleucus II gave the Rhodians. 29 Garlan 1974. the author mentions the monuments which had borne witness. (and 75 n. Caes. others from wherever each had been brought into the city’ (4). 1. pp. In general see Marsden 1969. 621 ad loc. Strabo 17. As is typical in the culture of the Second Sophistic. Flor. nor was the Rhodian attitude towards piracy unambiguous. the memory of the past is limited to the Age of Alexander. the author says.2. at least until the day of the earthquake. a large amount of hair. After the great earthquake of 227 BC. 40. 220. 134.3. ad loc. Troad. nor did anyone triumph over it. Serv.30 The opposition is between the past and the present: before the earthquake the Rhodians took pride in showing the war machines that had preserved their city.8.27. τηλικα τα ια ε ναι τ ν λλων ργων δ τ μ γε ς. Diod. 4. The mention of Rhodes and Massilia in Frontin.4. of such number. nor was it seen to be conquered by other men. there was chance in the misfortune. ad Aen.3 (Aquileia). temples and statues. στ’ αριστ ρια. Gallic siege).20. 25. 1. paradoxically. δ’ στησεν π’ α να ημ των τ παρ’ α τ λα ρ ις τ ν μετ ραν α τ μ ν π λις εται δ’ νδρ ν ε ρων ατ ς τρ παι ν δε ς. σπερ με ς τ ς ω εν ν π λιν κατεκ σμ σατε (Or. now the city itself appears destroyed.Inst. Hec. 33. but aptly conceals the defeat inflicted by Cassius. Some have suspected a play on words involving the shorn women in the past and Rhodes’ present condition. The war engines dated presumably to the siege by Demetrius. Veget.45. Thus. 910 f. the orator turns to Rhodes’ artistic ornamentation: τεμ νη δ ε ν κα ερ κα γ λματα τ σα τα μ ν τ πλ ς.7. 784. Towers as the city’s hair: Eur. 30 Dindorf 1829.59).5).. as you have adorned your city with foreign spoils. Lact. Div. from the soldiers to the women.809 n. but all details are omitted in the speech: the orator uses the anecdote solely as a source of exhortation for the survivors. . 31 Apparently no mention of the Deigma: Plb.720. and that it was impossible to decide which of them one would admire more. 4. τ ια τα δ τ κ λλ ς. Nevertheless. 5. 1. 25. size and beauty. that they were worthy thank offerings from all the rest of the world. Maxim. δ’ π τ ν μετ ρων τις ερ κ σμ σει. since γ ρ π λ μω λη ε σα νε σα. since the city ‘perished with a record of total invincibility’ (62).4 was apparently interpolated. …your city did not perish captured in war. 19. 1.88. and thus becomes an inspiring image for the Rhodians resisting the present catastrophe. more or less four centuries before. nor will anyone adorn their temples with your offerings.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 225 symbol of heroic endurance that encompasses the whole civic body. κα ς μ ε ναι διακρ ναι τ τις α τ ν μ λλ ν αυμ σειεν (Or.9 (Rome. a claim that is surely false.31 There could be seen the precincts of the gods. I. After praising the spoils and the memories of the past. which is like that of a mourning lady. the orator may confidently judge the destruction of the city by earthquakes a reason to praise Rhodes. See also NH 33. in his time.41–42 in reference to the Colossus and other large statues: sed ubicumque singuli fuissent. Post-Hellenistic Rhodian statuary has not been the subject of intensive research: see Gualandi 1976. 34 On the image of Rhodes in Dio Or.4. Dio Or.38 But an orator was not supposed to give technical or realistic details. rather. 31. 186 n.146. 15. 93 for more information on Rhodian artistic treasures. 38 Strabo 14. 34. In the Rhodiakos.32 Pliny the Elder. 31.18.5.7. Pausanias ranked the Rhodian walls among the best fortifications he had seen: since his journeys are dated to the middle of the second century AD. the Rhodians engaged in the dubious practice of recycling old statues for new honorands. the Rhodian enceinte was among the most noteworthy structures of the island.35 The author of the Rhodiakos. 2. 4. albeit common elsewhere. 493 (ad 8.3. stated that there were thousands of signa in Rhodes. See Plb. 31: Jones 1978. 26 ff.125. 18. This sort of praise also was very common in ancient descriptions of cities. to be sure.37 According to Strabo. and Dio Chrystostom assures us that the Rhodians took great care and spent a large amount of money in order to keep their walls wellmaintained (although they were reluctant to pay for new statues!). 29b (dated to the first century AD for palaeographic reasons).3.7. 35 Recycling of statues at Athens: Paus. his task was to select relevant elements and convert them into perfect Demetrius: Gell. NH 34.43). Some monuments appear to have been restored after earthquakes: Papachristodoulou 1989. 25.31. Some celebrated paintings by Protogenes were said to have been spared by Demetrius and were later recorded by Strabo. Paus.36. was criticized by Dio.226 carlo franco The praise of Rhodes’ artistic treasures was typical. this could mean that he saw them after their reconstruction.31. mention of the Colossus occurs at Or. 138.34 The practise. where criticism of the practice appears implicit in the text. does not mention this deplorable habit. 63.34. Strabo 14.17.5. Late Hellenistic casting-houses for large bronzes are studied in Kanzia and Zimmer 1998. nobilitaturi locum.4 for the dedication of a Colossus to the Roman people in the precinct of Athena (Lindia?).36 The speech then turns to the city walls. but states that any one of the monuments that could be seen on the island ‘was a sufficient source of pride for another city’ (5).10.53. 391 ff. As a sign of economic shortage: Sartre 1991. relying on the authority of Mucianus. with Moggi and Osanna 2003.2.7.1. 37 Franco 2005. Mycenae: Paus. 35.33 although the famous oration by Dio Chrysostom informs the reader that. ‘a wonder […] which could not satiate the eye’ (7).2.12. 32 33 .5. 36 The same topos appears in Plin. 69. 71. 1. 34.55. 2.11. 19. not only because of its regular grid but also because of its theatre-like structure. 1958. . The shape of the city was especially praised in antiquity. Or. Papachristodoulou 1994. λλ διαρκ κα σην τ ν κατασκευ ν σαν. id. the description of the city itself is rather hasty. This was actually attested by the archaeological excavations. Modern research in Kontis 1952. Bel. Caliò and Interdonato 2005. Arist. shared with Halikarnassos. Kontis 1963. whose terraces have been identified in modern excavations.40 Following those events. Bel.6. marked by the regularity of its buildings: ‘Nothing higher than anything else. Philemonos-Tsopotou 1999. ς γ ν ιτ’ ν π λεως. Konstantinopoulos 1973. Winter 1992.2. but the construction ample and equal. among other cities. which Rhodes. 1954. according to historical tradition and to the archaeological evidence. 1953. id. 6). 551 f. esp.83. 27.45. 20. about Rhodes. although the resemblance between the city’s shape and a theatre belonged more to the city’s ideal image than to its real layout.43 and the general appearance of the city. but to a single house’ ( δ ν τερ ν τ ρ υ περ ν. 129–134. Praise belongs to a peaceful city. The author takes note of the Acropolis..41 But such wars and troubles had no place in the eirenic discourse of the orators.44 In his description of the 39 On the topos see by contrast Arist. where walls are no longer used and buildings fill the areas close to the enceinte (Or. 44 Theatroeidês: Diod.17 (after the building of the great temple. 80. so that it would seem to belong not to a city. Or. they had been restored after the earthquake in 227 BC (this phase is probably the one alluded to by Philo) and again after the Mithridatic wars. 19. 41 Diod. esp.8. id. 85. 20. 1996. λλ μι ς κ ας. but the Rhodian walls had a long history. only Cyzicus does not need a lighthouse). App.45.100. 25.. 91 ff.39 Enceintes had no real importance in a world completely pacified by Rome. a situation exactly contrary to what ancient military engineers recommended for defence in the case of a siege. Philo Byz. esp. On Demetrius’ siege see now Pimouget Pédarros 2003. 94. which could be seen from a distance when sailing to or from Rhodes and served as a sort of lighthouse.42 In comparison with other elements of the speech. id. Konstantinopoulos 1967. 40 Flood in 316 BC: Diod. and later in the great siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes. Mithr. Wycherley 1976. Vitr.3. 25. 43 Kontis 1952.7). 84 f. They had played a role in a huge flood at the end of the fourth century BC. The Rhodiakos describes the towers.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 227 forms of the topos. See the historical analysis in Pimouget Pédarros 2004. 42 See the prescriptions of Philo Byz. as Polybius’ digression on the great earthquake of Rhodes in 228/7 BC makes clear. epitêdeumata).47 In the Rhodiakos by Dio Chrysostom.449 and 2. The allusion to the Rhodian law is debatable.122.49 Relying on local sources.465 D (second century AD).67 (and Or. . nor is there any mention of the imperial cult. the consistent preference for Hellenic practices is strongly contrasted with the excessive acceptance of Roman customs in Athens.122). which transformed ‘the city which could not be entered by murderers’ into a ‘common grave for the inhabitants’ (Or. 24. He sings the praises of Rhodian freedom.228 carlo franco city.48 The author of the Rhodiakos may refer to the same law when he writes. or those of his sources. 44.50 In Polybius’ epoch. It is easy to see that any orator appointed to praise Rhodes could walk a well-trodden path. 5. Or. 115.89–90. when we consider the attitude of intellectuals in the Second Sophistic. the historian lists in great detail the gifts received by the city from several kings. 16–22. physis. 49 Plb. Rhodian citizens praised for paideia: Blinkenberg 1941. was familiar with the place and the local traditions. 50 On Polybius’ sources see now Lenfant 2005. it would be even better if the author. 25. however. 31. about the gladiators. ‘it was not even in keeping with your religion to pass a death sentence within the walls’. 48 Dio Or.46 The author is silent.28). Decay of Rhodian rhetoric in the Imperial Age: Puech 2002. Rhodes was at the peak of its international power: the historian’s statements.45 but he does not record any ‘Roman’ element: this is hardly surprising. 47 Robert 1940. a path amply supplied with literary and historical models.6). with Walbank 1957–1979. although this may reflect the actual situation: Louis Robert years ago remarked upon the peculiar absence of gladiatorial documents in Rhodes. 2. no mention is made of the many statues decreed (or reused) to honour Roman citizens. with Swain 2000. Dio quotes a law from Rhodes that ‘forbade the executioner to enter the city’ (31.107–108. as is the case here. 31. the author considers only the elements pertaining to Hellenic culture (like the Rhodian fondness for paideia). and conduct. Holleaux 1968 [1923]. since the orator is making a rather different point about the perverse impact of the earthquake. Thus. following the classical scheme described by the rhetorical treatises (thesis. too. 248. 25. 46 Statues of emperors and Romans: Dio Or. were the basis 45 Oratory and culture: Arist. dynasts and cities after the disaster. opportunity. 367–369. I. The outlines for a eulogy of Rhodes were already established in Hellenistic times. 8.53 A brief historical outline also provides some useful hints. 279 n. Here again. λιμ σι δ κα δ ς κα τε εσι κα τ λλη κατασκευ τ σ τ ν δια ρει τ ν λλων στ’ κ μεν ε πε ν τ ραν λλ’ δ π ρισ ν. that I am unable to speak of any other city as equal to it. the politeia.52 The city of the Rhodians lies on the eastern promontory of Rhodes and it is so far superior to all others in harbours and roads and walls and improvements in general.40.51 The tone of Strabo’s Rhodian section is similar to that of Polybius. The Dorian origins of Rhodes are discussed in reference to Homer: here Strabo’s fondness for the poet joins with local tradition. 52 See Pédech 1971. See Campanile 1996. 55 App. 24 ff.L.55 In the second century AD. writing that ‘the city of the Rhodians is renowned because of the location 51 The local historians are likely to have played an important role in the formation of this literary image of Rhodes.5). all of which resulted in Rhodes being granted the status of autonomy and receiving the large number of votive offerings that adorned the city. Aulus Gellius quotes at length from Cato’s speech Pro Rhodiensibus. Strabo praises above all the eunomia. . contemporary elements and second-hand information are mixed together: Η δ τ ν Ρ δ ων π λις κε ται μ ν π τ ω ιν κρωτηρ υ. 54 The other poetic authority incorporated into the praise of Rhodes was Pindar.. The loyal attitude displayed by the city during Mithridates’ siege won it wide celebrity and esteem. is nevertheless not remote from reality: some elements. perioch. esp. stylized rather than based on autopsy. much less superior to it (trans. Especially celebrated are the provisions granted by the local government to the poor: the redistribution of wealth is considered an ‘ancestral custom’ (patrion ethos).18. Vell. such as the ‘Hippodamian’ plan or the harbours. have been confirmed by modern archaeological research. but their works are irremediably lost to us: Wiemer 2001.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 229 for all subsequent praise. or even as almost equal to it. As we know from a scholion to the seventh Olympian. the text of the Ode was carved in golden letters in the temple of Athena Lindia: Gorgon.2. Mithr. 78. 150 f. The description of the city. and the city’s faithful conduct towards Rome. FGrH 515 F18. 53 Harbours: Kontis 1953. H. 2. μ τ γε κρε ττω τα της τ ς π λεως (14.54 The image of Rhodes put forth by later authors followed the same pattern. 1. Jones).3. Liv. the care for naval affairs. Flor. 2. which show no interest in historical change. although apparently Apollonius did not pay homage. the holy man debated with Damis in the vicinity of the Colossus. and repeats this praise in the context of an anecdote about Demetrius’ siege of the island (15. the narrator arrives in Rhodes (6–10). Aristides. Galba 12. as he did. the fairest of crowns has fallen.7 for Smyrna. . In Xenophon’s Ephesian Histories. their skill in sailing the sea. for example. 57 The omission of the earthquake has been considered. the porch. not even from a critical perspective. Apollonius of Tyana’s short visit to the island is also of interest: according to Philostratus. he does not see any sign of decline or crisis.9). Mor. conditions the selection of local details. to the beauty of Rhodes. esp. nor does he mention the earthquake. For the flautist’s name Kanos see SEG XXI 854b.58 The authorship of Lucian has been denied because the text does not allude to the earthquake of 142 AD. according 56 VAp 5. a relevant proof against Lucianic authorship.10–13. After his departure from Tarsus and his visit to the decayed cities of Lycia. engaged a talented flautist in conversation about his art. The earthquake of 142 AD suddenly destroyed this magical world: ‘The beauty of the harbours has gone. in Smyrna.56 The brilliant ekphrasis of Rhodes from the beginning of the Amores ascribed to Lucian is also worth attention.31. 5. and rebuked both a rich and ignorant young man and an overweight boy fond of food. 25. without making any reference to the earthquake:59 the peculiar ‘atemporality’ of these texts. which are dated toward the middle of the second century AD. where he admires the Temple of Dionysus. The island appears here in all its wellbeing and prosperity. The orator turns the description into the lamentation. Mor. Eph.1). such as the origins of the city. perhaps erroneously. and the paintings. the votive offerings. 525B. exploiting the same classical topoi of the laus urbis.21–23 and 4. but from a different point of view: if. among other reasons.57 The Amores are commonly believed to be a later composition. 59 Xen. and their naval victories’ (6. Suet. on the way to Cnidus. too. evokes the incomparable beauty of Rhodes without a hint of the recent disaster.3. Degani 1991. and the altars. in the speech On Concord. 19. the temples are barren of statues. the streets and theatres are empty of men’ (Or.1). and the altar of the gods. 785B. 58 Jones 1984. See also the rebukes by the cithara-player Stratonicus in Plut. there is a nice description of Rhodes that includes the crowded festivals of the Sun. Plut.230 carlo franco of the island. the beauty of its monuments. But this silence does not imply a terminus ante quem. nor the well-worked stones of walls. 112L–P and Thuc.60 Thus the reconstruction of the city after the earthquake ‘is much easier […] than the original foundation was’. now ‘the city has sunk beneath the earth and has gone from mankind’ (29). Thus. now ‘the god of fortune’ has poured on Rhodes very different gifts (30). The argument about the monuments in the city. On the topos. as Homer and Pindar had once sung. Cameiros and Ialysos at the end of the fifth century BC. it would appear. And if Zeus had ‘poured wealth’ and ‘rained down gold’ on the island. who focuses above all on Homer and ancient legends. just as destiny transforms happiness into desperation. The orator’s efforts are directly primarily to restraining the grief of the survivors and delivering a persuasive exhortation to them: their sufferings do not admit of any consolation. which comes from Alcaeus fr. 60 61 . must be confident that the city will flourish again. The skill in arguing in many different ways about a single subject was a sophistic heritage: the author of the Rhodiakos had only to follow the scheme of reversal.62 All the ancient sources are collected in Moggi 1976.77.42. 7. see Pernot 1993a. ‘Not houses fairly roofed. but created a totally new one. 25. according to the old saying. When the Rhodians created the new city of Rhodes by unifying Lindos. 64). so long as one Rhodian is left’.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 231 to the myth. The earthquake has destroyed them. a new city from the old one’ (52–53). λλ’ νδρες ρ σ αι τ ς ε παρ σι δυν μεν ι. but men who are able to handle whatever circumstances confront them’ ( κ κ αι καλ ς στεγασμ ναι δ λ ι τει ν ε δεδ μημ ν ι δ στενωπ τε κα νε ρια π λις. ‘they must be endured’ (34). because what is needed is ‘only to make a Rhodes from Rhodes.61 All of the local traditions could be used by the orator to promote endurance and confidence—except. Rhodes had emerged from the sea. 62 Not considered in Blinkenberg 1913. is different. the dignity of the city will not fall. For as far as sophistic rhetoric is concerned. nor avenues and docks are the city. nonetheless. but their loss is bearable because. for example.7. like the walls. they did not choose an existing schema. because of their glorious past. the tradition of a negative omen that had oppressed the city from its very foundation. so misfortune will assuredly be transformed into a renewal of prosperity. See also Or. I. He must prove that so terrible a catastrophe is bearable and that the Rhodians. 213–243. Take Rhodes’ past. ‘even if your walls fell ten times. 195 ff. The Sibylline prophecies are a reminder of the symbolic and religious dimension of earthquakes in antiquity. The tone is obscure and allusive. deprived of your men.1: see Geffcken 1902.64 And you. Pausanias records the same earthquake. adding that it occurred under Antoninus. Speaking about Sikyon. π υλ ν μ ν δ λωτ ς ρ ν ν σση.7. Syb. It is difficult to define the period alluded to by Pausanias. and great prosperity shall be upon you. Orac. The content of the prophecy is preserved.63 Thus. including the serious one of 142 AD. for a long time shall be free from slavery.7. since the passage seems to be vague in its chronology. O poor Rhodes! I will mourn you as first. Ω Ρ δε δειλα η σ · σ γ ρ πρ την. 7. as it seems. so that it was believed that the ancient prediction of the Sybil to Rhodes was accomplished’ (2. in the so-called Oracula Sibyllina. Elsewhere.160 may refer to the earthquake recorded in Paus.1–3). ν π ντω δ’ εις κρ τ ς ν λλων (Orac. σ δακρ σω·/ σση δ πρ τη π λεων. but also first in ruin. however. O noble daughter.4. 4. among several others concerning earthquakes. ad loc./ μερ η υγ τηρ. Similar oracles could refer to any big earthquake from 227 BC onwards. Rhodes. 3. even if the identity of the events is not assured.232 carlo franco The author asserts that the earthquake has already fulfilled the oracle.7. Syb. πρ τη δ’ π λ σση. and thus does not allow irrefutable identification.1. And again: κα σ . Apart from the gods.444–448). totally *deprived* of life. 63 64 . but the passage provides good elements for the analysis of the Rhodiakos. 8. One must turn to Pausanias. Syb. 2. The reference would have been perfectly plain to the audience. so that one can hope that the reconstruction of the city may rest upon ‘more fortunate and better omens’ (69)./ νδρ ν μ ν ρη.101 = 8. and on the sea you shall reign over other peoples. π υλ ς δ τ ι λ ς πισ εν/ σσεται.1). he attributes the final decline of the city to an earthquake that ‘damaged also the Carian and Lycian towns. 2. one may assume that the oracle alluded to by Pausanias is the same as that mentioned in the Rhodiakos. Thou shall be first among the cities. Ρ δ ς. there was also the political Paus.43. ι τ υ δ τε π μπαν * δευκ ς* (Orac. and shook above all the island of Rhodes. but it is less evident for us. 66 Herzog 1899. This was the task for the ambassadors. 141 ff. δ λι ς τελευτα α δ τ τε π λαμπε τ ν αυτ π λιν. 19. 1. the seismos is listed among the themes for ekphraseis (118. The collapse of buildings. κα παρ ν α λαττα κα π ν ψιλ τ νης π ντα μ τ δειν .18 Patillon-Bolognesi).20).31).7–8. while unimportant places like Carpathus and Casus remained intact (Or. 25. such as the request for help and the problems of reconstruction. 43 ff. 68 This may explain also some inaccuracies about the administrative status of the islands in relationship to Rhodes: Fraser and Bean 1954. At ‘that wretched noon hour’ says the orator. νερριπτ ντ δ κ αι κα μν ματα νερρ γνυντ . Carusi 2003. Traina 1985. Thus the speech does not reflect any personal experience of the events.66 This kind of rhetoric was particularly linked to the life of the ancient city. and the death of men and women struck the general imagination much more than the destiny of the rural areas did. small islands around Rhodes receive only a short and dismissive mention: to the dismay of the cultivated. . after a sympathetic description of the earthquake. κα π ντα λλ λ ις (Or. the impressive list of ruins and casualties. The author of the Rhodiakos was not in Rhodes when the disaster occurred.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 233 dimension of the event.. This subject was studied in the schools of rhetoric and appeared in the works of men of letters and historians. 138 n. and the heavy rhetorical expression are the substitutes for autopsy. 65 In the Progymnasmata by Aelius Theon. with the possible exception of the letter of Pliny the Younger about the eruption of the Mount Vesuvius. a great and beautiful city was in ruins.65 More than a century ago. and the high dramatic style. and required careful study: it is hardly surprising that natural catastrophes became a common subject in imperial and late antique literature. πανε ρει μ ν τ ν λιμ νων τ ντ ς. 25. this is the normal case in antiquity. Rudolf Herzog proposed the label of genos seismikon for this specific genre of speeches about earthquakes and suggested locating its origin in Rhodes. esp.68 But let us come to the earthquake itself. κα π ργ ι λιμ σι. π ργ ι δ π ργ ις ν πιπτ ν κα νε σ ικ ι τρι ρεσι κα νε ωμ ς κα να ματα γ λμασι κα νδρες νδρ σι. Contempt for outlying areas: Arist. and orators focused their attention especially on the cities. 219 ff. Or. esp. and now Williams 2006. Papachristodoulou 1989.67 This explains why in the Rhodiakos. the destruction of urban beauty. 67 Guidoboni 1994. others left behind half alive. underlining the ‘gory details’. The sea drew back. 25. and the towers collapsed upon the harbours. and the houses were thrown upwards. λ ι. and whatever the earthquake carried off and tossed upon each. 294 n. . half left within doors. σκε η. δ κ ντες γκαταλαμ αν μεν ι. and the tombs broken open. still rejects Aristides’ authorship. κα τ σ τ ν κερδα ν ντες. half lay exposed without. and men upon men. λλ’ ς κ στ υ τι ε λεν π τας. τ ς δ τελευτ σαντας σεσηντας κρι ς τ ν μελ ν. starved in addition to their other miseries. σ ν γν ναι τ ν πατρ δα κ σαν. and household implements. and without any limbs intact. they perished. κακ ν πι κην τ ν λιμ ν πρ σελ μ αν ν. 146. and everything upon one another.234 carlo franco The sun for the last time shone upon his city. τ δ’ μ τ μα ω πρ κειτ . Others’ bodies were sundered by chance. And in addition other bodies fell upon them. to be wounded and those who had already died to be rotting. κ ντες αναδ ναι δ α τ ς σασ αι. and the temples upon the altars. κα τ μ ν μ σεα ε σω υρ ν πε ληπτ . but however the ruin had worked its amputations and its graftings on each. and stones. Some scholars have considered the entire description tasteless and abhorrent to the writer’s style.22). some overtaken while running out. in the Smyrnean Monody. The ensuing days and nights revealed those who were alive. say. and profiting only to the extent of knowing that their country did not exist. τ ν δ δι κρινε τ σ ματα τ η.27). Nor is the description of the aftermath much better: μ ραι δ κα ν κτες πιλαμ ν υσαι τ ς μ ν σ ν μπνε ν ντας ν αιν ν τραυματ ας τ ν λ ιπ ν τ ς πλε στ ις. others transfixed by fear perished in their own. δ π λει ντες μι ν τες. 25. Some in fleeing from their houses perished in those of others.69 Their 69 Swain 1996. δ’ ν τα ς αυτ ν π’ κπλ εως μ ν ντες. The destiny of the population is a plurima mortis imago: κα μ ν τ ς αυτ ν ε γ ντες κ ας ν τα ς τ ρων π λλυντ . τι κ στω ρων σεισμ ς ν μι εν (Or. at least who were breathing. κα τ τ ις τερα α πρ σεν πιπτε σ ματα. And suddenly every terror was at hand at once. and the offerings upon the statues. παπ λλυντ . unable to emerge or save themselves. and the storage sheds upon the triremes. This description is very different from the euphemistic and pathetic but reticent approach that a reader observes in other Aristidean writings. and all the interior of the harbours was laid bare. δ’ τι ν πρ σ ηκε τ πτ μα (Or. NQ 6. carefully noted by Keil. Ep. which was described by Ammianus.23 and 27 Patillon. III.76 A striking difference between the Rhodiakos and other Aristidean writings does exist: notwithstanding some echoes in the Monody for Smyrna. Apsines does not suggest noting every detail. ad loc. which is described prolixe vehementerque. dramatic questions. antitheseis.70 but it goes beyond the measure and the restraint typical of the monodies. on Amm.15–19: Mare dispulsum retro fluctibus evolutis abscessit. asyndeta. In fact. Or. it shares with the monodies some stylistic features such as parataxis. See Demoen 2001. 73 On the paramythêtikos logos see Men. the Rhodiakos is not a pathetic lamentation. Rhet. the style could develop at length what Apsines called ‘graphic descriptions’ (hypographai). 2. Rhet. 17. but speaking more cautiously about the dead citizens. 2. 78 Sen.7.31 Patillon. ut retecta voragine profundorum species natantium multiformes limo cernerentur haerentes…. from a misunderstanding about the genre. Apart from some Latin examples. pathos.72 In fact.10. Thus. but a consolation. then goes on to seek support from the emperor.73 At Smyrna.437.9–14 (Nicomedia) see de Jonge 1977. 91. figures of speech ‘especially rapid and vigorous’ (gorgotera kai akmaiotera). To be sure.8 (the earthquake annihilates great cities). describing in great detail the damage suffered by the buildings.79 More striking similarities are to be found Apsines 10. ad loc. much as in a funeral speech.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 235 disappointment originates. the commemoration of the catastrophe is focused rather on the survivors. ‘these descriptions satisfied the victims’ need to feel that they were not neglected in their suffering and their fear’.1. 830. he selects his topics according to his different aims. 76 Leopold 1986.48 Patillon. 70 71 . with Kelly 2004. 72 As Dindorf noted (1829. See also Smid 1970. Men.77 the search for parallels goes beyond the age of Aristides.71 Thus there are abundant details about the catastrophe. 18: see Franco 2005. 79 Amm. 75 Apsines 3. the details are pertinent and would have been requested. xlv). repetitions.13 (Lugdunum destroyed in one hour). 74 Arist. Aristides pours tears onto the ruins of the city.413–414 (syngraphikos style). 477. in order to avoid excess: 10.75 There was no obligation to temper dramatic elements in the narration or to conceal the worst aspects of the catastrophe. indeed.78 one may refer in particular to the impressive tsunami that occurred in 365 AD. The style of the Rhodiakos has been judged in comparison to the restrained grief of the Smyrnean Orations. 77 Keil 1898.74 In Rhodes. 26. perhaps. 61. an element clearly derived from funeral orations and the equation between city and man. according to Polybius (or rather. Or.81 these similarities might be an argument for the attribution of authorship of the Rhodiakos to Aristides. such as Aristides’ own Smyrnean Orations: beyond the rhetorical motiva80 Lib.236 carlo franco in the oration composed by Libanius for the earthquake of Nicomedia in 358 AD. will ‘think that he gratifies himself rather than that it is a favour to them’ (43). alla kai charin prosopheilein autous tous didontas.14. The Rhodians are happier than their ancestors. when asked to give help.16 = Arist. diorthôseôs de mallon […] aition. since the speech in Libanius’ epoch was probably included in the Aristidean corpus.82 Such was the strength of the delegates’ request that those to whom it was addressed felt obliged to honour it. Thus.20 (collapsing buildings). but quite the opposite. which has benefited and prospered the affairs of all mankind’ (55).54). according to his source). Such was the glory of Rhodes and the gratitude towards its inhabitants. prostatikôs. semnôs. who ‘were the common hosts and friends of all and also the saviour of many’ (40). and it was not Rhodes that was indebted to the donors. Reversal: hôste mê monon lambanein epidoseis hyperballousas. . 61.31–32 (allocution to Helios). 5. 25. pragmatikôs. since the present is ‘a time of much peace and deep calm.9 ff. that everybody. since the recipient was so great. Or. Or. = Arist. the Rhodian ambassadors who were requesting aid for the city’s reconstruction behaved in such a wise and dignified manner that they were able to transform the disaster into an opportunity for the city. 25. Opportunity: mê blabês. Intertextual analysis leads to the attractive hypothesis that the Rhodiakos itself was a model for Libanius: in both writers one finds the polyptoton evoking walls collapsing over other walls and an allocution to the Sun. Or. Here is another line of argument: after the earthquake of 227 BC. they ‘should confidently expect that there will be many Greeks to assist the restoration’. Dignity: nounechôs. who ‘founded the city in times of war and unrest’ (Or. The Rhodiakos does not mention the fire. Similar arguments recur in other texts of the genos seismologikon.80 Together with minor narrative details. The past and the present of Rhodes become the basis for a rapid reconstruction: upon the sudden catastrophe a prosperous rebirth will follow. we may confidently assert. 82 Plb. 25. The horrific evocation of the earthquake constitutes the negative side of the speech. 81 Such as the time at which the catastrophe occurred.88. which in the end tends towards consolation and exhortation. who sees everything but did not prevent the disaster. see above. imposing Roman architecture began to transform the shape of the city. 87 Fronto.4). Above all the Rhodians must have hope in a ruler ‘who should certainly decide apace to restore the city as much as he can.84 Our information about the provisions granted to the island for its reconstruction comes first from Pausanias. the emperor restored them too. is invoked. Besides willing Hellenes and compassionate gods. Or. Sun and Neptune. The invocation participates in a religious system of divine justice. ς μ τ κ λλιστ ν α τ τ ν κτημ των τ μως π γ ς κ ιτ . Some information about the provisions granted by Antoninus is given also in SHA Ant.56).43. On reciprocity: Lendon 1997.85 Actually.5. 88 Tetrapylon: Cante 1986–1987 (late second – early third century AD). 85 On the relationship between this passage and 4. 82. On a higher level.87 In Rhodes.9. 86 Pugliese Carratelli 1940 = AE 1948.31. 25.86 His generosity towards the island was referred to as a model by Fronto when he pleaded in the Senate for the reconstruction of the Carthaginian forum. In his detailed eulogy of the emperor Antoninus. he says that ‘when the Lycian and Carian cities. 3. which regulated the relations between cities and the ruling power. . so that the fairest of his possessions may not lie upon the earth in dishonour’ ( μ λιστα ρ δ κε ν ε ναι δι σπ υδ ς ς ν ν τε τ ν π λιν ναλα ε ν.1: omnia mirifice instauravit. The dynamics of imperial subventions in the face of natural catastrophes have been repeatedly studied: the Rhodiakos fits by and large the typical patterns. 84 Waldherr 1997. however.83 but in the text there is no explicit theodicy: only the god of Fortune is held responsible for present sufferings. 83 Theodicy in this text is ‘complexe et paradoxale’ (Pernot 1994. there was another leading figure to invoke as a source of assistance: the emperor. at least. pp.88 Thus. the assistance of the gods. 156. 363). this intriguing speech is reassuringly similar to other texts of the time. 256–259 van den Hout2: Rhodum condidisti (257). he did not take an interest in the broader dimension of the Empire. 199. and all will revert to happiness in the future. the author of the Rhodiakos correctly forecast imperial aid. with large gifts of money and great zeal’ (8.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 237 tions. Pro Carthaginiensibus. BullEp 1946–1947 n. In this respect. and Cos and Rhodes where shaken by a formidable earthquake. this attitude reveals a consistent and shared faith in the system of reciprocity. epigraphic evidence demonstrates that Antoninus was honoured in Rhodes as ktistês. Like most of his Greek contemporaries. 1 for the later date. 91 The honorific decree from Lesbos (IG XII 2. An affecting peroration closes the speech (58–59). ε ν τε ε πε ν. γγελλ μ νων δ μ ι π λλ δειν τ ρων. Then follows a section devoted to historical examples from the Greek past (23–27) and a moving eulogy of concord (41–44): this attitude is repeatedly declared to be best suited to the Rhodian temper and the city’s political traditions (45–57). and later of ‘those 89 The chronological span depends on the notorious problem of the proconsulate of Albus in Asia: see Behr 1968. Aristides did not deliver the speech personally. who would have been less informed about local matters. But when the present situation. 368 n. was written in Smyrna between 147 and 149 AD. 90 Structure: Behr 1981. was reported to me. being deeply involved in the city’s conditions as if it were ‘his own country’ (Or. SEG 29. 1204. that is. Civic dissent was considered a serious and unpleasant subject. on Concord. which is much more terrible. 1979.90 The object of the quarrels itself is alluded to in the text in a manner that is dramatic. of ‘the greed of the rich against the poor’ (32). This approach may be due to the situation of the author. for the earlier (July–October 147). 67 ff. have taken sides. 369. Behr 1994. 73–74. to allude only cautiously and indirectly to the problem. esp.2–3). as well as to his decision to euphemein.89 Because of his physical condition. and therefore in need of a very prudent approach. To the Rhodians. each of whom Aristides tries to placate in the speech. His intervention had been requested: some Rhodian delegates had come to visit him to ask for his help in settling some internal troubles. the speech begins with a discussion about the good effects of concord and the evil consequences of faction (4–22). 24. or disbelieve it. The city was apparently split into factions. I did not know whether I should credit it. . 741) might refer to the same crisis: Buraselis 2001.3). τι πιστε τε μ ν α τ ς κα δι ρησ ε κα ταρα ς πρ σηκ σας μ ν ταρ ττεσ ε.238 carlo franco To the Rhodians. but also quite general. that you distrust one another. On Concord Oration 24. if it is possible to say so. and he had declared himself ready to intervene.91 He speaks of ‘the envy felt by the poor for the rich’. ’ πως ρ πιστε ειν ’ πως πιστε ν ε ν (Or. 1981. 24. and are involved in disturbances unsuited to you.135. τ ν ν ν. id. After an exordium that defines the author’s attitude towards Rhodes (1–3). but rather sent the text to be read in Rhodes. 14–15 (Gostoli). while mitigating the strong and conservative political advice. 40. There is a natural law. 24. 369–370 n. that the inferior obey the superior. In the same way. 25. 242. On Solon see also Or. which is why Aristides has recourse to the authoritative example of two ancient poets: Terpander. our superiors. Here. See Behr 1981. and bad things crossed out by forgetfulness’. 21. The argumentation follows a regular pattern. This may explain why.92 The Athenian legislator ‘was most of all proud of the fact that he brought the people together with the rich. in the midst of numerous exhortations and pathetic appeals. testt.336. the example of Solon reveals the role that Aristides himself hoped (or pretended) to play in the matter. κ ειν τ ν ττω τ π ι ται τ δια ε ρειν τ ν ν μ ν. there is in the speech a particularly frank passage: ν μ ς γ ρ στιν τ ς σει κε μεν ς λη ς π τ ν κρειττ νων κατακρε ττ ν ς. peril. The undesirability of faction is a self-evident truth. And if some one regards the corruption of law as a sign of liberty.29. neither side being stronger than was expedient for all’ (14).93 92 Terpander. since evil is not ‘the remedy for evil’.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 239 who think that they should be superior’ and ‘those who are deficient either in property or in some other fortune’ (34). 2. which has truly been promulgated by the gods.36. so unworthy of local traditions. everybody must recognise the good of concord: thus the present attitude of the Rhodians. κ ν τις λευ ερ ας σ μ λ ν δει ε ς. he deceives himself. and Solon. The social unrest involved in the stasis threatened to subvert the traditional structures of power. Or. and ‘good things should be underlined by memory. Or. α τ ν απατ (Or. the topical reference to a ‘natural law’. does little to conceal the rhetor’s effort to protect the privileges of the higher ranks by means of a message of reconciliation and amnesty: ‘those who have suffered’ should not await the punishment of ‘those who have committed these wrongs’. involving evil. and the individual. Aristides had recourse elsewhere to this poet: Or. and dishonour. who settled civic unrest in Sparta (3). is patently dangerous and absurd. Beyond the cultivated reference to an ancient figure of Greek history. The quarrel probably had social and economic roots. 24. so that they might dwell in harmony in their city. discord makes clear its negative impact. needing no demonstration: within the city.35). 3. 93 Arist. .231. the house. 32. 40. 12 and Or. CXVI–VII.240 carlo franco Our information on Rhodian society in this period does not permit us to be more specific about the context and the nature of the crisis. II (1999). 488 ff. 374 ff.96 We are led to the conclusion that the rebirth after the earthquake had been very different from the happiness prophesied by the author of the Rhodiakos: if it is Aristides. the bulk of the analysis is to be found in Dindorf 1829. At the very beginning of the text he anticipates all possible objections: διστα δ’ ν μ ι δ κ τ τ’ πιτιμη ναι. 98 Leaving aside some minor discussions. 371 f. it is evident that he decided to omit any mention of his previous actions towards the city. notwithstanding the efforts displayed by the emperor. λλ κα παντ τ μ ρι τ τ υ ρ νω δια ρεσ αι. esp. 97 See now Heller 2006. Whatever relationship we may suppose between the Rhodiakos and On Concord. As many critics have noted. 289 ff.2). since the predictions of prosperity and recovery had been disproved by subsequent events.. Behr 1981. although the decline of the coinage—there is no minting later than Commodus—might be considered evidence of the island’s economic decline..98 Aristides was aware of these limits. 20. 24.97 In fact. the speech On Concord comprises a number of general thoughts. which challenged traditional forms of social appeasement. λλ μ μ ν ν πρ ς α τ ς στασιαστικ ς ειν. ς ρ α α λ γων κα δ’ τι ν κ τ π ν τ μ ν λ γ ντι μ μ εσ αι ς λ αν καιν ν ε ρηκ ς. I. Or. the cautious way in which the latter speech alludes to the earthquakes may be revealing.95 The memory of the earthquake is minimized: Aristides does not mention his prior intervention for Rhodes. Suppl. 824–844.15–18: Franco 2005. 96 Contrast Arist. which recur in similar works by Dio Chrysostom and by Aristides himself and could fit any troubled situation. 33–34. 454–457. the text contains scant reference to the local situation and lacks an adequate context. and RPC I (19982). τ ν μ ν πως 94 Kromann 1988. and in the peroration the citizens are requested to ‘desist from this earthquake’ (59). nor does he develop a classical consolation argument. 19. See in general Head 1897. Pernot 1993a. 95 The present situation of Rhodes is considered ‘much more terrible. but keeps silent about the internal and external solidarity expressed on the occasion of the catastrophe. to the aftermath of the earthquake that had occurred some years before. 179–181. I (1999).94 We may also link the troubles and the stasis. γ δ’ τε τ ν σ μ υλ ν τε τ ς ρωμ ν υς γ μαι τ τ δε ν σκ πε ν. . α τ ς δ μ τ λμ ν ρ σ αι τ ς τω ανερ ς. Boulanger 1923. π ς γ ρ γν ριμα κα παλαι κα π σι δ κ ντα συμ υλε ει. Ashton 1996. I. if it is possible to say so’ than ‘the misfortune of the earthquake’ (Or. τ ς δ’ πως κ σ νται τα ’ μ πρ τερ ν. but also to be at odds with your history up to now? I believe that neither an adviser nor those who employ him should give any consideration to the following. λλ’ τ ς ριστ ς ατρ ς στις ν γιε ς π ιε ν π στηται· δ’ σ ’ στις μ ν γανακτ σει.5). yet for you yourselves not to dare to make use of such obvious arguments.79. 99 100 . For is it not strange for you to blame the speaker because his advice is well-known. 74. with Barbieri 1955. 23. See Arist. 101 In the Rhodiakos. but that they should prefer a speech on what will be expedient for all in common. I think. τ τ κα λ γειν πρ αιρε σ αι. λλ’ τι μ λλει κ ιν συν σειν. In our bodily needs each of us has not sought to learn of some new treatment.5–7. ν δι τ ν α τ ν σω δι’ ν τις δη κα πρ τερ ν (Or. The vicissitudes of the Athenian and Spartan empires were an overused point of reference for On Concord speeches during the imperial period: many centuries before.42 and in general Bowie 1974 [1970]. Schmitz 1999. stale. a brilliant connection is developed between the deeds of those major powers and the local traditions of Rhodes through the mention of Conon (65– 66). Or. the two cities had lost their hegemony because of endemic discord.100 In order to make these models more effective for his audience. the orator had only to underline a connection between them and Rhodes. so that present disturbances can be defined as ‘unsuited’ (3) to the city’s attitude. 14. the others to how they will hear new material. But the orator knew well how to turn this kind of ‘generic composition’ into a useful exhortation. but not only to be facetiously disposed toward one another.99 I would most willingly. No one of you will be annoyed if he is saved by the same means as someone has been before. Note especially Paus. The choice of local themes was crucial. Jones 1978. carving the epideictic ‘langue’ into the ‘parole’ of an oration directed toward a specific audience. 24. Ample use is made of examples from the Hellenic and Rhodian past. the one to how his remarks will be original. Oudot 2003.101 the Spartans were ‘fellow tribesmen’ See also Or. It was a troubled phase in local history when the Athenian admiral promoted an anti-Spartan rebellion in Rhodes in 395 BC: Diod. 116 ff. and accepted by all. πως τι καιν ν τα ς τ σ ματ ς ρε αις τ κ σεται. From the very beginning of the oration. be criticized because my arguments were old and I had found no new ideas. obliterating his collaboration with the Persians. 24. 8. but the best doctor is the one who knows how to make men well. where Conon is included in a list of benefactors of Greece. The Athenians shared the Rhodians’ love for democracy and sea power.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 241 ρε τα τα μηδε ς. The rhetor like a medical doctor: cf. the troubled status of Rhodes is contrasted with the tradition of long-lasting concord.41.52. δ γ ρ ν ’ μ ν καστ ς σπ δακεν. HellOxy 15. Schmitz 1997. 402. and not only in the Rhodian orations. 107 Marcus: Philostr.13.107 This opinion was shared by Tiberius: the emperor did not 102 On the links between Rhodes and Argos. urging you to reconciliation’ (28). If Marcus from Byzantium was famous for the Doric flavour of his oratory. Apollonius of Tyana was said to have rebuked the Smyrneans because of the diffusion of Roman names in the city.106 On the other hand. which share the common ancestor Tlepolemos: ISE I 40. Or. so that in the recent past it was impossible ‘to find any word among you which was not Dorian’ (57). VAp. O men of Rhodes. which the Rhodians have carefully preserved: ‘You are originally Dorians from the Peloponnese. VS 1. 7. . and the citizens of Argos their ‘ancestors’ (24 ff.18. 176 ff. The Dorian past conveys the more explicit caveat: the city. (andrikôtatê).354.20 ff. 105 See Dio Or. Franco 2005.57.104 The prevailing attitude to faction in Rhodes is presented as completely unsuited to the Dorian tradition.. but the reference to it in Pausanias (3.).5) bears witness to its popularity in the second century AD. 7. as well as by Aristides. 38.103 That symbol is exploited by Dio Chrysostom in the Rhodiakos. Thuc. Pind. were topics of praise attributed to several cities. whereas Aristides could praise Smyrna for its care in the preservation of its Ionian character.11 on the Messenians.19 f. to believe that a common embassy has come from all these cities. How far do these aspects correspond to the actual situation in Rhodes? Pride in being ‘purely Hellenes’. was typical of the Greek East. 104 Dio Or.75). on Dorian origins.529 (dorizontos).36 ff. Swain 1996. Paus. the Atticists considered this dialect rather rough. 31. too. suffering from self-inflicted divisions. 106 Philostr. 103 Men. the Dorian language was not universally appreciated.102 Each of the three cities had experienced the evils of faction: ‘Now it is fitting. 1.24. Arist. Ol. Rh. and alone to this day have remained purely Greek’ (45).105 The concern for purely Greek names.. beginning with his feet’ (38): the remote source for the whole story is obviously Herodotus (6. cf.3 on the citizens of Prusa. 69 ff.6.5 (Smyrna). 198 f.27. 1. And the example of the Doric past is particularly fitting for an audience that is said to have preserved perfectly the qualities of its ancestors: the pure Doric temper was a symbol of manliness. 48. 4.357. as well as the preservation of the Doric temper.242 carlo franco of the Rhodians. 4. where the author quotes ‘the rule of the sons of Asclepius’ as a source of Rhodian pride.4. is compared to the Laconian Cleomenes ‘who chopped up his body. for we have learned of some Rhodian citizens who were deeply interested in Roman politics. and Swain 2002. As for the archaeological evidence. this has been judged as a sign of resistance to Romanization.112 The leading principle is not historical truth. needless to say. 108 Perhaps his own pronunciation of Greek had been conditioned by his time on Rhodes: Suet. of important Roman elements that penetrated the religious sphere of Rhodian life. 74 f.57). id.110 If that is true. . 111 See Erskine 1991. 31. The cult of Rome. largely surpassed by the diffusion of the koinê. we know.1. 56. esp. Adams. Tib. since it was an unpleasant reminder of his long sojourn in Rhodes. it is not the whole truth. Rhodian civic exclusiveness and conservatism: Jones 2003. but as far as the praise of the city is concerned. no clear distinction is made between the ancient glory and the contemporary inactivity.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 243 appreciate men who spoke Greek with a Dorian accent.109 But the author of the Rhodiakos goes so far as to proclaim that even ‘foreign residents’ in Rhodes spoke a pure Dorian dialect (Or. 161–162. Roman names became widespread on the island only at a late date.. On bilingualism in general.108 For a Rhodian audience. for example. ISE III 162 for the inscription in honour of Eupolemos. 11. Some Dorian elements in the language of Rhodian inscriptions in the Imperial Age may be a superficial phenomenon. then. this is even clearer in Dio Or. 94 ff. the imperial cult. 158. things were different.111 Thus the pure Doric temper was only one part of Rhodian identity. 24. The loss of civic freedom in the early Imperial Age probably involved a softening of this proud attitude. The renaissance of Greek literary dialects has been sometimes considered an artificial and literary phenomenon. see Adams 2003. 2002. Along with other elements. but. 112 In the Rhodiakos. 109 Linguistic analysis: Bubenik 1989. the dominion of the sea was rightly abandoned as the new Roman power grew. although the speech treats events from local history only in a selective and somewhat random way. On different grounds. too. Janse. included a priest and a festival from the second century BC onward. although the diminished visibility of the Roman element allowed the ancients (and sometimes the moderns) to minimize the influence of the ‘barbarians’. 110 Fraser 1977. References to local culture were more beneficial and more suitable for the audience than remote events from Greek history. historical analysis: Bresson 1996. the ‘absence of permanent Roman settlement’ was interpreted years ago as proof that Rhodes was ‘largely uninfluenced’ by Rome because of a ‘lack of penetration of Roman civilization in depth’. in fact.18–20. is already documented in the reign of Augustus. No detailed account is given. the broader political context of the strife did not fall within the sphere of the Roman governor and his legions. the propatôr and archegos tou genos. that is. 115 See Or. 118 On the status of free cities in the empire: Millar 1999. The theme of origins.114 All of the arguments that might support the traditional inclination of the Rhodians towards concord are carefully exploited:115 the solidarity of the ancestors when they unified the three communities of Lindos. adorned their city. 117 Classic reference to Plut. 114 Sun: Diod. symbol of the united city: Robert 1967.ger. 113 . Camiros and Ialysos and Homer’s references to Rhodes are quoted as the perfect counterbalance to the present state of division. with reference to recent discoveries and ongoing research. was particularly well-suited to preaching the good of concord. 173 ff... Salmeri 2000. and left ‘their descendants the right to be proud over these deeds’ (53). and times when an improper attitude was adopted towards Rome. 5. they will in the same way care for its reconstruction. 50 ff. ruled the seas. Difficult moments in local history are silenced. Thus. On the local cults see Morelli 1959.116 The most explicit political point in the speech concerns the problem of democracy and freedom. which caused faction in the civic body. exhortations to peace and concord in civic conduct aimed at deterring people from actions that would lead to the undesirable intervention of the Roman authorities. On political problems: Kokkinia 2004.50) on account of their improper attitude.117 Rhodes was at the time a free city in the Roman Empire.118 The danger that the citizens of Rhodes faced was that they might provoke a tightening of ‘indirect’ Roman rule and. How could the Rhodians ruin the renown they had won on the basis of their ancient spirit of concord? It was only on account of such concord that they had successfully fought against the Etruscans and the pirates. the Rhodians should ‘feel a sense of shame’ (Or. 1–59. 127 ff. 24. lose their precarious privilege. 25. 814Eff. 116 Schmitt 1957. As in many other orations delivered in the cities of the Greek East.. Kontorini 1983.244 carlo franco but rather the kairos.. 7–14.31–32. which had In the Rhodiakos the rebirth of Rhodes is also linked with the myth of its origins: if the gods blessed the emergence of the island from the sea. for example. with the mention of the nymph Rhode. Praec. Papachristodoulou 1992. only a sequence of uninterrupted examples of military virtue. the search for what is expedient in a given situation. Sartre 1991. particularly those such as the siege by Cassius. and some speeches by Dio Chrysostom: Lewin 1995.56.113 Since the Sun was the founder of their race. as a result. 287.24. Suet. The orator could address a concealed admonition to his audience: at the present. 241. 148–150. historical analysis that draws on remote epochs of Greek history. Imperial favor ceased under Vespasian. 8.4. the island had many a close relationship with the Julio-Claudians. See Dio Or. 512 ff. however. faction was the best ally of Roman power. it would seem. 236 ff. 7. 31.ger.119 Rhodes experienced the same change of status as Cyzicus. esp.123 This remark follows a long section about the dynamics of tyranny that contains. Salmeri 1999.. And if you do not voluntarily heed this advice. In the first century of the Empire. that you would not even accept immortality unless someone would allow you to keep this form of government’ (Or. It is true that the reference to Lesbos (54–55) does not hint at the contemporary situation of the island.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 245 already been revoked several times. 12. More explicit caveats in Plutarch and Dio. 122 Quarrels: Plut. 124 Labarre 1996. Nero granted the Rhodians the recovery of their freedom and reportedly did not plunder their statues. 44. since. as a rule.20. 121 Nero: AP 9. BJ. 91 ff. with Jones 1978. 428–429. 25.12. Thornton 1999.2. perhaps on the same grounds: the mistreatment or killing of Roman citizens. adding that since the Rhodians are not ‘able to calculate that if things continue in this fashion. 24. the island probably recovered it in the early eighties.121 Once again freedom was lost. with sources and literature. See the prudent treatment of the matter in Dio Or. The chronology is much debated: see Momigliano 1951. Dio 66. Praec. Of course. Tiberius: see recently Jacob-Sonnabend 1995. 119 Augustus: Jos BJ 1. 120 Suet. and now Bresson 1996. Claud. perhaps unexpectedly.12: tên legomenên eleutherian. but after further quarrels under Domitian. Vespasian: Jos. Swain 1996. Aristides’ reflections are supported by an acute awareness of the Rhodian situation: ‘You are proud of the fact that you are free and you praise your democracy so much. Rome and Roman magistrates are not explicitly named in the speech. 815C. says the orator. Cass. Tac. from the visits of Augustus to the long stay of Tiberius to the quarrels that led to its loss of freedom under Claudius.110. Vesp. another will come who will forcibly save you. the Rhodians alternated between good faith (and flattery) towards Rome and unrest and internal sedition. Dio 60. .22).6.120 Some years later. 123 ‘Apparent liberty’ (tên dokousan eleutherian): supposedly a negative judgement. Ann. rulers are neither ignorant of such behaviour nor disregard it’ (22).1. it is quite possible that you will be in danger of being deprived of this apparent liberty. but its meaning seems debatable.178.58.122 Incapable of stability.124 but alludes to the troubled times of Alcaeus. as Plutarch knew: Λε πεται δ τ π λιτικ μ ν ν κ τ ν π κειμ νων ργων. which is not of slight importance: to develop concord and mutual friendship among the populace. Whatever its actual content. The care for concord and autonomy was also part of the ‘system of honour’ which was very important in the civic life of the Empire: Lendon 1997.246 carlo franco are illuminating.126 Beyond the arguments created out of conventional topoi. On the Constitution of Rhodes see Aristotle fr. discords. 205 f.3. 154 ff. 1302b. the democratic pride of the Rhodians deserves closer consideration. 5.31). II. for the empire brings unity and freedom for everybody (Or. enmities. 5. To be sure.4. As Aristides argues now. μηδεν ς λαττ ν στι τ ν γα ν. at least it allowed the cities to control their own laws and institutions and partially freed them from the obligations connected with their status within the province. who studied the troubled political situation of the island. μ ν ιαν μπ ιε ν κα ιλ αν ε τ ς συν ικ σιν. If a stasis allowed the Roman rulers to assume a sort of tyrannical power over the Greek cities (Dio Or. 129 Pugliese Carratelli 1949. but also Heraclides.127 The present situation leaves the politicians a benefit. the oration On Concord is far from the polemical attitude of Dio Chrysostom. the present state of things is the best foundation for concord. 824D). Thus the Rhodians must preserve their wisdom and reason. 126 But not from the correctores or from the inspections by the governor. The Rhodian politeia was analyzed by Aristotle. the risk of losing the existing freedom was serious and became a strong argument for preaching self-restraint. 569R3 = 586 Gigon. 38. ger. 24.129 the politeia was praised by Polybius for its concern with isêgoria and parrhêsia. 127 See now Bost-Pouderon 2006. if needed: Sartre 1995. ριδας δ κα δι ρ σ νας κα δυσμ νειαν αιρε ν πασαν (Praec. 1258. Modern information on local institutions is unsatisfactory. 1304b. as well as their (limited) freedom: ‘Believe […] that is more profitable to be a slave than to use freedom as a means for evil. to eradicate quarrels.125 And if the precarious status of freedom granted by the emperor did not automatically imply exemption from tribute. . 128 Aristot. Diodorus called it 125 Contra: Stertz 1984. and that nonetheless there is some fear that you may even be deprived of this means’ (58). 119 ff.36). Pol. care for civic concord was indeed the last resort of the local authorities.128 After changes were introduced in the early Hellenistic age. and does not express an anti-Roman attitude. Excerpta 65 Dilts. but was able to send its own arbitrators to other Greek cities. ubi promiscue dives et pauper. The text does not guarantee it.130 Strabo’s statement on the Rhodian welfare has been repeatedly discussed: from a social point of view.5.3. 130 131 .7.18. 12. Caes. Fam.2.48. 52 [= frr. which he considered together with Athens as a city with a sort of mixed constitution and as a place where the defaults of democracy were limited.8. and 31 ff.4.12: Neque Rhodios neque aliae civitates umquam iudiciorum suorum paenituit. Migeotte 1989. and his words appear more as an allusion to the situation of Rhodes in the first century BC than to the Hellenistic age. 134 Tac. who wrote at length about social welfare in late Hellenistic Rhodes. 24 ff. Dial. 3. this implies that they actually existed and needed help. 135 Cic. as Aristides aptly remarks (Or. 14. on economic inequalities.3 refers often to the famosissima superbia of the Rhodians: Gell.47. the Roman tradition followed the same path: Cicero in the De re publica had special praise for Rhodes. but under an ochlocracy where omnes omnia poterant.23. as they did many other Greek cities.35. superbia).31. Rhodes apparently hosted no foreign judges. Rhodes could benefit from a real eunomia (Strabo 12. 45. Cassius’ delegate Lentulus branded the Rhodians as foolish and arrogant (amentia. Strabo 14. 20.136 The subsequent siege worsened the situation. where oratory flourished. we may note that if the government cared for the have-nots. specified that ‘their rule was not democratic’. with devastating effects on Rhodian poliPlb. ut cuique fors tulit.3.131 Like Cyzicus.55). etc. 133 Cic.] Ep. 103.133 A later allusion in Tacitus’ Dialogus again couples Rhodes and Athens.3: the sarcastic remark by Maternus is currently thought to refer only to Athens. de maximis rebus iuxta ac de minimis disceptat.3. 136 Not entirely new: Cato’s speech quoted by Gellius 6.134 The troubles of the Roman civil wars apparently destroyed that admired democratic balance and transformed Rhodes.13. 27.15. and Strabo. See also 33. 1. 24.aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 247 the ‘best’ of all politeiai. 132 [Sall.132 Perhaps influenced by the authority of Panaetius and Posidonius. When Cassius approached Rhodes in the late spring of 43 BC in order to collect ships and soldiers against Dolabella.48–51. See also the speech referred to by Liv. This was perhaps due in both cities to the permanent efficacy of the civic courts: during the Hellenistic age.3. 6. 40.81. he met with resistance:135 a faction faithful to Caesar held power on the island and refused to help him. 1.2–4. 124 and 126 Sblendorio Cugusi].11). into a battlefield of local factions. Rep. O’Neil 1981. Diod. 15. Gauthier 1984. Gabrielsen 1997.5. Later. 139 Or. Cassius refused the honours: instead. Civ. 32. 39 ff. 128 ff. praise for Rhodian eutaxia. and also Or. Civ. as the Rhodian Oration by Dio Chrysostom repeatedly shows. where most of the local power was in the hands of a restricted elite of families. Bresson 2004. Stereotyped and out-of-date as it might be. esp. some Rhodians tried to flatter the conqueror by proclaiming him ‘king and lord’. its Dorian origins.140 The orators of the Second Sophistic repeatedly urged the cities in the Greek East to preserve even the palest form of freedom. Links between Brutus and the islanders are unattested.52.2.142 The winged words of Aristides were part of unceasing efforts to preserve local autonomy App. 141 Guerber 2002..137 This concrete exhibition of Rhodes’ goodwill towards Rome proved useless: the Rhodians were defeated by sea.141 This behaviour has been considered both by the ancients and the moderns to be a kind of wishful thinking that concealed the real situation of total submission. they lost many ships. 4. 31. and its warlike attitude against Demetrius and Mithridates. Further data in Dio Or. in 42 BC. Brut. and the city paid an indemnity of 500 talents.248 carlo franco tics. Burning: App. eunomia. Archelaos begged him to spare the city. 103–104. According to Plutarch. and the remains of the navy were burnt.283 ff. In Ep. 142 Schmitz 1997. thirty more Rhodian ships were seized by Cassius Parmensis.: see also Gowing 1991. which exhibits a deep fondness for freedom. But tradition might prove stronger than reality. and after a short siege they surrendered to Cassius. Cassius met some Rhodian delegates.4.6. 8500 talents were collected by the seizure of all private treasure. but the material is close to the Plutarchean narration. 157.3.139 In the same way. 137 138 . Rhodes appears as having been won over by Cassius. 31. and might be of some historical relevance. 146. among them his former teacher during his stay on the island. 140 Also. 32.138 It was the end for the Rhodian navy. where the behaviour of Rhodes is positively contrasted to that of the Alexandrians (these lines however were bracketed by von Arnim). the collection of possibly fictional epistles attributed to Brutus preserves a couple of letters to and from Rhodes: Ep. and sea power endured until the imperial period. 13–14 (Letters to and from Cos). Tribute: Plut. The Rhodians called ‘democracy’ what was in fact a timocratic and elitist form of rule. 5. Before launching the final attack on the island. Asked to choose between enmity or friendship.67. 11–12 Hercher. using typical ‘Rhodian’ arguments like the city’s love for freedom. Brut.4. the Rhodians give a proud answer.66. 30. the myth of Rhodian freedom survived in the literary tradition until the days of Aristides. ingenuous or marked by illusion: I only understand very well that these texts express above all the fear of losing a privileged status and reveal sad resignation to the limits of political participation. Connolly 2001. 31. Or. But now what cause is there for faction. 24.66. to engage in politics and to keep silent. id. about Dio Or. π λιτε εσ αι δ κα πα ρειν κα μ νειν δεια π σην τις λεται. was still preferable to a complete dependence within the formula provinciae: ν ν δ τς πασα γ . Ferrary 1999. 68 and bibliography. is there not one emperor and common laws for all.31).aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 249 vis-à-vis Roman power and internal social balance in favor of the wealthy. Schmitz 1997. 145 Veyne 2005. 276 ff. esp. since his celebration of concord opened the path to the preservation of a total subordination of the masses to the few.145 Both attitudes make the study of the Second Sophistic particularly fitting for our disillusioned times. 143 144 . octroyée as it might be. with reference to Arist. 24.144 It was for the wealthy that the Roman Empire formed a comfortable structure. or what lack of opportunity for a pleasant life? Is not all the earth united. and to travel and to remain at home? I cannot say whether this attitude was realistic or pessimistic.143 The orator had the cultural and political skill necessary to shore up the pride of the imperial oligarchies. and is there not as much freedom as one wishes. (Or.35. Freedom. 26. Or. ν μ ι δ κ ιν π σι. αστ νης κ υσ α. 43 ff. σιωπ ν κα στ σεως ρμ .. κ ιν μ ν ασιλε ς δ ε ς. 2005. On the role of the mob see also Thornton 2001. 215. . part four RECEPTION . . and then take up three subjects: (2) the date at which he wrote.2 Another testimony to the orator has received less attention. though it is almost certainly earlier than Galen’s. classing him among those ‘whose souls are strong by nature and whose bodies are weak… This man was one of the most outstanding orators. 1 2 Trans. Unlike Galen. when it calls him anything at all. (3) the local and social setting in which he wrote. whom modern scholarship usually calls an Atticist or a lexicographer. Bowersock 1969.1 Galen survived at least into the late 190’s. So it happened that lifelong activity in talking and declaiming caused his whole body to fade away’. but is a more valuable witness in that he shows how Aristides was regarded by sophists. and (4) the literary context. critics.chapter twelve ARISTIDES’ FIRST ADMIRER Christopher Jones Since the 1930’s it has been known from an Arabic translation that Galen had observed Aristides. and clearly recorded his observation only after Aristides’ death. See ibid. at least in the form mediated by Photios. the Ecloge. Phrynichos’ discussion of Aristides is preserved in the summary of the Sophistic Preparation made by Photios in the ninth century. that is. 63–65 for Galen’s date of death. 62. This witness is Phrynichos. which must have occurred about 180. . In the present paper I will first (1) examine what he has to say about Aristides. and others in or near his own profession. what in his views of language and literature might have helped to make him the first known author to praise Aristides. not in his only extant work. Phrynichos does not speak from autopsy. 15–27. τω κλ υς τ ν λ γ ις ε ς κρ ν λ σαντα· ψατ γ ρ ν ς π’ ν ων πεμπ μεν ς κα Αριστε δ υ. in a literary context it should mean ‘to read’. having recently read the works of Aristides. a sense in which Photius uses it again in this same passage. so he says. but so that it should not be cause for wonder that some people considered Aristides less than his reputation. τ ς δ Βρ τ υ τ Ιταλ πιστ λ ς πρ τ ς ησιν κρ νειν κα καν να τ ς ν λ γω ρετ ς π α νειν. when he had progressed so far in literary fame. and considers them the standard of excellence in style. as also many others conspicuous for their culture. This he says not because he approves of this judgment. Where I have translated ‘having recently read ( ντυ ν ρτι) the works of Aristides’. especially 122–126 for ντυγ νειν. Though ντυ ε ν can mean ‘to come across’. τ τε κμ ν ν π ιε ται.101a. Τα τα δ τ ν τ ια την κρ σιν π δε μεν ς. and prefers the letters of the Italian Brutus. for envy emitted by certain people had touched even Aristides. 13. Henry understands. see Chantraine 1950. λλ’ ε ς τ μ αυμ ειν ε τινες κα τ ς Αριστε δ υ δ ης λ ττ να τ ν νδρα ν μ υσιν. ν κα Αριστε δ υ τ ς ντ ς. when he had progressed so far in literary fame’. On the various verbs signifying ‘to read’ in Greek. κα Μαρκιαν ν ησι. who was then at the height of his success. he lavishes high praise on the man. . 4 Bibl. ‘pour qu’on ne s’étonne pas si certains placent au-dessous du renom d’Aristide un écrivain qui a 3 Bibl. Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. τ ν κριτικ ν συγγρα α. though he usually prefers ναγιγν σκειν. For the sake of the following argument. π λ ν τ νδρ ς παιλ γ ις ( ς ησιν) ντυ ν ρτι. 101a.254 christopher jones Phrynichos on Aristides Photios summarizes the eleventh book of the Sophistic Preparation as follows:3 δ ε ς Μην δ ρω πρ σπε νηται π λιν. περ ρ ν μ ν Πλ των ς κα Δημ σ ν υς.4 Where I have translated ‘so that it should not be cause for wonder that some people considered Aristides less than his reputation. two items of this translation need to be justified. and here. where Henry again translates ‘après avoir découverts ses écrits’. Henry in the standard edition translates ‘après avoir découvert depuis peu les écrits d’Aristide’ (‘having recently discovered the writings of Aristides’). ντυ ν τ ς γεγραμμ ν ις. The next (book) is addressed to Menodoros again. ‘to meet with’. σπερ κα λλων π λλ ν παιδε α διενεγκ ντων. and says that Marcianus the critic despises Plato and Demosthenes. References are to the edition of Henry 1960. but that such a judgment is no surprise: he was at the height of his reputation. and so likely to attract jealousy. 53. whereas it surely stands for the pronoun α τ ν.aristides’ first admirer 255 atteint un tel degré d’illustration dans les lettres’ (‘in order that one should not be surprised if certain people place below the fame of Aristides [that is. an eminent critic had made the similar mistake of rating the letters of Brutus more highly than those of Plato and Demosthenes. Aristides was already at the height of his fame. since the speech in which the digression occurred was almost certainly the extant To Athena (Or. To make matters worse.] who has attained such a degree of celebrity in literature’). 1981. 5 Behr (1968. in other words to be overrated.). . κμ ων. Henry’s translation turns the definite τ ν νδρα into the indefinite ‘a writer’. On the Passing Remark or On the Digression (περ τ παρα γματ ς). ‘the man as it does twice in this same passage ( κμασε δ flourished’. the wretch had pretended to make his observation out of pure goodwill. But noone could have thought Brutus a notable figure of Greek literature. a written and not a spoken one. since everyone knew how good he was. When Phrynichos was writing. and one could well imagine that the scene was the small theatre in the northeast corner.5 The unnamed critic to whom the speech On the Passing Remark was addressed had carped at Aristides for inserting praise of himself into a speech in praise of the goddess. From various allusions. and moreover.e. One of the best documents of the dislike he could inspire is the work. i. ν ρ. On the subject of such detractors Aristides himself is far from reticent. ‘he gives high praise to the man’). Photios means that some people consider Aristides less than his reputation. In addition. it appears that the critic heard the speech as a member of an audience gathered in the Asclepieion of Pergamum. for Aristides to praise himself. 382) dates it between 145 and 147. he said. 37 K. which must belong to that year. ‘judge Aristides superior to’] a writer [Brutus. The work is usually dated to the year 152/53 or shortly thereafter. π λ ν τ νδρ ς παιν ν π ιε ται. therefore. there was no need. but had certain detractors. whereas Photios has just said that Aristides was ‘at his peak’. 9 7 κ πρ κρ των π αν ντα π ασιλ ων πιστ λ α α τ ν. PIR2 C 1303. . pp. it might be inferred from a reference to ‘a letter of Alexander the Sophist’ that Phrynichos had read a letter penned by the sophist Alexander of Seleuceia. Bithynian. p. not at all an unlikely progression. Τι εμ νων συναγωγ ν. δ δ. a collection of tithemena [perhaps. a man of high culture who has been appointed secretary (epistoleus) by plural emperors.256 christopher jones The Time of Writing The only source for Phrynichos’ life and career. Subsequent references to Phrynichos will be to the sections of this edition. Φρ νι ς. expanding the suggestion in PIR1 (ignored in PIR2) that he is the Sulpicius Cornelianus recommended by Fronto (ad Amicos I 2. s. On Alexander: Philostr. as is usually understood. 234. cf. 9 Cornelianus: PIR1 S 716. the Ecloge is dedicated to a certain Cornelianus.. 76–82 Kayser. 394 (Fischer 1974). In brief. Since Photios makes Phrynichos an ‘Arabian’. σ ιστ ς. or else Phrynichos came from somewhere in the Near East populated by ‘Arabs’ in the ancient sense (not necessarily the province of Arabia) and later settled in Bithynia. followed by Adler. Σ ιστικ ς παρασκευ ς ι λ α μ . Περ Αττικ ν with Bernhardy: Αττικιστ ν (or -τ ς) π’ Α. Βι υν ς. The question when Phrynichos wrote both the extant Ecloge and the lost Preparation is complex and controversial. ‘approved locutions’].7 Provided that the plural implies two joint emperors.5. (He wrote) Atticist. then the joint emperors under whom Cornelianus held the same post will be Marcus and Commodus. who was ab epistulis Graecis to Marcus during the German Wars. or On Attic Words. Sophistic Preparation in 47 books. 8 s. 171 van den Hout [Teubner]). For a listing of Greeks who held the office 6 I read Αττικιστ ν mss. is the brief and corrupted entry in the Suda (Φ 764. Soph. IV 766 Adler):6 Suda. Eck 1991. ‘Phrynichos. not a ‘Bithynian’. Vit. other references in the work narrow the choice to either Marcus and Lucius or Marcus and Commodus. As we shall see. and there is a gap in the fasti of this office just about the years 177–180.8 If that is right. sophist. Αττικιστ ν Περ Αττικ ν ν μ των ι λ α . the so-called Clay-Plato. PIR2 A 503. such a date is also close to the likely date of the Sophistic Preparation. two books. apart from hints in his own works. though some say in 74’. either he or the Suda is in error. While there is no clear means of deciding between the two pairs. 2. even though by that time Phrynichos had already reached a total of thirtysix books. a date in Marcus’ lifetime is compatible with Phrynichos’ also referring to Commodus as ‘emperor’ (basileus). Αλλ Κ μμ δω τ ι λ ν πρ σ ων ν. πρ ς ν κα τ ν παρ ν τ ε ται πιγρ ων· ‘Κ μμ δω Κα σαρι Φρ νι ς α ρειν’. If the Suda is right in saying that there were versions of the work going up to 47 or even 74 books.10 The phrase ‘advice about the love of learning’ (parainesin philomathias katatithemenos) would also fit better if addressed to a young prince rather than to a mature emperor. saying that he has composed thirty-six books up to the present time. though that is suggested by Phrynichos’ addressing Commodus as ‘Caesar’ and not ‘Augustus’. and joint Augustus with his father in 177. 146–148. 70). 10 Cf. in which the two rulers are addressed both as autokratores and as megaloi basileôn (ed. became Caesar in 166. He lived in the time of Marcus. and magnifies the book by his language. greetings’. of ab epistulis. Sources chrétiennes 379. κα παρα νεσιν ιλ μα ας κατατι μεν ς. ν ς λ γει λ α τ μ ρι τ τ τε καιρ συντετ αι λ γ υς. . κα α ρων τ λ γω τ ι λ ν. gives him advice about the love of learning. He addresses the dedication of the work to the latter. then Photios must have come across some kind of first edition. 57–59. and his son Commodus. beginning ‘To Caesar Commodus from Phrynichos. Thus the indications seem to converge on a date in the middle 170’s for this prefatory book. κ κε νω πρ ιμια μεν ς. Photios provides several clues in his summary. A date after 180 is preferred by Swain 1996. the opening of Athenagoras’ Legatio. 54. when the author had not yet fulfilled his promise of adding further books. Commodus was born in 161. for the date of his probable predecessor. which Commodus begins to be called in documents from 177. it is also possible that basileus is Photius’ own contribution. But though he addresses the book to Commodus.aristides’ first admirer 257 For the date of this. despite Photios’ sometimes cloudy form of expression. which he says he dedicates to the emperor. and dedicates the preface to him. ς κα να σ αι λ γει τ ασιλε . παγγ λλεται κα λλ υς τ σ τ υς ιλ π ν σασ αι τ ς ω ς α τ ν κ π λιμπαν σης. Pouderon. It is not clear whether Marcus is still alive. Several conclusions emerge from this preface. The crucial part is as follows: Ηκμασε δ ν ρ ν τ ς ρ ν ις Μ ρκ υ ασιλ ως Ρωμα ων κα τ συντ γματ ς π ιπαιδ ς α τ Κ μμ δ υ. the emperor of the Romans. he promises to complete as many again if life does not desert him. 175–177): Mitchell 2003. see Bowie 1982. Vibianus Tertullus (ca. Assuming that he was younger than Herodes and older than Aristides. Aristocles: Philostr. not at all an unusual progression in this period. whose name meant nothing to Photios. his move to Rome mentioned in the fourth book might have occurred as early as the 150’s. 145–148. Avotins 1978. The Social and Geographical Setting Phrynichos’ easy friendship with Aristocles before the latter’s move to Rome implies that the two men were social intimates in Pergamum. since Aristocles had become ‘a participant in the great council at Rome by royal decree’. he should have been born approximately about 110. what are the termini ante and post of the reference to Aristides in the eleventh book? Here the crucial clue lies in the dedication to the first book. at least for this first version. approaching old age’ (mesaipolios.3 p. what particularly matters for us. he later became the teacher of Aristides. 48. [being] eager for the work to be an amusement suitable for his birthday. 100b. PIR2 C 789. According to Photios. The notion of a rivalry between Pollux and Phrynichos in the reign of Commodus has no ancient basis: Swain 1996. who is known from a notice in Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists and from an inscription found at Olympia. but since Philostratus also says that he died ‘with his hair half-gray. the Pergamene sophist. but addressed the fourth to a compatriot and friend called Julianus. by this date. 18–29. he presumably did not live much past the year 170. Phrynichos dedicated this to ‘a certain Aristocles. It follows that Phrynichos had reached at least the thirteenth book. prosbainôn tô gêraskein). He had been converted to rhetoric by hearing Herodes Atticus lecture at Rome and.12 It also follows that Phrynichos’ reference to Aristides in the eleventh book must fall in Aristides’ own lifetime. 54 n. so that he was perhaps plucked out of his academic career and raised from equestrian status into the senate. is nowadays agreed to be Claudius Aristocles. Puech 2002. putting Aristocles’ consulate not before 160 and his death at the end of the 160’s. cf. 11 12 .258 christopher jones If a date in the 170’s provides a likely terminus ante. Both Philostratus and the inscription call him consular. and for him to be his (Phrynichos’) fellow-celebrant (sympaistês)’.11 This ‘certain Aristocles’. VS 2. He also dedicated the next two books to Aristocles. the last to be dedicated to Aristocles. 74 Kayser. with the unimportant variant that it reads κατ ναρ. ‘so important it is to understand vocabulary. Phrynichos was very eloquent on the subject of his illnesses. two names among his dedicatees draw attention. . 21 Kayser. 14 Inscription: Habicht 1969.14 Like other authors of the period. had connections with Pergamum and its Asclepieion. and many other ailments. phrenitis (inflammation of the brain). and comments. 76. 32–35. The first of these is Julianus.5. VS 2. the sole passage in the Ecloge in which he refers to an inscription rather than to a literary work. as well as that of Aristocles. he observes (396). 35–40. In the fifth book he mentioned a whole series of them: stranguria (an affliction of the bladder). whom he calls his ‘friend and compatriot’ (sympolitês kai philos). and put the following inscription on it: “Polemo to Demosthenes of Paiania in accordance with a dream (κατ’ ναρ)” ’. the excavators of the Asclepieion found this very inscription. If it is accepted that Phrynichos. and similar expressions are very common in inscriptions: it may be said in passing that an epigraphical and papyrological commentary on the Ecloge would be of great interest. they might have been fellow-pupils of Aristocles. 33. ‘Polemo the Ionian sophist set up a bronze statue of the rhetor Demosthenes in the shrine of Asclepios at Pergamon in Mysia. 100b. I am assuming that. another link with Aristides. in the eighth book. Phrynichos asks him to be a ‘judge and assessor’ (kritês kai syngnômôn) of his work. 16 Bibl. Phrynichos objects that the correct expression is not κατ’ ναρ but ναρ or ναρ δ ν. and again in the fourteenth he mentioned a recent recovery. 101a. 9. 15 Bibl. 100b. and similarly asks him to correct any deficiencies in the eighth book. p. 28–29. who according to Philostratus attracted ‘all the Hellenes in that region’ to his lectures. as argued above. but in this 13 Philostr. As it happens.15 He was therefore perhaps a patient in the Asclepieion. For this and similar phrases in inscriptions: van Straten 1976. 101a. Under the rubric κατ’ ναρ. ‘in accordance with a dream’.16 ‘Julianus’ is a very frequent name. whatever his origin. he complained of nosos. when one sees even the leading figures of the Greeks tripping up’.13 There is another link between Phrynichos and Pergamum. no. Photios’ words ντυ ν ρτι do not imply that Phrynichos had ‘recently discovered’ Aristides. 101a8–10. gastric bleeding. Dedicating his fourth book to Julianus in place of the now-absent Aristocles.aristides’ first admirer 259 and this perhaps suggests one way in which Phrynichos came to form so early and so high an opinion of Aristides. 17 PIR2 . Ephesos no. 1138. citing AE 1981. If that is right. no. 227 n. According to Photios. he would be a worthy counterpart to Aristocles. governor of Arabia attested in 123/24. He was one of Aristides’ most influential admirers. See further Habicht 1969 discussing no. Halfmann 1979. and in that position helped Aristides in one of his immunity suits.48 (beltistos andrôn). Halfmann 2001. since having read what he had written. Or. who would thus be of the right social standing to succeed Aristocles as the recipient of the next book of the Preparation. when he met the celebrated benefactor of Pergamum. Aristides connects Julianus the governor and Rufinus the benefactor.19 A Rufinus appears in Phrynichos’ list as the dedicatee of the ninth book. 154 no. since Aristides speaks of Rufinus as present in Pergamum in the mid-150’s. To be distinguished from Tib. sections 28. as suggested in PIR2 C 998. is now excluded: see Syme 1991a [1986]. 21 Or. 50. σκων α τι ν μ ν τ π ρ ασ αι τ ς συγγρα ς Αριστ κλ α γεν σ αι. like Julianus. Or. cos. 48. consul suffect presumably in 126. 128. he was able to see its usefulness and praised the author’s labor.3 850. 2. He must also be the Tiberius Julius Julianus who has recently emerged as a consul suffect in the year 129.260 christopher jones case is not perhaps beyond recognition. 83. I 76.17 It is tempting to suppose that he is also Phrynichos’ Julianus.16 (praetorian). consul ordinarius in the year 142. and a strong supporter in his efforts to avoid public service. 329–330. One is the praetorian Sedatus of Nicaea whom Aristides knew as one of the ‘more conspicuous worshippers’ and ‘an excellent man’. 19 = Oliver 1989. 138 = Inschr. who by his full name is L. τι ντυ ν τ ς γεγραμμ ν ις τ τε ρ σιμ ν συνιδε ν σ ε κα παιν σειε τ ν π ν ν. Phrynichos’ friend cannot be Claudius Rufinus. Bowersock 1969. Bithynians are to be expected in the Asclepieion of Pergamum. This ‘governor’ must be the Julianus who is attested by an inscription as proconsul of Asia in 145. and Rufinus would be responsible for his finishing it. 640. Julius Julianus Alexander. AE 2000. 43 (Rufinus).20 Like Julianus. on whom see Eck 1983. suff. the sophist of Smyrna first attested under Commodus. 1491. Rufinus. τ δ π π ρας λ ε ν α τ ν ι ν σεσ αι. 66. Habicht 1969. Syme 1988 [1983]. who now sat in the Roman senate. for his consulate. 47. 153. 158. and the ‘early’ chronology presumed here would fit. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus. 20 101a. 18 Aristid. 11–14.18 As we saw. 107. 56–57. If the dating followed here is correct.21 None of the For the proconsul: Syll. Aristides mentions an occasion of about 145. no. the author said that Aristocles was responsible for his beginning the work. 50. together with ‘Julianus the governor’ (hêgemôn) in ‘the temple’. then both men must originate either from ‘Arabia’ or Bithynia. he was a friend of Rufinus. 86–87. though the identification with Sedatius Severianus. 19 PIR2 C 1637. 3.aristides’ first admirer 261 other dedicatees is known. an instance of Phrynichos’ value as an observer of the transformation of classical Greek into medieval and modern. Aristides shows roughly equal favor towards Herodotus. 213. so that it is not easy to measure precisely the degree of similarity in their preferences.24 Among historians. from whom he cites a whole series of supposed vulgarisms (394). 47. as represented above all by Thucydides and the writers of Old Comedy. who similarly put the letters of Brutus above those of Demosthenes. or to say that his single use of acmên in place of eti does not justify others in using it (93). no.51. We are reminded of his disapproval of the critic Marcianus. once for his portrait of an immoral Phrygian girl and once for a dream where his name serves as an omen (menein and andra). it is to complain that he offends against the rules of his native dialect in using odmê rather than osmê (62). if indeed he is not already one of the several men named Basileides already known at Miletus. He mentions Menander only twice. almost always from plays still extant. long before it appears in literature. though the names are certainly compatible with a west Anatolian context. as he is often labeled. 23 Klaffenbach 1939. and he has a few references to Eupolis and Cratinus.22 Phrynichos on Language and Literature Phrynichos’ tastes reveal him not merely as an Atticist. In general. Or. his ideal is the Attic usage of the fifth century. The form acmên also appears in Polybius as well as in papyri and inscriptions. but an Atticist of an especially conservative stripe.665. Thucydides and 22 Note especially the Vergilius Basileides of Rehm 1958. . who received the fifteenth book. prophêtês of Apollo Didymeus in the later second century. Among the poets of Old Comedy Aristides cites Aristophanes often. 24 Or. 155. and it survives as the modern akomê. There is no study of Aristides’ citations similar to that of Helmbold and O’Neil for Plutarch or of Householder for Lucian.23 He is particularly incensed by what in his eyes is a depraved taste for Menander. ‘Basileides the Milesian sophist’. Phrynichos also censures the use of the word νηρ ν to mean ‘water’ (27). When he cites Xenophon. may one day be revealed by epigraphy. and in this respect too he and Aristides would have had much in common. but appears to have frequented Pergamum and its famous Asclepieion. He does. His acquaintance with the notable sophist of the city. as the Suda correctly says. He also differs from Phrynichos in his frequent citation of the lyric poets such as Pindar. perhaps at a date close to that of the first edition of the Sophistic Preparation. he was also on friendly terms with the ab epistulis Cornelianus. The other example (367) is ειμ ω with the meaning ‘to distress’. but then the lexicographer was not likely to cite these poets when recommending Attic usage. since the forms he indicts had been in use for centuries. he cites none of the Hellenistic poets or prose writers. no doubt because their subject matter was indispensable to his arguments about Greek history. Like Aristides. and here he perhaps refers to Hellenistic writers rather than contemporaries. refer to the bad linguistic habits of ‘Alexandrians’. Phrynichos is certainly an ‘Atticist’. Aristocles. omitting even Aeschines. one of those many sophists whom. which is found as early as Sophocles’ Ichneutae: LSJ s. 26 On Aristides’ later reputation. for example the form τε εληκ ναι in place of the correct εληκ ναι (305). Phrynichos evidently moved in high society. not always with approval. Aristocles’ most distinguished pupil. he was sufficiently in touch with advanced opinion of the day to recognize the genius of Aristides. Rufinus and Julianus. Perhaps of Arabian origin. see now Jones 2008.262 christopher jones Xenophon. it is true. Phrynichos’ way of addressing Commodus might even suggest that he was one of the royal tutors. Among the orators. ‘to annoy’. a sophist. . Phrynichos cites Lysias. III 2. 247 (but Phrynichos does not say that τε εληκ ναι is the ‘proper Alexandrian and Egyptian form’). a judgment that succeeding centuries were to reaffirm into early modern times. and otherwise only Demosthenes. for reasons now difficult to discern. helps to explain his knowledge of Aristides. Aristides cites only Lysias. except in passing to disapprove of a word in the historian Phylarchus (399).26 25 For τε εληκ ναι see Gignac 1981. but in the first place he is.25 In conclusion. omitting Aeschines as well as Isocrates. or at least was close to the court. Apart from Aristocles. Above all. he resided in Bithynia.v. to whom he dedicates the Ecloge. Isocrates and Demosthenes. Philostratus passed over in the Lives. 3 E.3 Posterity (hoi hysteron anthropoi). Bradbury 2004.g. see Norman 1992. When he attempted to mortify his vanity. and immediately a dream corrected his self-effacing dedicatory inscription. offering another in which the god assured him of his future fame by calling his speeches ‘everlasting’. Cribiore 2007a.52. his dreams (like the reassuring mirror of an evil queen in a fairy tale) confirmed that he was the most marvelous rhetor in the empire.chapter thirteen VYING WITH ARISTIDES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY: LIBANIUS AND HIS FRIENDS Raffaella Cribiore Modesty was not an attribute of Aristides. so many of his works were preserved because of his favor in late antiquity and in the Byzantine age.4 The sophist Libanius in Antioch was one of Aristides’ most fervent admirers. Appendix 1. in any case. 4 As in the case of Libanius.2 Over and over in the Sacred Tales he described his triumphs and the frenzy of his audience. even though in passing he lamented that. and Libanius Or. richly rewarded him. He dedicated a tripod to Asclepius. because he was not interested in humoring the masses. 50. Cabouret 2000.5 The letters reveal a circle of cultivated friends who exchanged painted portraits and works of Aristides and the declamations and speeches that they wrote in response to his works. Or.. 34 passim and 28. 5 See the edition of Foerster 1903–1927.116–118. N. For translations of the letters. and paid tribute to him in letters and orations.45–47. and his works were used as models of perfect oratory. and in the fourth century in particular he was revered. henceforth. Several extant orations of Libanius were written to vie with his second-century predecessor. Or. 51. his contemporaries sometimes preferred more flamboyant orators who catered to their tastes. 1 2 .1 In another dream Aristides expressed his wish to live for many years but was fearful that his life might be cut short and therefore dutifully revised his speeches in order to secure the favorable judgment of posterity. 11 Immediately after receiving the speech in which Libanius vied with Aristides.6 Libanius wrote that he was sending two speeches as a gift for Demetrius. 11 Ep. 86. he had discussed the delivery of some orations and told his friend that he was sending him a declamation on some points of Demosthenes and a couple of introductions.8 Libanius admired Demetrius’ eloquence and had corresponded before with him. Libanius told Palladius that he had sent the works. 615.7 In one of these speeches. 8 Foerster in the introduction to Or. probably from the year 360. Libanius vied with Herodotus and in the other with Aristides. less well-known.9 In another letter. the gift consisted of a dream in which Libanius saw Demetrius as a triumphant orator delivering to applauding students a hamilla in rebuttal of an oration of Demosthenes. since the direct references to Aristides in Libanius date to the first phase of his activity in Antioch. 64. and Swain 2004. In Ep.264 raffaella cribiore evoked his eloquence in other. 616. N 76.10 Sending speeches to friends to elicit their admiration and perhaps some criticism was not unusual among the pepaideumenoi. 243. On the Dancers. passages. 283. In a previous letter. Palladius 7 in PLRE I. year 359/60. with whom Libanius corresponded often. accept his dating of the speech. One of the questions I ask in this paper is why Aristides was so irresistible to orators in the fourth century: what were the reasons (besides his perfect Attic style) that made him a cardinal point of reference? In addition. 10 Ep. 631. Ep. In a letter Libanius remarked that Palladius dispatched new material to him ‘every day’—supposedly only a fraction of what he composed. and was the uncle of two of Libanius’ students. Both Molloy 1996. 9 See N 64. it is meaningful to inquire whether Aristides’ influence on the fourth-century sophist can be perceived in later periods. Ep. 64. 6 7 . The sophist in Antioch had to compare both works and ‘judge the bout’ (palaismata) between the two oraSee Demetrius 2 in PLRE I. who had been governor of Phoenicia years before. Foerster inferred that the latter was the extant Or. Demetrius was a proficient orator. Palladius reciprocated and from Cilicia sent him a work in which he contended with Aristides’ Thersites. but the testimony is far from conclusive. but he was to lend them to Palladius. year 361. 368. who was then governor of Cilicia. In the year 361 Libanius sent a letter from Antioch to his friend Demetrius who lived in Cilicia. 243–251. concerned with the common good. 12 On reading by syllables as typical of beginners. and garrulous antihero (the very opposite of the enlightened orator). ludicrous. another close friend. see Cribiore 2001. vol. surmising that he will be amused.261–262. 14 See Or. 17 It is possible that Quirinus meant Or.8 and 53. 7 and so did Themistius in the fourth century. 4. Quirinus apparently insisted that Libanius would compose a speech on the Olympic games in Antioch even though he approved of a previous oration of the sophist on the same subject. PLRE I pp. 13 Foerster 1903–1927. was the father of his student Honoratus 3. in 364. 21.1. 52.133. 1029. a kind of ‘democratic’ hero.3 and 1286. Or. to the point of declaring that he regarded him as his teacher. His encomium starts by ‘begging Homer’s pardon’ and presents Thersites as a very dignified figure. endowed with courage and longing for glory. Libanius wrote Or. scrutinizes the Homeric text for any conceivable positive traits. it is conceivable that Aristides preserved the traditional view of this Homeric figure in his encomium. 28.434.15 Libanius esteemed this sophist highly. 172–175.17 Libanius suspected that behind this request there was Quirinus’ desire that he would vie with two orators: Aristides. .12 We are in almost the same predicament because Thersites is not among the extant works of Aristides. syllable by syllable. Libanius’ Thersites may have been a work written in rebuttal of Aristides’. 760–761. 1243. he makes this admission in a letter to Honoratus. 11. Quirinus.268–269. Lucian also preserved the traditional presentation of Thersites in Ind. in Or.14 Libanius.22 and 310. and even comparable to Demosthenes—this being the highest acknowledgment.28. Quirinus.3. 15 Ep.16 Keil.12. Ep. 10 and 53. A few years later.13 Yet there are difficulties.g. Since he is always presented as an ugly. 64. Behr 1968 does not mention Thersites among the lost works of Aristides. 310.8. and Dindorf 46. For the ancients the syllable (and not the word) was the unit of measure. incapable of flattery.6. urged Libanius to vie with Aristides. There are several references to Thersites in the corpus of Aristides. but we may perhaps try to recover traces of it in Libanius’ own Encomium of Thersites. 8 Laud. fearless before kings.4. trying to reform certain aspects of the games. 16 Ep. e.20. In later years.vying with aristides in the fourth century 265 tors but encountered some difficulties because his own copy of Aristides was damaged by age. He thought he had found Thersites in his book but was not absolutely certain and had to read the work slowly. as Libanius shows. however.16 and he missed his presence in Antioch as a supporter of his speeches.6. who had often written on the Olympic festival. according to the technique taught in school. You must not discriminate among his works but must seek after everything. some definitely authentic. well-known letter that Libanius sent in 365 to Theodorus. 10. 1. He wrote back to his friend saying that what Quirinus wished was impossible because the latter did not take into account how ‘Teucer was inferior to Idas and Heracles’. e. 1262. One last. 2. Cribiore 2007a. and others perhaps. Theocritus 22. see Salzmann 1910. Norman 1992. 22. portrait.g. never translated before. 20 The expression ‘to send owls to Athens’ was a proverb. Fortunatianus 1 in PLRE I. take advantage of everything.. fulllength.20 It appears that Fortunatianus was slower than Libanius’ other friends to recognize the relevance of Aristides to the development of his eloquence and poetry but had of lately acknowledged his mistake. Fortunatianus was a rhetor. I marvel—as in the case of owls to Athens—that books and speeches are dispatched to Laodiceia. The search for Aristides the man bordered on the obsessive: Libanius compared two portraits sent by Theodorus with the one another friend had promptly dispatched to him upon request. whom Homer described as ‘the mightiest of men upon the earth’.21 Libanius depicted himself as sitting beside a portrait of the orator while reading his works. 1425 (Bradbury 2004. see Ep. no. Theodorus 11 in PLRE I. and leave out nothing. in which Aristides was compared with Idas. . But I sent you an envelope with his arguments in opposition. Aristides was handsome. 16. the father of two of his students. Apollonius. 19 Ep. as if he were trying to capture the true essence of the writer and the man by taking in both his features and his words. but Libanius was perplexed 18 Iliad 9. Pindar. powerfully evokes the attraction Aristides exercised on fourth-century rhetors. 1534. Cf. Salzmann 1910. you are coming closer to a writer who has and offers power.19 It was fated that Aristides also enjoyed your attention. Nem. a slightly obscure reference. and reveled in the expectation of a fourth. On this friend.556–566. perhaps a proverb. but Apollonius on the other hand presented as a rather insolent hero. which has so many.210–211. considers the phrase an unidentified proverb but wrongly connects Quirinus (instead of his teacher) with Heracles.151–153 and 462–494.556–564. 21 Ep.60–72. a poet. if one wishes to use it. 154). 33.266 raffaella cribiore and a rhetor unknown to us who was Quirinus’ teacher and had celebrated the Pythian games. Albeit slowly. 143. and a philosopher who had apparently just discovered the works of Aristides.18 In the same year Libanius wrote a very interesting letter to his schoolmate Fortunatianus. Idas perished in a quarrel with the Dioscuri. 3. no. On following exactly the ‘footprints’ of great predecessors. 316.21. Rh. e. who. referring to the favors the latter bestowed on him. 25.g. 29. 23 To Plato: in Defense of Oratory 120.25. The effect of his words—that he would choose the ability to imitate.Pr..4. 24 Or. 64. identified the place as Hadrianutherae. an expression that he usually employed to refer to the relations of compliant students with their teachers and to the close imitation of models. even to a small degree. when he was in school. 33.4–5.15 Dindorf.7. see Lucian.7.26 A passage in Libanius’ Autobiography discloses the immediate consequence of ‘treading the tracks’ of others 22 Norman 1992.1. . who was consularis Syriae. had emphasized the superiority of nature over art and maintained that great artists and writers were such because they were aware of the primacy of their inborn qualities. tried to surpass their predecessors.11. Libanius declared that in composing his orations he always ‘trod the tracks’ of Aristides.25 Yet we should not doubt that he felt indebted to his second-century predecessor. Behr 1986. 46. Ep. on which see last Cribiore 2007b. 161. Was lack of hair associated with the orator’s illness? Did his hair grow back when he was better? Theodorus. 294.23 At the beginning of his oration For the Dancers. Aristides too used this expression to indicate the emulation of someone superior. to Alexander 5 in PLRE I. Aristides’ art over surpassing Midas in wealth—is somewhat weakened by the fact that in 363 he used a similar expression in a letter to the controversial governor Alexander.8. To follow the rules of perfect oratory that Aristides had set out was to honor him. see also Or. Or.. 35. See also Herm. Lucian in his De saltatione did not respond to Aristides’ work. Aristides. 25 Ep. concerning students’ imitation of philosophers. Libanius.6. Libanius emphasized his great debt to Aristides and declared the love and attraction ( ρως. 26 Cf. e. to improve on a forerunner. often botched.2.16.22 Vying with another writer meant acknowledging one’s forebears and disclosing one’s literary pedigree but might also involve a degree of antagonism and the attempt. Or.vying with aristides in the fourth century 267 by the abundance of hair in one portrait and the scarcity of it in another. was in charge of finding some answers there. where he says that all his students followed on the ‘same tracks’. follows those who after Ramsay 1890. as the governor of Bithynia was close to where Aristides had resided. 838.29. year 363. and ‘made them appear as children’. Midas appears as a symbol of extreme wealth in Libanius. in his oration In Defense of Oratory. λτρ ν) he felt for him. those of Libanius. in which his student Titianus was supposed to ‘tread in the tracks’ of his own father as a teacher and then.24 He had to justify his attempt to vie with him by proclaiming his lack of animosity and utter deference.g. 8.3 and 9. and 52. 96. Norman argued that in later years ‘the style and outlook of Libanius were not consciously influenced’ by his previous emulation of Aristides. all relatively early. and the rest from 388 to 393. 183–184 the introduction to Or. Other orations. the sanguine disposition of Libanius. . 1. the reader cannot help but feel that in the encounter Libanius is victorious and caused his opponent ‘to retire silenced’ as it happened many times when he confronted others. 64 is not necessarily 361. In fact. While he had declared that ‘speaking in opposition ( ντιλ γειν) to what Aristides had said’ had to be considered a way of paying homage to him. the Monody for Nicomedia. I am not going to linger on Oration 64. saying that as a Syrian he could not stay silent. The argument from Libanius’ correspondence is quite weak. however. this scholar was specifically rejecting a suggestion of Roger 27 The question is similar to that of the continuous friendship or breach of relations between Libanius and Themistius. and this reinforces the impression that the rhetor’s influence on him had waned. direct references to Aristides disappear from Libanius’ letters. and the lack of those themes that will become prevalent in his maturity make it likely that he did not compose it many years later. 61. After the 360s.27 But besides that. See. Or. 5. which has been the object of recent attention. It suffices to say that here Libanius evokes in detail Aristides’ lines of argument so that scholars have tried to reconstruct the main points of the latter’s speech Against the Dancers. Libanius responds directly to his predecessor in a relentless debate. in which some imitation of Aristides is evident are Or. who admitted only his unconscious emulation of Aristides’ neurotic aspects. and no doubt Libanius considered Aristides one of them. its style. Even though the precise date of Or. 22. far from opposing the views of hypothetical opponents as he does in most of his speeches. since his letters survive from only two distinct periods: the vast majority is from the first ten years of his activity in Antioch. see Dagron 1968. 3. in Norman 2000. The classic writers were the only ones who deserved to be imitated. 38.28 In saying that. the Antiochicus.23). 355–365.268 raffaella cribiore (Or. 28 Norman 1953. the Hymn to Artemis. and Or. which was written after the edition of Martin 1988. When in his youth he studied rhetoric in Athens. 11. he was happy to maintain some independence and not be tied to a specific teacher since in that case his eloquence would have been too close to that of an individual he did not esteem. That there is no mention of Aristides in the letters of the second period is hardly significant. 32 After Aristides entered the city and was well received. 368–373. he heard of a little Egyptian orator. where he connects it with the dream in Sacred Tales 1.31 The passionate and frenzied account of it. Pack therefore suggested that Libanius.vying with aristides in the fourth century 269 Pack (Libanius has a similar chronological framework. an ν ρωπ σκ ς.86–89). and his tutelary divinity Tyche might stand for Asclepius’ pronoia). Behr 1968. in which he saw himself proclaiming that he was going to declaim in the early morning. Swain 2004. And the shouting and good will—or rather. so vivid that he doubted whether it was a vision or reality. He went to the city hall and did so: Despite my unexpected appearance and the fact that many people failed to know about it. a contention that Norman rejected. A passage in the Autobiography is a good example of deliberate imitation.22.30 Although it seems doubtful that the two works correspond so precisely. in the first part of the narrative of his life written in 374. and it would have been impossible to get back one’s hand if it were inserted anywhere between the people. Pack noted the similarity between the greeting of the emperor Julian to Libanius in the Autobiography and the greeting of Marcus Aurelius to Aristides. which he wrote down twenty years later (Or. see Cribiore 2007a. 1. At that point Aristides had a dream. When Libanius was granted a leave from Constantinople in 353 to spend some time in Antioch after many years of absence. 84–88. See Pack 1947. 105 and note 34 (where he tentatively identifies the ‘little Egyptian’ rhetor with Ptolemy of Naucratis as in Philostratus. rejected the idea of the closeness of the autobiography and the hieroi logoi but saw a similarity in Libanius’ and Aristides’ views that rhetoric and Greek religion were connected. deliberately imitated Aristides’ Sacred Tales. but from my first word they Pack 1947. Norman 1953 argued that Libanius was imitating Philostratus himself. 32 Cf. the test that usually awaited students as they left school. as related by Philostratus. if we must tell the truth—the frenzy on all sides was such that no one was seen to sit either during the introduction or when I arose to contend. 31 On the dokimasia. he returned to his native city in triumph. the council was so packed that one could not see anything except men’s heads. I think that Aristides was still very much in Libanius’ mind when he wrote in 374. where Aristides narrated his triumphant arrival in Smyrna to declaim in 167. 29 30 . has the texture of a literary dream and is strongly reminiscent of Sacred Tales 5. VS 596) and 307.29 In addition.30–34. similar references to medical matters. 19–20. at least as he says. who had corrupted some of the councilors and had burst uninvited into the theater. and everyone counted it his gain if he paid me some great compliment. jumped up in enthusiasm and did all kinds of things. Tyche. After his fellow citizens quieted down. since a proficient emulation did 33 Acacius 6 in PLRE I. Then. even the elderly. which for the first time appeared inadequate so that when I inquired if anyone had turned up. wanting to touch him. smiling and full of confidence. they packed the city hall. the naturally lethargic. and won over his audience immediately. Libanius. reveling in his success.87). even though he had publicized his lecture well. which many learned by heart before leaving. 1. which of course Aristides disclosed only to render honor to Asclepius. who was one of his rivals. proclaimed that my speech did not allow them to and kept on interrupting it with clamorous demands that the emperor restore me to my city. cried out things which were never heard before. They did this until they stopped from mere exhaustion and then turned to my speech and declared blessed both themselves and me (Or.270 raffaella cribiore stood up. . my slave told me that some had even slept there (Or. Like Aristides’. felt joy and awe.33 The two passages in which Aristides and Libanius narrated their respective triumphs are not identical. He rejoiced seeing the audience as Achilles was glad at the sight of his armor. How could I adequately describe the tears they shed at my introduction. Libanius twice invoked his tutelary deity. he went to the baths and was told that the Egyptian orator had declaimed a few days before but only a few people had attended.88–89). In this section. Libanius then entered. proceeded to the baths whither many escorted him. 1. the Phoenician rhetor Acacius. and their frenzy at the rest of my oration? Everyone. immediately after this ecstatic account of his success. Before daylight. who allowed him to disprove the adage that ‘a prophet is not honored in his own country’. After this triumphant performance. Libanius’ declamation did not need promotion or individual invitations since people ran to the oratorical display as soon as they heard his name. assented to what I said. suffered. and the sick. Libanius introduces his own ‘little Egyptian’. and when I tried to get them seated. Those who found it hard to stand up because of gout also stood up. Introduced by his uncle. vying with aristides in the fourth century 271 not engender a perfectly similar product, but they show many parallels: the lack of advertisement for the lecture, the packed hall, the audience standing up from the beginning, the shouts and clamor, the complimentary words to the speaker, who was even followed to the baths, and the existence of a rival rhetor. More particularly, the two narratives share the tone of Bacchic frenzy, which Libanius called ακ ε α and Aristides ν υσιασμ ς. This is not the usual mood of Libanius’ prose, which tends to have a more matter-of-fact character. Libanius also appropriated Aristides’ passage by filling it out with lifelike details that end up sounding slightly humorous, such as those old, slow, sick, and gouty people jumping up in acclamation. One could object that sophistic displays generally aroused similar reactions, but analogous narrations in Philostratus and Eunapius are not so exactly comparable. Norman found a parallel to the Libanius episode in Philostratus’ sketch of Polemon, yet the two narratives have little in common besides the confidence of the speakers.34 Libanius must have found Aristides’ words truly rousing and adapted them to his own needs, producing a slightly surreal narration that stands out in his Autobiography. Was he reading Aristides closely as he had done in previous years? It is difficult to know since he must have assimilated passages he found particularly inspiring. In his late years, when he had so many axes to grind against the Latin language, Roman law, the crisis of Greek rhetoric, and the apathy of his students, Libanius turned again to his predecessor for some comfort. When, after 387, he composed Oration 3, To his Students about his Speech, he tacitly appealed to Aristides, who in 166 had written Oration 33, To Those who Criticize him Because he does not Declaim. While Libanius’ imitation of Aristides is more attenuated than before, this late attempt to vie with him was evident enough that the scribe of one manuscript of Oration 3 gave it the same title as Aristides’ speech.35 Silence is at the center of both speeches. Orations are often born out of silence. At the beginning, a speaker bursts out, saying that silence is unacceptable and he must break it on some issue.36 Silence then is followed by λ γ ς, which naturally derives from it. In this case silence becomes the λ γ ς itself, as Aristides and Libanius compose a speech to Norman 1965, 171 and 1992, 152, Philostratus, VS 537. Martin 1988, 85, manuscript D. 36 Most orations of Libanius use this initial theme. On the topos of the ‘tranquil speaker’ in the classical period, see Montiglio 2000, 118. 34 35 272 raffaella cribiore explain the reasons for their refusal to declaim, and silence turns into censure ( πιτ μησις) of their audience’s disinterest.37 Aristides declines to humor his distant audience, who reproach him for his inactivity and ask for a speech: his argument is that they do not deserve one and that he does not need anything else to enhance his reputation. Yet this oration, which he sends to his distant admirers through the agency of a friend leaving for Smyrna, and which he calls ‘not a pleasant speech’, is his answer to their remonstrations. Libanius is equally exasperated by the complaints of his students who desire the speech at the end of the school year that he refuses to give it on account of their bad behavior. Aristides uses Oration 33 as a propemptikon, a speech for the departure of a friend. His audience is remote, although he feigns to address it as if it were at hand, and he remarks on the absence of a real public, including foreigners, before whom his addressees might feel some shame. This lack injects some artificiality into his indictment. As he defends himself and attacks the apathy and reprobate habits of his accusers, he considers his position unassailable and shows condescension, detachment, and supreme confidence. Like other professionals (doctors, carpenters, craftsmen), he does not feel the obligation to advertise his products and to make them acceptable. It is his audience that is supposed to woo him; orators would waste their resources by trying to assemble a group of listeners. He is not in the least responsible for their disinterest, since he is the λ γ ς itself. His literary production is abundant and impeccable and is the fruit of his accomplished education and of his unfailing devotion to the art. No doubt Libanius could identify with this portrait of the orator. At this point of the speech, Aristides directs his attention to his public, those ‘false lovers’ (δυσ ρωτες) who proclaim that ‘he is the best of the Greeks’, and yet neglect him and spend their time at the swimming pools. Everyone hastens there, pursuing pleasure and unable to recognize what is truly valuable. They neglect ‘the first of the Greeks’, and their education is compromised. The reasons why Aristides’ speech attracted Libanius can be found not only throughout Oration 3, in which he vied with him to a degree, but also in everything that made Libanius a man and a rhetor. Notwithstanding their different circumstances, both speeches focused on education and on the audience’s refusal to be educated despite much protestation of love and commitment. An old sophist in the fourth century, 37 See Aristides, Or. 33.34. vying with aristides in the fourth century 273 who was disappointed by the tepid response to a profession which he felt had gone awry, found some comfort in commiserating with ‘the best of the Greeks’. Yet Libanius was in a worse predicament than Aristides, and this is what gives his words the authentic grief that seems to be absent from the work of his predecessor. Aristides’ honor (δ α) was not compromised by his refusal to write one more speech. He declared that he had survived his difficulties (health and everything else) ‘by clinging to our raft like a kind of Odysseus’ (18) and felt above criticism. At the beginning of Oration 3, Libanius says that his determination to be silent jeopardizes the δ α of his students, since their punishment will be evident to everybody, as will their poor performance.38 At the end, he reiterates more forcefully that they will incur utter shame when they will be expelled ‘from the holy rites of oratory for defiling the haunt of the Muses’.39 Yet one cannot but feel that it is the teacher’s honor that is irremediably compromised for failing to attract the attention of his pupils and for his inability to adapt to the changed times. Aristides’ remoteness and isolation from his audience is not confined to this speech. While in Oration 34, Against those who Burlesque the Mysteries, he declared that the beauty of oratory had ‘the power to enchant the audience’ (26), he continued by saying that he had never pronounced a syllable to gratify one. The underlining message of Or. 2, In Defense of Oratory, was that the pleasure of engaging in the art was an end in itself.40 Attention to the audience made a speech plunge downwards so that words lost their feverish intensity.41 Libanius, who while still totally enamored of rhetoric, seems to have lost some of his competitive edge in the second part of his life, must have found some support in these words. The sole aim of an orator was writing the best possible speech, but—said Aristides—oratory in its most perfect form was very hard to find. ‘Just as lions and all the nobler animals are naturally rarer than the others’, orators worthy of the name were uncommon (Or. 2.425). The force of Aristides was the conviction that he was a lion. An audience, however, was crucial to Libanius the teacher. His Autobiography is often a chronicle of his triumphs as a declaimer, but in his late years especially he delivered some of his orations to a restricted 38 I interpret the term δ α in this way, while Martin 1988, 275, followed by Norman 2000, 185 n. 2, view it as the honor students gain in supporting their teacher. 39 Or. 3.1 and 35. 40 See Or. 2.429–437, Dindorf 1829, 145–148; cf. Behr 1994, 1165–1168. 41 Cf. Or. 28.115. 274 raffaella cribiore circle of friends.42 All his work, however, is evidence of his profound commitment to teaching and reaching his students, of his attachment to these foster children, and commensurate pride in seeing them fly away.43 Their nonchalant attitude and disinterest stung him deeply. Or. 3 is an indictment of their shortcomings, but the message to his students that underlies the whole is: ‘you neglect me, desert me, are not loyal to me, do not memorize my words, hate me, and even delight in my distress’—some exaggeration perhaps, and yet a refrain that pervades all his late production. Aristides felt detached because his audience was more impersonal and remote and he could pretend it did not exist. Undoubtedly Libanius had more power over his listeners since he could expel delinquent students, as he contemplates doing at the end of the speech (Or. 3.33–37). Immediately after, though, his power crumbles as he realizes that he couldn’t possibly diminish his ‘flock’ because his ‘command’ ( ρ ) would be compromised, and the bad students would pass to the ‘enemy’, that is, to rival teachers.44 He also has to retain them on account of their fathers, a realistic reason which nevertheless seems to refer to the remark of Aristides that his listeners behaved like the sons of famous men who, aware of their good birth, could afford to misbehave.45 I am not convinced that Oration 3, which is pervaded with biting acrimony, represents (as it is generally assumed) the formal speech that Libanius gave at the end of the course, an oration that might be attended by governors and other officials, by citizens of Antioch, and particularly by the students’ parents.46 Oration 3, which discloses the students’ shortcomings together with their teacher’s dwindling authority, is a bitter speech even though it is occasionally sprinkled with the dry humor that pervades some of Libanius’ work. It probably appealed to an audience of students.47 Libanius declared in another oration that his students experienced his humor and that he was accustomed to mix fun 42 Petit 1956b is right in this, but in my view wrongly argues that Libanius kept his most controversial speeches in his drawers. 43 See Cribiore 2007a. 44 On his constant preoccupation with the size of his school, see Cribiore 2007a, 96. 45 See Aristides, Or. 33.24. 46 See Martin 1988, 83–86, and Norman 2000, 183–184. 47 Even though the speech is quite rhetorical, Libanius needed to show his students all rhetorical embellishments for didactic reasons. Eunapius, VS 16.2.2, 496, regarded humor as one of the features of his prose, cf. Cribiore 2007a, 19–22. Molloy 1996, 105, disagrees with Eunapius and does not recognize Libanius’ wit. vying with aristides in the fourth century 275 and work in the class.48 When he laments that his boys’ escapades waste the money for their tuition, he deliberately uses the masculine Homeric word α δ ις (respectable people) in the neuter form to mean ‘sex’, possibly a school joke.49 Likewise, his depiction of the young men gingerly appearing in class with the slow gait of ‘brides or tight-rope walkers’, ‘picking their noses with either hand’, spoiling the applause, deliberately walking around during the oration, and openly inviting classmates to the baths is a tour de force on students’ misbehavior, which parents might fail to really appreciate (Or. 54.11–14). The remark on the pleasure of going to the baths even before dinner—a true indulgence— takes the reader back to Aristides, who faulted people’s passion for the baths as the principal cause that made them miss his lectures.50 In his view, the baths are ‘what darkens the beauty of education’. Yet in Aristides the mention of people anointed with oil, the Homeric references such as the Sirens’ song ‘come and stop your ship’,51 the man with his palm fan who lures the spectators away, are not as vivid as the corresponding vignettes in Libanius. When Aristides says that everyone runs to bathe in the river Meles because the sophists considered as the greatest quality of Homer that he was the river’s son, the attempt at humor is weak (Or. 33.29). While one of the themes of Or. 33 is education, Aristides’ audience was not made up specifically of students. In Or. 29, Concerning the Prohibition of Comedy, he reclaimed for the orator the role of educator that traditionally appertained to the poet and manifested some concern for the environment in which young people matured. I would like to consider once more his role as teacher to clarify only a few points. That he was not engaged in this profession on a regular basis and did not have a school is evident from the question of his immunity from civil service as it appears in the Sacred Tales.52 In this work Aristides occasionally mentions students, but these are either those he is advised to have if he looks for an exemption, or young men who offered themselves as students when he went to Smyrna in 167, an offer he may not have accepted.53 When he refers to students, he generally uses the See Or. 2.20. Heath 2004, 186–187, remarked on ancient teachers’ jocularity. Od. 15.373, Libanius, Or. 3.6; cf. Martin 1988, 277. 50 Or. 33.25–32. Of course the baths are a constant presence in the Sacred Tales but are used for medical reasons. 51 Od. 12.184–185. 52 See Behr 1968, 77–84. 53 See Sacred Tales 4.87; 4.95; 5.29; and 5.57, a dream. 48 49 276 raffaella cribiore term ‘young men’ (ν ι) and once employs the word μα ητα .54 He also once uses the adjective γν ριμ ς in combination with ν ι to say that ‘the most competent young men’ wished to study with him (Sacred Tales 5.29). Philostratus relates that Aristides asked Marcus Aurelius for permission to have his γν ριμ ι present so that they could cheer for him at the declamation, and the word is usually translated as ‘students’ (VS 583). I am not convinced that gn¯ rimoi were always the students in the o inner circle of a teacher, as has been argued in a recent book.55 Philostratus is not always consistent in using the term, and in Aristides it only has the meaning ‘friend or known person’.56 It seems likely that when Aristides asked the emperor to allow his followers to be in the audience, the latter were friends and people who admired him and were in his retinue, not necessarily his students or only students.57 In Or. 33.23 Aristides sheds some light on his role as a teacher. ‘To those who were eager to meet with me on a private basis I offered myself not only as I declaimed, but I also indicated to them well how in my opinion they would become somewhat better’. He uses the expression δ α συνε ναι, that is, ‘to meet privately’ (probably in his or in his student’s residence), which contrasts with Libanius’ expression ω συνε ναι, ‘to meet students at school’ (Ep. 1038.1). Aristides considered his declamations models for instruction and occasionally met some young men to correct their rhetorical imperfections. His involvement with teaching was probably not very significant and did not leave a profound mark on him. The nineteenth -century Italian poet Giacomo Leopardi, who studied Aristides in his youth, reported an amusing adespoton epigram which may have referred to a namesake of the renowned rhetor: ‘Hail to you seven pupils of the rhetor Aristides, four walls and three benches!’58 This epigram in any case may have been realistic if it alluded to Aristides having a school. Two other orations are usually taken to show that Aristides had some involvement with teaching. In 147 he wrote Or. 30, the Birthday Speech to Apellas, who, the scholion explains, was his pupil.59 Very little, however, This usage is compatible with Libanius’ terminology. Watts 2006, 31. 56 See, e.g., Philostratus, VS 483.25 with the meaning ‘friend’, and Aristides, Sacred Tales 1.23 and 4.23, besides 5.29. 57 Philostratus, however, may have believed they were students. 58 See App.Anth. 5.31; Prolegomena to the Panathenaic Oration Dindorf 1829, 741; Cugnoni 1878, 54; Tommasi Moreschini 2004, 11–12 and 269. 59 On this scholion, see Behr 1981, 390 n. 2. 55 54 64 Aristides was a shining protagonist of that age. Or. The speech is a conventional and artificial presentation of the city’s and the family’s glory and of the accomplishments of the young man.61 The insistence on Eteoneus’ handsomeness (four remarks in such a small compass) also sounds a bit excessive. In the phrase ‘We. 2. Or. 12. many of the reasons why Aristides appealed so strongly to Libanius.63 If we now return to the question I posed at the beginning. 31. teachers. one cannot agree more: the silent Eteoneus belongs in a painting (Or. For Libanius. Years later. Aristides. rhetoric and Cf. emotional consolation that Libanius. cannot have failed to appreciate. as when he says that Eteoneus was so devoted to him that he never even conceived of being at his level (Or.4. Aristides had just emerged from a nearly two-year period of incubation in the temple of Asclepius. The Funeral Oration for Eteoneus. 62 On this boy’s beauty.62 When the orator says that in studying and declaiming Eteoneus used gestures that would be appropriate in a painting. In a speech concerned with the study of rhetoric. if he knew the passage. 31. it was comforting to remember an age when ‘rhetoric flashed like lightning’. 60 61 . and all of your dear family’. 64 See Libanius. in 161. 31. 31. 384–385. your relations. a young man who apparently studied with him. and 15. In the fourth century. appears at the end in a grand. 8 and 10. when rhetoric was not as effective as before and rhetors had lost some of their power. the boy’s silence—sometimes considered a positive quality in antiquity60— nevertheless occupies too much space in the background of the effusiveness of his teacher. he wrote Or. 31. When he composed it.7–8). 11. are already clear.43. the word ‘teacher’ does not necessarily refer to the orator. the masterful orator. as when Eteoneus is compared to ‘a poet who has ended his play while people still desire to see him and hear him’. and implicitly to other rhetors in the fourth century. 2. 63 The ¯ thopoiia of the deus ex machina pronouncing words of consolation is quite e moving. A vain Aristides seems to be in competition with his student. Or. so that his acquaintance with Apellas must have been quite recent. Or. moreover.vying with aristides in the fourth century 277 indicates that this boy was indeed his student.8). and applying his rhetorical rules reinforced the illusion that one could revive it. Aristides seems to have been more involved in this youth’s upbringing. On silence. companions. And yet one perceives that some remarks may be out of place. kinsmen. 110. honor. 28. . we did not engage in oratory for wealth. parents. as he told the emperor Julian. marriage. 65 See Libanius. we were fittingly honored by oratory… For me oratory means everything. Swain 2004. and his authoritative tone and confidence in his own ability strongly attracted a sophist who doubted he could make a comparable impact.65 Aristides powerfully roused the emotions. Cf. and. ‘rhetoric moved you towards reverence for the gods’. So what was Libanius reading under Aristides’ portrait? So many are the words of his predecessor that may have appealed to him. 13. signifies everything.1. the myth of Prometheus in 2. Or. relaxation and all else. 33. for I have made it children.278 raffaella cribiore the worship of the gods were connected not only because. Or. Libanius was under the same spell. but we know with certainty that he identified with Aristides declaring his love for rhetoric in Or.. fame. work.396–399.g.19–20: Alone of all the Greeks whom we know. 372–373. Aristides. but also because Aristides’ conception of oratory inspired by ‘a sacred and divine fire’ stirred him. or any acquisition… But since we were its true lovers. e. power. 50. 29. 47. si allontana da lui… e allora interviene la malattia— Sándor Márai. Or. would appear to contradict the need that Aristides felt to write an entire oration. 48. . or if. Besides. all of these reasons were only excuses designed to hide the reality of fickle success. 48. One may wonder if Aristides’ long absences from the rhetorical scene were really due to the poor condition of his health and to the orders given by Asclepius.23. 24. 19. Or. in order to complain bitterly about the scant interest in attending his performances that people showed.75–76. 47. Or. 46–49.1–2. 95. it should not be forgotten that a panoramic view of 1 I would like to thank Professor William Harris for giving me the opportunity to present this paper before such an important audience. 101. Or. and to the high esteem that bestowed on by the emperors (Or. 51. All of these remarks. 41.50. however. 26). while talking about his oratorical performances. 50.1 In these six orations. Or. To Those Who Criticize Him Because He Does Not Declaim (Πρ ς τ ς α τιωμ ν υς τι μ μελετ η). 50. La sorella In addition to providing much interesting material for the history of religion and rhetoric. to insistent requests from friends and acquaintances to write and deliver speeches (Or.30). 32–33). the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides offer a starting point for understanding the success of the author among his contemporaries. Voglio dire che lo sciamano è un messo celeste: fa da intermediario tra Dio e gli uomini.20. 47. 92). 50.chapter fourteen AELIUS ARISTIDES’ RECEPTION AT BYZANTIUM: THE CASE OF ARETHAS Luana Quattrocelli Non posso sapere se lo sono o no.2.8. Perché la malattia non è altro che un’offesa all’ordine cosmico. to the delirious enthusiasm of the crowds (Or.17. 64. Or. Aristides refers more than once to his universal reputation (Or. Dio abbandona l’uomo. 51. 36–38.16. instead. Longinus. Behr. 82–83. For I must also converse with posterity’ (Or. 1907. with the assistance of David Ratzan. as well as to the high position reserved for him in schools and in scriptoria. Les Belles Lettres). I became much more eager.4 containing a rhetorician’s funeral oration. as our name would live even among future men. which will result in an edition of the complete works under the direction of L. Although Aristides made a great display of his success. Even a fourth-century papyrus.A. As Libanius’s pupils. 2 All translations of the Sacred Tales are by C. 1. In a dream. See Schubart 1918. 4 Berliner Klassikertexte V. imitating him just as Aristides had once imitated Demosthenes.280 luana quattrocelli Greek rhetoric in those years would have included the works of great professionals of the calibre of Polemon. celebrates Aristides as Smyrna’s second son after Homer. If in the third century Apsines. as did all the Christian authors whose rhetorical style was deeply influenced by the Second Sophistic. Herodes Atticus. Translations of the scholia are my own.3 The survival of Aristides’ corpus was due to the great admiration that rhetoricians in later centuries had for him. Basil and John Chrysostomus. even two church fathers of this period. Posterity has indeed paid Aristides all the honours of which he dreamt while he was alive. Pernot (CUF. he often worried about the judgement of posterity. Among the late Imperial Age rhetoricians. 143–144. since the god happened to have called our speeches “everlasting” ’ (Or. 50. the text used is Keil 1898. And Himerius (300/10– 380/90 AD). especially in the Panathenaicus. by Zeus. Aelius Aristides is the only author whose oeuvre has been handed down nearly complete: fifty-two orations (only the beginning of Or. took Aristides as a model. it is more important for me to revise some things which I have written.2 He writes elsewhere: ‘After the inscription. 51.52). which was very different from Libanius’s Atticism. and it seemed in every way to be fitting to keep on with oratory. 3 F. in the fourth century Aristides was often studied and imitated in lieu of the classical authors themselves. Robert is preparing an edition of the fragments and the lost works of Aelius Aristides as part of the ‘Aristides Programme’. a representative of the Asiatic style. and Menander Rhetor already considered Aristides to be a classical author and quoted him as a model for style and composition. does not neglect to acknowledge Aristides as one of his masters. and Apollonius Tyanensis. he replies to a doctor who is insisting that he recite something: ‘Because. 53 is preserved). Libanius (314– 393 AD) shows himself a true devotee of Aristides.47). . 5 and Theodorus Metochites wrote an essay On Demosthenes and Aristides. 6 5 . The manuscript was prepared around 920 AD for Arethas by John Calligraphus. 52. 183. the capital letters. The commentary includes a series of notes. Plato and Demosthenes in his Hymns. Laurentianus 60.aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 281 In the following century Synesius. Maximus Planudes was still making scribes copy a specimen of Aristides’ orations in his scriptorium for his library. who attacked his personality as it emerges in the pages of the most autobiographical of his orations. 9 Cf. (A) to the Sacred Tales. I am referring to the scathing notes written in the margins of the sheets of the manuscript Laurentianus 60. the authors of rhetorical manuals. and the paragraph signs. commentators.10 modifying the Sopater scholia and supplementing See Quattrocelli (forthcoming). 220 n. 80. 10 Maass (1884. 343–344). as a personal commentary on Aristides’ religious experiences. the famous archbishop of Caesarea who read and commented on a number of pagan authors. 7 Except for two cases that were edited by Dindorf in the scholiastic corpus (1829.7 which. never published. 100–115. who had no scruples about mocking pagan authors like Homer. 8 See Keil 1898. III.8 undoubtedly after Arethas had become archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Pernot and L. Behr–Lenz. 3. he could not avoid the scorn of one tenth-century commentator. Pernot 1981. allowed Aristides and his orations to acquire first-class authority with lexicographers. n. Quattrocelli for Les Belles Lettres.9 Arethas himself (see fig. 3 and Parisinus graecus 2951. Manuscript A. who had no love for the sophists. A complete edition of these notes will become an integral part of the Sacred Tales edition being prepared by L. and erudite schools from the sixth century through the Byzantine period. He also wrote scholia in his neat majuscule. accorded Aristides the same fame. vii. 1) added the titles. The fame achieved in these centuries. 79. namely the Sacred Tales. quippe qui praeter solemnes scholiorum semiunciales non in sacris tantum verum etiam in profanis utitur uncialibus’. sealed by Eunapius (who calls him ‘divine’). Behr–Lenz 1976–1980. Lemerle 1971. is the well-known manuscript of the Aristidean tradition that belonged to Arethas. At the end of the thirteenth century. xxvii. represent a genuine attack by a Byzantine author on a pagan one. 764) speaks about the semiunciales solemnes used by Arethas for the scholia: ‘Ecce Arethas.6 But even though Aristides escaped unharmed from the hostile attacks of Christian authors like Romanus Melodus. which is divided into two parts. lying outside the exegetical-grammatical typology of medieval comments. xxvii n. See Pernot 2006. 1 .282 luana quattrocelli Fig. aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 283 Fig. 2 them with additions to which he occasionally attached his monogram ΑΡΕΘ.11 These scholia cover Orations I–IV and some passages of μελ ται. In addition, one can read small notes to Orations XVII–LIII. That the reproachful notes in the margin to the Sacred Tales were also written by Arethas is proven above all by the handwriting, which faithfully imitates the unmistakable majuscule of Caesarea’s archbishop.12 The most characteristic letters are easily recognizable (see fig. 2): – alpha: with the rounded part that slips into the line space to distinguish itself from delta. – delta: in majuscule form. – epsilon: crescent-shaped. – kappa: more frequently in the majuscule form than in the minuscule one. – mu: sometimes enriched by an ornament. – nu: which alternates between the minuscule form and the majuscule one, sometimes inclined on the right. – the compendium for κα . 11 12 On the personal notes added by Arethas, see Lenz 1964a, 58, 71–72, 84. Maass (1884, 758) was already certain of Arethas’s authorship of the notes. 284 luana quattrocelli Arethas’s matrix is evident even in the arrangement of the note text as an inverted pyramid or in the shape of a funnel, closed with a little leaf or a small wavy line. Once the handwriting has been securely identified as Arethas’s, it is difficult to doubt that the ideas expressed are also his own, rather than copied from notes in other manuscripts. That the notes were copied is highly unlikely for two reasons: first, no copyist would have ever transcribed such extensive comments into his own copy, even if he had read them in the antigraph; second, and most importantly, there is a large repertoire of attacks in the same tone that Arethas addresses to other classical authors, enough to make Wilson speak of ‘the characteristic style’ of Arethas’s notes on other authors (1983, 212). Therefore, even the unedited notes to Manuscript A should be included among the other short polemical and scornful comments with which Arethas glossed the texts preserved in the manuscripts he owned. It is true that, like Photius, the philologist of Patras belongs to the period of the Byzantine culture commonly referred to as the ‘Renaissance’, which followed the Iconoclastic period. It is also true that, like Photius, Arethas made a career in the church, eventually becoming the archbishop in Cappadocia. However, if Photius provides an example of the tolerance shown towards the pagan literature of the past by the men occupying the highest offices of the church, this is not the case with Arethas. Those who deal with the Platonic textual tradition know the codex Clarkianus 39 very well: it contains twenty-four Platonic dialogues, that is, all of them except the Timaeus, the Republic, and the Laws. It was commissioned from John Calligraphus by Arethas while he was still deacon in November, 895 AD. In this manuscript, too, Arethas writes scholia in his own hand, and he adds strictly personal evaluations to them from time to time. Here is the passage from the Apology in which Socrates defends himself against the charge of atheism: ε δ’ α δα μ νες ε ν πα δ ς ε σιν ν ι τιν ς κ νυμ ν κ τινων λλων ν δ κα λ γ νται, τ ς ν ν ρ πων ε ν μ ν πα δας γ τ ε ναι, ε ς δ μ ; μ ως γ ρ ν τ π ν ε η σπερ ν ε τις ππων μ ν πα δας γ τ κα νων, τ ς μι ν υς, ππ υς δ κα ν υς μ γ τ ε ναι (Pl. Apol. 27d–e). If on the other hand these supernatural beings are bastard children of the gods by nymphs or other mothers, as they are reputed to be, who in the world would believe in the children of gods and not in the aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 285 gods themselves? It would be as ridiculous as to believe in the young of horses or donkeys and not in horses and donkeys themselves. (trans. H. Tredennick). Arethas glosses the text in this way: ‘you do well, Socrates, to compare the Athenians’ gods to donkeys and horses’. Obviously, Socrates has not done this, but the note gives us a glimpse of Arethas’s lack of philosophical subtlety and familiarizes us with one of his characteristic habits, namely that of conversing with his authors in a confidential and intentionally irreverent tone. For the scholiast from Patras, the text that he is reading is not just a monument of the past: the ancient author comes to life in front of him, provoking his likes and dislikes depending on his mood at that moment. A sort of dialogue opens up between the reader and the author. Arethas addresses the author directly, both to blame him and to express pleasure when he finds that he is in agreement with him.13 Socrates is again the target of Arethas’s sharp tongue in the Charmides. Our Christian reader comments on the description of the philosopher, who is struck by Charmides’ beauty in the Athenian palaestra, and thus gains the opportunity to reflect at length on σω ρ σ νη,14 in this way: ‘be cursed, Plato, for so cunningly corrupting simple souls’.15 At a later point, he goes to the heart of the philosophical discussion to defend Charmides and to attack Socrates once again:16 Socrates, you are deceiving the noble Charmides with your speeches and confusing him with sophistry. Because even if he has not shown adequate temperance (σω ρ σ νη), he was not in conflict with the truth. It is at least a part of temperance to act in a quiet and orderly way; for by quiet I mean non-violent, but you take it as the equivalent of lazy, and of course you spoil the reasoning.17 Since Arethas has no scruples about being so irreverent towards Socrates’ auctoritas, we should not be surprised that he behaves similarly, See Bidez 1934, 396. Pl. Chrm. 155d. 15 Arethas lashes out against Lucian for a pederastic issue (Sch. in Luciani Amores 54): μ μ ν τω παιδεραστε ν γ ν ιτ κτλ.], describing him as π ρατ ς: μ γις π τ , μιαρ ε πας. λης κα πρ λης γ ν ι . (‘With much hesitation you κα π ρατε, τ σαυτ admitted this about yourself, you damned scoundrel! May you be utterly destroyed!’). A previous passage in the same work (Amores 35) had irritated Arethas’s sensitivity about the issue of male homosexuality: the Byzantine reader calls Lucian μιαρ λ γ ς, an adjective not found in the classical vocabulary. 16 Pl. Chrm.159a–c. 17 On this passage, see Lemerle 1971, 213–214; Wilson 1983, 206. 13 14 286 luana quattrocelli if not more irreverently, towards another late-imperial author, namely Lucian. Lucian had already been the target of insulting epithets from the first Christian authors: in the ancient and medieval scholia to Lucian, the editor Rabe has registered no less than thirty-nine contemptuous terms used against him.18 Arethas readily adds his voice to the chorus of reprobation directed against Lucian, who nevertheless lived on among the favourite authors of Byzantine readers. Leafing through the comments on Lucian’s works, one realizes that of thirtynine spiteful allocutions, as many as fourteen can be read in the notes written by Arethas’s hand in the margins of the codex Harleianus 5694 (tenth century—E), and another thirty such epithets can be found in the three manuscripts (Vindob. gr. 123, eleventh century—B; Coisl. gr. 345, tenth century – C; Pal. gr. 73, thirteenth century—R), in which Rabe has identified scholia that can be ascribed to Arethas. Generally, Lucian is blamed for his jokes about Greek religion and philosophy, for his hyperbolic attacks against individuals, and for his presumed pederasty. In the dialogue Hermotimus, or Concerning the Sects ( Ερμ τιμ ς περ Α ρ σεων) Lycinus, that is to say Lucian, is explaining to Hermotimus why no philosophical school can guide man in the quest for truth: ΛΥΚ. κατ τα τ τ νυν παντες μ ν ιλ σ ντες τ ν ε δαιμ ν αν ητ σιν π ν τ στιν, κα λ γ υσιν λλ ς λλ τι α τ ν ε ναι, μ ν δ τ καλ ν, δ σα τερ ασι περ α τ ς. ε κ ς μ ν ν δ ν ν, κα τ των ν τι ε ναι τ ε δαιμ ν, κ πεικ ς δ κα λλ τι παρ’ α τ π ντα. κα καμεν με ς ν παλιν ρ ν, πρ ν τ ν ρ ν ε ρε ν, πε γεσ αι πρ ς τ τ λ ς. δει δ μ ι πρ τερ ν ανερ ν γεν σ αι τι γνωσται τ λη ς κα π ντως ει τις α τ ε δ ς τ ν ιλ σ ντων. ε τα μετ τ τ τ ς ν ν ητ σαι, πειστ ν στ ν. ΕΡΜ. στε, ωρ σωμεν, Λυκ νε, τ τ δ τ τε π ντως ς, τι δ’ ν δι π σης μεν τ λη ς ε ρε ν. (66) ιλ σ ας LUC: In the same way, all philosophers are investigating the nature of Happiness; they get different answers, one Pleasure, another Goodness, and so through the list. It is probable that Happiness is one of these; but it is also not improbable that it is something else altogether. We seem to have reversed the proper procedure, and hurried on to the end before we had found the beginning. I suppose we ought first to have ascertained that the truth has actually been discovered, and that some philosopher or other has it, and only then to have gone on to the next question, which of them is to be believed. 18 They are listed in Rabe 1906, 336. See also Baldwin 1980–1981. aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 287 HERM: So that, even if we go all through all philosophy, we shall have no certainty of finding the truth even then; that is what you say (trans. H W. and F.G. Fowler). At this point, that is, at Hermotimus’s τ λη ς ε ρε ν, the Christian orthodoxy in Arethas objects:19 να κα ε ρη, τ ς ν ε ρ σει, δελυρ τατε, ν ρωπ ς ν; κα τ ς τ τω σεως κατ σ δ’ λως σης τ κεκριμ ν ν πιστε σει, τ ς ν ρ π υ κα δι πταιστ ν; To discover it (sc. the truth), who, oh despicable person, will find it while he is still alive, since he is a man? Who, instead, will believe in this, since human nature, according to you, does not have the capacity for judgement and for not making errors? Arethas uses the adjective δελυρ τατ ς, which Lucian often used against his rival in Pseudologistes, or the Mistaken Critic (Ψευδ λ γιστ ς Περ τ ς Απ ρ δ ς).20 If the convicia against Lucian reveal both the failure on Arethas’s part to acknowledge the pagan author’s irony and his habit of excessively literal interpretation,21 the mood is different in the notes written in the margin of the Sacred Tales in the Laurentianus 60, 3, whose content, in my view, confirms their attribution to Arethas. In the first note on the left margin of f. 36v, we read: λλ τ τα της δει τ ς τ σα της κα νην τ υ πραγματε ας, Αριστε δη; κα τ ς τ σα της τ ρ ν υ τρι ς; κα τ ς ασματ δ υς νειρ εως; ε δ ναμις π ν τ ε σ υ Ασκληπι , ντη σε ν σ υ κα ιστ ν κα ν ρα ει καιρ π περ ργ ν ε ς τ παρ’ μ ν ει ε α τ ν ν σων υγαδευτ ρια. κα αν τ ις τ τ σα ς ς παρ λκ τ ς γε ας τ ν σιν στ ν πισκ π ντ ς* αυτ ν κ ν μ σαν κα πρ ς κ νεργ ντ ς τ ν τ ν γε αν να ρ υσαν, μην ντ ς δ τα τα, λλ’ λυπ ντων παλλαγ ν; ε σ συνιδε ν κ ων τ α συγκ μν ντ ς τ σματα ασμ των λ γισμ τ σ ματι, λ ρ υς ναπλ ττεις μακρ ς κα ε ς κ μπ ν π τελευτ ντα κεν ν δ ντων.22 * κα ναμ ν ντ ς. What is the need, Aristides, of such a never-ending business? Of such a waste of time? Of dreaming hallucination? If the power to make you free 19 This note appears only in the Lucian manuscript Harleianus 5694 (E), written by the scribe Baanes (text) with scholia and marginal notes by Arethas. We are thus here right in front of one of Arethas’s notes. See Rabe 1906, 14–17, 244. 20 Lucian, Pseudologistes 3, 19. See Baldwin 1980–1981, 223. 21 See Baldwin 1980–1981, 233. 22 See the formulaic expression in Hom. Il. 11.417 and 12.149. 288 luana quattrocelli from disease resided in your god Asclepius, and that in the blink of an eye being the work of a god? So among us there are divine ‘cities of refuge’ from diseases. Or, is it not clear even to the foolish that a delay of [the return to] health is characteristic of the man who observes (and so waits) that nature manages itself and returns to health of its own accord, and in declaring such a view does not act in order to deliver himself from those things which grieve him? But you, who are never able to see, perhaps because your reason suffers along with your body, you invent heaps of nonsense and ghosts of ghosts that produce only the empty gnashing of teeth. We are here in the second half of the first Sacred Tale (Or. 47.54– 56). Aristides, after listing a great number of dreams, visions, diseases, and medical cures, pauses to relate the umpteenth strange strategy that Asclepius used to order him to fast. In this case, it is a question of poisoned figs, fortune-tellers, sanctuary doctors and phlebotomies, between Smyrna and Pergamum. The argument in this note is repeated in the margins of the third Sacred Tale: (f. 54v, ad 47.43) κενεαυ ς ν ρωπ ς γαν κ υ τητ ς να μ κα μπλη αν λ γω. A vainglorious man in consequence of his excessive levity, so that I am not talking stupidity. It appears again in the margins of the fourth: ηματ ας ν ρωπ ς κα κ μπ ρρ μων κα περιαυτ λ γ ς τ δ π ντα κ ’ ν κα π ραντ ς α τη α τ νεριπ λεκ ης γν μης κα α ν υ. σ α (f. 62v, ad 50.48). A conceited person and a boaster and always talking about himself: all of this comes from a weak wit and from vanity. From this it comes to him even this boundless talking in dreams. In more recent times, Giacomo Leopardi, at the age of sixteen, wrote of the Sacred Tales: ‘Dopo aver letto tutto ciò, la persona saggia non può sottrarsi, a causa del cieco egocentrismo dell’autore, ad una sensazione di nausea’.23 In light of the judgement of such a sensitive and learned mind, Arethas’s lack of restraint in his criticism of Arstides appears less objectionable. Certainly, it is true that before the strange ravings of the Sacred Tales, the learned Archbishop from Caesarea would have 23 Leopardi 1878, 43–80. See also Tommasi Moreschini 2005. in unexpected vulgarity in a church man and a scholar like Arethas. As a Christian Arethas must have been uneasy about the title Ιερ λ γ ι. where there is almost no trace of diseases. which echoed his Sacred Scriptures too much. This is the only good thing that has come into his mind. 491e: ς δ ς ε (‘how foolish you are’!). κα πρ ς τ ρ νε ν τε κα σω ρ νε ν πανα ε ης ε κα μ δε τω25 τ δ ντι μετεγ ν υ (f. ad 48. When he then had to associate such an elevated title with content that would have been completely improper in relation to the concept of sacredness upheld by the Christian orthodoxy. Look at the stupidity and the rashness—and such things are the opinions of a wise man. II. Cf. A bit later still. 44v. albeit administered in small doses of ironical comments. as in the one just seen. In the other notes the tone continues to alternate between insulting epithets and scornful irony. Soon after. and the cult of Asclepius. Arethas mocks even the dietary remedies adopted by Aristides: δε λ νι ν σ ων κα ην ς παρ—τ πεπτ τατα— λ υ τ ν στ μα ν ε ρωστε ν. resulting in some cases. Gorg.344) writes ντως. δ ς ε 26 (f.41) δε μ ρ ντησ αν κα μπλη αν ν ρ π υ κα τα τα δ αι σ . . Dindorf (1829.24 (f. dreams.43). but the reference is ad 48.aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 289 read on the same codex models of rare and irreproachable sophistic expertise in the more typically rhetorical orations (Orations I–XV Keil). Arethas could no longer refrain from reprobation. Arethas has the following opinion about an enema to which Aristides submits in order to purify his liver: καλ ς γε τ τ μ ν ν ε σελ ν. and true contumelies. Sacred Tales.43). III. annoyed reactions. concise judgements. Eating delphynion and goose liver—by far the most indigestible food—did you want to strengthen your stomach? How ingenuous! 24 25 26 Dindorf (1829. ς ν π κα ρη τ ν αντασι κ π σαν κ πρ ν. Later on he says: ad 48. 44r. that he might purify the dung that overworks his imagination and that you might be returned to your mind and your senses although you have not come back to this condition at the point when it was necessary. 44v.343) here adds an ντ ς that is not in the original text. Pl. And after this came curatives and nourishment. 53v.290 luana quattrocelli In his aversion to our pagan author. Sometimes there was even some wine left over. δελ Given the harshness of Arethas’s censure. ρ μην τ τω κα πρ τερ ν τ διπλ σι ν. which is probably the diminutive of δελ ς.43). which ridicule Aristides’ quite unusual pronouncements. 49. The Greek text. Then some sausage. it is not surprising that Aristides is also called a ‘terrible drunkard’: ς ικεν ν π της δειν ς Αριστε δης (f. In his comments on δελ νι ν κα ην ς παρ. I also cannot say for how long I endured water drinking. In this case. Nor did I add this residue to the next day. but I had to be con- . mentions παρ ην ς and ε υ τι π γαστρ υ.32): σ ν μ ν ν τινα ρ ν ν δι νεγκα τ ν δρ π σ αν. It is quite clear that he meant a half pint. μαι. ησιν δη π νειν πρ ς υσ αν. τι μ ται ι τ ν ν ρ πων ε εν σ ι τ ν καν ν ε π ρ ντες μ τ λμ σιν λευ ρως ρ σ αι. 48. ad Or. ην ς μετ τ ν π λλ ν π ρρησιν πρ ς παντα τ σιτ α.43) was that when he was at death’s door. τωσ πως αριεντισ μεν ς. πε δ κα τα την ε ε τ ν πε ραν. (Or. after an encouraging apparition of the goddess Athena. ν υ δ τα εν μ τρ ν. as formerly twice the amount did not. goose liver after frequent refusal of all food. since I was sparing through fear that it might be harmful. The ‘some sausage’ ( ε υ τι π γαστρ υ) appears to Arethas quite curious and out of place: it has become the vulgar δελ νι ν. α ε πως πρ τερ ν δυσ ερα νων τ δωρ κα ναυτι ν. Arethas. ς (vulva. then. 49. he decided to administer to himself an enema of Attic honey in order to purify his bile: κα μετ τα τα κεν ματα κα τρ α πρ τ ν μ ν παρ. τι δ’ ε κ λως τε κα αδ ως. I think. uterus). πειτα ε υ τι π γαστρ υ. κα ν γε τ μα ‘ μ να ασιλικ ’· γν ριμ ν δ π υ τως ρκει ς κ ρκει τι ρα εν μικ τ λι ν. δ τ τ ω λ γειν. 48. and it sufficed. but it was easy and pleasant. τ μ ν δατ ς ησ με. the commentator shows that he has fully understood the Greek author’s references (Or. I used this. deliberately distorts the foods prescribed with escalating irony. although before I always found water somehow disagreeable and disgusting. στιν δ’ τε κα ειδ μ νω π τ δεδι ναι μ μ μ ν τ τ γε π ι μην α ρετ ν ε ς τ ν στερα αν. λλ’ ρ ς δει τ μ τρω στ ργειν. What Aristides had in fact said (Or.32). and assigned me a measure of wine. The word was ‘a demiroyal’. When this duty also had been performed. who was evidently in the dark about dietary habits and pharmacopoeia in the second century. First. he took me off water. ς δ κα τ τ λελειτ ργητ . Arethas goes so far as to exploit the exaggerated irony in his own comments. τι λυπ περι ν. he permitted me to drink as much as I wished. a god who achieves miracles for him and through him. Aristides’ experience would be interesting only as a religious-mystical event. that is to say. Aristides speaks about μικ τ λι ν. with respect to Aelius Aristides. The god is usually invoked as ‘the Saviour’ ( Σωτ ρ): he is a god who loves his devoted suppliant Aristides and intervenes directly to secure his salvation. If the quantity of wine permitted by Asclepius was so limited. rather. 371. his comments on Aristides’ Sacred Tales have a peculiarity of their own. we cannot lose sight of two aspects of the Sacred Tales. however. a ‘half kotyle’.aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 291 tent anew with the measure. he is confronting a true rival of Christianity. What appears most hateful about Aristides is his representation of Asclepius as precisely the kind of god that Arethas’s God is for the Christians: a god of redemption. knows his believers. Aristides’ choice to communicate that experience by giving it a literary form. 27 . Second. While his aversion to what he read in Plato or in Lucian grew out of his cultural context.27 Without an addressee. Insofar as Aristides is devoted to one god alone. and made some sort of joke. When he had also made this experiment. though a privileged and in some respects extreme one. who sees everything. If we are to understand Arethas and ‘his’ Aristides. he becomes an imitator of Christian monotheism for our Byzantine commentator. we should note the Aristidean triangle patient-god-tales that begins to emerge in the Sacred Tales as a self-conscious reworking of the Hippocratic triangle patient-disease-doctor. as the notes to Plato and Lucian suggest. confirms the See Pernot 2002. with the Sacred Tales he engages in a polemic of a religious nature. He is no longer confronting Plato’s obvious paganism or Lucian’s alleged atheism. First. Even if we are simply observing Arethas’s usual behaviour here. the quantity of wine that Aristides regularly drank prior to his disease must have been more excessive—hence Arethas refers to him as a ‘terrible drunkard’ ( ν π της δειν ς). albeit a pagan one. we must consider the image of Asclepius. It is as if in the face of these orations Arethas developed a veritable intolerance of the classical author. in referring to the amount of wine assigned to him by the god. and does everything necessary for their salvation. to the effect that they are foolish men who are rich in material goods and do not dare to use them freely. After reading the long account of the baths in the river and in the sea that Asclepius imposes on Aristides (Or. (f. 48. Arethas comments in the same scornful and vexed tone: ς ικεν ντ ην ς ρματ σ ι κ ρητ .52–55) It seems. but also against Asclepius. who is the addressee of the convicia. as one might expect. 2) the personal experience of divine power. amusing you with such baths! The αυμαστ ς σ υ. directed at Aristides. and the ρματ σ ι. makes the secondcentury pagan orator dangerous for a defender of the Christian faith. Although the style of the Sacred Tales is certainly not one of the best examples of Aristidean Atticism—indeed. 348)—nevertheless it shines in comparison with the writing of the medieval commentator. too. are absent from the margins to Aristides’ other orations. αυμαστ ς σ υ ε ς Ασκληπι ς τ σ τ ις λυτρ ς σε δι γων. regardless of whether they. From this perspective we can more easily understand the reason for Arethas’s virulent attacks on Aristides in the margins to the Sacred Tales. It is evident that the representation of Asclepius as a savior god. and the stylistic level of Arethas’s own prose as the author of those convicia. Through being recounted in the Sacred Tales. Αριστε δη. together with the religious testimony that Aristides offers in the Sacred Tales. are followers. obscure and careless. 46r. Aristides’ spiritual experience participates in the ‘biological’ cycle proper to an orthodox religious experience. attacks that. It is because of his deep-seated aversion that Arethas directs his irreverent contempt not only against Aelius Aristides and his travails. show the self-satisfaction that Arethas derives from his displays of irony and contempt. Lacking in any rhetorical structuring or philological severity. André Boulanger has spoken of their ‘naïveté profonde’ (1923.292 luana quattrocelli validity of his experience and its successful outcome. .52–55). ad 48. One particularly striking detail of the scholia is the contrast between the quality of the prose of Aristides. that instead of a goose your wonderful god Asclepius has made you his pet. a cycle made up of: 1) the god’s choice of the beloved believer. Arethas’s phrasing is difficult and elliptical. We have already seen in the first note how ironic Arethas can be about Asclepius’ capacity to heal: ε δ ναμις π ν τ ε σ υ Ασκληπι ντη σε ν σ υ κα ιστ ν …(if the power resides in your god Asclepius to make you free of your disease…). 3) the celebration of the greatness of the god himself through a direct testimony before others. Aristides. referring to Asclepius. Aristides’ fame remains intact for centuries until we reach the scriptorium of Maximus Planudes. Psellus. which first develops in this period. who made scribes copy both the weighty volumes containing Aristides’ entire œuvre and smaller manuscripts of selected orations. not too long after the Archbishop of Caesarea wrote his harsh notes. the first for the breadth of his argumentation. In the eleventh century. which were indispensable to the learned humanist’s studies.aelius aristides’ reception at byzantium 293 Despite Arethas’s ironic and contemptuous comments. For the eastern Renaissance. Few pagan authors have had their corpus of works so richly preserved in multiple manuscripts (232). Aelius Aristides has definitively become one of the classics of Greek literature. The greatest praise that Psellus has for Basil and Gregorius Nazianzenus consists of him stressing how much they recall Aristides. . We are now at the beginning of the fourteenth century. perhaps the most outstanding author of the Byzantine Middle Ages. registers his high esteem for Aristides’ eloquence by placing him next to Demosthenes. the second for the grace of his style. Aelius Aristides retains his favored position in Byzantium. . (1987–1999) Elio Aristides. (Leipzig). trans.M. ed. The Complete Works.J. Originally published New York: 1981. F. Vol. II: Orationes XVII–LIII continens (Berlin). (1829) Aristides ex recensione. — — —. (1968) The Civilizing Power. The Complete Works. médecine au IIe siècle après J. L. G.A. (1986) Discours sacrés: Rêve. Festugière. Behr. Swain. ed. 5 vol. I (Leiden). A Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides against the Background of Literature and Cultural Conflict [Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 58] (Philadelphia).. ed. . S.. trans. deutsche Übersetzung und Kommentar (Heidelberg). NH). Vol. M. Pernot. (1968) Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam). (1986) P.C. G. II (Leiden). H.. J. Oliver J. Opera Quae Exstant — Omnia. and trans. trans. IV [Biblioteca Clasica Gredos 238] (Madrid). and trans. (1981) P. Vol. 2nd ed. Saffrey. Secondary Works Aalders. (1992) Les Discours siciliens d’Aelius Aristide (Or. Einleitung. fasc.M. J.D. Klein. ed. Language Contact and the Written Word (Oxford).A. and trans.-D. and H.. Dindorf. (1976–1980) P. S.H. (1997) Elio Aristide.BIBLIOGRAPHY Editions and Translations of Aelius Aristides Amann. C.A. Discursos.. Aelius Aristides. F. Schröder. and trans. J. Elio Aristide (Pisa). — —. (1981) Der Athenahymnus des Ailios Aristeides. Aelii Aristidis. G. (1981–1983) Die Romrede des Aelius Aristides.. — —. Aelius Aristides. trans. Bilingualism in Ancient Society. and F. L. 4 (Leiden).. ed. édition et traduction. Janse. A. trans. Jöhrens. 5– 6). trans.. Gascó. Manekofsky (Amsterdam and New York)... Étude littéraire et paléographique. (1931) Die Zeusrede des Ailios Aristeides [Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 12] (Tübingen)... (2007) A Roma. Vol. de Verger Ramírez. (Darmstadt). Adams. religion. Nicosia. (Madrid). eds. (Salem. (1982) Plutarch’s Political Thought.O. (Bonn). and trans. (Paris). R. Keil. J. Trans. Discorsi sacri (Milan).N.. 2 vol. Discursos. (1984) Elio Aristide. ed. Fontanella. (1898) Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt omnia. Lenz. ed. eds. Reprinted Hildesheim: 2000. B. 1 vol.W. Fueyo Llera.M. and comm. A. Copete Cortés. (2002). 3 vol. 2 vol. trans. trans. — Cortés Copete. (1986) Heilige Berichte. . Holquist.1. — —.30–31K’. Barbieri. (1928) ‘Die Gliederung der narratio in der rhetorischen Theorie und ihre Bedeutung für die Geschichte des antiken Romans’. (1981) ‘Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel’. S. P. ANRW II. C. Sophists and Their Outlook in the Early Empire’. — —. . A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire — (London and New York). Politics and Power — in Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius’. Hermes 63:261–287. G. ANRW II. ANRW II. A. AJP 90:75–77. Their Dedications. Beecke E. (1989) ‘The pepaideumenos in Action. P. M. Behr.A. (1928–1938) Suidae Lexicon. in Dominik and Hall. in The Dialogic Imagination.30. 339– — 353. Avotins. J.2. Trans. Barwick. (1996) ‘A Rhodian Bronze Hoard of the Late II Century AD’. — 1140–1233 (Berlin and New York).’. André. and J. J. B. Andersson. (1978) ‘The Sophist Aristocles and the Grammarian Phrynichus’.33. Aleshire. Bidez. R. (1997) ‘On the Psychology of Aelius Aristides’. F.. in Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey. Adler. (1982) ‘La conception de l’État et de l’Empire dans la pensée gréco-romaine des deux premiers siècles de notre ère’.1.M. (1993) L’invention de l’autobiographie: d’Hésiode à Saint Augustine. La Parola del Passato 33:181–191. AJP 105:174– 208. — Bakhtin. Byzantion 9:391–408. Physiognomics. (1934) ‘Aréthas de Césarée éditeur et scholiaste’. (1993) The Second Sophistic. 79–208 (Berlin and New York). G. 3–73 (Berlin and New York). Beck. Ashton. Garthwaite. (1980–1981) ‘The Scholiasts’ Lucian’. Roos. 117 A. — —. (2003) Bilingualism and the Latin Language (Cambridge). Helikon 20–21:219–234. Eranos 95:26–38.32. C. (2004) ‘Plutarch on the Statesman’s Independence of Action’. (1984) ‘The Rider and the Horse.-F. (1982) ‘A Reinterpretation of Aelius Aristides’ 33. ed.. ANRW II. and Medicine under the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor). Hoffmann. TAPA 112:1–6. The People. M. Ahl. I. (1989) The Athenian Asklepieion. and the Inventories (Amsterdam). eds. 105–114. (1994) Power and Knowledge: Astrology. (1984) ‘The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome’. 41–42 (London). Pernot.1. Actes du deuxième colloque de l’Equipe de recherche sur l’hellénisme post-classique (Paris). (1955) Conone [Studi pubblicati dall’Istituto italiano per la storia antica 13] (Rome).-A. (2007) ‘Rhetoric and the Second Sophistic’. and L. Emerson and M. (1905) Die historischen Angaben in Aelius Aristides Panathenaikos auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Strasbourg). K. Anderson. T. 40–124 (Berlin and New York). in de Blois et al. 5 vol. Barton. (1969) ‘Aelius Aristides’ Birth Date Corrected to November 26.D. Baslez. J. (1994) ‘Studies on the Biography of Aelius Aristides’. 84–258 (Austin). — —.N.34.296 bibliography Adams. (Leipzig).B. — —.-M. M. and B. Baldwin. Wilkins (Exeter). C. L. Diss. in — Plutarco y la Historia (Actas del V Simposio Español sobre Plutarco Zaragoza 1996). 45– 66 (Oxford). Ed.. (2006) Dion Chrysostom. C. J. (2004) ‘Denys d’Alexandrie. Vela. V. Bost-Pouderon. Lucien. Braund and J. 1–7 (Paris). 43–58 (Bari). Études sur l’antiquité grecque offertes à André Plassart par ses collègues de la Sorbonee. (1913) ‘Rhodou Ktistai’. Ed. Ed. Boulanger.-M. — —. (1996) ‘La tradition de l’éloge de la cité dans le monde grec’.. Bompaire. de Blois. H. E. (1941) Lindos II.33. 61–92.bibliography 297 Birley. Ed. (2006) ‘Choral Performances’ in Konstan and Said. — de Blois. Ramón and J. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society. W. — —. Nijmegen/Castle Hernen.W. (2004) The Statesman in Plutarch’s Works. — in The World of Athenaeus. A. eds. (1997) ‘Plutarch’s Citations of Early Elegiac and Iambic Poetry’. YCS 27:29–59.-C. — —. 199–209. Blinkenberg. G. 99–108 (Zaragoza). (1994) ‘Le rôle de l’eau dans les prescriptions médicales d’Asclépios chez Galien et Aelius Aristide’. Originally published in Past and Present 46 (1970) 3–41. (1966) Marcus Aurelius (London). Lepelley. Trois discourses aux villes (Orr.: Aelius — Aristide. 166–209 (London and Boston). in The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus. — — —. Boudon. Boas. Finley. A. A. 57–63. Bowie. Guimier-Sorbets. (1989) ‘Greek Sophists and Greek Poetry in the Second Sophistic’. in de Blois et al. Jouanna and L. Luraghi. (2004) ‘Neue Inschriften aus Karia II: Mylasa und Umgebung’. (1993) ‘Quatre styles d’autobiographie au IIe siècle après J. 124–135. — —. — —.L. — —. May 1–5. Ed. M. (London).. J. Ginouvès. N. (2001) ‘Ancestors of Herodotus in Early Greek Elegiac and Iambic — Poetry’. 2002. et al. (1982) ‘The Importance of Sophists’. 157–168 (Paris).. la santé et la maladie dans le monde grec. V. (2004) ‘Classical and Contemporary Statesmen in Plutarch’s Praecepta’. Hermes 48:236–249. Blümel. Villard. — —. Inscriptions (Copenhagen). in Baslez et al. in La fin de la cité antique et le début de la cité médiévale. 209–258 (Berlin and New York). in Studies — in Ancient Society. in L’eau. — —. 33–35). R. Un poète grec dans l’Empire romain’. REA — 106:177–185. C. Ed. J. (1905) De Epigrammatis Simonideis. Vol. D. I (Leiden). Bowersock. (1976) ‘Les historiens classiques dans les exercices préparatoires de rhétorique (progymnasmata)’. Marc-Aurèle. in Recueil Plassart. — —. (1969) Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford). (Salerno). (1923) Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d’Asie au IIe siècle de notre ère (Paris). Schrader. Galien’. — ANRW II. (2007) ‘The Ups and Downs of Aristophanic Travel in the Greek — . (2000) ‘Athenaeus’ Citations of Early Greek Elegiac and Iambic Poetry’. 2 vol. Bouffartigue. M. Groningen.1. (1974 [1970]) ‘Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic’. L. Epigraphica Anatolica 37:1–42. (1987) Marcus Aurelius: a Biography Revised ed. 421 BC–AD 2007. S. (2000) Libanios: Lettres aux hommes de son temps (Paris). Bresson. Brunt. Hamilton. J. K. Forthcoming (b) ‘Plutarch’s Habits of Citation: Aspects of Difference’. in Konstan and Rutter. — in The Unity of Plutarch’s Work. and E. — —. Ed.’. 159–191 (Cambridge). J. Ed. (1989) Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area (Amsterdam and Philadelphia). 143–157 (Berlin). Nikolaidis. Cabouret. A. 5 vol. P. (2005) ‘Review of Sviatoslav Dmitriev. (2004) Selected Letters of Libanius: From the Age of Constantius and Julian (Liverpool). Campanile. [BCH Suppl. . Social and Political Aspects. The Right Way to Compose a Suitable Speech’. 233–252. Activités. (1905) Platonis Opera. (2003) ‘Ductus and color. V. — —. A.. B. Salomies. Proceedings of a Colloquium Organized by the Finnish Institute at Athens. Mass). ed. Intégration. (2004) ‘Dédicaces de Lindos et de Rhodes pour Titus Flavius Aglôchar— tos’. and E.D.D. Interdonato. Ed. 1999.D. E. (Oxford). Ed.R. City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor’. J. Actes du Colloque international à la mémoire de Louis Robert. Garnsey and C. Ed. B. Virgilio.). (2003) ‘Macrina’s Tattoo’. (2002) ‘Italiens et Romains à Rhodes et à Caunos’. M.-C-Ier siècle ap. J. Hall and A. Müller and C. Hasenohr. in L’Hellénisme à l’époque romaine: nouveaux documents. (2003) ‘The Politics of Envy: Envy and Equality in Ancient Greece’. — Bubenik. 60–70 (Helsinki). — —. in Aristophanes in Performance. — Bradbury. (1996) ‘Città d’Asia Minore tra Mitridate e Roma’. American Historical Review 110:1574. — —. Forthcoming (a) ‘Quotation of Earlier Texts in τ ς τ ν Τυαν α Απ λ— λ νι ν’. Cadoux. 41]. Demoen and D.—IIIe s. Ed. (1994) ‘The Bubble of the Second Sophistic’. 57–73 (Leiden). Follet. a. (1978) ‘Laus imperii’.-C. C. in Les Italiens dans le — monde grec. nouvelles approches (Ier s. BICS 39:25–52. (1978) The Making of Late Antiquity (Cambridge. A. Including the Letters (Princeton). (1938) Ancient Smyrna (Oxford). (1996) ‘L’onomastique romaine à Rhodes’. IIe siècle av. Whittaker. Burrell. Pratt. May 21–22. O. D.A. in Roman Onomastics in the Greek East. Athens 7–9 September 1993. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33:403–417. 225–232 (Paris). V.298 bibliography Literature of the 2nd and 3rd Centuries A. Forthcoming (c) on Stobaeus from Fondation Hardt workshop. Caliò. Burrus. H. L. Brown. (1961) The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Circulation. Calboli Montefusco. Ed. in Studi ellenistici VIII. 32–51 (Oxford). Rizakis. Ed. L. Proceedings of the International Colloquium. (2005) ‘Theatri curvaturae similis: note sull’urbanistica delle città a forma di teatro’. Cairns. trans. P. 145–173 (Pisa and Rome). K. Ed. S. B. Wrigley. Burnet. in Imperialism in the Ancient World.. in Theios Sophistes [Mnemosyne Supplement].C. (2001) ‘Two Notes on Theophanes’ Descendants’. Actes de la table ronde. Cairns. — —.A. Rhetorica 21:113–131. 225–238 (Athens).C. Buraselis. p. P. in The Greek East in the Roman Context. Archeologia classica 66:49–130. 147–162 (Paris). — —. 142–179 (Gütersloh). (1986–1987) ‘Rodi: l’arco quadrifronte sul decumano massimo’. (1950) ‘Les Mots grecs signifiant lire’. L’Antiquité est-elle moderne? Ed. 223–254 (Paris). in La parole polémique. Castelli. Gewissen und Person: Studien zur Geschichte des inneren Mensche. J. Klio 25:86–113. D. (1997) ‘Reinheit des Körpers—Reinheit des Sinnes in den griechischen — Kultgesetzen’. Sundermeier. Schmid and O. — —. Contributo allo studio dei rapporti tra poleis insulari e territori continentali dipendenti (Pisa). Stählin 1–2 (Munich). (1989) ‘Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Menexenus’. W. Clavaud.J. J. M. Civiletti. in Mélanges Henri Grégoire II = Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire orientales et slaves 10:115–126. Ed. Ed. — . 2nd ed. Spawforth. J. (London). 201–210. Cortés Copete. autor de XXV K’. (1995) Elio Aristide. in Dominik and — Hall. (2004) ‘Plutarch’s “Many Other” Imitable Events: Mor. von Christ. Cassin B.P. JHS 109:1– 15. Vol. 323– 344. Connolly. R. (1932) ‘Griechische Ethik und römischer Imperialismus’. — —. Droit. Coventry. Annuario della Scuola Archaeologica di Atene 64–65:175–266. Y. (1920–1924) Geschichte der griechischen Literatur II: Die nachklassische Periode der griechischen Literatur. Capelle. G. (2001) Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton). L. Cribiore. (Cambridge. Vite dei sofisti (Milan). Classen. (1999) ‘Intenzionalità espressiva e ordine della narrazione nei Discorsi Sacri di Elio Aristide’.M. M. Carsana.A. Chiron. P. (2002) Filostrato. (2003) Isole e peree in Asia Minore. J. P. Assmann and T. — —. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 5:197–207. Cante.J. (2002 [1989]) Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities. A. in Schuld. les Romains et nous. (1995) ‘Elio Aristides. 814b and the Statesman’s Duty’. (2003) ‘Le logos eskhèmatisménos ou discours figuré’. Declercq and M. 83–97.. C. Mass. Cook. W. in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. (1980) Le Ménexène de Platon et la rhétorique de son temps (Paris). Cortés J. in de Blois et al. (1995) ‘Illness and Cures in the Greek Propitiatory Inscriptions and Dedications of Lydia and Phrygia’. Ed. in van der Eijk et al.. (2007a) The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton).M. Chaniotis. (1982) Greek Lyric. in Les Grecs. 6. and A. Cartledge. R. Too.bibliography 299 Campbell. Acme 52:197–212. I. W.L. (1991) ‘Consensus et création des valeurs. Carusi. Qu’est-ce qu’un éloge?’. Dangel. Ed. 339–372 (Leiden). C. Chantraine. B. (2007) ‘Virile Tongues: Rhetoric and Masculinity’. C. Un sofista griego en el Imperio Romano (Madrid). P. Murat.. and London). 273–299 (Paris). (2001) ‘Problems of the Past in Imperial Greek Education’. C. (1990) La teoria della costituzione mista nell’età imperiale romana (Como). (1980) Die Stadt im Spiegel der Descriptiones und Laudes Urbium (Hildesheim). R. B. P. Desbordes. R.D. J. (1968) ‘L’empire romain d’orient au IVe siècle et les traditions politiques de l’hellénisme: Le témoignage de Thémistios’. Dunbabin. (2007b) ‘Lucian. Vol. 103–125 (Louvain. G. P. Ideological Construction. K. — —. Degani. in van der Eijk et al. (1999) Roman Baths and Bathing (Portsmouth. E. and the Short Road to Rhetoric’. Johnson (Chicago). REL 71:73–86. Cavallini. Desideri. Dmitriev. Papers of the British School at Rome 57:7–46. A. La cultura nell’età degli Antonini (Naples). 1605–1618 (Berlin and New York). (Oxford). Ed. (1991–) Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum fragmenta. A. (1996). (2003) ‘Roma e la Grecia: una cultura per due popoli’. D. (1947) Thucydide et l’impérialisme athénien (Paris). (1967) Les maîtres de vérité dans la Grèce archaïque (Paris). eds. Travaux et Mémoires 3:1–242. de Romilly J. CQ 48:117–125.E. (2005) ‘Il “Diario” dei sogni di Elio Aristide: Per una interpretazione del primo Discorso Sacro (47 Keil)’. Un intellettuale greco nell’impero romano (Messina and Firenze). S. T. de Souza. Prometheus — 28:139–150. (1978) ‘I sogni e la loro interpretazione nell’età dell’impero’. Studi Ellenistici — 15:229–243. Demoen. I (Halle). W. Journal of Roman Archaeology 9:108–136. (2002) ‘Dimensioni della polis in età alto-imperiale romana’. K. Problèmes figurés dans la déclamation latine’. D’Elia. (1980) ‘Plato’s Pharmacy’. in The Greek City from Antiquity to the Present.R. (2007) A Companion to Roman Rhetoric (Oxford). (1995) ‘Les demonstrations médicales à Rome au temps de Galien’. Questioni d’amore. ed. (1991) ‘Introduzione’.M. Trans. S. and D. (2002) In the Land of Pain. Del Corno. Derrida. (1998) ‘Socrates’ Last Words: Another Look at an Ancient Riddle’. Crooks. ANRW II. E. Cugnoni. F. J. (1991) Torture and Truth (New York and London). and trans. K. Johnston. (1999) Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge).. Ed. Detienne. (1993) ‘Le texte caché. (1965) Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (New York). (1978) Dione di Prusa. Demoen. Ed. — Dominik. Daudet. in Dissemination. — —. Paris. Historical Reality. E. J. — —. (1995) Una monarchia illuminata. ‘The Impact of the Antonine Plague’. ‘ “Où est la beauté qui admiraient tous les yeux?” La ville détruite dans les traditions poétique et rhétorique’. 69–81.16. . Segno e Testo 3:51–59. P. M. DeLaine. Dorandi. Dodds. (2005) City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor (Oxford).300 bibliography — —.. GRBS — 47:71–86.2. eds. Libanius. Davies. and Stanford). G. (1878) Opere inedite di Giacomo Leopardi. in Luciano. (1951) The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Hall. M. (1989) ‘Baiarum Grata Voluptas: Pleasures and Dangers of the Baths’. DuBois. J. Dagron. Debru. RI). Barnes (New York). Literary Representation. 9–29 (Venice). and J.P. Duncan-Jones. Foucault. — —. (1991) ‘Rhodes and Augustus’. Faralli. Follet. (1938) Pline le Jeune: Panégyrique de Trajan (Paris). und ein Brief des — Cornelius Fronto’.2. Essential Works of — Foucault 1954–1984. (Rome and Bari). E. C. M. 57–66. (1974) Die Ekloge des Phrynichos. (1999) ‘The Suffering Body: Philosophy and Pain in Seneca’s Letters’. R. (1999) ‘The Introduction and Spread of Roman Bathing in Greece’. Ed. — Fischer.N. 429 ff. (Leipzig).L. in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. (1986) The History of Sexuality. J. Bathing in Public in the Roman World (Ann Arbor). Elsner. (1976) Athènes au IIe et au IIIe siècle. (2001) Storia della filosofia del diritto I: Antichità e medioevo.1] (Berlin and New York). Etudes chronologiques et prosopographiques (Paris). P. 2. — —. ed. Edizione aggiornata a cura di C.-J. Wiener Studien 73:123–152. Opera.-J. Vol. CQ 56:190– — 207. in Greek Romans and Roman Greeks. (1954) Personal Religion Among the Greeks (Berkeley and Los Angeles). A. REG 82:117–153.J. E. S. W. Ed. Fagan. Rutherford. eds. (2004) ‘Sophists and Emperors: A Reconnaissance of Sophistic Atti— tudes’. (1999) ‘La liberté des cités et ses limites à l’époque republicaine’. (1999).und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139’.. Farrington. G. JRS 54:87–98. I. M. Foerster. J. Aelius Apollonides.E. Eck.G. (1960) ‘Lieux communs littèraires themes de folk-lore dans l’Hagio— graphie primitive’. J. Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (Baltimore). (1903–1927) Libanius. Chiron 13:147–237. Aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine — du monde hellénistique (Rome). ab epistulis Graecis. — —. Fassò. in Paideia.’. Edwards. The World of the Second Sophistic. Ferrary.4–37–63): Cicéron entre Polybe et Platon’. 359–376 (Berlin and New York). (2006) ‘Bathing for Health with Celsus and Pliny the Elder’. in Porter. Flinterman. Trans. (1991) ‘P. — —. Edelstein (1945). and I. 208–222 (New York). Ostenfeld. Rabinow. Originally published Bologna: 1966–1970. Erskine. ZPE 88:272–275. B. (2002) ‘The Self-Portrait of an Antonine Orator: Aristides. . 198–211 (Aarhus). — —.. (2005) Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity: Seeing the Gods (Oxford). Festugière. — —. and L. Edelstein. (1984) ‘L’Archéologie du De re publica (2. 3: The Care of the Self. 252–268. Vol. R. Ed. (1969) ‘Sur les “Discours Sacrés” d’Aelius Aristide’. (1988) Philhellénisme et impérialisme. G. Hurley (New York). in DeLaine and Johnston. Borg. (1997a) ‘Self Writing’. Reprinted Hildesheim: 1963. 12 vol. E. (1983) ‘Jahres. — —. Mediter— raneo Antico 2:69–84. or. — —. A. ZPE 91:236–242. [Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker Bd.bibliography 301 Durry. A. (1964) Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt. P. I: L’Impero Mediter— raneo. — —. Gigli. (1979) ‘Per un’interpretazione politica del de officiis di Cicerone’. — —.S. Cultura e Scuola 61–62:214–224. P. Vol. F. La Repubblica Imperiale. Rabinow. (1996) Dionigi e la storia di Roma arcaica (Bari). Platon 49:188–206. 189–233 (Turin). Maritime Trade and Piracy in the Hellenistic — Aegean’. in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. Elenchos 11:77–78.K. (1998) ‘Elio Aristide e Asclepio. 82–107 (Athens). Garbarino.G. Rendiconti della Classe di Scienze morali. J. R. Ed. Uso y abuso de la tradición clasica. Gascó.E. Giannetto. in El — Pasado renacido. Bean. Ed. G. Journal of Early Christian Studies 8:511– 530. (1997) ‘Votives in the Shape of Human Body Parts: Shaping a Framework’. (1990) ‘Socrate nei Discorsi Sacri di Elio Aristide’. communication et philosophie politique (Grenoble). Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. storiche e filologiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei. (1990) ‘L’imperialismo romano’. Franco. G. (1992a) ‘Para una interpretacion historica de las declamaciones en tiempos de la segunda sofistica’. (1977) Rhodian Funerary Documents (Oxford). I. Essential — Works of Foucault 1954–1984. Frank. F. Gabba. E. (1977) ‘Stile e linguaggio onirico nei Discorsi sacri di Elio Aristide’. in Praktika tou E’ Diethnous Synedriou Hellenik¯ s e kai latinik¯ s Epigraphik¯ s. Gangloff. A. (1974) Recherches de poliorcétique grecque (Paris). REA 103:219–240. Dal Covolo and I. Gigante. 39–54 (Seville).M. Classe di scienze morali.W. Fuchs. Ed. un retore e il suo dio: salute del corpo e direzione spirituale’. Gasparro. (1954) The Rhodian Peraea and the Islands (Oxford). Y. E.. (2000) ‘Macrina’s Scar: Homeric Allusion and Heroic Identity in Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Macrina’.302 bibliography — —. Coarelli. Gauthier. Arethusa 36:235–254. e e e Geffcken. . P. (1984) ‘Les cités hellénistiques: épigraphie et histoire des institu¯ tions et des régimes politiques’. Georgoulaki. Fowler. ed. V. and G. and E. and F. Falque and F. Gibson. in Cultura e promozione umana. 2 vol. (1973) Roma e la filosofia greca dalle origini alla fine del 2. H. (Turin). 8 34:117–141. Garlan. Ath¯ na. C. — —. 123–143 (Troina). (Berlin). G. (1997) The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes (Aarhus). G. — —. E. (2001) ‘Economic Activity. Fraser. 223–251 (New York). Athenaeum 80:421–431. P. Fowler. in Storia di Roma 2. (1902) Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig).: raccolta di testi con introduzione e commento. Fraser. storiche e filologiche. (1905) The Works of Lucian of Samosata (Oxford). Gabba. (2003) ‘Pliny and the Art of (In)offensive Self-praise’. Memorie. 2nd ed. IX. C. (1992b) ‘Elio Aristides: historias griegas para tiempos romanos’.M. secolo a. (2006) Dion Chrysostome et les mythes. Hellénisme. H. 3–9/X/1982. (2005) ‘Elio Aristide e Smirne’. Ser. D. 19:347–584. La cura del corpo e dello spirito nell’antichità classica e nei primi secoli cristiani. Ed. — Gabrielsen. Clemente. ser. E. (1997b) ‘Technologies of the Self ’. Gascó. M. M. London. Luciano de Samosata. Sobre la muerte de Peregrino y Alejandro o el falso profeta (Madrid). M.K. and D. E. Gustafson.W. the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. A. F. (1991) The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature (Cambridge). (1999) Pindaric Quotations in Aelius Aristides. Gowing. (1997) ‘Inscripta in fronte: Penal Tattooing in Late Antiquity’. M. Goldhill. Gourevitch.. Gruen. (2001) Mythes et rhétorique: les exemples mythiques dans le discours politique de l’Athènes classique (Paris). A. Goldhill. médecine. Volume II: Morphology (Milan). Gotteland. É. Altertümer von Pergamon VIII 3 (Berlin). Inglebert. Littérature. Van Berchem. Habicht. in Ancient History Bulletin 5:135–144. M. in Porter. Thesis. (1976) Sculture di Rodi. J. 2 vol. Hommage à Claude Lepelley. (1962) Balaneutikè (Paris). (1981) A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Guerber. (1983) ‘Essai de diagnostic médical (somatique) de la maladie d’Aelius Aristide’. ed. Ed. van der Eijk. (2000) Staging Masculinity: the Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World (Ann Arbor).bibliography 303 Gignac. H. (1994) A Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean (Bologna).. (2001) ‘Mutilated Messengers: Body Language in Josephus’. (2002) ‘Le thème de la liberté des grecs et ses prolongements politiques sous le haut-empire’. [Annuario della Scuola Archaeologica di Atene 54]. 27–31 August 2002. E. 50–85 (Cambridge). (1984) The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. D. S.T. Ph. Fragmenta (Rome). C. S.S. . Gleason. 135–156 (Leiden). M. R. Gualandi. (1989) Elio Arístides. eds. Gkourogiannis. in Hippocrates in Context. Gourevitch. (1984) Le Triangle Hippocratique dans le Monde Gréco-Romain (Paris). Gostoli. (Berkeley and Los Angeles). Guillon. (1995) Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton).E. University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Ginouvès. Giner Soria. (1991) ‘Appian and Rhodian Libertas’. — —. (1999) ‘Truth Contests and Talking Corpses’. A. Guidoboni. T. Papers Read at the XIth International Hippocrates Colloquium. Ed. CA 16:79–105. 123–142 (Paris). Discursos sagrados. 287–306. P. G. Testimonia. S. Gunderson. (2005) ‘The Hippocratic Impact on Healing Cults: the Archaeological Evidence in Attica’. Gorrini. in Being — Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity. Ed.D. E. (1990) Terpander. M. ed. Gourevitch. (1969) Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Giovannini. Information psychiatrique 44:897–902. and D. — — —. société 5:83–90.C. in Idéologies et valeurs civiques dans le monde romain. (1987) Oppositions et résistances à l’Empire d’Auguste à Trajan (Vandœuvres-Geneva). (1968) ‘Le cas Aelius Aristide ou mémoire d’un hystérique au 2e siècle’. HSCP 101:207–266. Reprinted Hildesheim: 1967. 245–260 (Naples). [Istanbuler Mitteilungen. médecine. Reprinted Hildesheim: 1983. On Antecedent Causes (Cambridge).P.J. 2009) Dreams and Experience in Classical Antiquity (Cam— bridge. Hankinson. (1897) Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Caria. Trasformazioni (Turin). (1968) ‘Polybe et le tremblement de terre de Rhodes’. H. — —. JRS 93:18– — 34.). P. (1983) ‘La névrose d’Aelius Aristide’. Höfler. Halfmann. 2 vol. (2004) ‘Plutarch’s Political Philosophy: Peripatetic and Platonic’. Ancient Narrative 1:245–259. — —. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques I. (1876) Opuscula. City Government in Hellenistic and — Roman Asia Minor’.445–462 (Paris). Hidalgo de la Vega.V. [Hypomnemata. S. Haupt. (1998a) ‘The Roman Remodeling of the Asklepieion’.C. Conflits et rivalités entre cités d’Asie et de Bithynie à l’époque romaine (129 a. (1888) Quibus fontibus Aelius Aristides usus sit in declamatione quae inscribitur ΠΑΝΑΘΗΝΑΙΚ Σ (Augsburg). (2001) Städtebau und Bauherren im römischen Kleinasien: Ein Vergleich zwischen — Pergamon und Ephesos. (2006) ‘Les bêtises des Grecs’. (1981) Exercises spirituals et philosophie antique (Paris). Littérature. — —. Harrison. Jahrhunderts n. Ed. (1998) Galen. Heft 58] (Göttingen). in de Blois et al. Frederiksen. . Mass. M.J. Hoffmann. M. — Holleaux. Bibliothèque Tome II (‘Codices’ 84–105) (Paris).304 bibliography — —. (1998) ‘La teoria monarchica e il culto imperiale’. M.. Lo Cascio. W. A. New England Classical Journal 32:360–362. M. Head. 151–162. A. in Koester. — —. — Heller. Harris and E. (1935) Der Sarapishymnus des Ailios Aristeides [Tübinger Beiträge 27] (Tübingen). III: Una storia greca. société 5:91–114. in Noctes Campanae: — Studi di storia antica ed archeologia dell’Italia preromana e romana in memoria di Martin W. Henrichs. R. ed. (1899) Koische Forschungen und Funde (Leipzig).V. (1960) Photius. 63–76. Cos. Hershbell. AJP 124:81–105.C. J. (1979) War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327–70 B. in Koester. J. Herzog.J. (2003) ‘Pseudo-Dionysius Art of Rhetoric 8–11’. Reprinted Bologna: 1964. Heath. Chr. — —. A. (1998b) ‘Aelius Aristides and the Asklepieion’.. (1979) Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Hazard-Guillon. B. Harris. Rhodes (London). Originally published in REG (1923) 36:480–498. Haury.) (Bordeaux and Paris). (2003) ‘Roman Opinions about the Truthfulness of Dreams’. (2003) ‘Hieroi Logoi and Hierai Bibloi: The (Un)Written Margins of the Sacred in Ancient Greece’. (2005) ‘Review of Sviatoslav Dmitriev. C. R. 41–61. Henry. W.-235 p. A. (Leipzig).V. — —. Hadot. (2005) ‘Insomnia: The Content of Roman Dreams’. Beiheft 43] (Tübingen). in I Greci 2. (2004) Menander: A Rhetor in Context (Oxford). R. (Oxford). (forthcoming. ed. Aelius Aristides and Religious Autobiography’.. (2002) ‘Apuleius.C. Ed. B. in Written on the Body: The Tattoo in European — and American History. Holowchak. Kanzia. (1870–1871) Flavii Philostrati Opera auctiora. 13–21 (Berlin and New York). Jones. (1995) ‘Tiberius auf Rhodos: Rückzug oder Kalkül?’.M. de Jonge. in Rom und der Griechische Osten. 107–116. Ed. N. — — —. and M.2. J. Horsfall. Horstmanshoff. Caplan. eds. in Jewish and Christian .M. Stol. P. C.M. 325–342 (Leiden). (1981) ‘Le culte de l’Hercule romain au temps du haut empire’. R. H.H. Geburtstag. (2001) ‘Interpreting Dreams for Corrective Regimen: Diagnostic Dreams in Greco-Roman Medicine’. B. Jaczynowska. Schubert and K. Kayser.F. (1999) ‘Spas. 631–661 (Berlin and New York). H. Festscrift für Hatto H.P. (2004) ‘Multiple Identities in the Age of the Second Sophistic’. (1986) Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge. J. The Emergence of the Body in Ancient Greece (Princeton). (1998) ‘Rhodische Kolosse’. H. (1971) Plutarch and Rome (Oxford). JHS 99:26–48. 2 vol. CQ 40:514– — 522. (1982) ‘Self-Definition in the Asclepius Cult’. Forthcoming. Pohlenz. Ed. C. Hubbell. — — —. Dionysius and Aristides (New Haven). Martindale. — — —. (2000) ‘Stigma and Tattoo’. Archaeologischer Anzeiger. A. A. Mass. I (Cambridge).).. The Symptom and the Subject. — — —.L. — —. — —. Vol. JRS 56:61– 74. Jackson. (1977) Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus Book xvii (Leiden). — — —. M. Jones. ZPE 144:157–162. 1–15 (Princeton). 5 vol. (2008) ‘The Survival of the Sophists’. (2004) ‘Did the God Learn Medicine? Asclepius and Temple Medicine in Aelius Aristides’ Sacred Tales’. Zimmer. Kee. ANRW II. (2003) ‘Epigraphica vi–vii’. Brodersen. 497–452. A. (1978) The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge). Mass. Schmitt zum 65. W.M. (1913) The Influence of Isocrates on Cicero. (Leipzig). Morris. Jones. C. H.M. (1984) ‘Tarsus in the Amores Ascribed to Lucian’. C. — —.J. Hubert. Horstmanshoff and M. Waters and Hydrotherapy in the Roman World’.17. Bowersock. and J.bibliography 305 Holmes. 113–116 (Stuttgart). — —. GRBS 25:177–181. (1987) ‘Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Greco-Roman Antiquity’.). in — Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic. in Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine. C. (Leipzig). (1957) Plutarchi Moralia. — JRS 77:139–155. Journal of the History of Medicine and the Allied Sciences 56:382–399. 113–125 (Cambridge. in DeLaine and Johnston. (1966) ‘Towards a Chronology of Plutarch’s Works’.R. Jacob-Sonnabend.C. Borg. (1940) The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford).H. (1979) ‘Stesichorus at Bovillae?’. Ed. in East and West: Papers in Ancient — History Presented to Glen W. (1971) The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. — —.J. and G. (1990) ‘The Rhodian Oration Ascribed to Aelius Aristides’.F. P. — —. Mitteilungen des Deutschen — Archaeologischen Instituts. Ed. (2006) Greeks on Greekness. (2006) ‘The Origins of Medicine in the Second Century AD’.A. D. Kühnert.306 bibliography Self-Definition: Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World.D. Koester. Konstantinopoulos. G. de Ligt and H. Sanders. (1953) ‘Anaskaphikai ereunai eis t¯ n polin t¯ s Rodou. Riedel. (2003) Envy. J. and Religious Development. und 2.C. Literary Description. Pyrgoi t¯ s hell¯ nistik¯ s ochyr¯ se¯ s’. Kontis. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop of the International Network ‘Impact of Empire’ (Roman Empire. Kennedy. Jahrhundert. Singor Hemelrijk. G. Meyer and E. Ed. Praktika tis en — e e Athinais Archailogikis Etaireias. Konstan. (1939) ‘Parerga’.F. Gordesiani. J. (1954) ‘Anaskaphikai ereunai eis t¯ n polin t¯ s Rodou. (2007) ‘Narcissistic Fraud in the Ancient World: Lucian’s Account of Alexander of Abonuteichos and the Cult of Glycon’. — —.W. H.G. (2004) ‘Ammianus and the Great Tsunami’. (1963) ‘A archaia teiche t¯ s Rhodou’. (1952) ‘Anaskaphikai ereunai eis t¯ n polin t¯ s Rodou. in Prinzipat und Kultur im 1. Praktika e e tis en Athinais Archailogikis Etaireias. B. (1958) ‘Zum antiken Stadtbauplan von Rhodos’. C. Osborne. I. Konstan. (1973) Homer und die zweiten Sophistik (Uppsala). in Rethink— ing Revolutions Through Ancient Greece. 1– 149 (Cambridge). 29] (Cambridge). 246– 263 (Cambridge). Inducing. 275–287. eds.und Geschichtsverständnis in der Romrede des Aelius Aristides’.A. Kindstrand. Rutter. Two Rhetorical Treatises from the Hermogenic Corpus (Atlanta). 340–360.K. Klein. and R. S. I. Kokkinia. III’. — —. 200 B. Konstan. R. in Konstan and Rutter. 283–292 (Bonn). [PCPS Supplementary Vol. Ed. 39–58 (Amsterdam). Arguing: How to Govern (and Survive) a Greek Province’. 2003. E. D. 476). Kelly. and S. JRS 94:141–167. D. Archaeological Record.F. (2005) Invention and Method. S. 269–286. (2003) ‘Before Jealousy’. Vol. (1967) ‘Rhodiaka II. (1998) Hippocrates’ Woman (London). (2004) ‘Ruling. — —. c. 118–136 (London). — — —. 127–136. Saïd. — —. (i): Testimonia and Fragments. eds. V. Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 13:212–213. Goldhill and R. June 25–28. Archaiologokon Deltion 18:76–94. [Harvard Theological Studies 46] (Harrisburg). G. (1999) ‘Chronic Pain and the Creation of Narrative’. B. in Roman Rule and Civic Life: Local and Regional Perspectives. and N. 7–27. III. Athenische Abteilung 73:146–158.A. (1973) ‘Anaskaphai eis Rhodon’. (1988) Posidonius II : The Commentary. Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh). Klaffenbach. Praktika tis en Athinais Archailogikis Etai— reias. Praktika tis en — e e Athinais Archailogikis Etaireias. 115–128. Ancient Narrative 6:77– 99.–A.L.D. — e . IV’. (1995) ‘Zum Kultur. in Porter.. II’. Kidd. Kent. Leiden. 547–591. (1998) Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods. H. King. Ed. — —. ed. e e e o o Archaiologiki Ephemeris. N. D. 1. (2000) ‘Public Speech and Community in the Euboicus’. 2nd ed. Histoire de l’oraison funèbre dans la ‘cité classique’. (Oxford). G.M. 3–99 (Ber— lin). (1991) The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy (Ithaca). Ed. in Dio Chrysostom. (1996) Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et impériale (Paris). (1983) Rhodiaka I. D.E. 355–373 (Amsterdam 1972). The Art of Government in the Roman World (Oxford). 223–233 (Berlin). Lausberg. S.bibliography 307 Kontorini. M. Ed. Vol. 213–217 (Copenhagen). and Commentary — (Atlanta). Dietz and I. D. (1992) ‘Compositional Background of the Epidaurian Iamata’. — Leopardi. in The Shadow of Polybius. (1971) Le premier humanisme byzantin (Paris). (1884) ‘Observationes Palaeographicae’. Proceedings of the International Colloquium. in Archaeology in the Dodecanese. J. (1990) ‘The Meaning of λα ν. Dean Anderson. (1987) Luciani opera. E. Ed. (Paris). G. Variae. S. Bollansée. LiDonnici. (1995) Assemblee popolari e lotta politica nelle città dell’impero romano (Florence). — —. Lang. Ed.E. E. M. (Leiden).). F. 4 vol. av. A. P. 287–292 (Oxford). (1878) De vita et scriptis Aelii Aristidis commentaries. (1995) The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions: Text. MacLeod. 21–22 september 2001. . Ma. (1997) Empire of Honour. 43–80 (Halle). Zénon et Antisthène (XVI. Lemerle. (Louvain-La-Neuve and Providence). in Mélanges Graux (Paris). Ed. D. L.F. G. Labarre.R. 4. Lenz. AJP 113:25–41. J. V. (1972) ‘Socrates’ Body’. 14–20)’.D. Kromann.’ in Owls to Athens: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover. Cugnoni. Intertextuality as a Research Tool in Greek Historiography. New York and Paris). Ed. (1959) The Aristeides Prolegomena (Leiden). Leopold. Papachristodoulou. (1998) Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. Lewin. — —. Lendon.W. MacDowell. G. 50 and Imperial Consolations for Natural Catastrophes’. — —. Rivista di cultura classica e medio— evale 5:329–347. Loraux. A. Lenfant. 108–124 (Oxford). (1963) ‘Der Athenahymnos des Aristides’. in Opere inedite di Giacomo Leopardi. Swain. (1964b) ‘Der Herakleshymnos’ in Aristeidesstudien. Reprinted in Opuscula selecta. (1986) ‘Consolando per edicta: Cassiodorus. Maass. (1993 [1981]) L’invention d’Athènes. J. L. in Aristeidesstudien. Krüger. Leuven. J. Mass. (1964a) ‘Untersuchungen zu den Scholien’. Krell.W. Latomus 45:816–836. Craik. (2005) ‘Polybe et les ‘fragments’ des historiens de Rhodes. (1977) Cure and Cult in Ancient Corinth (Princeton). Translation. Kurke. Inscriptions inédites relatives à l’histoire et aux cultes de Rhodes au IIe et au Ier s. (1990) Oxyrhynchus in der Kaiserzeit: Studien zur Topographie und Literaturrezeption (Bern.-C. Orton and R. (1988) ‘The Greek Imperial Coinage from Cos and Rhodes’. 184–204 (Dudley. — —. Southern Journal of Philosophy 10:443–451. J. Schepens and J. H. Frankfurt. L. (2006) ‘The Greek City in the Roman Period’. L. Martin. Mnemosyne 18:57–63. 1993). in Rome. (1972) Les Rêves dans les ‘Discours Sacrés’ d’Aelius Aristide (Mons). — —. 10 (1988). Marsden. P. Moggi. E. coloniae and Provincial Governors under the Empire’. (1995) Isis Regina—Zeus Sarapis: Die grieschisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt (Stuttgart). F. Originally published in M. E. in Socrates from Antiquity to the Enlightenment. D. Mesk. (2003) ‘Inscriptions from Melli (Kocaaliler) in Pisidia’. (1983) ‘The Date and Purpose of the Fourth Kingship Oration’ CA 2:251–278. (1965) ‘Zu Aelius Aristides’ 33.B. in Rome. Migeotte. (2007) ‘The Socratic Corpus: Socrates and Physiognomy’. — and the East. the Rhodian “Libertas” and the Philoso- . — —. Papers of the Leeds — International Latin Seminar 6:297–375. — —. 313–335 (Chapel Hill). (1999) ‘Civitates liberae. Michenaud. REG 102:515–528. Merkelbach. (1969) Greek and Roman Artillery. McLean. M. and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge.5’. 2. G. R. Mitchell. Momigliano. A. (1909) ‘Des Aelius Aristides verlorene Rede gegen die Tänzer’.). and — the East. 65–85 (Aldershot).W. J. 31] (Hildesheim). V. — —. (1951) ‘Dio of Prusa. I (Pisa). Unrest. (2003) Guida della Grecia. J. A.R. (1988) Libanios: Discours II–X (Paris). and the East. 195– 228 (Chapel Hill). (2004a) ‘Government and Diplomacy in the Roman Empire during — the First Three Centuries’. Treason. L’Arcadia (Milan). and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford). J. the Greek World. Wiener Studien 29:59–74. Libro VIII. 106–135 (Chapel Hill). Historical Development (Oxford). (1993) Anatolia: Land. VIII (Hildesheim). 354–377. 63–75. the Greek World.308 bibliography MacMullen. (2002) Un Dialogo difficile: la Retorica in conflitto nei Discorsi Platonici di Elio Aristide (Hildesheim). Méridier. Vol. Miller. the Greek World. (1976) I sinecismi interstatali greci. — —. Millar. Ed. Marincola. R. III. Rede’. M. — —. M.M. (1997) Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge). Dione di Prusa nelle orazioni III. (1966) Enemies of the Roman Order.) The Ancient Greek City-State (Copenhagen. Mediterraneo Antico 2:95–113. Hansen (ed. (1931) Platon. (1996) Libanius and the Dancers. (1990) ‘The Kingship Orations of Dio Chrysostom’. — —. Mass. and J. II. Milazzo.H. Men. Osanna. II. Mensching. S. Anatolian Studies — 53:139–159. Originally published in International History Review. and P. Dierkens. in Rome.E. Originally published in JRS 71 (1981). — Moles. Œuvres completes (Paris). Trapp. J. (2004b) ‘The World of the Golden Ass’.L. — VII. (2007) Dimensione retorica e realtà politica. (1994) Dreams in Late Antiquity: Studies in the Imagination of a Culture (Princeton). 232–260. [Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien. (1989) ‘Démocratie et entretien du peuple à Rhodes d’après Strabon XIV. vol. Molloy.C. en disant l’inverse de ce qu’on veut. M. ed. 51–62 (Lyon). [Corpus Medicorum Graecorum V. S. Ed. Rome: 1975. (1935) ‘Jacob of Serugh’s Homilies on the Spectacles of the Theater’.D. Medical History 27:1–34. (1964) ‘The Library of Libanius’. (1965) Libanius’ Autobiography. Selected Works. (1954) The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford). G. ed.bibliography 309 phers. J. (1996) Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy (Cambridge). Morgan. Von VI. Ed. Socrates … The Performative Audacity of Isocrates’ Antidosis’. Ed. (1983) ‘The Seeds of Disease: an Explanation of Contagion and Infec— tion from the Greeks to the Renaissance’. (1989) ‘The Stranger’s Stratagem: Self-Disclosure and Self-Sufficiency in Greek Culture’. Yale University. (1969–1977) Libanius. — — —. (1966) Isocrates. (Cambridge. (1988) ‘L’autobiografia onirica di Elio Aristide’. Norden. 2 vol.. Mass. — in Isocrates and Civic Education. (1981) ‘The Interpretation of Prescriptive Dreams in Ancient . — — —.. G.8. Moretti. [Studi classici e orientali 8] (Pisa). (Cambridge. 173–190 (Bari). v. RhM 107:158–175. Most. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance. On Prognosis. Pouderon and J. Diss. P. V. Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic’. CP 48:20–23. — —.F. (2006) ‘Un discours figuré chez Héliodore. Oration I (London). — — —. fasc. Mass.W. H.). 2nd ed. Reprinted in Quinto Contributo alla storia del mondo antico. 8. 2 vol. G. Jahrhundert v. (Hildesheim). 966–975. L. 2nd ed. Wirszubski. (1992) Libanius: Autobiography and Selected Letters. Mass. — —. Guidorizzi. Norlin. [Atti dell’ Accademia nazionale dei Linei. Niebyl. in Il sogno in Grecia. (1992) La storiografia nell’ educazione antica (Pisa). JHS 109:114–133. (1959) I culti di Rodi. Nutton. (1964) Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. (1969) Venesection and the Concept of the Foreign Body: A Historical Study in the Traumatic Consequence of Humoral and Traumatic Concepts of Disease. B. — —. — —.R. I (Cambridge. Nussbaum. A. 2] (Rome). Peigney. Depew. Le Muséon 48:87–112.. on peut accomplir ce qu’on veut sans sembler dire l’inverse de ce qu’on veut” ’. (Leipzig and Berlin). (1953) ‘Philostratus and Libanius’. (2004) ‘I. Moss. Poulakos and D. 21–43 (Austin). (1957) Olympionikai: i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici. S. JRS 41:149–153. Norman. in Discours et débats dans l’ancien roman. Memorie ser.). “Comment. 8. (1979) Galen. R. A. Chr. (1909) Die Antike Kunstprosa. C.1] (Berlin). A. Montiglio. Nicosia. Ph.). Oberhelman. (2004) Ancient Medicine (London and New York). Musurillo. (2000) Silence in the Land of Logos (Princeton). Morelli. D. Nightingale. (1998) Political Dissent in Democratic Athens: Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule (Princeton). Nicolai. Vol. J. E. — Ober. (1994) The Therapy of Desire (Princeton). T. S. (2000) Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius (Liver— pool). Nauck. — — —. Review of C. (1996) ‘Rodi’. (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford). — —. Page. (Athens). and Narrative: Reading the Sacred Tales of Aelius Aristides’. (1988) ‘Theme. and J. Gotteland. Progymnasmata. (1947) ‘Two Sophists and Two Emperors’. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 36:416– 424. CP 42:17–20. (1992) ‘Culti e santuari di Rodi. Athenaeum 59:468–477. Formentin. Pack. V. ANRW II. Oudot. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 43:871–1003. in La Magna — Grecia e i grandi santuari della Madrepatria. (1989) Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscripitions and — Papyri. Bolognesi. Pédech. Patillon. (1992) ‘The “Self ” as Sufferer’. Dream. Ktêma 31:227–238. (1993a) La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romaine. D. E. R. (1997) Aelius Theon. (1981) Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge). M.37. (1971) ‘La géographie urbaine chez Strabon’.1. Nuovi dati e scoperte’. Parker. J. and G. 249–273 (Taranto). Le Panathénaïque d’Aelius Aris— tide ou l’histoire abolie’. Pearcy. Ceccoli. — —. (1981) ‘How Democratic was Hellenistic Rhodes?’. REA 106:247–261. — —. Pernot. (1995) The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian — Era (London). Ed. 2nd ed. Vol. — —. Harvard Theological Review 85:245–272. Perkins. 766–771 — (Rome). (2001). [Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 178] (Philadelphia). O’Neil. Vol. J. Patillon. eds. 4–8 ottobre 1981. S. Stazio and S. A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century After Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristides’. Roddaz. Atti del XXXI Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia. (2004) ‘Athènes la Périégèse de Denys d’Alexandrie ou la mutation d’une — image’. — —. Antiquité 137–138] (Paris). J. o e — —. ed.H. — —. (1994) Istoria tou Rodou. (1983) Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford).-M. — —. Techne (Paris). M. — —. J. I: Histoire et technique. in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica. A. Apo tous proïstorikous chronous e¯ s t¯ n ens¯ mat¯ s¯ t¯ s — o e o oe e d¯ dekan¯ sou. 253–270 (Bordeaux).L. in Fondements et crises du pouvoir. P. TAPA 118:377–391. Franchet d’Espèrey. Ed. — —. (Paris). ed. R. S.L. II Supplemento. (1953) ‘The Ruling Power. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 61:47–60. (2003) ‘Athènes divisée et réconciliée: le point de vue des orateurs de la seconde Sophistique sur les événements de 404–403’. (1993) ‘Dreams in Graeco-Roman Medicine’. Apsines. L.310 bibliography Greek Medicine’. — —.T. Ancient Society 2:234– 253. ed. (1989) Oi archaioi Rhodiakoi Demoi (Athens). (2006) ‘Au commencement était Athènes. (1993b) ‘Platon contre Platon: le problème de la rhétorique dans les — . II: Les valeurs [Études Augustiniennes. — Papachristodoulu. 121–156 — (Berlin and New York). Taranto. Oliver.. (1987) ‘The Diagnostic Dream in Ancient Medical Theory and Prac— tice’. L. P.bibliography 311 Discours platoniciens d’Aelius Aristide’. — —.K. (1956a) Les étudiants de Libanius (Paris). Mass. Sfameni Gasparro (Pisa). Trans. Fortifications urbaines et pra— tiques défensives’. (1997) Éloges grecs de Rome. (1991) ‘Le cas Aelius Aristide’. république des arts. Agricola. Philemonos-Tsopotou. — —. — —. — —. . M. — —. Petit. Ed. Peterson. Casabonne. Goulet. (2008). Atti Accademia Pontaniana 6:369–383. — Ed. — —. Mélanges offerts au professeur René Labrun. Hutton. — —. (1914) Tacitus. (2006) L’ombre du tigre. I. ‘Le identità religiose di Elio Aristide’. I. Ed. J. in Contre Platon I. W. Higgins (Washington). — — —. Ath¯ na Ypourgeio Politismou. Dialogus. 24–29 Okt¯ briou e o 1993. 29–40 [non vidi]. Piettre and F.). Recherches sur la réception de Démosthène (Naples). Petsalis-Diomidis. 209–234 (Rome). — in La cuisine et l’autel. Ed. (1999) ‘Parat¯ reseis st¯ n ochyr¯ se t¯ s archaia Roe e o e ¯ e e dou’. Georgoudi. ‘Truly beyond Wonders’. and M. (2004) ‘Rhodes à la fin du IVe siècle. Historia 5:479–509. (Göttingen). de l’Académie française (Geneva. M. REG 111:101–124. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la méditerranée ancienne. M. M. Diethnes Epist¯ moniko Synedrio. L. S. — —. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres (Paris). W. G. 315–338 (Paris).E. — —. (2007a) ‘Il non-detto della declamazione greco-romana: discorso figu— rato. Germania (Cambridge. (2003) ‘Le siege de Rhodes par Démétrios et “l’apogée” de la poliorcetique grecque. Schmidt. R. à partir de — l’œuvre d’Aelius Aristide’. 2008). (1948–1949) Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung. 358–366 (Paris). Forthcoming. (2005b) Rhetoric in Antiquity. 8: Declamation.’ REA 105:371–392. Mazoyer and O. — —. — — —. R. ‘Les faux-semblants de la rhétorique grecque’. Cahiers des études anciennes 42:31–54. (2002) ‘Les Discours Sacrés d’Aelius Aristide entre médecine. (2007b) ‘Aperçus sur le livre grec au iie siècle après J. Mélanges offerts à Marc Fumaroli. 212–239 (Louvain-la-Neuve and Paris). (2005a) ‘Le sacrifice dans la literature grecque de l’époque impériale’. — — —. Aelius)’. (1998) ‘Periautologia: problèmes et méthodes de l’éloge de soi-même dans — la tradition éthique et rhétorique gréco-romaine’. Forthcoming. Discours traduits et commentés (Paris). 1999. E pol¯ t¯ s Rodou apo t¯ n idrys¯ t¯ s mechri t¯ n katal¯ ps¯ e e e e e e apo tous Tourkous. in Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques. in Studia Anatolica et varia. Aelius Aristides and the Cult of Asklepios (Oxford). e Pigeaud. in République des — lettres. Pimouget Pédarros. Vol. religion et — rhétorique’. — —. Ed. Ed. 2 vol. (1994) ‘Aristide (P. (1956b) ‘Recherches sur la publication et la diffusion des discours de — Libanius’. A. Calboli Montefusco. Praktika. (2005c) ‘Histoire et rhétorique dans le traité de Lucien Sur la manière — d’écrire l’histoire’. in Il culto di Asclepio — nell’area mediterranea. 317–328 (Brepols).-C. in Rodos 2400 Chronia. Le Platonisme dévoilé. sottintesi e allusioni politiche’. I. Dixsaut. in Papers on Rhetoric. Pohlenz. Psychoanalystes 39:15–27. Rodos. Rome. — —. . L. (1971) Courants littéraires Grecs des IIe et IIe siècles après J. Rey-Coquais. (1993) ‘Parler de soi pour louer son dieu: le cas d’Aelius Aristide’. (1940) Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec (Paris). Pouderon. Quet. (1999) Constructions of the Classical Body (Ann Arbor). (1940) ‘Note su epigrafi di età imperiale I.654–670 (Amsterdam: 1969). (2002) ‘Éloge par Aelius Aristide des co-empereurs Marc Aurèle et — Lucius Vérus à l’issue de la guerre contre les Parthes’. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge). J. 60. Per una nuova datazione del Laur. (1890) The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London). — — —. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 23:39–84. — —. B. — —.551–588 (Amsterdam 1969).312 bibliography — —. Reardon. Reprinted in Opera Minora Selecta I. and Naples). Price. Forthcoming. (2006) ‘Ricerche sulla tradizione manoscritta di Elio Aristide. in Before — Sexuality: the Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World. 8’. (Paris). Hoffmann. Pugliese Carratelli. Reprinted in Opera Minora Selecta VI. in Baslez.-C. and Pernot.-H. 211–251. Ed. B. (Leipzig). L. — —. in La ‘crise’ de l’Empire romain de Marc Aurèle à Constantin: mutations. (2002) Orateurs et sophistes Grecs dans les inscriptions d’époque impériale (Paris). B. (1906) Scholia in Lucianum (Stuttgart). — Quet. (1972) Plutarchi Moralia. La Parola del Passato 4:154– — 171. Journal des savants. REG. W. J. (1966a) Documents de l’Asie Mineure méridionale [Hautes études du monde — gréco-romain 2] (Paris and Geneva). David Halperin et al. (1949) ‘Alessandro e la costituzione rodia’. — —. M. 75–150. REG — 79:733–770. (1990) ‘The Future of Dreams: From Freud to Artemidoros’. H. continuités. 254–260 (Genoa. — —. ed.-P. and W. (1958) Didyma II: Die Inschriften (Berlin).-C. 3–37]. (1985) ‘Daim¯ n et les mots de la même famille chez Aelius Aristide’. — Ramsey. Scriptorium 60:206–226. A. (1984) Form und Wandel des Machtdenkens der Athener bei Thukydides (Stuttgart).. — —. Puiggali. S. Quattrocelli. (1973) ‘The Anxious Pagan’. Apologia pro Christianis (Paris). Puech. — —. (1930) ‘Pantomimen im griechischen Orient’. Onori a Tiberio e ad Antonino Pio’. ed. (1973) ‘Inscriptions grecques d’Apamée’.R. Ed.. o C&M 36:123–126. Rengakos A. in Studi di antichità classiche offerti da colleghi e discepoli a Emanuele Ciaceri. — —. — Porter. M. Robert.F.H.)’.P. 3 vol. Echos du Monde Classique 17:81–93.I. Sieveking. (2006) ‘Appel d’Aelius Aristide à Marc Aurèle et Commode après la — déstruction de Smyrne (177/8 après J. — Rehm. [Originally published in Past and Present 113 (1986). ruptures.. 237–278 (Paris). Hermes 65:106–122.M. ‘Maxime Planude éditeur d’Aelius Aristide?’. (1984) Rituals and Power. Rabe. (1966b) ‘Inscriptions de l’Antiquité et du Bas-Empire à Corinthe’. (1992) Athenagoras. J. (1913) Hermogenis opera (Leipzig). G. 365–387 (Princeton). — —. in Konstan and Rutter. (1991) L’Orient romain: provinces et sociétés provinciales en Méditerranée orientale d’Auguste aux Sévères (Paris). in Studi ellenistici XII. N. (1967) ‘Une tête de femme sur les monnaies de Rhodes’. Ed. Schick. G. 211–267 (Pisa and Rome). Reprinted Hildesheim: 1964. Latomus 56:54–57. M. — —. The Orator’s Education. Rouse. (1999) ‘TO THE LAND OF ZEUS…: Patterns of Pilgrimage in Aelius — Aristides’. (1995) ‘Poetics of the Paraphthegma’. J. 193–204 (Oxford).A. (1997) Dissidence and Literature under Nero (London and New York).bibliography 313 — —. Virgilio. W. 2007). 1–5 (Cambridge. and the Civic Life of Asia Minor’. and N. Wilson. in Swain. (1999) ‘La vita politica in Asia Minore nei discorsi di Dione di Prusa’. in — Konstan and Saïd. 47–60. — — —. (2003) ‘Envy and Emulation in Isocrates’. (1995) L’Asie Mineure et l’Anatolie d’Alexandre à Dioclétien. in Ethics and Rhetoric: Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his Seventy-fifth Birthday. (1993) Political Dissidence under Nero (London and New York). (1975) ‘Das Grabmal des Pantomimen Krispos in Herakleia Pontike’. J. E. — —. 6–27. 53–92. (1910) Sprichwörter und sprichwörtliche Redensarten bei Libanios (Tübingen). (2000) ‘Dio. magistrats monétaries et géographie. Ed. Stanford Journal of Archaeology 2. Rudich. Saïd. 199–219 (Oxford). D. in Comptes rendus de l’Académie des — Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. — — —. — —. (1902) Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge). Mass. Sahin. J. (1997) ‘ Ρ μη= μη’. — Rutherford.stanford. Greece and Rome 15:130–146.G. (1970) Polibio. S. (1968) ‘On Reading Plutarch’s Moralia’. Schmid. Ed. ¸ ZPE 18:293–297. (1998) Canons of Style in the Antonine Age: Idea-Theory in its Literary Context — (Oxford). (1887–1897) Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern.).-C. Rynearson. — —. S. — Russell. — —. (1990) ‘Aristides and the Prose Hymn’. — Russell. in Antonine Literature. D.H. Aevum Antiquum 12:133–148. Von Dionysios von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (Stuttgart). 247– 266. http://www. Innes et al. — —. .pdf. B. — Salzmann. Storie I–III (Milan). — —.— C. Types. Rochette.D.edu/dept/ archeology/journal/newdraft/2003_Journal/rynearson/paper. B. (Geneva and Paris). C. (1970) ‘Deux concours grecs à Rome’.. (2001) Quintilian. (Paris). in Monnaies — grecques. I. IVe siècle av. Reprinted in Choix d’Écrits (Paris. 217– 234. légendes. Rome./IIIe siècle ap. (2003) ‘Constructing and Deconstructing the Body in the Cult of Asklepios’. (1981) Menander Rhetor (Oxford). Sartre. Rougé. V. W. (2006) ‘The Rewriting of the Past: from Isocrates to Aelius Aristides’. D. 7–14. Salmeri. — —. (1966) Recherches sur l’organisation du commerce maritime en Méditerranée sous l’empire romain (Paris). (1983) Greek Declamation (Cambridge). Strasburger. Vöhler and M. Steiner. Power. (1994) Singers. von Staden. M. Schröder. T. profeti. Stadter.C. 33–82 (Bonn). in de Blois et al. Schubart. Greece and Rome 17:100–104. RhM 130:350– 356. Stertz. Van der Stockt. (2004) ‘Plutarch: Diplomat for Delphi?’.H. I. . B. 71–92 (Stuttgart). in Mysische Studien Asia Minor Studien 1. D. 2 vol. Seidensticker. Museum Helveticum 29:177–200. B. (1957) Rom und Rhodos. Supplément. Sheppard. (2002) Oracoli. Ed. and L. S. (2007) ‘Sylloge Simonidea’. and E. Heroes. Ed. 19–31. (2007) ‘Purity. Schmitz. (1853–1856) Rhetores Graeci. 112–128 (Leiden). — —. (1986) ‘Le déguisement de l’intention dans la rhétorique grecque’.) (Leuven).. in Geschichtsschrei— bung und politischer Wandel im 3. H.D. H. Snell. P. Ktema 11:257–272.2. (1996) ‘Body. (1972) ‘Aelius Aristides und Diogenes von Babylon: Zur Geschichte des rednerischen Ideals’.R. — —. Secall. Geschichte ihrer politischen Beziehungen seit der ersten Berührung bis zum Aufgehen des Inselstaates im römischen Weltreich (Munich). (Leipzig). A. and Gods in the Odyssey (Ithaca). Bing and J. Zimmermann. E. C. von Spengel. M. B. T. ANRW II. Ed. L. (1990) ‘Historisch-archäologische Untersuchungen zum Hadrianstempel von Kyzikos’. (1984–1986) ‘Homonoia in the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire’. (1918) Einführung in die Papyruskunde (Berlin). Sfameni Gasparro. and H. in Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Sokolowski. eds. Schulz. Sider. (1997) Bildung und Macht. and Roman Power in the Time of Trajan (98–117 A. Smid. (2002) Sage and Emperor: Plutarch. (1984) ‘Aelius Aristides’ Political Ideas’. 257–277. W. Identity: The Passions of the Martyrs’. Segal. 21–51 (Berlin). Winter. 163–173. in de Blois et al. ed. 1248–1270 (Berlin and New York). G. Chr. n. (1994) The Tyrant’s Writ: Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient Greece (Princeton). (1994) ‘Anatomy as Rhetoric: Galen on Dissection and Persuasion’. in — Katharsiskonzeptionen vor Aristoteles. (2004) ‘Presencia de las ideas políticas de Aristóteles en Plutarcho’.314 bibliography Schmitt. Ancient Society 15–17:229–252. (1999) ‘Performing History in the Second Sophistic’. [Historia Einzelschriften 127]. (1970) ‘Tsunamis in Greek Literature’. (1987) ‘Das Odysseusbild des Ailios Aristides’.34.C.. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 50:47–66. Bruss.O. Zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweiten Sophistik in der Griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit (Munich). eds. sibille. Ed. H. JRS 55:40–53. Maehler. — —. P.. F. Journal of Early Christian Studies 4:269–312. H. 3 vol. A. Sohlberg.D. Purification and Katharsis in Hippocratic Medicine’. (1965) ‘Poseidonios on Problems of the Roman Empire’. Schwertheim. Jh. D. Greek — Intellectuals. (Paris). D. Shaw. Schouler.R. Rivelazione e salvezza nel mondo antico (Rome). (1987–1989) Pindari carmina cum fragmentis. (Leipzig). (1962) Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Social and Technical Conditions for Scientific Discovery and Technical Invention. (1996) Hellenism and Empire (Oxford). W.B. Thornton. 183–196 (Bloomington). Edwards. — —. J. l’akriton plethos e la provincializzazione della Licia nel — monumento di Patara’.C.bibliography 315 Strasser. (1993) Mimesis and Alterity. and Philosophy (Oxford). Letters. . iii 15:867– 887. — —. Taussig. (1997) ‘Introduction’.-Y.L. (2004) Giacomo Leopardi: Oratori del secondo secolo (Florence). Y. S. S. in Scientific Change: Historical Studies in the Intellectual. — — —. (2005) G.. From Antiquity to the Present. 325–346 (Oxford). Temkin. 3–50. — —. Radermacher. Pomeroy. — 647–662 (Oxford). J. H. C. S. — —. Mediterraneo Antico 2:497–538. — —. Edwards. G. 1– 37 (Oxford). A. in de Blois et al. Trapp. 2 (Leipzig). 85–96 (New York). D. (1991b) ‘Titus et Berenice: A Tacitean Fragment’. Leopardi. in Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek — and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire. and L. (1991) ‘Plutarch. (2004) ‘Sophists and Emperors: The Case of Libanius. — Too. — —. Theiler. Ed. Swain. (2000) ‘Reception and Interpretation’. (1963) ‘The Scientific Approach to Disease: Specific Entity and Individual Sickness’. (1995) The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text. Ed. (1904) Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant. (1985) ‘Terremoti e società romana: problemi di mentalità e uso delle informazioni’. 355–400 (Oxford). S. Mediterraneo Antico 7:247–286. R. in Plutarch’s Advice to Bride and — Groom and A Consolation to his Wife. — —. Die Fragmente. Brakke et al. in Roman Papers IV. Ed. M. (1998) Platons Menexenos (Stuttgart and Leipzig). Usener. (1988) ‘The Proconsuls of Asia under Antoninus Pius’. Tyche 19:175–212. Trapp. (2005) ‘From Master of Wisdom to Spiritual Master’. in Roman Papers VII. (2000) Dio Chrysostom: Politics. (1982) Poseidonios. Tsitsiridis. Swain and M. (1999) ‘Plutarch’s Moral Program’. — — —. Originally published in ZPE 51 (1983) 271–290. 189–200. in Religion and the Self in Antiquity. (2001) ‘Gli aristoi. M. — —. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa ser. Power. Historia 40:318–330. Stroumsa. Mediterraneo Antico 4:427–446.. A Particular History of the Senses (New York). ed. 6. (1994) Maximus Tyrius Dissertationes (Stuttgart and Leipzig).. Ed. O. (1999) ‘Una città e due regine: Cizico fra gli Attalidi e i Giulio Claudi’.O. (Berlin and New York). 2 vol. Originally published in ZPE 65 (1986) 1–24. Hadrian. (1991a) ‘More Narbonensian Senators’. (2004) ‘Statesmanship in a Minor Key?’. G. ed. ed. Crombie. (2005) ‘Pistoi symmachoi. (2004) ‘Inscriptions grecques et latines en l’honneur de pantomimes’. Swain and M. 209–231 — (Oxford).. Ed. Tommasi Moreschini. Traina. — —. Retori del secolo II (Colle Val d’Elsa). in Swain. 629–647 (New York). S. — Syme. Versioni locali e versione imperiale della provin— cializzazione della Licia’.’ in Approaching — Late Antiquity: The Transformation from Early to Late Empire. and Delphi’. M. Pedagogy (Cambridge). in Roman Papers VI. J. Diss. — —. Cornelius Fronto (Leiden). — —. — — —. van Straten. and Worship: Aspects of Religious — Mentality in the Ancient World. v.-M. P. (1976) ‘Daikrates’ Dream. Jhdt. West.G. A. Ed. (1995) Ancient Medicine in its Socio-Cultural Context. L. (2005) L’Empire gréco-romain (Paris).W. E. — Villard. R. Versnel. . Euphrosyne 33:325–339. II (Leipzig).. in Faith. JRS 55:1–16. (1957–1979) A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Fragmenta (Amsterdam). bis zum 4.. Jhdt. Walbank. Das ausgewöhnliche Normale. Ed. and Some Other kat’onar Dedications’. F. Schachter. C. Weiss. (1998) Literary Turns: The Representation of Conversion in Aelius Aristides’ Hieroi Logoi and Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. Whitmarsh. H. (1999) ‘L’identité grecque devant Rome et l’Empereur’. (1997) Erdbeben. (1979) Aspects of Death in Greek Art and Poetry (Berkeley and Los Angeles). R. van der Eijk. 93–111. n. Too. (2005) ‘Réminiscences de Pindare dans l’Hymne à Sarapis d’Aelius Aristide (Or. Ed. XLV)’. — Waldherr. Vassilaki. F. P. (2006) City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley and Los Angeles).. Y. (1999) A Commentary on the Letters of M. Veyne. P. Webb. Giordano. (1972) Arethae Archiepiscopi Caesariensis scripta minora. Zur Rezeption seismischer Aktivitäten in literarischen Quellen vom 4.H.T. (Oxford). REG 112:510– 567. G. in L’idea di Roma nella cultura antica. L. M. 305–312 (Naples). Hope. in L’Eau. — Ed. 2nd ed. Westerink.D. (2001) Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation (Oxford). (1972) Polybius (Berkeley and Los Angeles). — —.S.-U. 41–60 (Paris). Bulletin antieke beschaving 51:1–38. Vol.316 bibliography van den Hout. (1995) Libanios und Julian (Munich). 3 vol. Watts. (1992) ‘Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries’. 2 vol. (2001) Rhodische Traditionen in der hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung (Frank— furt). (2001) ‘The Progymnasmata as Practice’. 247–284 (Geneva). A Votive Relief from Kos. Chr. Atti del Convegno di Studi (Salerno 14–16 ottobre 1996). Yale University. Vermeule.L.L. — — —. — —. H. (2006) ‘The Sincerest Form of Imitation: Plutarch on Flattery’. (Oxford). (2005) The Second Sophistic (Oxford). ed. (2001) ‘Armonia e taxis nell’Encomio a Roma di Elio Aristide’. E. Ginouvès. Ed. (1989) Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum Cantati. (1981) ‘Gifts for the Gods’. F. eds. in — Konstan and Said. T. la Santé et la maladie dans le monde grec. — —.P.G. 65–151 (Leiden).. Chr. Volpe. (Amsterdam and Atlanta). et al. — —. 289–316 (Leiden). in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Ph. (1994) ‘Le Bain dans la médecine hippocratique’. Voigt. [Geographica Historica 9] (Stuttgart). in Le Sanctuaire grec. E. ed. (1971) Sappho et Alcaeus. M. (1965) ‘Political Morality and the Friends of Scipio’. Wiemer. 2 vol. E. N. Jh. F. 185– 209 (Amsterdam).bibliography 317 — —. in Fortificationes antiquae. Dölger and H. Demosthenes 1–2’. Chr. Wright. (1992) ‘Philon of Byzantion and the Hellenistic Fortifications of Rhodes’. Williams. Chr.D. (1921) Philostratus and Eunapius. Untersuchungen über griechische Lyriker (Berlin). Yegül. Ed. Wilson. Wissmann. in Geschichtsschreibung und politischer Wandel im 3. E. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des hellenistis— chen Rhodos [Klio. Wycherley. W. The Cambridge Classical Journal 52:102–127. van de Maele and J. n. n. München 1958. Jh. Winter. (2006) ‘King of his Castle: Plutarch. 671–678 (Munich). (1960) ‘Sulla biblioteca dell’Arcivescovo Areta di Cesarea (IX–X secolo)’.). Philologus 143:135–147.M. Petzold. F. in Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. M. (2006) ‘Graeco-Roman Seismology and Seneca on Earthquakes in Naturales Quaestiones’. F.C.G. 755–758 (Princeton). Beck. bis zum frühen 3. Mass. (1976) ‘Rhodos’. Zadorojnyi. Handel und Piraterie. Stillwell. (2002) Krieg. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorf. E. Fossey.-E. (1925) ‘Der Rhetor Aristeides’. (1913) Sappho und Simonides. Zimmermann. Ed. 17–56 (Stuttgart). J. U. (1999) ‘Zur Rezeption des “Protagoras-Mythos” durch Aelius Aristides’.E. Ed. A. A. Zardini.-G.’. R. The Lives of the Sophists (Cambridge. (1999) ‘Enkomion und Historiographie: Entwicklungslinien der kaiserzeitlichen Geschichtsschreibung vom 1. in Akten des XI. (1983) Scholars of Byzantium (London). G. Internationalen Byzantinistenkongresses. Zimmermann M. Ed. . Kolloquium zu Ehren von K. Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der — Wissenschaften 28:333–353. — —. Beiheft 6] (Berlin). JRS 96:126–146. (1992) Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity (New York). . chapter VI passim. humour(lessness) of. use of concept ‘barbarian’. 269–270. and sacrifice. 131. 86–98. 163–166. 191–193 Oration II: 16. 93. 169–171. Chapter IV passim. religiosity of. 138. Sacred Tales): 127. 129. ‘figured speech’ in. 100–101. 203–216 Oration XXVII: 131–150 Oration XXVIII: 18–21. and Old Comedy. 179. and myths. 246. popularity of. and contemporary medicine. 5. 277–278. 4. 261. 164. 261. 84– 85. 82–85. 84. 273 Oration III: 16 Oration IV: 186–187 Oration V: 195–196 Orations XI–XV: 58 Oration XVI: 1–3. 130. 83. 178–180. 141. 267–268. 291– 292. 266– 267. 129–130. 1 Aelius Aristides. and the Roman Empire. 261–262. 280–281. 90. 200–201. 106– 107. 91. compares self with Odysseus. 272. self-praise by. 273 Oration XXXVI: 141 Oration XXXVII: 255 Oration XL: 17 Oration XLII: 107 Oration XLV: 16 Orations XLVII–LII (Hieroi Logoi. and the body. 207. 199– 201. 82. 135– 140 Oration XLVII: 81. 178–185. 104–105. 111–112. 264. ekphrasis by. Chapter VII passim. 187. 47–48. and oratory. 199. and bathing. 139. 287–288 Oration XLVIII: 87–88. 84–86. 118. 107–108. 136–137. 293. 185– 197. 263. 288 . ‘hypochondria’ of. 188–190.INDEX Achilles. 123– 127. 204. portraits of. 110– 112. 127– 128. 5. 291–292. 43–44. 142– 143. 165–167. 131–132. 204–205. 104–106. and the pantomimes. 123– 126. and landscape. 47–48. 93. 131. 279. as teacher of rhetoric. 275– 277 Oration I: 31–49. Chapter III passim. 255 Oration XXIX: 275 Oration XXX: 276–277 Oration XXXI: 277 Oration XXXIII: 116. 119. 109–113. 145. his journeys. 289. Greek identity of. 160–167. 16 Oration XXIII: 107 Oration XXIV: 238–248 Oration XXV: 218–237 Oration XXVI: 2–3. 120–121. 281–293. 279 Oration XXXIV: 60. and ‘immunity’. 149–150. 160–163. 178–201. 98. 31–49. 275–276. 182– 185. 4–5. 2. 112. sexuality of. 140. 45–46. 279. 144. 208– 210. and ‘defilement’. 136–137. 132–135. 273. 109–111. 3. 141. and Attic Greek. 150. Stoic influence on. 138. and regeneration. 164. detachment from civic life. 95. 139. 66. 187. 103. 3–4. and Byzantine authors. chapter VI passim. and divine inspiration. 292. 34. 2. 104–105. 131. 123. conceit of. and Christians. 135–137. dreams of. 94–95. 116–121. 75. and the historians. 203–216. 4. 128. 89–91. 193–195. narcissism of. 97–98. 271. 130. 276. 56. 219 Dio of Prusa.K. 5 L. 139.. 90–91.. 232. 125–126 Demetrius Poliorcetes. 119–123. 122. 3. 259 Asclepius. 14 Antonine plague. 279–293 Ariphron. alousia Boulanger. 288. 253 Gangloff. 4–5 ‘figured speech’. 281 Ferrary.L. 226–227 Demosthenes. 208.. 177. 140–141. D. 48 dreams. 94 Oration XLIX: 106. 108. 122 Christian rampages. 3 Freud. 60–61. 51 Gregory Nazianzenus. and see pantomimes death. 255. 131. 135–138.. G. 100 Hadrian of Tyre. 280. 280 Archilochus. 122 Apsines. 171. 154. 103 Eunapius. 137. 293 Dierkens. 15 Aristophanes. 292 Athenaeus. 264–265.. 101–104. 200. 240. 9 Gotteland.. 228.. 262 . 121–122: and see Aelius Aristides. 261 Aristotle. 122 Asclepieion at Pergamum. 271.. 183–184. 154. 2. 183 Bowie. 81–82. 15 Arethas. and see Aelius Aristides dunamis (power). Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus. 215.. 293 bathing. 91. 218. 247 Claudius Aristocles.320 index Commodus. A.. R. 210 Dionysius Periegetes. 125. 131–138 Damianus of Ephesus. M.W.. 165. 12 ‘barbarians’. 2.. 185. 164. 185–188. 98–99. 245–246 Diodorus Siculus. 293 Bowersock. 218–219. 132. 12–14. 178 Alexander of Seleuceia. 226. A. 10 Alcman. 166–167. 258–260. 284–285 Celsus. 130 Ammianus Marcellinus. 13. 70 Cicero. 51. 209–210. 89 Fronto.. 242. 269. 128. C. 209. 3. 161. 257 consolation orations.. 235 Anacreon. 269–270 Alcaeus.M. 220. 235– 236 Cribiore. 262 Cyzicus. 106. 290 Oration L: 93. 2 Byzantine Renaissance. 118 Dindorf. 51 Gellius. 280. 120–121. A. 76. 92. 2. and see Aelius Aristides Foerster. S. 9. 120. 181 dancing. 96 Bakhtin. 256 alousia (abstention from bathing). 93. 106–107. 87. 117. 11–12. 10–11 Alexander of Cotiaeum. 47 Epidaurian miracle tablets. F. S. 228–229. 126 Apollonius of Tyana. 280 Thersites (lost): 264–265 agonistic culture. J. 131.. G. 86. 288 Oration LI: 96–97. 153 Basil of Caesarea. 260. 181. 13–14. R. 73–74. 3 Franco. 229–230 Gkourogiannis. 212. 293 Gregory of Nyssa. 237 Galen. E. 200. J. 208 Fields. 211. 89. 95. 264 Fontanella. T. 72 Helen... 85–86. 246 Artemidorus Daldianus. 246–247 Dionysius of Halicarnassus.-L. 34–37. 121. 108. Ti.. 42 Philostratus. 230. 219 Julian. pantomime. C. Aristides and. 261 Menander Rhetor. 118 mixed constitutions. 65. 186. 218–219. 76 Herodotus. 281. 211–212. 51–52.index Henry. 242 Pax Romana. 48. 16–18. 230 Leopardi. 185.P. 146–147. 246 poets. 73–74. 177. 4. 161. 268–269 Panaetius. 63. 276. 76–77. 253–258. 218. B. 235 laudes urbium. 16. 66 Iulius Apolaustus. 203–216. 208–210. 159. 86. 91. 291 Pseudo-Dionysus of Halicarnassus. R. 56. 81–82. 280 Michenaud. 275 homonoia. 3.. 15. 194. 226–228. 4 Homer. 38. 33. 254–255 Heracles myth. 12. 124. 237. 188. 172. L.. 232 Pack. 266. 21. 288 Libanius. 226 Pliny the Younger. Plutarch and. B. 221.. 14–15 Menander. 263– 278. 194. 204–207 philanthropia. 54. 72–73 parrhêsia. 168–170. 276 Photios. 268–269. 44. 126.. 280 local autonomy. 125. 122–123. 2.. 280 Lucian. 159– 160 imitation. concern about. 122. 232. 245. 261 Posidonius. 96–97 Himerius. 197 Herodian. L. 1. 133–134 Prometheus myth. 200. 244 Keil. 51–57 national character. 242 Herzog. 3. 214–215 Pearcy.. 233 Plutarch. 169. 222. R. 210. 94. 247 muthos. 248–249 Longinus. 284 Phrynichos. 152–155. 230. 40 Neritus. 286–287 luxury. 65–67 Psellus.. 33. 47. 122. 193–194. 146–147. 246.. 9. 171–172. 265. 59.. 57–64 Hermogenes.. 197 . R. 5. 125 Marcus Aurelius. G. 169. 271. 152– 160. 10. Chapter I passim Polybius. 49. 247 Prokonnesos. 159–160. 181. 244–246. 97 periautologia. 236. 102 Isocrates. Ti. 213–214 Pindar. A. 233 hieroscopy. G. 228. 17.. 191. 280 Holmes. 276 Maximum Planudes. 258. 155–160. 260. 271 321 Odysseus. 81–82. among Greek elites. 36–37. 74–75 Iulius Iulianus.. 293 Maximus of Tyre. 284–285 Pliny the Elder. 92. 256–257. 186. 262 Plato. 160–167 Pericles. 70 kairos. 280 Jones. archaic. 216 Persian Empire. 253–262 phthonos (envy). 12. 162 Pausanias the periegete. 129. 179–182. 34. 186. 267 Imouthes-Asclepius. 200. Chapter IV passim Paris the pantomime. in public life. 247 pantomimes. 135. 44–45 Pernot. 108 Norman. 211. 215. 262 John Chrysostom. 69–74. 259–260. F. 112 Oracula Sibyllina. 322 Quattrocelli.. E. 11. 260 Seneca the Elder. 197. 129–130 Sophocles. and see Aelius Aristides Rutherford. 229. 153.. W. 226.. 16 Satyrus. 40. 194.. 9 Sparta. I. 10. 118 Wilson. L. 14. 14. 20. 11. 195. 5 Synesius. 186 Rabe. 73–74 Vergil.. 215–216. 239 Theodorus Metochites. 106 Schmid. 20–21. C. H. 71–72. 135 Vologeses IV. 66 . 261 Xenophon of Ephesus. 281 Theodotus. 198. 228 Rome. 20 Simonides. 75–77 Stesichorus. 15 Strabo. 230 Watts. 246 index Swain. L. 169 Said. 104 Thucydides. 21 Solon. 15. 284 Wissmann. S. 76.. S. 2 Sappho.. L. 74. 13. D. 14. 48. 112 Terpander.. 98. J. 14. A.... 247 Telesphorus. 73. 208 Verus. 276 Weiss.. 281 Tacitus. 189–190. N. 219 Sedatus of Nicaea. 18–19.. 286 Rhodes. 218–249 Robert. 239 Socrates. 31–49. 179–180 Xenophon. 186 Sider.G. 109 Tennyson. 124.. 5 Quintilian. 261 tragedy. 13. Its subjects are the following: Greek and Latin literature. 1994. AUBERT. 1986. S.C. Business Managers in Ancient Rome.A. A. R. J. ISBN 90 04 05793 5 8. R. COHEN. ISBN 90 04 11275 1 24. V. (ed.S. Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai. WOOD. Roueché. Greek and Roman history.V. S. Platonica. Theories of Interpretation of the Later Neoplatonists. T. The Cult of Silvanus. 1976. RIGINOS. D. HERRIN (eds. ISBN 90 04 05957 1 10. ISBN 90 04 09532 2 20.D. Meaning and Interpretation. ISBN 90 04 10095 4 18. ISBN 90 04 07010 9 11. 235). ISBN 90 04 04489 2 3. Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. ISBN 90 04 08965 9 17. ISBN 90 04 04490 6 5. Roman Portrait Sculpture 217-260 A.D. A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic. Law and Family in the Imperial Army. The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings of Plato. The De Excidio of Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date. P. ISBN 90 04 07862 2 15. The Evidence of the Delos Fragments. Text and Translation. & W. Josephus in Galilee and Rome. The Transformation of an Artistic Tradition.Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition publishes monographs by members of the Columbia University faculty and by former Columbia students. In conjunction with Al. 1979.A. R.D. 1994. 1976. Georg of Trebizond.-A. 1985. Reprint 1994. S. 1979.J. The Literary Microcosm. 1987. BAGNALL.F. J. .D. ISBN 90 04 08512 2 16. J. ISBN 90 04 04565 1 4. 2001 ISBN 90 04 12155 2 . Cameron. S. R. SCHWARTZ. The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. 1984. MONFASANI. Hellenistic Painting Techniques.). 1992. Introduction. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.).L. Translation and Commentary. COULTER. BARTMAN. SACKS. ancient philosophy.S. 235). Arthur Schiller. Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism. . The Traditional Phrase in Homer. 1.D. 250. ISBN 90 04 07282 9 13. TARÁN. A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV.E.D. SCHEIN. BROWN. KNOX. ISBN 90 04 05922 9 9. Kings and Colonists. DORCEY. Josephus and Judaean Politics. A.C. Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature. The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram. Renaissance and modern manifestations.L.D. Two Studies in Form. PHANG. E. CAMERON.-J. HARRIS (eds. ISBN 90 04 05949 0 7. R. 1030-1287 with Prolegomena. 1978. Ironia. 1986. ISBN 90 04 07159 8 12. 1990. ISBN 90 04 10038 5 22. J.S. ISBN 90 04 05395 6 6. BAGNALL. O’SULLIVAN. ISBN 90 04 09230 7 19. classical archaeology.J. The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 B. 1987.C. Medieval and Renaissance Ideas about Irony. Plato and Greek Painting. 200 B. ISBN 90 04 07568 2 14. The Iambic Trimeter in Aeschylus and Sophocles. ISBN 90 04 09601 9 21. and the classical tradition in its medieval. S.V.P. ISBN 90 04 10177 2 23. R. 1976. A Study in Metrical Form. His Vita and Development as a Historian.A. BRUNO. 1978. HANKINS. J. E. Plato in the Italian Renaissance. BILLOWS. 1999.). A Social and Economic Study of Institores. Cormack and Ch. & J. 1992. KEULS. S. ISBN 90 04 04370 5 2. ROTH. Lucretius on Love and Sex. 1990. 1979. A Study in Roman Folk Religion. ISBN 978 90 04 16322 5 32. ISBN 978 90 04 16037 8 31. 2005. CICCOLELLA. RUFFINI (eds. (ed. HOLMES (eds. & G. & B. ISBN 90 04 14717 9 28. VOLK. ISBN-10: 90 04 15078 1. F. Seeing Seneca Whole. Donati Graeci. Proceedings of the Conference sponsored by The Center for the Ancient Mediterranean at Columbia University. MARCONI. C. ISBN 90 04 14105 7 27.V. HARRIS.). Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece. Roman Villas in Central Italy. T.). HARRIS. Learning Greek in the Renaissance. 2005. ISBN 978 90 04 17204 3 www.). Money in the Late Roman Republic. ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15078 2 29. Poetry and Politics. WAYNE STOREY (eds. HOLLANDER. WILLIAMS (eds.25. 2007. A. The Spread of Christianity in the First Four Centuries.). 2008. Aelius Aristides between Greece.brill.B.V. W. 2006.V. 23–24 March 2002. Greek Vases: Images. ISBN 978 90 04 16352 2 33. D. Perspectives on Philosophy. 2004. 2007.nl/csct . & H. & G. Rome. K. Petrarch and the Textual Origins of Interpretation. Contexts and Controversies. (ed. BAROLINI.). W.).D. MARZANO. ISBN 90 04 13802 1 26. A Social and Economic History. HARRIS. ISBN 978 90 04 15649 4 30. and the Gods. Essays in Explanation. 2008. W. 2007.