INTRODUCTION

wv. lIARRrs

Aelius Aristides' Embassy Speech to Achilles (Oration XVI) seems at firstreading a ham-fisted piece of work. It takes the form of a speech aimedat assuaging the wrath of Achilles with Agamemnon, like the speechesthat Homer gives to Odysseus, Phoenix and Ajax in Iliad IX. I Butunlike the clever speeches of Odysseus and Phoenix, it would have beenmuch more likely to inflame Achilles than win him over: 'you seem tohate your fellow-countrymen', says the fictitious orator, 'and fear battletoo' (sect. 6). Aristides, however, was not attempting to put himself inthe place of a Bronze-Age prince or an archaic poet-though he wasattempting as so often to live in the past and to take his audience therewith him-, but to demonstrate with maximum cleverness the lack oflogic, from his own point of view; in Achilles' behaviour; and in this aimhe more or less succeeded. The subtle understanding of furious angerthat was demonstrated by Aristides' contemporary Galen was not thesophist's forte, but it was not his interest either.

The Embassy Speech to Achilles can serve rather well as an introductionto some of the investigations that are carried forward in this book. Inthe first place, it shows Aristides in his literary context. The speechdisplays of course an intimate knowledge of Homer-and no overtinterest in anything that had been written since Homer's time aboutthe 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 partof the Greek and Roman cultural patrimony). So what was Aristides'relationship to archaic and classical Greek literature? Not simple, forwhile it is obvious that knowledge of the poetry of that era was acultural 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 impor­tance of fame', but that is an eccentric judgement.

2 W.V. HARRIS

was emulation involved ('modesty', as Raffaella Cribiore observes laterin this volume, 'was not an attribute of Aristides'), and individual tastetoo.

The studies grouped in the first part of the book are concernedabove all with the sophist's intimate mental connection with the literaryand mythical traditions of the Greeks. What does the pattern of Aris­tides' citation of the archaic poets mean, and what in particular doesit mean that he so generously cites Pindar (Ewen Bowie's culminatingquestion)? How, in flattering the Athenians, is he to deal with the truth­loving and unavoidable Thucydides, who was willing to show them attheir worst (Estelle Oudot's theme)? Were the great classical myths stillimportant, still viable, in the world of the Second Sophistic, and howcould they be adapted for contemporary use (the questions answeredhere by Suzanne Said)? In this context too we can place Glen Bower­sock's discussion of Aristides' detestation of the pantomimes, those soloperformers who brought much of the repertoire of the classical theatrebefore the Antonine public.

Another striking feature of the Embassy Speech to Achilles, especiallyif you come to it fresh from Homer, is its repeated reference to theTrojan War as a conflict between the Greeks and the 'barbarians': 'ifyou must be permanently angry, I would say that it should be with thebarbarians, our natural enemies' (sect. 4) (the latter trope reappearsin sect. 26).2 In the Iliad Odysseus and Phoenix speak of the harmthat Achilles has done the Achaeans by his withdrawal, but Homernever of course calls the Trojans barbarians;" Aristides applies theterm to them seven times in a few pages and concludes his speech onthis note. That will seem banal. But there is more: it will have beena sleepy Greek listener or reader who never for a moment thoughtthat Aristides might be alluding to the Romans in the guise of theirTrojan 'ancestors', especially since, as Laurent Pernot points out indetail in his contribution to this book, both Aristides and his publicwere accustomed to the practice of 'figured speech'.

At all events, Aristides' thoughts and feelings about Rome and itsempire were more complex than used to be realized when 70 Rome (Or.

2 The 'barbarians' had been the 'natural enemies' of the Greeks, at least for many,since Pi. Rep. V.47oc, ifnot earlier.

3 The Carians are barbarophonoi in ii.867. This difference between Homer andAristides has often been noticed: see for instance Boulanger 1923,274.

INTRODUCTION 3

XXVI) was taken at face value. The third part of this volume-thepapers by Pernot, Francesca Fontanella and Carlo Franco-accordinglyconsiders the political aspects of his writings. 300 years after the annex­ation ofprovincia Asiathe Greeks were still not wholly reconciled to theirsubordinate though privileged role." Plutarch had warned a young manelected 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 sucha situation? But Greek attitudes gradually changed: every individualhad his point of view; but Celsus Polemaeanus represents one stage,Plutarch another, Aristides yet another, Lucian and Cassius Dio stillothers.

There are two other important elements in Aristides' identity (andhere I leave behind the Embassy Speech to Achilles), apart of course fromhis main identity as an orator and a sophist.' These two elements,closely connected with each other, are his religiosity and his status asan invalid." We have mainly concentrated both of these topics in thesecond part of the book, holding that with Aristides the personal is tosome 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 preferredidentity consisted of his devotion to Asclepius. Pernot, in the footstepsof Bowersock, reminds us how Aristides used this identity as a means ofsquirming out of office-holding, but no reader of the Sacred Tales coulddoubt that the devotion was real as well as convenient. It suited bothAristides' narcissistic personality'<-well brought out by Dana Fields,though she avoids the term-to believe that he was a favourite ofthe 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 respectto the cultured Greek intellectuals of this age that their 'supposed Hellenic patriotism,sometimes assumed to be equivalent to Hellenism, is a chimaera', Hellenes being onlyone of their identities (14).

5 On the propriety of calling Aristides a sophist, a label he would have rejected, seeamong 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 insecond-century Asia Minor see Kent 2007.

4 W.V. HARRIS

religiosity could be found than his conviction that Asclepius constantlysent him messages in his dreams, even when the god did not appear inhis own person.B

Aristides was evidently led to Asclepius by his preoccupation withhis health, a preoccupation that has been variously diagnosed. He iscustomarily spoken of as a hypochondriac, but without knowing morethan we can really know about his actual health such a judgement isscarcely possible." Galen saw Aristides as physically weak. 10 Many havespeculated 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 toAristides have given way to studies that situate him within his cul­tural and historical milieu', and that trend, which gathered strength inthe 1960s (Behr, Bowersock), continues. To some extent, however, herpaper, and also those of Janet Downie and Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis,combine the two approaches. It is certainly a challenge to know howto interpret Aristides' writing about his own physical condition, giventhe complexity of the cultural traditions that were at work and theauthor's own idiosyncrasies. Holmes turns a sceptical eye to modish1990S chatter about 'bodies becoming texts', seeking-as I understandit-to show how Aristides tried to use his dreams to interpret his med­ical condition, and how he thought that 'archiving' an immense num­ber of dreams would help him. 'The body is... written into stories thatare first staged in dreams then recorded in the archive. By interpretingthese stories, Aristides is able to act on the body in such a way as torestore it to a primeval state of harmony'.

No reader of the Sacred Tales can fail to be struck by the author's deepinterest in one particular physical activity, namely bathing. Where doesthis tendentially luxurious interest fit in the austere life and complexself-presentation of the hard-working rhetor? Janet Downie's paper onthis subject brings out, perhaps more than any other in this volume, thecomplexity ofAristides' 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 thesame care as a hypochondriac', Andersson and Roos 1997,37.

10 See the Arabic text cited by Behr 1968, 162, Bowersock 1969, 62, and byJones atthe beginning of his paper.

INTRODUCTION 5

and the significance of this conceit, and serves as a transition from hisself-presentation to his views about and position (or non-position) inpolitics. We come back, as always, to the world of competitive oratory.

And it was to Aristides the orator that most contemporaries, andmost later readers until the twentieth century, reacted. The last partof this volume concerns itself with some of these reactions, from thecontemporary admirer Phrynichus (Christopher Jones), via his greatestlate-antique emulator Libanius (Raffaella Cribiore), down to Byzantinetimes when, as Luana Quattrocelli shows in our final chapter, the onlyobjection to him seems to have been his devotion to the wrong god.

There is much more to investigate. Swain, for example, has writtenthat Aristides 'enjoyed enormous popularity for his rhetorical prow­ess',11 and it would be worth enquiring further into what such pop­ularity meant in Greece in the second century, with large auditoriain vogue but no democracy in the old sense in sight. More shouldalso be said about Aristides' religious experience (another concept thatis contested)-and on this we look forward to the forthcoming bookby Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis. But as for actually empathizing with thehumourless 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 earlyGreek lyric, elegiac and iambic poetry. One reason for its restrictionto these poets is that I have been looking at their citation and otherways they are drawn upon in a number of imperial Greek texts.' But anequally important reason for the exclusion of other early poetry, aboveall of Homer, Hesiod and other hexameter poetry, is because its inclu­sion would undoubtedly have raised issues that would have requireda much longer paper. The London doctorate of 'T.K. Gkourogiannis,entitled Pindaric Qyotations in Aelius Aristides, completed in 1999, regis­tered the presence in Aristides of 253 citations of the Iliad and 93 ofthe 04Jssey.2 This is a far larger number than Aristides' quotations oftragedy or comedy, where Gkourogiannis documented 45 for Aristo­phanes; 26 for Euripides; 16 for Sophocles; IO for Aeschylus; and fiveeach for Eupolis, Cratinus and Menander. In some respects the pro­portion of these quotations between Homer, tragedy and comedy showAristides to be not dissimilar to other authors writing in this period, orto what we know of readers' habits from papyri," though the frequencyof Aristides' citation of Menander is rather low, and of Aristophanesrather high: this is partly because of his extensive exploitation ofAristo­phanes for Athenian history in Oration 3 (which has some 16 citations),partly, I suspect, because Aristides was drawn, or was made by his tutorAlexander of Cotiaeum, to read Aristophanes with due care and atten­tion in order to beefup his Atticism.'

! In Athenaeus, Bowie 2000; in Plutarch, Bowie 1997 and forthcoming (b); inPhilostratus' 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 narrowrange of poets? On the one hand there is a huge preponderance ofcitations ofPindar, a phenomenon to which I shall return. Pindar apart,however, Aristides' citations of early lyric, elegiac and iambic poetryare perhaps surprisingly few. They are set out in my Table, and it ison the basis of the evidence presented there that I offer the followingobservations.

Aristides undoubtedly knows the names of Sappho and Alcaeus(Or. 32.24).5 Of Alcaeus, however, he cites only two phrases: one isan apparently well-known gnome (aV()gE~ yag :lt6A.LO~ :lt1Jgyo~ agE{,LO~,

fro II2.1O Voigt) at Or. 3.298 and Or. 23.68 (cf Or. 25.64);6 the otheris the idea of shooting arrows in the dark, EX 'tou ~6qJo'U 'tOl;E{,OV'tE~ 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 phraseOEATJv'r]v aO'tEgE~ EyxAeLo'UOLv, but since Aristides ascribes it to 'somepoet' (:ltOL'r]'ttl~ o.v et:ltOL 'tL~) he may not be citing Sappho at all, or hemay not realise that it is she whom he is citing. That makes it hardto assess his claim at Or. 18.{ to cite Sappho in the phrase 'destroyingthe gaze' (ou ()LaqJ'fteLgov 'ta~ O'IjJEL~, w~ EqJ'r] La:ltqJw): editors have createdSappho fro 196 Voigt from this, but as Campbell noted it may be somesort of recollection offr. 31.II Voigt.' Fr. 193Voigt may also not deservethe status of a separate fragment, since the reference at Or. 28.51 toSappho boasting to some women thought to be fortunate, EU()aL!10VE~,

that the Muses had made her really fortunate and that it was shewho would be remembered after her death, may be a reference toeither fro 55 Voigt, fro 65 Voigt or fro 147 Voigt. Whatever the intendedreference of Or. 28.51, however, these three places do yield at least twocitations of Sappho.

There are also what seem to be several citations of Aleman. Atleast three of these are at Or. 28.51-54, where he is simply called 'theLaconian 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 (thoughhere the description 0 'tWV :ltag'frEvwv E:ltaLVE't'r]~ xat o{,!1~o'UAo~ ... 0AaXE()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 Orations1-16 and 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 twocitations 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 ofand use for Aleman, and in this he is comparable, for example, toPlutarch.

In his citation of other poets, however, I have been struck by thedifference between Aristides and some other writers of this period.There are indeed some references to the Palinode of Stesichorus, whichwas clearly quite widely known, but only one phrase which might bea quotation, fro 241 Davies at Or. 33.2 f-tE'tELI.u be btl ihEQOV :ltQOOLf-tLOVxu'ta L'tT)OLX,oQOV.8 As for Simonides, there are two citations in Oration28 which may be from his melic poetry, and at Or. 31.2 Aristides showsknowledge of, but does not quote, a presumably melic 'frQfjvo~ for adead Thessalian patron Antiochus (fr. 582 Page), but there is nothingfrom Simonides' melic or elegiac poetry associated with the Persianwars, despite the exploitation in Oration 28 of Persian war epigrams, towhich I shall shortly turn.

But of other melic poets there is hardly a trace: no Ibycus, noAnacreon, no citation or even mention of Bacchylides, and althoughTimocreon is named (Or. 3.612) his poetry is not cited. Of the elegistsno use is made of Theognis, and although Tyrtaeus' role in earlySpartan history is twice mentioned (Or. 8.18; Or. 11.65), there is no clearindication that Aristides knew his poetry. 9

One case, however, may point to the issue simply being one ofcitation rather than of knowledge. That is the case of Archilochus.Although there is nothing that is certainly a verbatim citation, Aristidesmentions Archilochus several times by name, and the reference at Or.3.6II to the various people whom he vilified (EAEyE xuxw~)-his friendPericles, 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.UTU TOV ~Tl]olxoQov seems to be a referenceto a poetic trope and not to be a way of marking the expression ~ETEL~L lIE btl ETEQOV1tQOOl~LOV as a quotation.

9 Other early poets named but not quoted are Philoxenus (in connection withDionysius 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 isthe source for Or. 2.166, where Aristides quotes two iambic lines, to illuminate whichthe 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 Westare drawn, or other poems involving Lycambes now entirely lost). So,too, the reference a little later in the same speech to 'the apes ofArchilochus' ('AQXLAOXOlJ :lti:tl'T]XOL, 3.664), points to knowledge of at leastone of Archilochus' animal fables, perhaps of the fable told in frr. 185­187 West (which almost certainly provided him with the cunning littlevixen, aA.w:ltTJ~ ... xEQ~aA.fj, of 3.676).10

It would therefore certainly be unwise to infer from Aristides' failureto 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 poetnor poetry were known to him. Moreover it is probably inappropriateto think, as I initially did, in terms of comparison with the whole rangeof 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. Plutarchuses poetry to reinforce various types of argument in the so-calledMoralia, but Plutarch's citation is at its most frequent in Oy,aestionesConvivates, largely, I would guess, because of their sympotic frame. Thefrequency of citation is much lower in the Lines." Athenaeus in hisDeipnosophistae has invented a gathering in which he and his personaeloquentes---or indeed loquaces-are keen to adduce evidence for theirarguments from an ostentatiously wide and sometimes recondite rangeofpoetry. A quite different agenda drives Pausanias the periegete, hencethe remarkable range of his poetic quotation, which includes some veryrare figures. IfAristides is compared only with those second- and third­century figures to whom his rhetorical activity brings him closer, Dio ofPrusa, Maximus of Tyre and Philostratus of Athens, he begins to lookless odd. The following paragraphs set out some aspects of these threewriters' habits of quotation for comparison.

10 'Almost' certainly, because the lion, UVtL AEOvtO~, of Or. 3.676 cannot easily beaccommodated 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 and64.3, but he never quotes her poetry. 12 The passage at 2.28 is that whereAlexander, in dialogue with Philip, pronounces the poetry of Sapphoand Anacreon unsuitable for princes, and commends instead Stesi­chorus and Pindar, and above all Homer, whom he judges preferableto Tyrtaeus. Later in this work (2.59) Dio has his character Alexan­der quote six lines of a Spartan embaterum which the scholiast plausiblyidentifies as a poem of Tyrtaeus; and at 2.62 Dio presents him as quot­ing, albeit with disapproval, Anacreon's I I -line prayer to Dionysus, theNymphs and Aphrodite to secure him the current object of his desire,Cleobulus, fro 357 Page." Alcaeus, Aleman and Ibycus are not men­tioned at all by Dio. Stesichorus' Palinode is referred to at 2.13 and inthe Trojan Oration, 11.41 (arguably merely paraphrasing Plato Phaedrus243a); his widely cited 'IALO'll 3tEQOL£ is commended at 2.33 ('t'~v aAwowoux ava~Lw£ E3tOLrjOE 't'fi£ TQoLa£) in support of his claim to a prince'sattention;" the point there made that he imitated Homer is repeated inOration 55, On Homer andSocrates, 55.6-7.

The same point is made there about Archilochus, and Archilochusdoes indeed do rather better at Dio's hands than the poets I have so farmentioned. Later in Oration 55 Dio refers to the vixen of Archilochus(55.ro: 't'~v '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, Oration33, Dio picks out Archilochus as a paradigm of an outspoken critic, therole that he himself is adopting towards the people of Tarsus. He showsknowledge of the secondary tradition about Archilochus' poetic giftsand his death (33.12), comparing and contrasting him with the praise­poet Homer. A little later, at 33.17, he cites the first two lines of fourtetrameters, fro 114 West, on the better type of general, O't'Qa't'T]y6£, thenparaphrases lines 3 and 4 in a way that suggests he had a text slightlydifferent from that cited by Galen. Finally he invokes Archilochus againnear the end of the speech (33.61).

12 [Dio] 37.47 quotes a line of Sappho, fro 147 Voigt, which may indeed be thereference of Aristides Or. 28.51 (see above), but this speech is generally agreed to beby Favorinus, not by Dio.

13 Dio is indeed our only source for the full text of this fragment, which may be acomplete poem.

14 For citation of this poem in imperial Greek sources see frr. 196-204 Davies, andfor its highlighting on Tabulae Iliacae, Horsfall 1979.

EWENBOWIE

Oration 60, Nessus or Deianeira, opens with a report of criticism ofArchilochus for having his Deianeira deliver an almost epic narrative(Qa'ljJw60uouv) of her wooing by Achelous at the very point at whichshe is the victim of sexual assault by Nessus (fr. 286 West). Dio seemsto know this poem and discussions of it, and his remarks are a valuableclue to its identification as one of Archilochus' now well-documentednarrative elegies.15 Dio Oration 74, On Mistrust, also seems to know fro 173West, though I suspect that his relation of it to Archilochus' prospectivemarriage to a member of Lycambes' family arises from his familiaritywith the secondary tradition and not from a careful reading of thepoem.

Maximus ofTyre

Maximus has an especially large number of citations of Anacreon andSappho, concentrated in and prompted by his four Dialexeis on Eros(18-21 Trapp). Some 15 fragments of Sappho are cited in one para­graph of Dialexis 18, viz. 18.9, and these are Maximus' only citationsof Sappho. The same paragraph has four of Maximus' citations ofAnacreon. Anacreon is also mentioned in Maximus' list at Dialexis37.5 of poets whose poetry either calmed or excited their audiences­Pindar, Tyrtaeus, Telesilla, Alcaeus and Anacreon. He has no citationof Alcaeus, and neither citation nor even mention of Aleman and Iby­cus, or of the elegists Callinus, Mimnermus and Theognis. Solon ismentioned several times, but not for his poetry. The one citation ofStesichorus, opening Dialexis 21.1, OUX E01;' E't1)!!O£ Myo£, ascribed byMaximus to the poet of Himera, 6 'I!!EQuto£ 'toLTJ'tT]£, in words thatassign it to his Palinode, may well be taken from Plato Phaedrus 243a. ThePalinode is, of course, the only poem of Stesichorus of which Aristidesshows knowledge. Simonides also gets only one citation, the phraseXUAE:1tOV Eo{}A6v E!!!!EVaL, i.e. fro 542.13 Page, at Dialexis 30.1, where Max­imus ascribes it to an old song, XaLa :n:UAUWV ~o!!u: this too may wellcome from Plato, in this case from Protagoras 339c. There is no men­tion of Bacchylides, but as with Aristides, albeit to a much lesser extent,there is some use of Pindar: perhaps the reference to Etna in Pythian1.20 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 213Snell-Maehler, as the introductory text of Dialexis 12, the subject ofwhich is whether it is right to commit injustice against somebody whohas done so to onesel£ In this case Maximus seems very likely to haveused a text of Pindar, since the earlier quotation which may have drawnthe passage to his attention, by Plato in Republic 36Sb, constitutes onlytwo of the four lines cited by Maximus.

Like any author, of course, Maximus can come up with surprises: inhis case the surprise is the citation of the first two lines of Ariphron'sPaean to Hygieia, PMG fro 813 Page, described as an uQXaLov {lolla andnot attributed nominatim to Ariphron."

Philostratus ifAthens' Apollonius

In his Apollonius Philostratus' chief poetic intertext is Homer, and thereare also several citations of or allusions to Attic tragedy, especially toEuripides. Again lyric and elegiac poetry is rare. Archilochus figurestwice: a reference to his 'shield' elegy, fro S West, at 2.7.2, and to hiselegy addressed to Pericles on the occasion of the death of friends atsea, fro 13 West, at 7.26.2: in both cases the poet is named. Sappho'spoetry is mentioned at 1.30, but nothing is quoted, nor is there anyverbatim allusion. Pindar is twice cited: at 7.12.4, Pythian 1.10-13 isparaphrased (the lyre charms Ares), and at 6.26.2 Philostratus refers toa poem mentioning a i'laLIlOlv that watches over the source of the Nile(fr. 282 Snell-Maehler), Again, as with Archilochus, Pindar is namedeach time. The same locus, 6.26.2, has the only certain mention ofStesichorus, predictably of his Palinode, referred to by precisely this title:Stesichorus himself is called simply uV~Q 'IIlEQaLo£.17 The final lyricintertext of the Apollonius, as in the case of Maximus, is a surprise:at 3.17.2, Sophocles' Paean to Asclepius (PMG fro 737a Page)."

16 For the resurrection of Ariphron's Paean in the second century A.D. see Bowie2006, 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 Bowie2006, 84-85'

16 EWENBOWIE

Aristides

After these comparisons the thinness of the harvest from Aristides looksless surprising. Moreover it seems that one category ofhis compositions,I-tEAE'taL, is one in which citation of the poets was unusual. Aristides ofcourse makes extensive use of the Iliad for his Embassy to Achilles (Oration16), but understandably he does not cite any ofBook g-Book 9 had notbeen composed at the dramatic date of Oration 16! Or. 8.18 and Or. 11.65refer to Tyrtaeus as a poet sent by Athens to help Sparta, but none ofhis poetry is quoted. Appeals to Athenians never cite Solon; those toThebes never cite Pindar. I take this to be a feature of the genre, andthink that this view is supported by the absence of poetic quotation inPolemo's two surviving I-tEAE't'aL.

Where, then, does Aristides quote early poetry, and what is the basisof his choices? The speeches in which quotation abounds are Orations 2,

3, 28 and 45.19 Oration 28 is a special case to which I shall return. Orations2 and 3 are attacking Plato and philosophers in defense of rhetoric, andit might be suggested that Aristides' habit of citation is something hehas caught from philosophical writing.

Oration 45, to Sarapis, may be Aristides' earliest extant work, perhapsfrom April 142 A.D.20 Here too a special explanation can be offered.In this Oration Aristides is setting out his case that prose has as stronga claim as poetry to be used for hymns to the gods: as has been wellargued by Vassilaki, Aristides tackles this task first by citing poetry, andprominently Pindar's poetry, in order to criticize it, and then moves onto use allusion to the poets to achieve mimesis of poetry"

In each case, however, we see the phenomenon that stands out inAristides' citation of early poetry; his preference for citing Pindar. OftenPindar is the only early poet to be cited. Only twice are there speecheswhere another poet is cited and Pindar is not: in Or. 18.4, the monodyfor Smyrna, Aristides names Sappho and seems to paraphrase her (see

19 Perhaps Oration 20 should be added, but the presence of three Pindaric citations ishardly 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). Ourother candidate for Aristides' earliest surviving work is The Rlwdian Oration 25, for whoseAristidean authorship see]ones 1990. For an analysis of Aristides' procedures in Oration45 see Russell 1990, 201-209; Pernot 1993a, II, 642-645; Vassilaki2005.

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, whichfollows closely in Or. 18.4 and is not signalled. In the very short Oration toHeracles, 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 ~LTjV re 'KatbL'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 whichthere can be no certain answer." The citations attest Aristides' goodknowledge and admiration not only for the epinicia but for severalworks of Pindar in other genres too. And within the epinicia he showsno knowledge of the Nemeans. To me the most persuasive explanationis that Aristides responded to Pindar's praise of the importance ofoutstanding natural capacities, which Aristides was convinced that hehimself had, and of the importance of sustained effort in realizing thesecapacities, something Aristides was also more than ready to apply. Suchpraise could also be found in Bacchylides and, doubtless, already inepinicia of Simonides that we have lost: but no ancient critic questionedPindar's poetic superiority. Dio in his second Kingship Oration pickedout his AaJ-t:ltQo'tTj'ta 'tiii; cpuOEWi; (2.33), and his supremacy was affirmedunhesitatingly by Longinus' On the Sublime:

'tL M; EV JlEAEm JlUMOV av Elvm BUXXUAihT]~ EAOLO Tl mV()uQo~, XUL EV'tQUyq>()L~ ~IOlV 0 Xtoc Tl vi] dLa ~o(POXAfj~; EJtEL()i] ol JlEV (i()LCX:7t'tOl'tOL xaLEV 't<p yAUqJlJQ<p miv'tT] XEXUMLYQUqJT]JlEVOL, 0 be mV()uQo~ XUL 0 ~OqJOXAfj~

o'tE JlEV olov :n:uV'tU E:n:L<pAEyoum 'tfj qJoQQ., a~EvvuV'tm ()' UA6yOl~ :n:OMUX~

xaL:n:L:n:'toumv u'tuxEO'ta'tu.

Take lyric poetry: would you rather be Bacchylides or Pindar? Taketragedy: would you rather be Ion of Chios or Sophocles? Ion and Bac­chylides are impeccable, uniformly beautiful writers in the polished man­ner; but it is Pindar and Sophocles who sometimes set the world onfire with their vehemence, for all that their flame often goes out withoutreason 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 mightseem an especially kindred spirit to Aristides. The phrase 'their flameoften goes out without reason and they collapse dismally' could wellhave been spoken of the early part ofAristides' own career.

22 For other respects in which Aristides shared the outlooks and ideas of Pindar cfVassilaki 2005, 331-335.

18 EWENBOWIE

This may, or may not, be a satisfactory account ofwhy in citing lyricpoetry Aristides often looked no further than Pindar. The speech wherehe 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 anincident when Aristides, in the middle of delivering an oration in praiseofAthena (our Oration 37, in Keil's view), departed from his text to voicesome praise of himself and his own eloquence. His aim in Oration 28 isto amass canonical classical precedents for self-praise. In doing so hemoves fairly systematically through Greek literature: Homer the poet atsection 19; Hesiod at 20-24; gods and heroes as presented in Homer at25 to 48; Apollo's oracles at 48; Sappho at 51; Aleman at 51 to 54. Thenat 55 to 58 he offers five quotations from Pindar (see my Table).

These quotations are followed by several citations of which the firstare explicitly ascribed to Simonides, and the following six are presentedas if Aristides believes that they are also from Simonides. The problemsraised by this sequence may be of more interest to the investigatorsof the transmission of Simonides' epigrams, and of the existence of aSylloge Simonidea, than they are to scholars working on Aristides, but theproblem casts light on how Aristides may have operated in seeking outappropriate poetic quotations, so I shall review it briefly.

At Or. 28.60, after reminding his audience of the 'moderation ofSimonides' ('ttlV yE 'tOu ~LllwVL()01J oWqJQomJV'I]V, Or. 28.59), Aristides citestwo fragments of elegiac poetry that could be either from an elegy orfrom an elegiac epigram (Simonides fro 89 West2), and must have beenthought by Aristides to be by Simonides:

I-tvtil-t!l b' oihLVU qJTJI-tL ~LI-tWVLb!ll.ooqJUQLtELV

and then

6ybW'ltoV'tUEtEL:rrmbl AEW:rrQE:rrEO~.

This pentameter also appears as the sixth line of Further Greek Epigrams'Simonides' 28, part of a couplet quoted by Plutarch On Whether OldMen Should Engage in Politics 3 (Mor. 78sA):23 the full six lines of thispoem are cited first by Syrianus on Hermogenes (Rabe, 86), wheretheir author is not named.

23 Page ad loe. 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' 21and 38. His citation of ,Simonides' 21 is a version of the two-liner onthe batde of Marathon quoted by Lycurgus at lO8-lO9: the first lineis the same, 'EJJ..~vwv :7tQ0!1Uxo'iivtEi; 'A'frTjVULOL MUQU'fr&VL. In Aristides,however, the second line, the pentameter, runs EX'tELVUV M~~wv EWEU!1'UQLli~ui;, whereas in Lycurgus it is XQ'UooqJoQwv M~~wv EOLOQEOUVMVU!1LV. Page (1981, 229) was surely right to argue that Lycurgus'version is to be preferred, and that it may have been inscribed besidethe Soros on the plain of Marathon. 'Simonides' 38 is a couplet on thefallen 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. 3.140­141. These eight lines are also known from Diodorus Siculus 11.62.3and Anthologia Palatina 7.296: among other indications that the epigramis indeed from the fifth century E.G. is its imitation in an epigraminscribed at Xanthus in Lycia at the end of that century"

The next citation follows immediately, at Or. 28.64: it is of the firstline and the opening of the second line of the four-line version of'Simonides' 3 that was current throughout antiquity, from IG I 334 andIG 12 394 through Herodotus 5.77.2 to Diodorus Siculus lO.24.3 andAnthologia Palatina 6.343 (see Page 1981, 191-193):25

l!tIvw Bouordrv xaL XaAXLMwv (\al-LaaaV'tE~

:ltat(\E~ 'A'Ih]vaLwv

At Or. 28.65 Aristides moves from Attic examples, which he concedesmight be overheated, to Doric: first he cites 'Simonides' 22a, knownfrom Herodotus 7.228.1 and also found in Diodorus 11.33 and Antholo­gia Palatina 7.248; then 'Simonides' 12, of which the first couplet isknown from Plutarch On the Meanness ofHerodotus 39 (Mor. 870E) andAnthologia Palatina 7.250. Aristides, however, is our only source for lines3-6.

This substantial sequence concludes with a taunt by Aristides to hiscritic: 'So this is the right time for you mock these men as loqua­cious corpses who do not know how to remain calm' (WOLE wQu omOXW:7tLELV uii'tovi; Wi; MoMOXUi; 'tLVai; VEXQOVi; 'Kat OUX etM'tai; ~O'UXLUV

24 TAM 1.44.1 =Kaibel Ep.Gr. 768 = CEG 888.25 IG 12 394 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 ineditions ofArchilochusj."

Conclusions

Conclusions can be briefly stated. Aristides' knowledge of early Greeklyric, elegiac and iambic poetry cannot be demonstrated to range aswidely as that of some of his contemporaries, but he probably knewmuch more than he chose to quote, and it was only for particularpurposes that he quoted these (or other) poets liberally in his work. Ofthe poets of this and indeed oflater periods it is above all Pindar whomhe cites most often, partly, I argue, because he saw a kindred spiritin his occasionally flawed brilliance. When it was needed, however, hecould amass citations from poets whom he hardly mentions elsewhere,like Simonides and Solon in Oration 28, apparently enjoying access to acollection of Simonides' poetry comprising elegiac, epigrammatic andperhaps lyric poetry, and to an edition of Solon's poetry that had atleast trochaic tetrameter and iambic trimeter poems.

26 Note too that the iambics quoted in Ath. Pol. 12.5 (= fro 37 West) would also havesuited Aristides' purpose but are not quoted by him here, though he does quote fro 37.9­IO West at Or. 3.547.

22 EWENBOWIE

Citations by speeches in the numerical order of the editions of Lenz-Behr and Keil: anasterisk indicates that Aristides is our only source for the fragment:

Orn. Alcaeus Aleman Archilochus Pindar

fro 76.2 (DithAth.3)@401, also?@9 &12427 [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 @11O Py.

2. 94-96 @230 Py.8.95 @148 fro 38(?Persephone hymn)@*1l2 [also @Or. 3.466] fro 31(?Zeus hymn) @*420 fro 81 (Dith.2)+fr.169.16-17@229--230 fro 1691--6 @2628

3 112V29@298 108P@2943o 124W, 167W & fro 37 @*37 (+~164P@8231 172W or an-other fro 38 (?Persephone

Lycambes poem hymn) @* 466 [also@611 185-187W @Or. 2.112] fr.32@664&?676 (Zeus hymn) @ 62032

fro 95 @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 arecited by Aristides at 229.

29 Also known from ~ Aes. Pets. 352 and Soph. O.T. 56, P. Berolin. 9569 (first centuryA.D.)

30 Aristides in the first instance is quoting Plato (whom he names) Laws 705a: thescholiast on Aristides cites Aleman I08P in comparison, as does Arsenius for the similarproverb (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=1113 SM.

ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 23

Sappho

34V@1l

Simonides

582P at 9734

45FGE@140,[also @Or.28.64]

Solon

lW @ 54935 5W@54736 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@? 19fro 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@6837 Py. 9.95 +~ @36

24 01.7.58-68?@50

25 112 V@6438 01.7.54-68 @2901. 7.49-50 @ 30

26 fro 329@p9

27 fr.l08al(Hyporchemata) @2[also @Or. 33.1]

28 30P@*51 01. 2.94-96 @55106P & 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 centuryA.D.)

38 Also known from ~ Aes. Pers. 352 and Soph. O.T. 56, P.Berolin. 9569 (first centuryA.D.).

39 C£ ~ cod. Paris. 2995, Hermes 48 (1913) 319.

ARISTIDES AND EARLY GREEK LYRIC, ELEGIAC AND IAMBIC POETRY 25

Sappho

196V@440

193V at 51 (?=55,65 or 147)

Simonides

89W2 @* 6042 21FGE@634338

FGE@*6345FGE@ 64, also @Or. 3.140-141]443.2-3FGE@6445

22a FGE @65 46

12 FGE [= Plut.dernaHdt. 39, AP7.250] @66 47 PMG947a&b @67. 48

34.6-7W and 36.3­27W extensively @137-14049

Solon

5W@1441

Stesichorus

40 IILaljYlh;LQov 'ta~ O\jJEL~: 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

M~lIwv EVVEU ~uQLUl\a~ instead of XQuompoQwv M~lIwv EO'toQEoav Mva~Lv. For theproblem, 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 @25Py. 3.83 @8 fro 182@* 5 fro 226 @*5

fro 201.1 @11250

fr.14651

?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 & 26,5201. 6.43 & 50 @301.6.99,7.44 @2501. 8.47 @3 Py 6.11@13Py 8.2, 9.39@24 Py 9.39 @24Py 9.68,12.1 @33Isth, 3.70, Isth,4.52 @3 fro 52 £.5-6(Delphi Paean 6) @3fro 52h (Delos Paean7).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 (AbderaPaean) @42 Is. 8.92@45, cf Or. 45.13

52 For a list of Pindaric reminiscences in Oration 45 (arranged by section and includ­ing 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 Dioscuristory) 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 thedeeds of the city (...). But we chose to mention its most famous actionsin 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 nocategory of praise'. 1

This assertion comes in the middle of the Panathenaic Discourse ofAris­tides. If Plato is clearly, for this orator, the most debated author fromthe classical Greek past, as is clear from the three Discourses wherehe defends rhetoric-especially against the criticisms of the Gorgias2­history 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 deepknowledge of historians," above all Herodotus, Thucydides, Ephorus,Diodorus, and led him finally to write meletai like the Leuctran Orationsand the Sicilian Orations:' I have chosen to focus this paper on theway Aristides reads, uses and rewrites the History of Thucydides­Thucydides who, according to the rhetor, 'seems to excel by far theother writers of history not only in the power and dignity of his expres­sion, 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 improvingthe English translation of this paper.

1 Panathenaic Oration 230; cf. also sect. 90. We follow the structure drawn up byF.W Lenz and CA. Behr (Leiden, 1976-1980). We generally follow Behr's translation,sometimes slightly changed.

2 Or. II (To Plato: in Difence ofOratory), Or. III (To Plato: inDefence cfthe Four); Or. IV (ToCapit~. 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 forexample Russell 1983, 112-115; Gasca 1992a and 1992b.

ESTElLE OUDOT

xul osuvomn, u'A.M xul 'tft 'twv :1tQuy!-t<i'twv UXQL~eL~ :1t'A.EL<TtOV :1tQOEXELV'tWV OVYYQUqJEWV 60xEi:).5

The best way to evaluate the relationship between the rhetor ofthe Second Sophistic and this very significant intellectual figure" isprobably to examine it through the Panathenaic Oration. Indeed, thiswork stands out for several reasons. Firstly, this long celebration ofAthens-a speech delivered in the city, during the Panathenaic festival,probably during the reign of Antoninus Pius or of the joint rulersMarcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus7-is, for the most part, a historicalnarrative." Aristides plans to prove the essential qualities ofAthens (herUQELaL), which appear to be original (they pre-existed the birth of theAthenians) through the city's actions (:1tQa~EL~, EQYU).9 By choosing thisway (which is a manner of adjusting the topic),'? Aristides gives a realhistory of the city, from the mythical autochthony up to Macedonianconquest, and therefore it is not surprising that Thucydides' narrative(including remembrance of the Persian Wars, the 'Fifty-Years' periodand 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 thehistorian's portrait of Pericles: 'He reports this, not to press a personal quarrel, nor areall these references for the use of his argument, nor for a single proposition, but in hishistory and narrative he simply thus reports the truth, as when he narrates the invasionof the Peloponnesians or any other event of his time.'

6 C£ for instance Sacred Tales Iv. 14-15, one of the many occasions where thegod Asclepios encourages Aristides to practice oratory: 'While I rested in Pergamumbecause of a divine summons and my supplication, I received from the god a commandand exhortation not to abandon oratory. It is impossible to say through the length oftime whatever dream came first, or the nature of each or the whole. It bifitsyou to speakin the manner qfSocrates, Demosthenes, and Thucydides... '. 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 bythe Costoboci in 170('the tone in which Aristides discusses the wars and festivalswouldhave been irritatingly false soon after the shocking sack of Eleusis', p. 33) and on thesignificance of the word VLKyJ which could reflect the military successes of Lucius Verusover the Parthians in 164-165. Follet (1976, 331--333) implicidy agrees with the overallargumentation 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 ofMacedon (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 isbased on the continuity of the Athenian virtues, can deal with Thucy­dides' historical analysis describing the development of Athens' hege­mony. How to deal with all the debates in Thucydides about the natureof Athenian aQX~? Moreover, this question cannot fail to take anotherelement into account: in Thucydides' work, Pericles' funeral orationclearly serves as an archetype for Aristides-a text to which he alludesseveral times in his discourse." Pericles' oration is significant, first, bysetting a topic and a division into three periods which Aristides takesup again and adapts. But above all, this is significant because, in someway, Pericles and Aristides intend to do the same thing-that is toexplain Athens' excellence--in Pericles' case on the basis of the char­acter ('CQO:ltOL) and the behaviour of the inhabitants," in Aristides' caseon the basis of the original qJUOL~ which is embodied in the city's char­acter and can be seen through its actions. In other words, both meanto explain the sense of the history of a city through its people's nationalcharacter. So we read, on the one hand, of the controversial hegemonyofAthens, which Thucydides deals with at length, on the other hand, astructural model for praise. Such are the two conflicting aspects of whatthe historian's work means for the Panathenaic Oration ofAristides.

To begin with, I would like to consider sections 322-329, whichrepresent 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 havecome down to us, concluded that Aristides' main source of information was Ephorus­a conclusion which was convincingly disputed by Beecke 1905.

12 See for example the cutting remark in section 4, where Aristides, reviewing thewriters who in the past claimed to speak properly of Athens, mentions the authors offuneral orations: ol /)f; EV 'tOL~ E:7tL'taljJLOL~ A.6Yo~ 'tWV aJ'to1'}aVOvtooV EvLou~ J'tQoOELQT]Xamv.Blot {)E ot xav 'to'lJ'to~, OUX ro~ VO!LL~E'tm, {)ul 'twv J'tQa;Eoov ~A1'}OV, aM' E'tEQav hQaJ'tovto,{)ELcravtE~, E!LOt {)OXELV, EM't'tou~ YEvEcr1'}m'twv J'tQaY!La'toov, oux E;oo !LEV nou cruYYVW!LTl~

Aa130vtE~ ljJo13ov, aM' o~v oiitrn J'tOAAOii 'tLVO~ 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. Andamong these some did not carry their narrative through the deeds of the city asis customary, but went another way, in fear, as it seems to me, of being inferior totheir 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 wereacquired, whether in any case it were we ourselves or our fathers that valiantly repelledthe onset of war, Barbarian or Hellenic, 1 will not recall, for 1 have no desire to speakat 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 anddeeds in wartime-which are both meant to illustrate the boundlessphilanthropia of the Athenian people. But now we come to a transitionfrom this historical part to the praise of the Attic language. This passageis a real turning point in the oration, and certainly, as].H. Oliver said,'the key passage of the whole oration':" Athens' superiority, as Aristidessuddenly says, is not one of a historical kind, which would be basedupon her political and military rule. Therefore, all that takes placebefore in the speech-namely the first two thirds of the discourse­is, somehow, entirely erased. No, Athens' real superiority is actuallybased on her dialect, and on everything that is connected with the Attictongue, 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 realmanifesto against Thucydides, and I would like to show that Aristidesdistinguishes himself from the historian on two levels. Firstly, the ora­tor plans to define Athens' dunamis in contrast with Thucydides, andsecondly, broadly speaking, while bringing history and encomium faceto face, Aristides implicitly ponders over the right literary form to dealwith Athens in the imperial era. In other words, how is Athens' mem­ory to be dealt with within the Roman Empire?

At section 322 Aristides explicitly puts an end to the strictly historicalpart of his work:

And enough about these matters. But I shall not stop before I discuss asubject which, as far as we know, no one has mentioned up to this timein these public recitals of praise. 16 For it seems to me as it were improperto praise actions with speech and then to omit mentioning the part ofspeech itself (Kol ya.Q WO:n:EQ ou ttqJ.L'tov J-tOL qJULVE'taL A6yo~ 'to.\; :n:QU!;EL\;KOOJ-tOUV'tu 'tOU KU't' uu'tOU\; 'tOU\; A6you\; J-tEQOU\; :n:UQEAttELV 'tT]V J-tVELUV)YYou alone of mankind have erected 'a bloodless trophy' (UVULJ-tUK'tOV'tQo:n:mov), as the expression goes, not by defeating the Boeotians, orLacedaemonians, or Corinthians, ... but the whole human race---andyou 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 'foster­ing of studies and oratory' ('tQoqJfj~ 'tfj~ m~ aA.T]i}cii~ Kui}UQa~ KUt [)LUqJEQ6v'tOJ~ avi}Qum:ou,

'tfj~ EV !!u'lh1!!um KUt MyOL~), 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 (w~ aAT]tl'oo~ 'tT]V :n:QE:n:ouauv avtl'Qwmp %UL I)LT]VE%i'j) ... For allthe cities and the races of mankind turned to you and your form oflife, and dialect ('i\:n:uam yaQ ut :n:OAEL~ %UL :n:av'ta 'to. 'tOOV avtl'Qw:n:wv yEVT]:n:Qo~ u!J.ii~ %UL 'tT]V U!J.E'tEQUV I)Lm'taV %UL qJWVT]V a:n:E%ALvE). [323] And thepower of the city is not contained in the establishment of garrisons, butin the fact that all men of their own accord have chosen your ways andenrolled themselves as far as possible into the city, praying that theirsons and they themselves may have a share in the beauty which is yours(%UL ou qJQOUQUL~ ey%utl'EmT]%ULm~ ~ MVU!J.L~ 'ti'j~ :n:OAEW~ auvEXE'tm, aAM:n:aV'twv eSE:n:hT]I)E~ 'to. U!J.E1:EQU TIQT]!J.EVWV %UL da:n:mouV'twv EUU'tOiJ~ w~

I)uvu'tov'tti :n:OAEL, auVEUXO!J.EVWV %UL :n:maL %UL EUU'tOL~ 'tOil :n:uQ' U!J.LV %UAoil!J.E'tUAU~ELV).

And a little further on he writes:

[326] You Lacedaemonians and all other Greeks, I say that every daythis proof of the city's victory is still confirmed by you yourselves andespecially by the first men among you; they have abandoned their nativedialects and would be ashamed to speak in the old way even amongthemselves with witnesses present. And all men have come to acceptthis 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, whichhave changed their rulers countless times (Tuu'tT]v eyw 'tT]V !J.EyaAT]V aQXT]v%UAOO 'tT]v 'Atl'T]VULWV, OU 'tQL~QEL~ I)LU%OaLU~ ~ :n:AELOU~ oM' 'lwvLuv, oM''EAA~a:n:oV'tovoMe 'to. e:n:L eQg%T]~, a !J.UQLOU~ !J.E'tU~E~AT]%EV &QXoV'tu~).

According to Aristides, the real dunamis ofAthens is by no means basedon a geographically limited area, gained through a small-scale victoryover three of her nearby neighbours. Her empire is not a militaryone, one which could be quantified through the number of triremesand which would be maintained by garrisons, an empire subject tochanges (metabolaz) and, finally, a time-limited one. In fact, this picture iscompletely reversed: Athens' victory is no longer a limited one, butis now universal, both in time (it is permanent and unceasing) andin space (all peoples are concerned). Moreover this new kind of rulesettled down peacefully-with 'bloodless trophies'-and acts upon thewhole 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 basedhimself on the discrepancy between Aristides and Thucydides on the battle ofTanagra,among others, to state that the rhetor uses Ephorus (Haury 1888, 22). This thesisoverlooks 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 ~ M­VUI1LI; 'tfjl; :n:aAEwl;, as it is used in section 329: 1\ll of your oratory inall of its forms and that which others have written in your tradition isexcellent; and almost all orators, who have been fully successful amongthe Greeks, have been successful through the power of the Athenians'(UA:n:UV'tEI; M ol MyOL ~La. mrvnov 'tWV EL~WV ol :n:ug' UI1LV agLO'tOL xutoUI; ol :n:ug' UI1WV E:n:OLTJOUV, oXEMv ol ~La. :n:uV'tWV EV "EAATJOL VLXtlOUV'tEI;<i:n:uV'tEI; 'tfi 'tWV 'Ath)VULWV ~'UVUI1EL VEVLXtlXUOLV). Athens' 'power' clearlystands out as a central point of Pericles' famous argument in Thucy­dides' Book II. Concluding a first step of his argument, the Athenianstatesman declares that Athens is 'the school of Hellas', that the Athe­nians are a sort of a comprehensive person able to perform all kinds ofactions, 'with versatility' (EU'tgU:n:EAWI;), and he goes on to say: 'That thisis no mere boast inspired by the occasion, but actual truth, is attestedby the very power of your city, a power which we have acquired inconsequence of these qualities' (Ked WI; ou Mywv EV 't<p :n:ugaV'tL xal1­:n:OI; 'tU~E l1iiAAOV 11 Egywv aAtll'tELU, uu'tf] ~ MVUf.LLI; 'tfjl; :n:aAEwl;, ilv a:n:o'tWV~E 'tWV 'tga:n:wv EX'tTJOUI1El'tu, OTJI1ULVEL).19 The dunarnis of Athens isthen clearly portrayed as a military and political one;" it is power overallied peoples, and it has to resist the enemy. This power is above allbased on Athens' naval forces," it has 'compelled every sea and everyland to grant access to the daring [sc. of the Athenians]', and has 'ev­erywhere planted everlasting memorials (I1VTJI1ELU aL~Lu) both of evil andof good',"

Now in Pericles' oration, the power of Athens illustrates a definiteAthenian virtue-audacity (tolrna): 'Nay rather you must daily fix yourgaze upon the power of Athens ('tf]V 'tfjl; :n:6A.Ewl; MVUI1LV xul't' ~I1EgUV

Egycp l'tEWI1EVO'UI;) and become lovers of her, and when the vision of hergreatness has inspired you, reflect that all this has been acquired bymen 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·76.1;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 greaterthan their strength beat back the Barbarian and advanced our fortunes to their presentstate' (yvOOf.lTI re ltA.EOVL ~ 'tUXTI 'Kut 'tOA.f.lTI f.lE[~OVL ~ c'\lJVUf.lEL 'tOV re ~uQ~uQov UltEOOauV'to'KutE'; 'tUc'\E ltQo~yuyov 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 hisfuneral oration. He dwells on the remarkable way his fellow citizensput 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.UA­AOV t) novcov !J.EAE-tU),24 living instead unconstrained (avEL!J.EvWl; ()LaL'tW!J.E­VOL),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 confirmedin the speech delivered by the Corinthians in front of the SpartanApella in Book I-this text is well-known to Aristides, who quotesit verbatim in the second Leuctran Discourse," The Corinthians depictAthenian activism and vigour as dangerous to other peoples. Pericles'speech is thus mirrored in this famous antithetical presentation, wherethe Athenians are depicted in contrast with the idle and procrastinatingLacedaemonians. According to the Corinthian envoys, the Atheniansare fundamentally aggressive and innovative (they are VEw'tEQonOLoL),28they are prone to imagine new projects (EnLVOijOaL 01;ELl;)29 and high­risk actions, they are not reluctant to move (ano()1]!J.1]'tUL).30 And theCorinthians conclude thus: 'Therefore if a man should sum up andsay that they were born neither to have peace themselves nor to letother 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 ~OUXLUV !J.tl'tELOUl; aAAoul; aV{}Qwnoul; Eav, OQ{}Wl; av dnOL),31

The issue at stake now is whether the new meaning of Atheniandunamis in the Panathenaic Oration (that is, the dunamis of the logoi, thecultural empire of Athens) corresponds to a new interpretation of thebehaviour 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 alliesto 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 morefirmly established when it follows war, but to refuse to go to war from a desire fortranquillity 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 befound throughout Aristides' discourse, but these virtues are in a wayalways neutralised," for they are systematically linked with terms fallingwithin the semantic field of kindness, clemency (emEtxELu),35 even tem­per (:n:Q<;lO'tTji;),36 piety (EU<Jl~~ELU),37generosity (J-tEYUAO'IlruxLu),38 and justice(6LXaLOOUVTj).39 All these virtues are both crowned and summed up byphilanthropia (a term which Thucydides does not use).

In fact, in the whole Panathenaic Oration, the nature of the city andher inhabitants is twofold and, far from cancelling one another out,these two aspects complete each other in order to form a full andperfect 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 navalleadership to the Peloponnesians: 'When the Athenians had shownsuch great enthusiasm for the safety of all men, and made such agreat 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 notargue 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 peoplein their remarkable decisions has taken up the character of one man, the best one'­lpuvt']aE'taL yaQ, a IlEV 6LUlpEQOV'tW~ E~OllAEvau'to, EVO~ av6Qo~ ~ttEL XEXQT]IlEVO~ 'tou ~EA­

rtorou), In a general way, the city of Athens is endowed by Aristides with an ~tto~ (forexample 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; seealso 301-306 ('t~v 'tWV 3tQUYlla'twv lpVOLV), 3II).

33 f\V6QEla: 81-82 (where Aristides says that he just showed 'proofs, chosen fromancient examples, both of courage and of generosity', 'tUll'tL IlEV ovv XOLVU 6ElYIlU'tU,03tEQ E'GtOV, av6QEla~ rs XUL lpLl..avftQw3tlu~ 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, 256, 317.

34 See for instance sect. 89 (lpLAuvftQw3tlu and E1J'ljJllXlu), sect. 196 (the actions of thecity are the 'demonstration of justice and true courage' ...3tQo~ 6LXULOcrVVT]~ xUL 3tQo~

av6QELU~ E3tl6EL!;LV aAT]ttLvii~ ...); 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 threefeelings, along with pity and delight in eloquence, identified by Thucydides' Cleon asbeing 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, inIv.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 altersone of Thucydides' explanations of how the Athenian empire reachedits highest point. In an answer to the Corinthians, the Athenians ofThucydides 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 theimperatives of empire' ('rfi 'tfjl; uQXfjl; uxoAou{h1aal; uvuyxU), but as soonas possible they 'in generosity, have voluntarily dispensed with the fearof empire' (qJLA.avftQW:ltL~ be 'to 'tfjl; uQXT)1; ()E()OLXOI; EXWV !!EttElI;...) andbehaved with the greatest equity and moderation toward all (:ltAELO'tcp 'tepXOLVep xat !!E'tQLCP :ltQOI; a:ltav'tal; XQT)au!!Evol;).42 Moreover, their militarydunamis is even supplanted by a force of a different kind. After Athens'defeat before Syracuse, Aristides downplays the heavy losses of theAthenian army, speaking instead of a renewed force, consisting of a setof moral qualities: 'It was not like a city deprived of its power, but onewhich now had acquired more. The calmness of their behaviour, theirmoderation, and the disciplined life which they chose so as not to makeany shameful concessions could not be convincingly described' (...Kat

't~v !!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 theAthenians, in the Panathenaic Oration of Aristides? What has become ofPericles' fellow citizens?

40 See for instance sects. 174-176, 196, 213, and especially 252-256 (where Aristidesmakes use both o[,;oA.I-lu and OOOljlQOmJVIl to rewrite the episode of the Thirty in 404­403BC-oudot 2003)' Cf also sects. 344-345: 'Consider also matters of warfare, thecity's personal struggles, and those in defence of others; and again the successes athome and further those abroad, both in Greek and barbarian territory. And will youspeak of the courage or the generosity which is inherent in the wars themselves? Forjust as all the segments of a single spring, no matter how many the parts into which youdivide it, flow back to one another and are combined, so the wars fought through theneed of those who asked for help and the advantages deriving from knowledge combinewith the city's benefactions, and the city's activity on behalf of itself as those who askedfor 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 portraitof the 'enemies of the Roman order' (MacMullen 1966). Aristides emphasizes theresponsibility of the rebels and blames for their hubris 'those who made the actionnecessary' .

43 Panathenaic Oration 234.

40 ESTElLE OUDOT

The Athenians of the Panathenaic Oration are no longer the vigorous andconquering nation which is depicted in Thucydides' historical work. If theAthenian people is of course the most sharp-minded (o;{rtEQol;),44 Aris­tides immediately adds that this people is also the most even-tempered(:n:QUO'tEQOl;, sect. 396).45 And how could Aristides speak about the Athe­nians as an innovative people, when the whole oration emphasizes thepermanence of their national character throughout their whole history?The word VEW'tEQO:n:OLOl; naturally does not appear, and Aristides evenreverses an event reported by Thucydides in Book I.

This event took place in 46SBC when the rebels on Ithome triedto rise up against Sparta. The historian relates how the Lacedemo­nians first called on the Athenians for help, but dismissed them atonce, 'fearing their audacity and their revolutionary spirit ()eLOuV'tEl;'tow 'A:61'JVULWV 'to 'tOA.I-"TjQov xut VEW'tEQO:n:OLLUV) ... They thought thatif the Athenians remained, they might be persuaded by the rebels onIthome to change sides' (1-"'1'] n, ilv :n:uQUI-"eLVWVOLV, u:n:o 'tow EV 'Hho­I-"n :n:ELO'frEV'tEl; VEW'tEQLOWOL). Then Thucydides adds: 'It was in conse­quence of this expedition that a lack of harmony in the relations of theLacedaemonians and the Athenians first became manifest'.46 Aristides,however, relates this event in a completely different way and rewritesThucydides' text: we are told that the reason why the Lacedaemoni­ans no longer fear the rebels on Ithome is that the ~thenian peoplewere present under arms, confident in their courage and fearful for theLacedaemonians as if for their own safety... This action put an end tothe current fears of Lacedaemonia, and enabled the Lacedaemonianslater to punish the Perioeci'Y

44 The rhetor is well acquainted with the Thucydidean portrait of the Athenians asan active people which rejects every kind of idleness or inertia (Thuc. 1.70 and 11-40), aswe 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. Andthis is clear both from your decrees and from the contests in which you have alwaysengaged. And you alone, as I believe, have a law which has provided an indictment forinertia, so that no one may indulge in untimely idleness or neglect, or call slothfulnessa case ofminding 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)elIui <TtQu'tT]yoi ooqxirmrot lIui O~1J'ta'tOL 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 Spartansagainst the Persians (Thuc. 1.102). See also Diodorus XI.63-64.3 and Plutarch, Gimon16-17·

AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES

Finally, Aristides agrees that the Athenians are unable to be calm, justas in Thucydides' history, but according to him this is not 'becausethey regard untroubled peace as a far greater calamity than laboriousactivity', but on the contrary because they care for general peace:'Athens realized that the Greeks had no safety and security (uacpuAELuVxut aw'tTlQLuV) if it should shut them up and keep them at home, or ifit should ask nothing of them, or they should do nothing in their ownbehalf But if they should drive the barbarians as far as possible fromGreece, in this way Athens thought that all would have the best andfullest peace (oihw~ qlE'tO UQLO'tTjV xut xutl'uQav ~aux.Luv a:7tUOLV eawtl'm),and it judged well and with a regard for how matters stood. For itis generally true that they alone are most fully at peace who showthat they do not desire to remain entirely at peace' (f,tOVOL yaQ O)(.EMvO-o'tOL xutl'uQw~ ~aux.u~ouOLV, OL'tLVE~ o.v ()EL;WOL f,t1) :7tuV'tw~ ~aux.Luv ayELv()EOf,tEVOL).48

It is natural therefore that Aristides' narrative of the Pentakontaetiaperiod and the Peloponnesian War is strongly opposed to the histo­rian's. The Athens of Aristides never appears aggressive or repressive;it never acts out of revenge. Thus Athens is reluctant to intervene mili­tarily against the Greeks, although they are both ungrateful and jealousof her 'extraordinary actions'. It only tries to keep their rebellion undercontrol ('tq> XLVOUf,tEVOU~ XU'tUO)(.EtV) and, when compelled to wage waragainst them ('tq> :7tOAEf,tElV uvuyxuatl'Elau), 'seeks no advantage whenshe is victorious' (O'tE EVLXTjaE, f,tTj()Ev :7tAEOV ~Tj'tfJam).49 Such is the overallpattern of the relations between Athens and its allies throughout Aris­tides' celebration of the city.

Athens is above all a nation that helps victims and when the ora­tor cannot avoid speaking of Athenian attacks, he explains that thecity's behaviour is beyond the simple dichotomy between attacker anddefender, since it is able to invent a new kind of war ('tQhov :7tOAEf,tOUO)(.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, itsbelief drat it must wage total war against the barbarians, but against the Greeks mustfight simply to the point of attaining superiority'.

50 Panathenaic Oration 194. See, on the opposite, Thuc. 11.36.4, where Pericles clearlymentions two kinds of wars, the one waged to acquire possessions, and the otherswaged to repel attacks.

ESTElLE OUDOT

defender' (ro 'WLI; :1t:QO'tEQOLI; E:1t:L~OVAEUOaOLV UV'tE:1t:EA.{tEi:V alJ'tOUI;, EAEV­tl'EQL<;1 J.LEv 'tft 'tWV uQ)(.6V'twv, chxmooUvTI 6E 'tft 'tWV UJ.LVVOJ.LEVWV XQWJ.LE­VOVI;).51

Aristides even goes a step further. Paradoxically, Athens in the Pana­thenaic Oration uses wars to give advice about peace and concord, be­cause she constantly acts out of philanthropia.52 In fact, that is preciselyhow she is a true model (paradeigma) for others. Consider for examplehow Aristides deals with the government of the Thirty Tyrants and thereturn of the democrats." This text is particularly significant, becauseit presents Athens' deeds as part of a pattern of behaviour. Aristideshere praises Athens for the specific way she overcame the crisis andgot out of these times of troubles by decreeing the amnesty: 'She notonly bore more gracefully her defeats in war than others their suc­cesses, but she also settled her troubles at home in such a way thatall mankind had a definition of moderation (oQov oWqJQooUVTjI;) and noone later could discover a better arrangement than theirs'.54 As a proofboth of moderation and daring (aJ.La oWqJQOOUVTjI; rs xat 'tOAJ.LTjI; ... ()EL­

YJ.Lam),55 Aristides reports as an extraordinary fact that 'when they hadstruggled against those in the city, and had opposed the Lacedaemoni­ans, and held the Piraeus (...), the assembled democrats at once cameready for battle and almost at the same time to make terms, as if eachside were going to wage war on behalf of one another, and not them­selves 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 welfareof Greece; wars on behalf of those who in particular desired aid; and among those whodesired aid are people by whom the city had been wronged and against whose formerconduct it could complain'.

52 Gasca 1992 .

53 See also the discrepancy between Thucydides and Aristides in the accounts theygive of the Sphacteria episode. According to the orator (sect. 277), 'the city made peaceand 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 thespot the Athenians whom they had captured by the ruse of the naval batde-and Isay no more-, although they had an example from home of the city's behaviourtoward unfortunates (...xaL "tau"ta UltUQX0V1:01; "tou ltaQa()ELy~a"t01; au"toi£; OLXO'frEV, OLaltEQL "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 Lacedae­monians lent to the Thirty, 'we could not discuss the internal affairsof the Lacedaemonians. For they kept these concealed.57 But the city,beside arranging its own affairs in this way in the presence of manywitnesses, also became a model for other people'," that is to say thefamous paradeigma to which Pericles alludes in II.37.!. This then enablesAristides to show the Athenian model spreading abroad and the cityteaching its own history as an example of homonoia: 'Later she cured byher actions and counsel the masses of the Argives when they were sickwith faction. For she reconciled them by sending to them and remind­ing them of her own history'.59 'Clearly the Athenians alone among allhave administered both the private and the public affairs of the Greeks.For they not only thought that they must save the Greeks from theirenemies, but also that they must reconcile them when they were sickwith faction at home'.60

We must of course read this work within the contemporary politi­cal framework of the Roman Empire. Through Athens' history, Aris­tides offers two patterns of political behaviour. On the one hand, heuses the city as a paradigm of the perfect ruling power, a power whichavoids being aggressive, but works through gentle attraction.s'Athenscares 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, thenthey were in the worst condition. Again when upon the return of that party they votedan amnesty, they enjoyed the best reputation and once more were almost as they werein the beginning'.

57 C£ Thuc. 11.39.I.58 Panathenaic Oration 260: Kal!-l~v AmtE/)aL!-lOVLOL !-lEv oJtw~ W!-lo..ouv aM~AOL~ oux uv

EXOL!-lEV El.:n:ELV· EXQUJt1;OV YUQ' ~ I)E JtOA~ JtQo~ 'tip 'ta mpE'tEQa au'tii~ oihw i}EO'fraL !-lE'taJtOMIDV !-laQ'tuQwv xal 'to~ UAAO~ JtaQu/)ELY!-la xa'tEO'tI'].

59 Panathenaic Oration 261: To youv ~QyElwv JtAiii}o~ vooonv UO'tEQOV taaa'tO xal EQYcpxal Mycp. IIE!-l\jJaaa yaQ w~ au'tou~ xal ilJto!-lv~aaaa 'tIDV Eau'tfj~ /)L~AAal;E. This allusionremains 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, whichtook place in 370. On these events, see Diodorus XV.57.3 - 58 and Plutarch, Precepts ofStatecrafl 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. Tou~ re yaQ "EAAT]Va~ ou !-lOVOV EX 'tIDVJtOAE!-lLWV .poV'to /)ELV QUEO'fraL, aMa xal voaouV'ta~ EV ail'tOL~ aJtaMu't'tELV, au'tOL'tE xalJtQo~ 'tou~ El;w JtOAE!-lOU~ xal JtQo~ 'ta~ OLXOL /)uaxoAla~ JtaQEaxEUaa!-lEVOL XQELTIOV EAJtL/)o~

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 hisdue').

44 ESTElLE OUDOT

Oration:" But on the other hand, for the rhetor, Athens is also themodel of the Greek subject city within the Empire, because it is ableto cure its domestic troubles and therefore Roman forces do not haveto be brought in. This means that Aristides here, leaving Thucydidesaside, meets Plutarch, particularly his Precepts qf Statecraft. In this work,Plutarch gives the young Menemachos advice about the way to keep hiscity peaceful and obedient: the officials in the cities must not 'foolishlyurge the people to imitate the deeds, ideals and actions of their ances­tors', if they are 'unsuitable to the present times and conditions' (8I¢).But, as Plutarch says, 'there are many acts of the Greeks offormer timesby recounting which the statesman can mould and correct the charac­ters of our contemporaries, for example, at Athens by calling to mind,not deeds in war, but such things as the decree of amnesty after thedownfall of the Thirty Tyrants' (and, as another example) 'how; whenthey heard of the clubbing at Argos, in which the Argives killed fifteenhundred of their own citizens, they decreed that an expiatory sacrificebe carried about in the assembly' (8I4B).

Thus, to come back to Thucydides, we see that Aristides reverses thehistorical picture of Athens in two ways. Firstly, its real power residesin its language and culture and, secondly, when Aristides deals with its'hegemonic' past, Athens is put forward as a model of concord. Andtherefore we may, I think, to some extent imagine the Panathenaic Orationas a reply to Thucydides' historical work.

This seems all the more likely when we consider another way inwhich Aristides takes a different stand from that of Thucydides. Toillustrate this, I would like to come back briefly to the text with whichI began this paper. According to Aristides, earlier encomia of Athenswere a failure, because, whereas orators praised 'actions with speech'(A6yOL£ ,;a£ JtgaSEL£ xocuouvrc), they omitted mentioning the topic ofspeech itself." Pericles, in the funeral oration, is not concerned-atleast, not at first sight-with the praise of Athens' oratory. Indeed, hebegins by asserting the inferiority of words (logoz) compared to actions(erga). According to him, what counts is that the glory of the celebratedmen is based on two external criteria: the orator's ability to speak andthe 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 RomanOration, 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 oppositionthroughout his oration before finally dismissing it. But what matters isthat Aristides, here too, makes a complete reversal: by asserting thatthe power of Athens lies in her logoi (her language, her literature, herculture), he goes beyond Pericles' position. The logos now representsthe best deed (ergon) of Athens and it is precisely this that he plansto celebrate. From now on, there exists the perfect identity betweenform and subject which Pericles longed for. And thus a part of theprooemium of the Panathenaic Oration becomes clearer: 'It is reasonableto present here a speech on this subject and to honour the city in afitting way. For it has chanced that other means of showing gratitudeare just, yet not directly proper to the matter, but that this alone canbe called a genuine means of expressing thanks for your kindness. Forthe expression of thanks for oratory delivered by means of oratory isright in itself but also first of all confirms the name given to this kind ofspeech. For it alone is, in the literal sense, the eulogy' ('H yaQ imEQ MywvMyQ.l YLYVOf.tEVTj XUQL~ ou f.tOVOV 'to OLxmov eXEL f.tE'fr' EU'lJ'tfi~, aAM xat't~v a:7to 'tov Myo'lJ :7tQ6nov E:7tWV'Uf.tLUV ~E~moi:' f.tOVTj YUQ EO'tLV aXQL~w~

EVAOYO~). 65

Thus oratory is really revalued against history. According to Aris­tides, history is not relevant when dealing with Athens. Indeed it isunequal to what is essential in Athens' soul, because, according to therhetor, it is only concerned with the accurate narrative of actions."In fact true accuracy (axQL~ELU) is reached by making a selection fromamong the deeds of the past and by choosing those which are suitableto illustrate a quality peculiar to the object. The main thing is to 'omitno category ofpraise' (f.tTjOEv doo~ EUqJTjf.tLU~ :7tuQuAd:7tELV)Y

65 Panathenaic Oration 2. See also sect. 329: 'As if nature had foreseen from the starthow far in its actions the city would excel all the others, it created for it an oratoryof 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 taskofwriting 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 extendinto 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 onlyif 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, andAristides, on this point too, wants to reply to Thucydides.

As the historian says, it is impossible 'as to the events of a still earlierdate' (than the Persian wars) to get 'clear information on account oflapse of time' (aa<pwl; EUQELV <'lux XQovou :n:A:fj'frol; u6'UvU'tOV),68 and, 'todescribe the state of affairs of early times, it is difficult to credit any andevery piece of testimony' (:n:uvrl E~fjl; 'tEXI-tTJQLq> :7tLO'tEiiam).69 Thucydidesaccordingly dismisses the poets and logographoi-a term Aristides couldapply to himself-who have composed accounts 'with a view ratherof pleasing the ear than of telling the truth' (e:n:l 'to :n:Qoauywyo'tEQOV'tfi uXQouaEL ~ UATJ'frEO'tEQOV).7o Thucydides wants his historical methodto be 'adjudged profitable' (WqJEALI-tU XQLVELV) and not thought of as 'aprize-essay to be heard for the moment' (uywvLal-tU el; 'to :n:uQUXQfjl-tuUXOVELV).71

The Panathenaic Oration of Aristides attempts to reply to these twomain points. First, it is because the beginnings of the city are not clearor easily comprehensible that Aristides can make use of the topos thathe does not know where to begin.72

Furthermore, speaking about Athens, Aristides aims at pleasing theear as well as telling the truth. In other words, he plans to reconcile thetwo criteria which Thucydides contrasted. That is what he explains ina text which is part of what is called the 'second prooemium' withinthe long account of the Persian wars." Here Aristides clearly plays withThucydides' words: 'I see indeed that my speech is becoming long andthat it is no longer easy after what has already been said to speak toplease or to win my audience (ou Q<;l<'lLOV QV :n:QOl; TJ<'lOVf]V 01hE uu'tOV ihLElJtELV 01hE 'tUXELV uxouovrwv), just like a second contestant who entersafter the first has distinguished himself However, I did not undertakethese arguments to entertain (ou 'ljJuXUYWYLal; XUQLV), but to show truth­fully the worth of the city (I-tE'ta UATJ'frelul; 'tf]V 'tfjl; :n:OAEWl; U~LUV), so thatI shall do more wrong by slackening than I shall cause annoyance byspeaking'." The word uYWVLO'tT]l; clearly recalls the Thucydidean worduywVLl-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\; ~6ovfj ~aaw!-tEvOL xaL oorpurrdrv 'frEa'taL\; EOLXO'tE\;).75

Thus Aristides' Panathenaic Oration attempts a double reversal ofThu­cydides' work: imperial Athens of the fifth century-which is depictedby the historian as an increasing power-is now the model ofa pacifismaimed at universal concord. The Panathenaic Oration offers the structuredvision of the relations between the ruling power and the ruled cities,which is precisely the one promoted by Rome. Besides, while offering anew definition of Athens' dunamis, Aristides first excludes Athens fromhistory, using the empire described by Thucydides as a metaphor. Beingan essence, Athens exists before coming into historical times. In factfor Aristides Athens has no beginnings: because it is by herself anuQX~, it serves as a first principle." Therefore the history of Athenscannot be a chronological one, for its function is to illustrate valueswhich always recur and are continuously confirmed. Thus it is notsurprising that Aristides does not mention any evolution in Athens'supremacy-neither decline nor progress. And when the city, in thePanathenaic Oration, finally comes into the historical frame, Aristidesmakes clear that this chronology is provided by Rome, presented asthe last of the five world empires: 'Under the empire at present existing,which is in every way the best and greatest, Athens has precedenceover all the Greek race, and has fared in such a way that no onewould 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 :JtQEO~Ei:a

: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 theunit made up of the Panathenaic Oration and the Roman Oration, Aristidesworks out an overall view: Athens' history is now fixed as a logicalwhole and her values are to be 'historicized' by Rome. In the RomanOration, 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 foster­father, but so great are its honours that now the only difference in the city's condition isthat it does not engage in serious affairs (ou 3tQUYJ,lUTEUETaL). But for the rest, it is almostas 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£78 But meanwhile they take over from the Greeks, puttinginto practice the very values brought forward by the Athenians of thePanathenaic Oration.

There is one last issue I would like to emphasize briefly. From a moregeneral viewpoint, the Panathenaic Oration is likely to be read as one ofthose works of the Second Sophistic period that meditate on the mostsuitable literary form to deal with Athens. Thus, in some ways, Aris­tides' thought comes close to Strabo's own questions about the rightway to describe the space and the stones of Athens. In Book 9 of hisGeograplry, he states that the city cannot be depicted because she istoo famous and too celebrated (u!1vou!1evwv re 'Kat ()La~OW!1evwv). Heis therefore afraid of making a real digression (E'K:7teoELV 'tfj~ :7tQotl'eoE­w~). 79 The Acropolis, he says, needs either the mention of one of itsmonuments or the exhaustive description made by a periegete, but inno case a geographical account." Later, Dionysius Periegetes, in hisDescription ofthe T#Jrld, even brings this picture to the highest point ofabstraction. For a topographical or architectural mention, he substi­tutes a literary locus." referring to the discussion between Socrates andPhaedrus, and more exactly to the mythological event which, in Plato'sdialogue, prompts the discussion of the respective powers of talking andwriting," Athens is no longer a geographical place, but a weighty cul­tural reference. And Plutarch's declamation upon the glory ofAthens,"questioning whether the city's fame is due to her statesmen and gener­als or to her historians, poets or orators, also comes into this discussion.

Through the Panathenaic Oration, both by itself and in connection withthe Roman Oration, Aristides takes part in the hotly debated questionof Athens' essence. For him, the city's identity is now purely a cul­tural one and her past is now a rhetorical matter. Thus historiogra­phy's hegemony falls away, as if it were no longer of any use. Thetrue 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 Et~ JtAii{}o~

E~Jti.m:OlV TWV JtEQL Tii~ JtOAEOl~ TUUTT]~ U~V01J~EVOlV TE ltULIlLU~OOl~EVOlV OltVW JtAEova~ELv,

~~ lJ1J~~fi Tii~ JtQO{}ElJEOl~ EltJtElJELV ~v 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 'A~VULOL ltUTU JtOAE~OV ~ ltUTU lJOqJLUV EV­

1l0;6TEQOL) (345C-351C).

AELIUS ARISTIDES AND THUCYDIDES 49

there, Aristides may address the contemporary issue about the worthof the relationship between history and rhetorical praise" which isreflected in Lucian's treatise How to Write History. In the part of thetreatise devoted to advice, after recalling Thucydides' famous asser­tions" and setting the historian's concern against the orator's, Luciandescribes the ideal historian's mind through a striking comparison: 'Lethim bring a mind like a mirror (... xa't6:lt'tQq> EOLxu'iav :ltaQaoxecrf}w 't~v

yVW!1TJv...), clear, gleaming-bright, accurately centred, displaying theshape of things just as he receives them, free from distortion, falsecolouring, and misrepresentation'.86 Aristides uses the same image atthe end of the Panathenaic Oration, but now the mirror which is perfectlysuitable to Athens is ofcourse eloquence itself: 'Men anywhere on earthmust of necessity think of oratory and of the Athenians simultaneouslyand they would never expel from their soul the city's image (xat !1TJM­nors Ex~aAEi:v av EX 'tii~ '¢ux.ii~ 'to EL()WAOV, WO:ltEQ EV xa't6:lt'tQq> 'to'i~ A.6­YOL~ E!1~A.E:ltOv'ta~), 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 isleaving to posterity the true account of what happened. He brings in, too, the questionof usefulness and what is, surely, the purpose of sound history: that if ever again menfind themselves in a like situation they may be able, he says, from a consideration of therecords of the past to handle rightly what now confronts them' (transl. Kilburn).

86 How to Write History 50 (transl. Kilburn).87 Panathenaic Oration 397.

CHAPTER THREE

ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS

SUZANNE SAiD

An exhaustive study ofAristides' mythology' would require a full book,such as S. Gotteland's Mythe et rhetorique on the mythical examples inAttic orators or A. GanglofPs Dion Chrysostome et les mythes. For mythsappear not only in full narratives but also in passing allusions, com­parisons, examples. They may be criticized or interpreted allegorically.They serve as mere ornaments or may be drastically recast to suit theneeds of the time. In this paper, I will only be content with merelygiving 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 towardsmythology. Then I focus on the Heracles myth, distinguishing betweenits rhetorical uses and the transformation of its content according toimperial ideology. This myth is indeed the most prominent in Aristides'speeches. Heracles is not only celebrated in a hymn, he also appearsin other settings: hymns celebrating other gods (Athena, the sons ofAsclepios, Sarapis) or sanctuaries (Eleusis), the panegyric of Athens andthe celebration of the reconstruction of Smyrna, meletai (Orations 5 to 16:OnMaking Peace with the Athenians [8], 70 the Thebans [9 and 10],LeuctrianSpeeches [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 exceptionalpresence may be explained not only by the popularity of the hero inthe Greek world, but also by his place in imperial propaganda. Inthe kingship speeches of Dio, the appeals to the precedent of Heracleshave justly been regarded as complimentary to Trajan, who made himinto his favorite hero." This may also be the case for Aristides, sincethe 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 illustrationof an ideological recycling of a classical myth.

I. Muthos

In Aristides' speeches muthos is not always the antonym of logos.' Thetwo words may be associated.'

It is not only used for what we call 'myths' such as 'the tale of thePamphylian Er' and the myth of the Gorgias,6 but also for fables? orreports of impossible phenomena by a geographer such as the Mas­salian Euthymenes," reports which are like 'the tales told by the nursesto their children when it is bedtime."

'Myth' may be praised as a cryptic discourse that prevents the unini­tiated from understanding a sacred truth.'? But usually Aristides usesmuthos, muthologema, and muthodes in order to remind his audience thatthe characters" or the events" which he mentions are 'fabulous' or'wonderful'." He contrasts the making of 'myths', that is the storiesconcerning 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 andsea', 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 36.85'9 36.96.

10 28.II3. In the Hymn to DioT£YsOS the story of Dionysos bringing Hephaistos up toheaven is interpreted as a 'riddle' (U'LvLyItU) whose point is clear: 'that the power of thegods is great and invincible, and that he could give wings even to asses, not only tohorses' (4I.7).

11 The Phaeacians (25. 40) or the Gorgon (1. 128), lasos, Kriasos, Crotonos andPhoroneus (2.7).

12 27.18: the tale (ltui}oAOYTlItU) about the Trojan wall; 21.5: the tale (ltiii}ov) about theTheban wall; 25.29: the tales (ItUi}OAOYliItU"tU) about the birth of Rhodes raised by thegods as a gift to the Sun; 2.207: the tale (ltiii}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 ofSmyrna, and its historical founders, Lysimachus and Alexander," In theEleusinian Oration, he sets the return of the Heraclidae as the beginningof historical times, when he opposes 'the things which go back to myth'to 'what happened later on, after the Heraclidae have returned to thePeloponnesus'," as did Ephorus, who began his universal history withthe return of the Heraclidae." In the second Smyrnean Oration,19 aftercomparing what happened to Smyrna, which, once destroyed, is nowsuperior to itself, to what happened to Pelops, who, once taken fromthe cauldron and put together anew; became even more beautiful,he completes the mythical simile with another one, which must bebelieved since it belongs to history, for Athens, after its destruction bythe Persians, became even larger and 'expanded on every side'.

In agreement with rhetorical treatises," Aristides often indicates hisdistancing from the myths by introducing them with 8 ()~ lpaOL,21 M­yO'UOLv,22 MYE'taL,23 f.L'Ul'toAoyOUOL,24 or W~ Myo~.25 But once he validatesa 'myth' by quoting the poets as reliable witnesses and pointing outtheir consensus.P In the Panathenaic Oration, he dismisses with the adjec­tive muthodes the most ancient Athenians myths." In his speech 70 Platoin Difense if Oratory, he not only puts the tale of the Sown-men intoinverted commas ('just as they say the Sown-men did'), he also adds askeptical comment, 'if the myth hints at this'," and then introduces themyth of Prometheus by way of an excuse: 'if a myth must be told'. 29Even in the hymns, where myths are a given in the pars epica, Aris-

16 19-4-17 22.4-5: xul 'til !-lEv d~ !-lu'frou~ avf]xoV'tu 'tOLUU'tU. 'til II' UO'tEQOV 'HQuxAELllwv d~

IIEA01tOVV1]OOV XU'tEA'frOV'tOOV.18 Diod.Sic. 4.1.3.19 21.l(}-II: !-lV1JO''!h100!-lm II' ELXOVO~ ou !-lu'frcbllou~. aAA' avuyxuLU~ 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 !-lu'fro~ 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 toAthena, he introduces the usual mythical part with a cautious sentence:'If these matters must be mentioned in detail and the myths must notbe 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, whichappeared through her agency"? and concludes by opposing the elusivelanguage of the myths to what can be said openly." In the Hymn to Her­acles, he concludes his narrative of ancient myths with a dismissal: 'Butwhy 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, Corinthus the sonof Zeus or Bellerophon the son of Poseidon or any other of the heroesor demigods? Or again those who afterwards invented weights, scales,measures, and the justice inherent in these, and the story of how thiscity built the first ship, not only the trireme, but even Argo itself... Oragain the deeds on land, the so-called wings of Pegasus ... and he whofirst dared to ride him, the flying knight?'33 For 'these are old and fabu­lous stories'. 34 Later on in the same hymn, he introduces the story of thetwo gods, the child and his mother, with a cautious warning 'whetherthis part of the speech should be called a tale or a myth'.35 The suffer­ings of Ino Leucothea and her son, as well as the ordeals of the godsand the stories which portray Ares in chains, Apollo as a hired servantor Hephaistos cast into the sea are also quickly dismissed, since 'this isneither a holy or a pious story, especially when one is speaking aboutthe gods. We must banish this tale (Myov) not only from the Isthmusand the Peloponnesus, but also from all Greece'." The tales portrayingHeracles dancing among the Lydians or killing his wife and his childrenare denied any plausibility" as well.

The hymns to Sarapis, to Athena and to Heracles also criticize poeticmyths in nearly identical terms. In the hymn 70 Sarapis the oratormakes fun of the privileges of the poets who are allowed to 'put touse on each occasion whatever sort of subjects they wish, although

30 37.11; C£]ohrens 1981, 85.3l 37.27: Elyae IIEi x.u-raMcruvtu 'toiJ~ !-lu'frou~ Ei.n:Eiv EL~ 'to !-lEcrOV 'to.'tfj~ '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 xe~ cpavm.36 46.33. See Kindstrand 1973, 213.37 34.59: &. 'tL~ av :n:EL'frOL'tO EQ cpeoviiiv;.

ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS 55

they are untrue and sometimes implausible and without substance atall (iJ:n:o'frE(JeL~ ... , oihe aA.TJ'freL~ oihe EVL<rte :n:L'frUVa.~), if one should wishto view it properly'.38 He proposes a definition of poetic topics which isindeed very close to the rhetorical definition of muthos as a tale whichis neither true nor plausible, as opposed to historia which is true, and toplasma which is a plausible fiction." In the Hymn to Athena, the help givenby the goddess to Odysseus, Bellerophon, Perseus, and Heracles in histwo descents into the underworld (first to fetch Cerberus and second tofreed Theseus) as well as in his fights against the gods are also presentedas 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 Thesame goes for the 'myth' of Orpheus attracting wood and stones, whichis interpreted as an exaggerated ()L' u:n:eQ~oA.fj~) description of his abilityto move men with his music."

This criticism of myths comes together with a criticism of the poetswho 'composed' them ('twv <J'UV'frEV'tWV)42 in the Isthmian Oration. In theEgyptian Discourse, the poets again come under attack because they'compose fabulous tales (!1v'fro'U~ ... (J'Uv'freLvm)' and use these forgeriesas embellishments: they cannot be reliable witnesses." So it comes asno surprise if the Massalian geographer who told muthoi about Libyaand was both charming and unreliable is said to be like a poet."

'Myth' even becomes, like 'dream', a metaphor for anything non­existant such as the daily and nightly amusements of young men of hisage for the serious Eteoneus," or the wars for those who enjoy the PaxRamona." After an earthquake, Smyrna and Rhodes, which were utterlydestroyed, are said to have become mere 'myths'." This is the reasonwhy Aristides, who introduced the story of Prometheus as a muthos,48concludes it by saying, 'Let our myth end with a conclusion I think inno 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 dAAw~ I-lu{}wv 'ta~eL.

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 aAAw~ I-tu'fro~ mu'ta oM'ovaQ, UAA' v:ltaQ),.49 In the same way Dio, after introducing in the firstKingship Oration the story of Heracles as a muthos, corrects himselfand calls it a sacred and sound tale (A.6yo~) which has only the form ofa myth."

However Aristides, while often giving a plainly negative value tomuthos,51 makes lavish use of mythical allusions in his speeches, for mythwas a necessary adornment of a figured style. Moreover its flexibility,which is far superior to that of history, makes it into an indispensabletool for the orator, as demonstrated by the various explanations of thedeification of Heracles. In the Hymn to Athena, it is of course Athena'who clearly enrolled Heracles as a god among the gods'." But inthe Panathenaic Oration, it is Athens alone which is said to be the first'to establish for Heracles temples and altars'" (a version also adoptedby the meletai delivered by Athenian orators)," whereas in the Hymnto Heracles the Athenians are preceded by Apollo, who 'immediatelyproclaimed the establishment of temples to Heracles and that sacrificesbe made to him as a god' and 'revealed it to Athens'. 55 Aristidesmay also give a new twist to an old myth in order to make it moreappropriate to his purpose. The Athenian hero Theseus was usuallysaid to have modeled himself on Heracles." But in his praise ofAthens,Aristides makes Athens into a role model (:ltaQui'lELYl-ta 'tou ~Lo'U) 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 sacredceremonies, while they still lived among mankind, so that it clearly deified those towhom we now sacrifice'.

54 9. 30: 'we shall omit... how Heracles was the first stranger to be initiated in themysteries and how we were the first to establish a temple for him'. IO.36: 'How isthis conduct worthy of Dionysos and Heracles who, although being natives of yourcountry, 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 alsoIsocrates, 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', andhis 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 exploitingall the possibilities of myth, which may be interpreted literally or sym­bolically and used as direct argument or as an indirect reference termin comparisons.

It is only in the meletai that various episodes in the Heracles mythare used as arguments or examples to be followed by speakers whocapitalize on the archaizing taste of the audience" and hark back tothe most ancient past, while sometimes using the well known rhetoricaldevice of praeteritio and announcing their intention to leave the mythsout."

In the oration On behalfifMaking Peace with the Athenians, the Lacedae­monian who favors showing mercy to the defeated Athenians remindshis fellow-citizens of their former behavior, how they welcomed theHeraclidae, who were the ancestors of the Spartan kings, and how Her­acles, together with the Dioscuri, who were especially worshipped atSparta, were the first strangers to be initiated by the Athenians."

In the speech 70 the Thebans concerning the Alliance I, in order toobtain the Thebans' help against Philip, the Athenians similarly evoke'all [their] acts which bear on friendship and trust, which cover solong a period and are so numerous'J" Beginning with the myths, theyrecall first the ties of friendship between Athens and Theban gods andheroes: 'We shall omit how we received Oedipus and how Dionysuscame from you and met with Icarius and the gift which he gavehim and how Heracles was the first stranger to be initiated in themysteries and how we were the first to establish a temple for him',62

then the personal friendships which are the strongest: 'For what ismore 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 formerfriendship, also demonstrated by the common campaign waged byHeracles and Theseus against the Amazons, as an example to befollowed." In a second speech on the same topic, the same argumentis used and reinforced by a reference to the honors given by theAthenians to the Theban Heracles and Dionysos 'who, although beingnatives ofyour country, were first admired (e'ftaul-tu<J'tl1')oav) by US'.65

The Leuctrian debate, with its five successive speeches pro and con­tra, provides the best illustration of the flexibility of myth, since thesame episode can be used by two orators to promote two oppositepolicies. On the one hand Heracles, as a descendant of Pelops andan ancestor of the Spartan kings, may be considered as a Spartan.So the Athenian who speaks in favor of the Lacedaemonian allianceand reminds his audience of 'many old and more recent deeds' whichthe cities share in common beside their joining against the barbarian,tells how the Athenians shared the mysteries with Heracles before allother foreigners, and were the first to grant him the same honors asthe gods, when he departed from mankind.P On the other hand, Her­acles, who was born at Thebes and closely associated with the ThebanIolaos, may be considered as Theban. Thus, the same argument is used(together with the reception of the Theban Oedipus) by the Athenianwho pleads for siding with the Thebans, given the ancient connectionsbetween Athens and Thebes."

Myth may be interpreted metaphorically. Accordingly in the Hymnto Athena, Aristides offers a translation of the tales concerning the helpgiven by Athena to the most extraordinary exploits of Heracles: 'Fromthese actions', he says, 'it seems to me that nothing other is signifiedthan Athena's declaration of her opinion to the gods that they shoulddecree Heracles a god'.68

But myth is above all used by Aristides, according to the rules ofepideictic rhetoric," as an appropriate reference in comparisons, and

63 9.32 •

64 9.33: 'tL ofivou I-lLI-l0UI-lE'3a 'to'u~ &QXl]Ylha~.

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 circon­stances du discours a des figures ou des situations tirees de la mythologie, afin de trans­ferer 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 speech10 Plato: in Defense if the Four, 'some utterly worthless men' (usuallyidentified as the Cynics) who slander oratory are compared to 'a cer­tain stage satyr who cursed Heracles, and next hung his head whenhe approached'," while Plato, who ranked Callicles and Pericles orThemistocles together, is like someone who would put on the same levelIphicles, 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 greathero: 'Is it not terrible, 0 earth and gods, for Aristophanes to attemptto compare his jokes to the deeds of Heracles?'73

Myth may also be used as minus, 'since it is surpassed by the matterunder examination'.74 When the Athenian orator of the melete 9 wantsto demonstrate to his Theban audience how dangerous Philip is, heis not content with echoing the commonplace of Athenian rhetoric atthe 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 chosenthe campaign against the Amazons or any other war, before they hadjointly destroyed this one person, of whom neither the Isthmus nor anyrace is inexperienced, but both the earth and the sea are failing as asource ofplunder'.75

Aristides also displays his virtuosity by capping a first mythical com­parison with another one that is more surprising. Because Plato unfairlyaccused Pericles of 'making the Athenians babblers instead of orderly,he who prevented them from babbling as far as he could', Aristidesin his speech 10 Plato: in Defense if the Four compares him to someonewho would say that 'Heracles accustomed men to be brazen and boldbecause he went about using his bow and club, he who in quite theopposite way ... accustomed all men to be orderly'.76 In fact, accordingto 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 ex minoribus 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] emitsfire'.

76 3.66-67.

60 SUZANNE SAID

his henchman, 'Iolaos who burnt the heads of the mass, to quote thecomic poet'," a comparison which also vividly bears out the dreadfulcharacter of the mob assimilated to the hydra."

In the speech To Plato: in Defense qf Oratory, the traditional mythi­cal simile is but a starting point for the elaboration of a surprisinglybaroque comparison. Plato, who assimilates the orators to tyrants­an assimilation which, according to Aristides, is 'a combination of theuncombinable' eta U!1LX'tU !1LYVV~)-, 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 wasdoing what he intended'.79

In the speech Against those who Burlesque the lvIysteries, in which Aristidespours out abuses against 'those servile fellows, the dancers, the pan­tomimes, 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 (wQx~au'tO)among the Lydians"! becomes thepretext ofa display ofvirtuosity. The objection is first dismissed becauseafter all, the story of Heracles dancing among the Lydians is but a'myth': 'The same writers [who report this story] also tell the followingtale (!1u'froAoyovm) about Heracles, that he murdered his wife and sonswhen he was in a condition which is not proper to mention. What sen­sible person would believe this (&. 'tL~ o.v :7teL'frOL'tO di <jJQoVWV)?'82 Then,Aristides proposes a dazzling succession of alternative versions whichall give a positive image of the hero. First, he minimizes the importanceof this dancing and gives a positive view of Heracles' motives: 'I cannotsay whether Heracles danced among the Lydians. But if he did, still itwas a single day, out of playfulness and at the same time perhaps inmockery of the Lydians', then he adds, 'as a fourth argument', that 'hebecame no worse a man in the circumstances of his dancing, but heremained who he was' in order to emphasize the gap between the heroand 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 theground, but did not find the city' is capped first with a bon mot 'but he found it well atArtemisium and Salamis', and then by a second mythical simile 'and he did not endurethe 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 whileinternally sound, but before all mankind, every day'. He caps his criti­cism with a new mythological comparison of their dances, 'which, notto 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 ofHeracles and make it into a valid paradigm for his contemporaries.

In his Hymn to Heracles, he suppresses every suggestion of a conflictamong the gods or improper behavior by the hero. He mentions Hera­cles' first exploit, the killing of the serpents which came up to his swad­dling clothes," but these serpents are no longer sent by Hera." Therelease of Prometheus," as well as the tales of how Heracles relievedAtlas, brought Cerberus from Hades and Theseus along with him,wounded Pluto and Hera, and subdued the Giants when he aided thegods, become a figure of speech invented by poets" and 'a hyperbolic(OL' iJJtEQBoAii~) way of saying that Heracles has searched through everyland and every sea and has gone to every boundary and every limitand has neglected nothing beneath the earth nor as far as the heav­ens'.88 The pyre and what comes before disappear as well. They arereplaced with a more acceptable 'purification'.89

Some famous episodes are reinterpreted and moralized. The excep­tional length of the night spent by Zeus with Alcmene is no longerexplained by sexual passion, but by his wish 'to infuse into his offspringthe 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 (ltElaa~) Zeus to put an end to his wrath.87 4°.7: E'X. I'lE 't01J1;IDV ltOLTJ'taL IIQoIlTJ{}Ea~ re 1m'au'tOu AlJOIlEVOlJ~ 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 thewinged chariot of Triptolemos is also presented as a metaphor: 'Tradition told that thechariot was winged, because he went everywhere faster than anticipated' (36).

89 4o. lI : EltEI1\i] YUQ UltfjA{}EV E1; uv{}QomIDv 'HQa'X.Afj~ 'X.a{}aQ{}E~ 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. EQID'tL'X.fj~ EltL{}\JIlLa~

SUZANNE SAID

The labors are reinterpreted in order to accommodate the needs ofa contemporary audience, as is demonstrated by a comparison withformer rhetorical versions." The mythical Heracles was right from thebeginning a destroyer of monsters. But between the Attic orators andthe historians (Diodorus of Sicily) and orators (Dio Chrysostom andAristides) who lived under the Roman Empire the emphasis changes.When Isocrates in his praise of Helen alluded to Heracles' labors, hestressed that these feats were 'of no use'" and contrasts them with theexploits of Theseus, who became a 'benefactor of the Greeks as wellas of his homeland'93 by putting an end to the damages caused by theMarathonian bull, killing the Minotaur and brigands such as Skironand Cercyon, and stopping the violence of the Centaurs." On the con­trary, Aristides, like Diodorus of Sicily" and Dio Chrysostom'" beforehim, displaces from Theseus to Heracles the theme of usefulness andstresses the civilizing role of Heracles:" 'he found a means of expellingthe Stymphalian birds who were damaging much of Arcadia, as if itwere 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 multitudeand hugeness prevented most of the countryside from being inhabit­ed', an achievement closely associated by the conjunction rs... xaL tothe extermination of the tyrants and the annihilation of robbers onland 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 wildanimals, 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 themultitude 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]vi}UAUUUV %Ui}ULQWV. 6 'tl]V yfivTiIJ-EQOV :n:OLmv) to Heracles the civilizer (The true king inthe 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%OAU~E.

98 40.5. C£ Diod.Sic. 4.13.2: 'the extraordinary multitude of birds which destroyedthe fruits of the country roundabout'; and Dio 47.4: Heracles chased the birds 'to keepthem 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; E:ltLl~~E'tO)'lOO and his transformation of dry soils into fertile ones byirrigation. 101 This portrait of Heracles as a destroyer of both monstersand tyrants, who cares for justice and punishes the unjust is echoed inother speeches of Aristides!" and before him in the Universal History ofDiodorus!" and the speeches ofDio Chrysostom.'?'

But in Aristides' Hymn as well as in Dio,105 as opposed to Isocratesand to the declamation 10 the Thebans I, where the orator plays the partof a contemporary of Demosthenes and praises the hero for the helpgiven to the Greeks,106 the setting of Heracles' exploits is enormouslyenlarged and becomes coextensive with the universal Empire of Rome.When Isocrates celebrated Heracles in his Philip, he extolled his phi­lanthropy and his goodwill towards the Greeks"? and made him intothe first champion of panhellenism. By making an expedition againstTroy, which was in those days the strongest power of Asia, his Heracleshad put an end to wars and factions among the Greeks and broughtthe cities together. lOB In Aristides, Greece is but a starting point: Thehero moves from Thebes, where he killed the serpents and relievedthe Thebans from the tribute paid to the Orchomenians, and Greece,which he 'purified' (E%(HhlQE),109 to the whole human race."? In otherspeeches as well, Heracles' philanthropy is no longer directed onlytoward the Greeks,1l1 but also toward barbarians and mankind in gen­eral.!"

At the same time, Aristides recasts his Heracles into a world emperorthrough 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: ~1J{}oM>yoiiOL II' ulJ"tov lIuI ronro ~LOii(JaL lIUt ltOA.E~ij(JaL TO yEVOr:;

TIDV UYQLmV ih]QLlOV lIUt ltUQUV6~lOV uvlIQIDv. Diodorus' narrative systematically empha­sizes 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: T~V IjJIAUVi}QlOltLUV lIUt T~V 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 wellon the way before Aristides. In his history Diodorus described Her­acles campaigning like a Roman general, Il3 and in the first KingshipOration, Dio rejected the mythical Heracles destroyer of monstersin favor of the political destroyer of tyrants,"! called him a 'king'115and gave him an army, 'for it was not possible to sack cities, over­throw tyrants and give orders to everyone everywhere without mili­tary force' .116 Similarly Aristides, in the Hymn, alludes to the univer­sal 'empire' ()'UvumELu) of Heracles established 'by blending law withthe force of the arms'!" and portrays it elsewhere as a 'protection'given to all men. liB The tragic hero, who rid the world of destructivemonsters and matched crude violence with greater violence, has beentamed and transformed into a government official: Aristides calls hima 'prefect (U:ltuQXo~) of the region beneath the lunar sphere'j!'? assim­ilating him to the governor appointed by the emperor to rule over aregion."? The portrait of Heracles as an embodiment of restraint, pro­created by Zeus 'so that human affairs might be properly ordered', 121put in charge of restraining the behavior of the cities either by lawsor by force of arms.!" and accustoming all men to be orderly and toabide by the laws'" clearly conveys the same message and demonstratesthe integration of the mythical hero into a Roman order guaranteedby an emperor who is accordingly given by Aristides the title of %00""1]­

L~~.124

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: "toiJ~ VOJ.lotJ~ "tOL~ O:ltAOL~ O'UY%EQUVViJ~, roO"tE "tfj~ E%ELVOtJ litJVUO"tEla~ J.lTjliEV EIVUL

J.l~"tE AUJ.l:ltQO"tEQOV J.l~"tE AtJO"L"tEAEO"tEQOV XQ~O"Uo{}UL.

liB 3.276: 'HQU%AEL "tip %OLVip :ltUV"tlOV :ltQoO"tu"t"[j (see also 1.52, :ltQoO"tuO"la). The sameword 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 Hera­des (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 alsoapplied to the gods appointed by Zeus to rule over the four regions of the universe inAristides 43.18, as well as to Athens (1.404).

121 40.2: O:ltlO~ %oO"J.lTj{}ELTj "ta"tiiiv av{}QW:ltlOV :ltQUYJ.lU"tU.122 40.4: "ta~ ilE :ltOAEI.,; O"lOIjJQOVL~lOV "ta~ J.lEv "tOL~ VOJ.lOL~, "ta~ liE "tOL~ O:ltAOL~.

123 3.68: E{}L~lOV ... :ltuV"tu~ %OO"J.lLotJ~ EIVUL %ul "tOL~ VOJ.lOL~ EJ.lJ.lEVELV. In the Hymn he isalso 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 ofOra­tory confirms the conclusions drawn about Heracles. It best illustrateshow Aristides succeeds in transforming the Protagoras myth, whichwas the charter myth of democratic Athens, into a justification of theRoman Empire and the power of the civic elite.125

According to Aristides, there was in the beginning 'a great distur­bance (MQu~o~) and confusion ('taQaxi]) upon the earth. Men nei­ther knew what to do with themselves-for there was nothing whichbrought them all together, but the bigger led the smaller-nor couldthey maintain themselves against the other animals' .126 This descrip­tion echoes Plato's Protagoras,127 but also Aristides' description of theworld before the invention of oratory, 'when human affairs were fallinginto utter ruin'. 128 Accordingly, the impossibility of survival is no longerexplained, as in Plato, by the absence of political science and the art ofwar, 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 RomanOration in the portrait of the world before the rule of Zeus, when 'ev­erything was filled with faction, uproar, and disorder (lbtaV'ta O'taOE«)~

xat {}oQu~ou xat &'taSLa~ dVaL f.tEO'ta)' and before the Roman Empire:'before your empire everything was in confusion, topsy-turvy, and com­pletely disorganized (:7tQo f.tEv 'tfj~ Uf.tE'tEQa~ &Qxfj~ 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. Asin Aeschylus.!" the Titan remains a 'friend of mankind', 133 but he is nolonger a trickster and a thief who gave men either the fire from whichthey 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: ltOA.L'tL%~V YUQ 'tEXVT]V OVltlll ELXOV ~~ IlEQO~ ltOA.EIlL%1] ... ,hE OU%

EXOV'tE~ 't~v ltOA.L'tL%~V 'tEXVT]V.130 2.395: rocn:E nltlIJMvV'to <nYii.131 26.103. See also To the Cities concerning Concord (23) 31: bELVQV YUQ ~ cn:ao~ ltuV'tuxii

%ut {}OQf3iiibE~.

132 C£ Prom Vmct. II, 58: qJlAay{}QlIlltO~.

133 Aristides 2.396: nEL ltlll~ rov qJlAav{}QlIlltO~.

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 situationof men, prefiguring contemporary sophists who serve as mediatorsbetween the provincial cities and the imperial center. Thus he becomesa precursor of Aristides, who many years later moved Marcus Aureliusto tears with his description of Smyrna's destruction and succeeded insecuring imperial funding for the reconstruction of the city. As for Zeus,he behaves like a good emperor: 'full of admiration for Prometheus' justspeech'i!" he sends Hermes to mankind with a remedy. But this rem­edy 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 teachesmen how to behave as members of a community, acknowledging thelegitimate claims of others and setting themselves limits. It is replacedas a <pUQI.tUXOVI37 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, thenoblest, and those with the strongest natures', 139 that is, the membersof the elite who are in charge of saving themselves and others."? Sothe Prometheus myth that was made by Protagoras into the charter forparticipatory democracy has become a justification of the power of theeducated elite. Oratory, which was defined by Isocrates (a major sourcefor Aristides' rewriting of the Prometheus myth, as amply demonstratedbyJ. Wissmann)!" in democratic terms as the capacity to persuade eachother.!" is now working from the top to the bottom with orators whoprefer law and order to confusion.!" preach internal as well as externalconcord, and prevent uproar, disorder, and faction.

This last example sufficiently demonstrates the vitality ofmyth underthe Empire, a vitality to be explained first and foremost by its inheritedcultural 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: ltQE013ElJri]~ UltEQ 'tWV uvf}Qomwv, OUl( UltO 'tWV uvf}Qomwv ltE'.tlpftEL~ ... uM'

uu'to~ u«p' eUlJ'tO'u.136 2.396: 'tOu re IIQol-l1']ftEw~ UYUai}EL~ /l[xmu AEyOV'tO~.

137 2.2 0 9.138 2.40I.

139 2.397: 'toiJ~ uQ[O'tOlJ~, XUL YEvvuLO'ta'tOlJ~ XUL 'ta~ «pUOE~ EQQWI-lEVEO'ta'tOlJ~.

140 2.397: LV' 01-l0U o«pa~ re uu'tOiJ~ XUL 'tOiJ~ aMolJ~ OW~ELV El(OLEV.141 Wissmann 1999, 139-143.142 Nicocles 5: 'tOU ltE[ftELV UAA~AOlJ~.

143 2.235: EltEL 'tov EV x6ol-lCfl 13lov ltQo 'tfj~ u'tu!;[u~ uLQouV'tm.

ARISTIDES' USES OF MYTHS

the myths in the right direction and make them into a parable of thereal and the true'!" and mold them so that they will become a mirrorof contemporary reality. True, one has to say, paraphrasing L. Pernot,that 'la position adoptee par le genre epidictique [en general et Aristideen particulier] n'est ni neuve ni originale ... [Mais] il ne s'ensuit pasque ce message soit depourvu de force ni de subtilite'.145

144 Dio 5.1: EAXOfJ.EVa lIn lIQO<;; 'to Mov xaLlIaQa~aM6fJ.Eva '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 accompanythe texts of two speeches he had recently written. In one of thesehe claims to have launched a polemic against Aelius Aristides: :ltQo~

'AQLO't'EL{)T]V I-LaX0I-LaL.1 The sixty-fourth oration in the surviving corpusof Libanius seems to correspond with this description, and scholars aregenerally agreed that this is the work Libanius sent to Demetrius. It isa vigorous and lengthy assault on a lost speech of Aristides that hadprudishly denounced the dancers known as pantomimes for corruptingtheir viewers.

The pantomimes were individual dancers of balletic virtuosity whoin solo performances enacted familiar myths with the aid of masks,costumes, and music. They enjoyed enormous popularity throughoutthe Roman Empire, as did their more ordinary colleagues, the mimes,who spoke lines and acted together with one another. Both mimes andpantomimes were important transmitters of Hellenic mythology andculture. As some of the more austere Christian preachers complained,they appealed to a diverse audience and linked together persons ofdifferent religion and ethnic background in theatrical pleasure."

Libanius confined himself exclusively to the pantomimes, who werethe great virtuosi of the stage, although he says that Aristides hadtried to denigrate them by linking them with the mimes." The debatebetween these two great sophists, two centuries apart, is full ofparadox.In his austere preaching against corruption from watching lubriciousentertainments, Aristides sounds more like a Father of the Christianchurch than the dedicated polytheist he was, the author of resplendentprose hymns to Olympian gods. Libanius, by contrast, espouses with

1 Lib. Epist. 615 Foerster.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.

70 G.W. BOWERSOCK

particular warmth a form of entertainment that we know he openlydisliked and avoided. Subsequently he even undertook to terminate itin his native city of Antioch. Furthermore, Aristides was, as he statesexplicitly and emphatically, an orator for whose achievement he hadunbounded admiration.

If 361 was the date of the speech against Aristides, it would havefallen in the early part of the usurpation of the emperor Julian, whosecause Libanius strongly supported and whose memory he eloquentlycultivated. YetJulian, like Libanius, disliked the dancers.' So how doesit happen that Libanius took issue with an admired predecessor overan art-form for which neither he nor the apostate emperor had anysympathy? And why had Aristides himself shown such hatred for thosepopular mediators of Hellenism?

To be sure, arguing against an impeccable model such as Aristideswould be in itself a feat of sophistic brilliance, and Libanius perhapsrelished the challenge. 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. Audiences are nomore corrupted by what they see in the dances than they are by thevicious and bloody competitions of boxers and pancratiasts.' Further­more, Libanius asks, are the pantomimes more criminal than thosewho overturn altars, steal votive offerings, destroy shrines, and burnstatues?" This curious register of miscreants actually seems to allude toChristians, since pagans and Jews were not known to have committedmisdeeds of that kind. Christians did indeed go on such rampages, con­spicuously at Daphne, near Antioch, when Julian's brother, the CaesarGallus, had undone the oracle of Apollo by importing into the templeprecinct the earthly remains of St. Babylas. If the pagan Aristides in hispuritanical mode of denouncing the pantomimes sounded rather like aChristian, it seems as ifLibanius attacked him in his response almost asifhe were.

To some extent, the Syrian origins of many famous dancers rousedLibanius 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 71

rude about Syrians.' But, even so, the motivation for Libanius' curiousdefense of an entertainment he despised can only be left to speculation.Yet, with the help of his abundant references to Aristides' lost workand his occasional quotations from it, we can reasonably deduce theprovocation 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-calledSecond Sophistic. Aristides' sense of his high calling as a rhetor didnot easily accept any comparison with less grandiose professions. In hisday the popularity of the pantomimes clearly vexed him." This paperseeks to find out why.

We know that Aristides' speech was addressed to the Spartans, al­though it is clear, from the citations and from Libanius' commentary,that he did not actually go to Sparta to deliver it." Libanius assumesthat to some extent Aristides chose that city as his addressee in order toinvoke the high-minded austerity of the legendary regime of Lycurgus.But, as Libanius points out, and Aristides himself must have been wellaware, the Sparta of the second century AD was an utterly differentplace from the city of Lycurgus. Besides, as Libanius observes, Aristideshimself had never declaimed by the banks of the Eurotas and thereforehad no attachment to Sparta. So why did Aristides turn to that city,out of all those major cities that welcomed pantomimes, when heundertook to denounce them? Libanius offers a perceptive analysis:'You claim to be giving advice to the Spartans alone because you knowthat the others would be annoyed by your speech. Where was it thatyou customarily worked up your numerous and splendid declamations?In what cities did you orate? Whose applause made you a star? I notethat you did not choose Sparta as a workshop for your art, nor did yourelease your words to flow alongside the river Eurotas. But you usedto go to the Hellespont, to Ionia, Pergamum, Smyrna, Ephesus, andto Egypt, the land which, as you say yourself, first brought forth theevil. You even went to Rome, where the dancing profession is highlyesteemed'. 10

This means that in declaiming about the pantomimes Aristides haddeliberately 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 theSpartans, Aristides would not be offending a constituency that hadardently supported him. He was safe with Sparta, since he had no con­nection with it. A master of rhetoric would have readily savored thepotential of castigating the descendants of Lycurgus for watching pan­tomimes.

In his speech Aristides charged that pantomime dancing hadchanged over time for the worse, that by his day performers were littlemore than prostitutes on public view. He claimed that their sinuous,even contorted movement was an abomination that would lead viewersinto bad habits." It proved easy for Libanius to contest these assertions:in rhetoric itself, change and innovation over time was fruitful." Therewere even paragons of virtue among the famous pantomimes, and noone was known to have become corrupt or criminal from watching ashow.

Yet Aristides had inveighed against one of his sophistic rivals forusing his rhetorical prowess in honor of a deceased pantomime, afamous dancer called Paris. According to Libanius, 'Even the man whowas once conspicuous among us with the same name as the ancientherdsman in whose presence the goddesses were judged for their beautywas so lamented on his bier by the sophist of Tyre ... that no greatertribute could have been devised to honor a departed sophist. For he didin fact call the dancer precisely that. Did he choose to disgrace himselfutterly by the encomium of a prostitutei''" As scholars have readilyperceived, that eulogist was none other than Aristides's distinguishedsecond-century contemporary, Hadrian of Tyre.'! It is obvious thatAristides had protested bitterly because his eminent rival had treatedParis just as if he were a deceased sophist and even called him that. Asfar as Aristides was concerned, Hadrian had sullied his reputation byan encomium of a whore.

This treatment of a pantomime as a sophist by the great rhetorwhose reputation was at the time easily the equal of Aristides' evidently

11 Lib. Orat. 64.28 and 43 (noQvOL).

12 Lib. Orat.64.2 2 .

13 Lib. Orat. 64.41: ...0001:' oux oI/)' 8 'tL UV E~~'tT]OE flE~OV, EL OOlPL01:~V OLXOflEVOV

E'tLfla. 8~ yE xat 'to;:;'t' au'to nQOOELltELV ~~LlJ)(JE 'tOV 6QXT]01:~V. ltIIW YUQ au'tov Ert..E'tO

xa'taQQlJnaLVELv EV 'tOL~ EY'X.lJ)fllo~ '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 Tyrehimself and against the whole profession of dancers, who appeared tobe usurping the high prestige of public speakers. This appears to havebeen at least one of the sparks that ignited the flame of Aristides' rageagainst the pantomimes. In his view they were contemptible panders topublic pleasure, and-worse still-were hailed as equal in artistic talentto sophists and rhetors. The case of Hadrian of Tyre's eulogy for thedeceased Paris clearly reflected the heightened prestige of pantomimesin the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and it was no less clearly this prestigethat bothered Aristides.

During the reign of Lucius Verus, probably during his sojourn inSyrian Antioch, Lucian wrote a famous essay in defense of theatricaldancing.'> The authorship of this work, once doubted, has now beengenerally vindicated as authentically Lucianic, and the essay may wellhave been known to Libanius in writing his reply to Aristides. We haveno way of telling whether it was known to Aristides himself and servedas some kind of irritant, but Lucian's opinion was as positive as it waswell informed. For the relation of pantomime to rhetoric, the essayprovides precious testimony. In general, there were no competitions(aywvE£) for pantomimes although the dancers performed a repertoireof tragic themes, and they were sometimes known as 'tQayuwL. But, saysLucian, there was one exception to the lack of thymelic crowns forthem. In Italy there were competitions for dancers." We may surmisethat this happened at the Sebasta in hellenophone Naples, and perhapsalso at the Capitolia in Rome or the Eusebeia in Puteoli.

The conjunction of the word tragic with a pantomime is reinforced byLucian's observation that tragedy and tragic dance were almost indis­tinguishable: 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 themesfor both were the same, and the ones for dancers differed from tragedyonly in that they were more ornamented'.) As Louis Robert demon­strated brilliantly in one of his earliest articles and one of his very fewin German, the epigraphy of pantomimes in the later second centuryperfectly displays the technical diction of the trade."

15 Lucian, De Saltatume. For an important discussion of this work see]ones 1986, 68­77 ('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 danceris regularly qualified as rhythmic (evQv{}J10e; or EiJQv{}J10e;, both formsappear)." It is also described as tragic ('tQUYLXi)). On one inscriptionfrom Heraclea Pontica pantomime dancing appears as 'rhythmic trag­edy' ('tfie; EVQU{}J10V 'tQuycp~Lue; O"tElpOe;), and a pantomime dancer cansometimes be called simply a 'tQuycpMC;.19 A dancer, such as the greatApolaustus or Paris of Apamea can be called an actor (UJtOXQL'ti)C;),albeit one with rhythmic movement.t" This technical language turns upsignificantly in Libanius in contexts that appear clearly to paraphraseor echo Aristides' original. There is a whole section on xLvT]<JLC;, as wellas a treatment of the dancer's gestures (veuJ1u'tu).21 Towards the end ofhis speech Libanius, probably echoing Aristides, calls the pantomimes'tQuycp~oL It is evident that in his speech Aristides had resorted tothe standard diction that was deployed in praise of the dancers of hisday.

What the epigraphy also reveals, in addition to the characteristiclanguage by which pantomimes were honored, is precious informa­tion about the place of pantomimes in the international aywvec; of theGraeco-Roman world. It now appears that soon after Lucian wrote hisessay on dancing the great agonistic festivals added dancing to the com­petitions. Rhetoric, poetry, kithara-playing, trumpet-playing had longsince secured a firm place in the thymelic aywvec; of the Roman empire,but, as Louis Robert already pointed out eighty years ago, the addi­tion of dancing as a crown event came as an innovation in the secondcentury outside of Italy (Naples, as we have seen, and possibly Romeor Puteoli, or both). The innovation in the eastern empire must havecome between 165, which is the latest date for Lucian's treatise, andthe reign of Commodus, during which the celebrated Tiberius IuliusApolaustus boasted of being the first pantomime to win a crown at

18 For %lVT]OL~ see Lib. Orat. 64.28. On rhythmic movement, see Fouilles de Delphes111.1, 55r: Tib. lul. Apolaustos, 't[QuYL%ii~ eV]Qu{}1l0U %Lvr](JEl1l~ 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 pho­to), cf. BulLEp 1976. 687: eVQu{}llou. Blume! 2004, 20-22: EUQU{}IlLa. Observe Herodian5.2.4 %Lvr](JEl1l~ EUQU{}1l0U.

19 Sahin 1975, SEC XI. 838 ('tQuyrpl\ip ~Ll\l1lVlqJ).

20 Fouilles de Delphes 111.1, 551: Tib. Iul, Apolaustos. Cf. BullEp 1976. 721 (citing Rey­Coquais 1973, no. ro): honors to Julius Paris of Apamea 'tQuYL%ii~ %ELV'!](JEl1l~ U:n:O%QL't'!]V.

21 For %lV1]OL~ 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, includingEphesus, Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Laodicea, and Sardis, were evidendynot the first for a pantomime." Hence it would be reasonable to assignthe introduction of pantomime competitions either to the later years ofMarcus or the early years of Commodus.

This chronology fits well with Aristides' intemperate judgment ofboth pantomimes and mimes in his extant speech XU'tll 'trov el;oQXou­I-tEVWV (no. 34 ~gainst the Betrayers of the Mysteries'). This is a workthat can be assigned to Smyrna in early 170.24 Towards the end Aris­tides contrasts rhetors, philosophers, and all others in liberal educationwith dancers, mimes, and magicians (OQXT]O'tUL~, I-tLI-tOL~, ttuUI-tU'tO:7tOLOL~),

who please the crowds but are held in low regard." The dancers areclearly the pantomimes, as they are in the lost speech, whereas themimes are, as indeed they were, speaking performers." Aristides evenasks, 'Who would allow a mime to speak off stage?' in order to empha­size the lowly status of such a person. Aristides' prejudice is evident inthis passage, but there is nothing here to suggest that pantomimes hadyet been elevated to the level of agonistic competitions with honors thatwere accorded to the greatest rhetors of the age. This provides a slighdylater terminus postquem than Lucian for the innovation that so outragedAristides. It came after 170.

It is obviously relevant to understanding Aristides' lost speech thatone of the first documented examples of a pantomime in the interna­tional thymelic competitions comes precisely from Sparta, on a mid­to-late second-century inscription detailing the accounts for prizes tocontestants." Among the winners are a pantomime from Sidon, a 'tQU­

yq>M~ ~L6cbvLO~, (observe that this is yet another such performer from

22 Fouilles deDelphes 111.1, 551, cf IK Ephesus 6. 2070-2071: first in Thebes. Strasser2004 discusses but does not add to the dossier on the introduction of dancers into theeastern 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 SacredDiscourse, 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 compoundsthe error when he translates the question in 34.57 (-tL~ uv "tip flLfllp lJUYXWQ~OELEV E~W

ljJl'}eYYEO'f}aL;) 'Who would permit the pantomime to speak off stage?' One might alsoadd 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 asthe traditional runners and pentathletes. One of the winners is AeliusGranianus from Sicyon, a pentathlete and runner whom Pausaniasmentions as honored with a bronze statue near Sicyon for his Olympicvictories." So this suggests a probable date for the Spartan inscrip­tion in the last decade of Marcus." Louis Robert had emphasized longago the proliferation of contests in later second-century Sparta, withits three festivals of the Kaisareia, Eurykleia, and Ourania. He wasexplaining the role of the presiding magistrate, who was called a xystarchthere. 30 We should note that the late-second-century star Apolaustosincluded Sparta among the cities where he took the crown."

Artemidorus, author of our one surviving book of dream interpreta­tions, was, to judge from various chronological indications, working inthe later second century. Hence it is instructive to observe that he reg­isters pantomime dancing, to which he evidently alludes by the phrase'dancing with writhing (OQXTJOL£ f.tE'tCt O'CQoqJi'j£)', as among the crowncontests." Similarly the inscription from Heraclea Pontica, which wehave cited earlier, refers to taking the 'the wreath of rhythmic tragedy',in other words pantomime, for the first time (ro :7tQ(inov). This is prob­ably another sign of the recent introduction of tragic dance into Greekthymelic competitions. The language reappears in the third-centuryhistorian Herodian, who refers to 'rhythmic movement'.33

In arguing against Aristides, Libanius resorts frequently to compar­isons with athletes and Greek competitions." His remarks clearly pre­suppose that Aristides took a highly positive view of boxers, pancrati­asts, 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 littleto be said for Spawforth's inclination to identify Granianus with Cranaus in JuliusAfricanus: 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). Hisfirst 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 AULKE~aLllovL 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 activ­ity.35 This is one of Libanius' many illustrations to show that one mis­creant does not impugn an entire category. Similarly, in response tothe supposedly bad influence of dancers upon their viewers, Libaniusasks whether those who watch a bloody pancration or a fierce boxingmatch are inspired to go out and do likewise." Again the presupposi­tion of Libanius' comment is that from Aristides' perspective viewingsuch activities would be wholly acceptable. Consequently Libanius cancunningly strengthen his argument by adducing the athletic prowess ofpantomimes in accomplishing their formidable leaps on the stage, farbeyond (as he points out) the ability of any pentathlete." Yet clearlyAristides approved of the pentathlon. And finally, Libanius links pan­tomimes with trumpeters, who had long enjoyed a privileged place inGreek festivals."

Accordingly, Libanius' numerous comparisons with agonistic festivalsmay be taken to imply that Aristides had responded with particularindignation to the recent incorporation of the pantomimes in thymeliccompetitions. For him this public institutionalization of the dancers inthe Greek festivals would have effectively constituted the elevation of apantomime to the level of a sophist or rhetor, precisely as Hadrian ofTyre had proposed in his eulogy of Paris.

On present epigraphic evidence, Sparta was among the first to wel­come this innovation in its festivals, and so Aristides' choice of the Spar­tans as his target may well reflect more than a simple desire to invokeold-fashioned austerity, such as that associated with Lycurgus. Libaniusshrewdly observed that Aristides was in no position to denounce theaudiences who had heard and admired him in Pergamum or Smyrna,and so, to make his point, he had to fix on a pantomime-loving citywhere he had not actually declaimed. Hence an address to Sparta, ren­dered in absence, allowed Aristides the luxury of venting his spleenat 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 enthusi­asts called his bluff.

35 Lib. Drat. 64.54: 'tu yuVaLXWV Ec'\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 Logoiare the product of literary ambition. Their author, however, who traf­ficked professionally in the great Greek writers of the past, leaves littleroom 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 thatof 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 bothcases, moreover, those countless evasions of death attest the presence ofa tutelary deity-Athena and Asclepius respectively" But why Helen?In Otfyssey IV; we can recall, it is Helen who selects a tale from 'all thetoils of stout-hearted Odysseus' to tell his son Telemachus. She is thuslike an epic narrator faced with a vast archive of stories.' Yet Helen,

1 1I0xoo f.lOL XU'to. ri]v 'EAEVT]V 't~v 'Of.l~Qou 'tOV Myov ltOL~OEO'frUL. I have used Keil'sedition, in which the six books of the Hieroi liJgoi are Orationes XLVII-ill. Translationsfrom Aristides are my own unless noted. Numbers preceded by a T correspond to thetestimonia 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 inthis volume.

3 EXamT] yo.Q 'toov ~f.lE'tEQroV ~f.lEQooV, roOU'lJ'tro~ I\i; XUL VUX'toov, EXEL OUYYQUqJ~V, EL 'tL~

ltUQWV ~ 'to. OUf.lltLlt'toV'tU alt0YQaqJELV ~1301jAE'tO ~ 't~V 'tou t}EOU ltQOVOLUV IILT]ydO'frUL.('for each of our days, just as each of our nights, had a story if someone who wasthere 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 theltuQwv of the manuscripts. Keil proposed emending to ltuQ' EV, arguing that the linewas corrupted under the influence of the ltuQwv in the following line. Wilamowitz ablydefended the manuscript reading by citing Or. XLVIII.56 and Or. L.2o, cases whereAristides uses the plural (ol ltUQOV'tE~) to refer to those who were present at an event inquestion (the onset of an attack and an oratorical performance) and can corroborateAristides' account.

4 Aristides in fact cues the locus classicus of unspeakable epic magnitude, II. 2.489, inthe first lines (oUII' EL f.lOL IlExu f.lEv yAooOOUL, IlExu liEmof.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 indisguise; she alone discovers his identity and compels him to reveal thesecret plans of the Greeks (Od. 4.250-264). Helen, then, is a narratorwhose credentials rest in part on her ability to match the mitis of hersubject with her own cunning intelligence like some dark Penelope.This skill turns out to be apposite to Aristides' task. He, too, is facedwith a subject that is not only long-suffering but also uncommonlypolymorphous: a body whose constantly changing face of disease ('t~v

:ltOLXLA.LUV 'tfj~ vooou, Or. XLVIII.6g) is the occasion for ongoing divineattention. The prologue to the Hieroi Logoi gives every indication thatwe are dealing not with an artless collection of dreams and everydayminutiae but rather with a deliberate attempt to tell an epic story thatrequires all of the narrator's resources.

In this paper, I argue that by analyzing how Aristides represents thedifficulty of both interpreting and memorializing the body's sufferingwe can better understand his epic aspirations. In fact, I suggest thathis struggle to communicate what has happened to him draws atten­tion to a tension within those aspirations between his identity as theauthor 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 interest­ing in preserving, or at least preserving the impression of, a uniquelyheroic and unfathomable intimacy with the divine. In what follows, Ifocus on the two principal occasions for the expression of this tension:Aristides' dreams, through which he gains a privileged perspective onhis symptoms, and his translation of suffering into a legible text capableof commemorating Asclepius's benefaction.

In both of these areas, we might expect the body, since it is wheresuffering takes place, to play an important role in interpretation andcommemoration. In fact, I will argue that the body is significant toAristides precisely because it evades these practices. In this respect,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 (,Now, after so many years and so much time later, dreamvisions compel us to make these things public', Or. XLVIII.2). Asclepius is preparing forthis text from the beginning: E1Jtro~ E~ uQXfi~ ltQoEmEv (, {}EO~ Ult0YQUlpELV 'tU oVEiQU'tU.lIUt 'tou't' ~v 'tIDV EltL'tUYfLU'tIDV ltQID'tOV ('Right from the beginning, the god ordered meto 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 identityin imperial-age ethics, medicine, rhetoric, and physiognomy" At thesame time, scholars have become more aware of Aristides' literary self­consciousness, as well as the relationship of the Hieroi Logoi to otherGreco-Roman first-person writing.' In this climate, the equation ofAristides' body with a text has become something of a commonplace.That text is often understood as a 'script' of divine favor that is thencopied into the archive and, eventually, the Hieroi Logoi.8 It has alsobeen described as a 'psychic text' of Aristides' struggles against culturalcodes of masculinity, an interpretation that combines the tradition ofseeing Aristides' symptoms and dreams as evidence of his troubledunconscious with the equally prominent tradition of treating them asevidence of his culture's anxieties." These scholars have done much

6 On the body and elite (masculine) identity in the imperial period, see Gleason1995; Gunderson 2000; Connolly 2007. The increased interest in the day-to-day life ofthe 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) andM. Foucault 'techniques du soi' (1986; 1997b), see Perkins 1992 (= 1995,173-199); Miller1994, 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 orderedby the logic of the dream. On Aristides' relationship to contemporary autobiographicalwriting, see Bompaire 1993; see also Harrison 2002, arguing that Apuleius is a criticalresponse 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 secondtext.. .It is the body of Aristides himself In its illnesses and recoveries, the medicalhistory of Aristides makes up a narrative of Asclepius' providence and favor. Physicalexistence is transitory... The Sacred Tales, themselves, however, might endure, to presentthe complex interpenetration of reality by the word of the god and the transformationof the diseased and imperfect text of Aristides' body into the lasting text of the SacredTales'. See also Perkins 1992, 261 (= 1995, 187): 'In Aristides' representation, bodiesbecome 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 paradoxicallyseeks to transcend its materiality and make it into a sign of divine favor'. Pearcy, op. cit.,377-378 and Gasparro 1998 place the Hieroi Logoi alongside works by other imperial-agedevotees of Asclepius.

9 Miller 1994, who finds in Aristides' ceuvre 'an insistent thematic move wherebyoratorical writing and the symptomatic 'writing' of the body function as signs of eachother, all under the aegis of Asclepian oneiric practice' (189), looks beyond the 'text' ofdivine favor to 'the symptoms of a rebellion against [Aristides'] culture's construction ofmasculinity', symptoms that articulate a desire for 'the intimacy and privacy that cul­tural codes denied to men of his standing and profession' (200). See also Brown 1978,4on '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 havealso happily succeeded in shifting discussion from Aristides' allegedhypochondria to the historical meanings of the body and disease inboth the cult of Asclepius and Greco-Roman elite culture; indeed, thiswork has made clear the very importance of the physical body as avehicle of meaning in those contexts.

Nevertheless, the conflation of Aristides' body with a text needs tobe 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 displace­ment lie in the failure of even the best physicians at Rome to makesense of his symptoms within the semiotic framework of contemporarymedicine (Or. XLVIII.5-6, 62-64, 69).10 It is at this moment that Ascle­pius begins to offer Aristides another conduit of interpretation in theform of the dream, through which bodily symptoms are transformedinto 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 con­dition, see Gourevitch and Gourevitch 1968; Michenaud and Dierkens 1972; Hazard­Guillon 1983;and esp. Gourevitch 1984, 22-47, recounting a long history of such diag­noses by both medical professionals and philologists. Cf. the remarks in Pigeaud 1991and Andersson and Roos 1997 on the limitations of this retrospective diagnosis. Forreadings of Aristides as an exemplar of his era, see Festugiere 1954, 85-104; Dodds1965,3g-45; Bowersock 1969, 71-75; Reardon 197$ Brown 1978,41-45; Horstmanshoff2004,332-334; andsupra,nn. 6-8.

10 That is, 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, 13g-140; Horstmanshoff 2004; Gorrini 2005,with nos. 18-19 [IG II/lIP 3798 and 3799]. Ancient sources saw continuity betweenAsclepius and the human physician, often casting the god as the inventor of mod­ern medicine (Edelstein and Edelstein, op. cit., II, 140-141), and indeed, Aristides hashigh esteem for the historical figure of Hippocrates (King 2006, 261-262). Moreover,many scholars have detected similarities between Asclepian therapies and those devel­oped 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 tra­ditions shared disease terminology (Chaniotis, op. cit., 330 n. 38). It is also the case thatAristides 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; forreferences, see Behr 1968, 169 nn. 23-24. For another example of an elite patient whoresists being 'read' by the physician (though in this case the physician comes out ontop), 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) tobe recorded in the archive. No trace of this story remains, however,on the body itself: its ability to 'forget' appears synonymous with itsrecovery of health. Recognizing both the forgetfulness of the body andthe shift of signs from its surface to the dream can clarify its rolewithin Aristides' epic project. The central argument of this paper isthat the body, and particularly embodied experience, is metonymicof all that Aristides wishes to represent as beyond the public recordand sometimes beyond words altogether." The tension within Aristides'double identity as exegete-narrator and divine protege is thus realizedthrough the elusive figure of the body.

I begin by examining how, as a result of a shift from the theaterof the sickbed to the theater of the dream space, Aristides ceases tobe equated with a body that serves as the passive object of medicalinterpretation and becomes a privileged interpreter of his mysterioussufferings." Yet if information gained from the dream must be mappedback onto the lived body, there is always room for error. Aristides quitenaturally assumes that the body is fully transparent to the god; at times,he refers to found texts that imply the existence of another, completedivine text. Thus despite his advantage over other interpreters of hisbody, he often remains uncertain about how to interpret his dreams.Built into the Hieroi Logoi, then, is a sense that the body itself remains inshadow.

In the second half of the essay, I approach the complex relationshipof the living body to its story from the perspective of commemoration.Drawing on motifs that were important over half a millennium of thecult of Asclepius, Aristides appears to see the scarred or inscribedbody as petrified in time without hope of renewal. This is not to saythat he does not represent the body as marked in sickness; quite thecontrary. 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 (O(Ja~ OMEL~:n:W

~QLt}J.lY)OEV); Or. XLVIII.56 (%u[,;m 1:~ oI6~ 1:'liv ELY) AOyL<JJ.lC!J AUf3ELV EV oI~ T]J.lE~ ~J.lEV 1:01:E;);Or. XLVIII.58 (citing Od. 3.113-114, 1:L~ %EV E%ELVU mlV1:U yE J.luihjOaL1:O %U1:ut}vy)1:WVavt}Q<ll1twv); Or. IL.30 (dUu 1:OLVUV J.luQLa liv E'LY) MyELV cpuQJ.la%wv EXOJ.lEVU ...). For thetopos in the aretological tradition, see Festugiere 1960, 132-134. On dQQy)1:O~ EUt}UJ.lLU,see Or. XLVIII.22, cited below.

12 Theater should be understood in literal terms here. We have evidence of regularpublic anatomical demonstrations and rhetorical performances by physicians in the sec­ond 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 thedream archive and the public tales, on votive offerings, and, mostextraordinarily, on the bodies of other people. Aristides' body evadesits stories, I suggest, not because it is subject to death, as is sometimessaid, but because it resists death.

The Odyssean slipperiness of the body in the Hieroi Logoi poseschallenges of interpretation for both Aristides and his readers. Thosechallenges are important to understanding not only the relationship ofthe Hieroi Logoi to their putative epic model, but also Aristides' dividedposition as both that epic's preternaturally perceptive narrator andits elusive hero. The tension that results from that position may, inturn, help us understand why Aristides, whether we adopt a traditionalbiographical-diagnostic approach or the more recent approaches thatsituate him within his cultural and historical milieu, remains so difficultto pin down. He seems to display the familiar persona of an elite Greekof the Roman period while, at the same time, undermining all attemptsto turn him into an example. Aristides has been called many names; hehas been given many diagnoses. He turns out to satisfy all of them, andthen some.

Interpreting the disease

Dreams anddecipherment

The chronological arcM of the Hieroi Logoi, as we have just seen, liesin the failure of the doctors first at Rome, then at Smyrna, to under­stand or to alleviate Aristides' polymorphous pain." No amount ofpurging or bleeding provides relie£ In the end, the bedside scene ofingenious decipherment of which Galen, a generation after Aristides,is so fond never occurs. The physicians are left in an aporia. It is atthis point in Aristides' life, when medicine's trust in the body as revela­tory of hidden truths-a trust shared by physiognomy and ethical self­fashioning-proves misplaced, that the god steps in to open up another

13 On the literary tapas of being derelictus a medicis, see Horstmanshoff 2004, 328-329n. ro.

AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY

means of understanding symptoms: the dream.'! The dream transformsnot only the semiotics of bodily suffering but also the conditions ofinterpretation.

We can begin to understand these transformations by looking at adream recounted in connection with Aristides' near-death experienceduring the Antonine plague. That dream also raises the question of therelationship between interpretation and salvation. Aristides reports thatas he was lying sick in bed, 'I was aware of myselfjust as though I weresomebody else, and I perceived my body ever failing until I came tothe last moment' (oih;w :ltaQTptoAouttovv el-tav'tq>, WO:ltEQ av UAAq> 'tLVL, 'XatUottav6l-tT]v U:ltOAeL:ltOV'tO~ olel 'toli owl-ta'tO~, EW~ EL~ 'tOuOXa'tov ~Attov, Or.XLVIII.39). At this point, Aristides turns towards the wall and falls todreaming that he is an actor at the end of a play who is about to turnin his buskins. Asclepius suddenly makes him turn over so that he isagain facing outwards; the dream seems to end. That abortive final actappears to signal that death has been averted.

Translated into the terms of the theater, Aristides' brush with deathsuggests a relationship between the alienation from the self character­istic of illness and the self-interpretation that dreams make possiblewhile also demonstrating his capacity, qua dreamer, to move betweenthe roles of sufferer and interpreter. In the first phase, when Aristidesis still awake, the body drifts away from the first-person speaker, anindication of impending death. In the second phase, however, Aristidesdreams 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 con­scious of' (:ltaQT]'XoAouttovv el-tav'tq» and 'I perceived' (Uottav6l-tT]v). Thatis to say, even as Aristides identifies with the disappearing body, thewaking 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, forthcoming). This commitment isstrengthened, at least in some quarters, by the anatomical investigations of the Hellenis­tic period. This period, however, also sees the eruption of debates about the physician'sability to know what is hidden and the therapeutic usefulnessof anatomical and physio­logical knowledge. A useful overview of the consequences of these debates for medicinein the early Roman Empire can be found in Nutton 2004, 157-170, 187-247. Despitethe epistemological debates among the medical sects, the interpretation of symptomsas expressions of an inner bodily truth continues to be the dominant model in theearly imperial period, reaching its pinnacle with Galen (Barton 1994, 133-168; Perkins1995, 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 itsimminent close. Finally, upon waking, Aristides again explicitly assumesthe position of the spectator in order to recount both this dream andthe following one, in which Athena appears and exhorts him to perse­vere. The dream thus translates the split self of the near-death experi­ence into the relationship between performer and audience within thetheater while shifting the weight of the'!' away from the audience tothe performer. After the dream ends, the'!' again migrates back to theposition of the watcher, who reflects upon the visions (O'ljJEL~) in whichhe himself appeared. 15

What is perhaps most remarkable here is that the situation drama­tized by this dream, namely the actor's moment of passage from thestage into the 'real' world, implies that oneiric performance is crucial tolife. For the actor's exit paradoxically signals not the reunification of theself-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 toAristides.

The buskins dream gives us the beginning of an answer to thisquestion. In this dream Aristides already has a sense that he is onthe brink of death, a sense to which the dream gives metaphoricalexpression by equating life with dramatic performance and staging itsfinal scene ('I had come to the end', Et~ 'toiioxu'tov ~A:frov, Aristides saysjust before the dream begins). Even though the dream shows Aristidessomething he presumably already knows ('I am dying'), the very act ofshowing seems to release him from the crisis staged in the dream: thebody left on stage remains in play, i.e. remains alive.

The therapeutic value of the dream-stage makes even more sensewhen we consider that in a far more common scenario Aristides' suffer­ings are unintelligible, not only to the physicians, but also to Aristideshimself For one of the basic premises of the Hieroi Logoi is that the bodyis besieged by invisible or mysterious threats: Aristides' sense that hehas been violated is almost always belated; even then, he is usually inthe dark about what has caused his symptoms. Since the tempests ofAristides' abdomen or his asthmatic attacks abruptly sever the reflex­ive pronoun (E!!UV'tl'p) from the first-person speaker, thereby bringingthe body to conscious awareness as a mysterious, alien entity, they canbe 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 orattacks enable the body to be saved. Yet they do so not by simply stag­ing the crisis of illness. In most cases, the dramatic format of the dreamgenerates interpretation that gives rise in turn to therapeutic action.

Aristides' projection of the self into the imaginative and dramaticspace of the dream is consistent with his more general sense of thebody as strange or alien in cases of disease. In fact, symptoms likedramatic pain or stomach trouble may simply exaggerate Aristides'more persistent sense of the inside of the body as a mysterious andstrange place, vulnerable to violations that are not always immediatelyfelt: even before symptoms, then, there would be a need for dreamsto provide a window onto this hidden space. Aristides' perception ofhis body in these terms participates in wider Greco-Roman attitudes.Over the last century, the Freudian unconscious has powerfully shapedhow we understand the part of the self that is submerged below oureveryday perceptions, although the priority of psychoanalysis in thisregard has been challenged in recent decades by genetics, medicalimaging, and the flourishing of neuroscience and cognitive psychology.That the soul has its own hidden recesses is an idea found in someGreek sources." Yet perhaps the most opaque and most daemonic partof the self was the inside of the physical body, at least from the fifthcentury BeE when that body definitively takes shape as a place wheredisease silently develops." The trust of laypersons and physicians alikein diagnostic and prescriptive dreams suggests that anxious uncertaintyabout the hidden body was widespread, as was the desire to access thisconcealed 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 isdeveloped on analogy with the non-transparency of the physical body. At the sametime Greek ethical philosophy becomes increasingly interested in the opaque parts ofthe 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 distinguishedfrom modern (psychoanalytic) interpretation on the grounds that the ancients caredabout 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 ona 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 abovebetween different kinds of unseen spaces in the self, i.e. the opposition between themodern 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 riseand dissemination of naturalizing medicine. Despite the impasse ofthe doctors at Rome, access to the hidden life of the body-typicallyimagined along the very broad lines of the body described by humoralmedicine-remains central to the Hieroi Logoi, as in the cult of Ascle­pius more generally in the imperial period. Thus at one point, shortlyinto the first book, Aristides recounts a dream in which the trans­parency of the body is literalized. Sitting in a warm bath, he bendsforward and sees that the lower part of his stomach is in a rather strangestate (:7tQOXEX:UqJW~ be Ei.~ 'to :7tQaO'frEv oQcPTJv 'tu xu'tw 'tfj~ XOLA.LU~ 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 thegod.

Dreams help the patient see into his or her body by creating contextsthrough which its experiences and states become visible. The vagueor imprecise feeling of the body as something strange is transformedinto the perception of a concrete object, a visible anomaly, or aninvasive act-that is, something that can be seen and understood bythe dreamer. Aristides might dream that a bone is troubling him, forexample, and that it needs to be expelled (Or. XLVII.28). A dream maymake 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 isoffered figs, but learns from the prophet Corns that they are poisonous;he becomes suspicious and vomits, while still worrying that he has notvomited enough and that there are other, unidentified poisonous figs

as important as the past-future opposition. Indeed, just as the twentieth century sawan enormous investment of cultural imagination in the idea that our secrets aboutour neuroses lie in our dreams, the popularity of diagnostic dreams in antiquity maysuggest a similar cultural investment in the idea that the secrets of our suffering bodieslie in our dreams. w.v. Harris has pointed out that the widespread interest in medical­anxiety dreams in antiquity can be correlated with the far greater number of healthproblems that the average person would have faced (2005, 260). It may also be truethat it was precisely because physicians validated the meaning of dreams as medicalthat so many dreams seemed to dreamers to be about the body. In recent centuries, thisvalidation has no longer been forthcoming: compare to Aristides' interaction with hisdoctors the following exchange between the nineteenth-century belle-lettrist AlphonseDaudet, who suffered from syphilis, and his physician: 'Daudet told us this evening thatfor a long time he had dreamed that he was a boat whose keel caused him pain; inthe 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' (Daudet2002,6).

AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY

(Or. XLVII.54). The message of the dream, Aristides thinks when hewakes up, is to fast, although he suspects that some vomiting might bein order.

Here, then, we begin to glimpse how the splitting of the self in thedream can counteract the alienation from the body most visibly real­ized 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 invisiblyand treacherously embedded. Moreover, by situating embodied expe­rience within a thicket of symbols, the dreams also show Aristides theremedies (UA,EsupuQ!!uxu) to counter the threats that he is constantlyfacing." It is precisely because the body, like Odysseus, is always besetby 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 playerwithin a dream, then, Aristides' sense ofdistance from that self becomesthe condition of his understanding of it. Like Helen remembering thetoils of Odysseus, he is reporting in the Hieroi Logoi on the troubles ofsomeone, or rather something, else. Indeed, although he is ostensiblynarrating his own epic adventures, he sets out by announcing that hewants to talk about his abdomen (vliv bE w~ EOXEV 'to 'toli ~'tQO'lJ bTJA,wam:7tQo~ iJ!!a~ ~o'liA,o!!m, Or. XLVII.4). And just as Helen remembers cut­ting through Odysseus's disguise, Aristides recalls how he decipheredthe mysterious suffering of the abdomen, albeit through the medium ofthe dream.

Knowledge confers power: once dreams are interpreted, they leadAristides to the appropriate therapeutic response. Dreaming of thetrapped bone, for example, carries with it a sense of bloodletting; thefig 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 KLVMvlOVESUQ:rtU~lOV, ot mixvol VUK'tO'; EKUO'tTl'; KUt ~IlEQU'; ~(Juv, UMO'tE UMOL :rtQO(J~UMOV'tE';,

'to'tE /)E E:rtUVLOV'tE'; ol UU'tOL, KUt O:rtm:E U:rtUMUYELTl 'tL';, uv'tLAUIl~UVOV'tE'; E'tEQOL' KUt :rtQo,;EKUO'tU 'tOU'tlOV UAESLqJUQIlUKU nEL :rtuQu 'to'ii itEO'ii KUt :rtUQulluitLm :rtuV'toLm KUt EQYCP KUtMycp ('For the god signifiedmany other things in the course of snatching me away fromthe threats always besetting me, which came thickly every day and every night, someassailing me at one time, some at another, and sometimes the same ones resurging, andwhenever one was freed from them, others attacking in turn. For each of these thingsantidotes 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 committedto elaborate regimens of self-care underwritten by physicians, gainscontrol over it. At one point, in fact, Aristides believes he could haveexpelled his disease entirely (nuauv E;E~UAOV '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 thedreams." These companions, as competitive interpreters of Aristides'suffering (via the dreams), are not unlike physicians, and their failureof understanding reconfirms Aristides' identity as the expert interpreterof his own body. His capacity to perform this role is directly createdby the shift from symptoms to dreams: Aristides alone, after all, has theclaim to autopsy; he is the one 'trained in divine visions' (YEY'u!J.vua!J.Evo~

... EV 'frEim~ (>-tlmOLv, Or. XLVII.38). These skills, it is worth noting, alsoestablish his authority as the narrator of the Hieroi Logoi.

Yet the 'evil council' episode also reminds us that Aristides' decipher­ment of a mysterious body, unlike the physician's, is mediated by divinesigns that themselves require interpretation. Let us consider, then, howthe substitution of a divine sign for a bodily one complicates Aristides'access to the truth about his body and the translation of that truth intothe Hieroi Logoi.

Dreams andobscurity

Aristides' dreams grant meaning to the sick body, yet they are alsoobjects of interpretation. What this means is that his situation is evenmore complex than Helen's. For one thing, whereas Helen relies on herown intuition in the (direct) encounter with Odysseus, the informationthat dreams provide Aristides about his body's condition, and indeedthe dreams themselves, come from a place as foreign as the diseaseitself In the warm bath dream, where Aristides observes the strangestate of his abdomen, it is an unnamed person who has to tell himthat there is no need to guard against bathing, because the aition of

On the interpretation of Asclepian dreams through puns and wordplay, verbal andvisual imagery, and analogy, see Oberhehnan Ig8I; on Aristides' interpretations of hisown dreams, see Nicosia Ig88, 183-185.

21 The scene and language are Odyssean, recalling the episode in Book 10 where thecompanions open Aeolus's bag of winds. Although practices of dream interpretationwere codified, as Artemidorus's dream book makes clear, and although Artemidorusmakes 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 remarkabledream, 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 O~1JaL'tLav' 'taii'ta ()E umEQovoo~ ovaQ ()LT)YELattaL 'Kat 'tOu~ a'Kouov'ta~ tta1J!-LU~ELV xat MYELV oo~ aQa 'toii'toa'i:'tLOV ELT) 'tOii ()L'ljJfjV !-LEV, !-LT] MvaattaL M :7tLELV, 't<p 'tQE:7tEattaL E~ o~o~

'ta ortlc, 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)(.EottaL 'Kat ()LU'KOVOV Eva :7taQamTJoaattaL 'to 'tTJ!-LEQov ELVaL.aA01JOLa 'Kat E!-LE'tO~ !-LE'ta QgmwvT)~. (Or. XLVII.g)

...he put his finger all the way into my throat and poured in somethingaccording to a kind of local custom, and he called this 'oxusitia'. Lateron [I dreamed] that I narrated these things as a dream and the listenerswere amazed and said that this, then, was the cause of my thirst, on theone hand, and my inability to drink, on the other, namely that my foodwas turning sour. From this [dream] vomiting was indicated, and thebarbarian ordered me to abstain from bathing and that today I produceone witness to this. No bathing and vomiting with relie£

Confronted with both the barbarian and his invasive gesture, we areled to see the origins of the disease as external to Aristides. More inter­esting is the fact that the diagnosis-oxusitia, "indigestion" or "food­turning-sour," as the later gloss shows-is of equally foreign prove­nance. In fact, it is the barbarian who delivers the presumably god­sanctioned command to abstain from bathing. Etiological clues andtreatment prescriptions are delivered by an 'attending someone' ('tLi;:ltugwv) with a better grasp of what has happened than Aristides him­self."

Given that the dreams arrive from a place outside of Aristides andgiven, too, that they are populated with shadowy informants, the readerof the Hieroi Logoi has the impression of a strange symbiosis between theinvasive object and the divine message. I do not mean to imply thatAsclepius is somehow responsible for the disease. Admittedly, there islitde question that a drama of salvation requires the continual breachof 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 lTt[~w as 'to tattoo' (rather than 'to brand'), seeJones 1987;id.2000.

23 See also e.g. Or. XLVII.S6; Or. IL.I1. The 'tL~ :n:UQIDV is first mentioned at Or.XLVII.3·

94 BROOKE HOLMES

ing sick for the benefits that sickness brings." What I want to stresshere, however, is simply that the story of Aristides' suffering, whicheventually becomes the text of the Hieroi Logoi, has its origins in a spaceas estranged from Aristides as the disease itself25 That is, grasping thehidden experiences or condition of the body requires opening up chan­nels of knowledge as mysterious as the passages through which the dis­ease first entered. This knowledge is acquired indirectly within the the­atrical space of the dream rather than directly rendering the lived bodytransparent or legible.

By using dreams to decipher his suffering, Aristides, as we haveseen, redefines his sense of distance from the body to turn it intoan object of knowledge. Yet even when he is defined as a knower,Aristides is not fully at home. That is, if Aristides acquires knowledgeneither intuitively nor, like Helen, through his own mitis, but throughhis relationship to the divine Other, neither self in the split-self divideoffers much familiarity. Thus, although Aristides claims an authoritativeposition ofknowledge about his body vis-a-vis other experts (physicians,companions), that position is always unstable on account of the gap thatremains between what he knows and what the god knows. Momentsof confident interpretation are interspersed with moments of doubt(should I bathe? should I eati')." Whatever Aristides might see of theabdomen, there is always more that the stranger who magically appearsbeside him can tell him.

The idea of a stranger who knows more about the mysterious bodythan Aristides himself means that Aristides' identification with Helen,whose authority to tell her story is rooted in experience, is complicatedby a more traditional epic model in which the access to knowledgeis partial. Unlike Odysseus in Helen's story; who tells Helen all thepurposes of the Achaeans (Od. 4.256), the body is never fully denudedof 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 whathappened or relate the providence of the god. In fact, the mysteriousknowing stranger is instrumental not only in the initial interpretation

24 Festugiere 1954,86; Behr 1968, 46; Reardon 1973, 84; Brown 1978,41; Gourevitch1984,50-51, 58-59· Cf. Quet 1993,243; Andersson and Roos 1997, 37·

25 Note that hieroi logoi are marked 'as spoken or written manifestations of "theOther'" (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 HieroiLogoi, Aristides relied on Asclepius's assistance, since his body had longforgotten its pains and his original records of the dreams were lacunoseor had been 10stY So the knowledge for the text in our hands alsooriginates outside ofAristides. His task is simply to make this knowledgepublic.

The incompleteness ofAristides' knowledge comes into relief againsta master text whose existence is implied by the bits and pieces of otherwriting that appear in the dreams and elsewhere. As Aristides tells hisfoster father Zosimus within a dream, 'Look! The things I dreamed thatthe dream said I discover written in a book' ({tEuaaL, a MyeLv eMxo'UvovuQ, ei'QLaxw yeYQUl-tl-tEVU ev 'tqJ ~L~A.Lq>, L.69); on another occasion,he finds a letter, in which everything that he has been foretold in adream is written in detail (Or. XLVII.78).28 It is unclear whether thesediscovered texts are anterior to the dream, thereby functioning as akind of script. Yet they do imply that the dreams are part of a grandnarrative ofAristides' life that unfolds under the sign of the god.

To the extent that the written things that Aristides discovers oftenexpress divine truth, they model the faithful record of events that theHieroi Logoi should be. Yet the writing of the Hieroi Logoi is troubledat the outset, even before the loss of the archive, by the challenge ofunderstanding the body through the filter of the dream. Aristides' diffi­culties as an autobiographical narrator with epic pretensions stand outas 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. Aristidesrepeatedly draws attention to the problems that plague the composition of the HieroiLogoi: 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 scatteredand lost; indeed, it was patchy to begin with (Or. XLVIII.1-4); given that Aristidesbegan composing the tales late in life, in the early 170S (see Behr 1994, II55-II63), wellafter his first doomed trip to Rome in 145 when he was around 26 years old, he canremember but a fraction of his past woes; and his body has constantly interfered withthe 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 arecomposed according to 'however the god should lead and move' (8:n:lOi; av 0 {}Eoi; am reKat 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 discov­ery 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 Hen­richs 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 '\jJUxii~ XaLmU!J.a UV'tL O(b!J.a'to~ UV'tEc'\WXEV, 'ta au'tii~ UV'tL'tWV E!J.WV. (Or. LI. 23)

But the main point was that the whole affair concerning Philumenehad been inscribed on her very body and on her innards, just as onthe entrails of sacrificial animals. And there seemed to be a good dealof intestine, and at the same time somehow I was looking at it. Theupper parts were healthy and in good condition, but at the end was adiseased 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 causeof my troubles and difficulty'? And he pointed out that place. Theoracles 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 announcingsalvation and that Philumene had given a soul in exchange for a soul, abody for a body,hers in place of mine.

The girl's innards, just like Aristides' lower abdomen in the warm bathdream, appear to be diseased. Yet whereas Aristides had required the'attending someone' to explain why his entrails are diseased, in thiscase the attendant simply points to where Philumene's story is alreadyinscribed (eY'{EYQa!J.!J.Evou :7taVLOi; LOU :7tEQL au'tilv :7tQaY!J.a'toi;). The girlthus resembles, as Aristides says outright, the sacrificial animal whoseentrails Aristides had examined in the first dream. As in hieroscopy,the matter written on Philumene's entrails turns out to be more aboutAristides 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 haddedicated her body for his and a soul for a soul, her story for the futureof his,"

In his pioneering reading of this episode, L. Pearcy likened Philume­ne's innards to Aristides' own diseased body (1988, 387-389). It is truethat she is cast as Aristides' surrogate. Yet the two also differ from oneanother in that Philumene's body is literally inscribed with the meaningof her disease and her death, which turns out to be the meaningof Aristides' disease and his survival. Philumene's dreamed body thustakes 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 episodeshave understandably attracted attention and are often interpreted as an unsavorysign of Aristides' megalomania or his psychological instability. Gourevitch places thesubstitution narratives in the context of contemporary perspectives on Antinous' death(1984,55, with nn. 77-78).

98 BROOKE HOLMES

that make the difficulties of the lived body comprehensible, but witha twist. For it is as if Philumene's serving as a site of interpretation inthe dream, and specifically her conversion into a text, expresses hermonumental act of substitution in the waking world, namely the giftof a life for a life. By assuming both the disease and the written word,Philumene also assumes Aristides' death, releasing him from the storythat is for her both the first and final sacred tale.

Philumene's body offers a site where Aristides' story and Asclepius'ssaving grace may be both staged (as in the dream) and recorded (asin the archive and the Hieroi Logoz). As a result of her gift her fosterfather understands (albeit in a limited sense) his own trouble and, mostimportantly, gains new life. A similar, less disturbing substitution thatnevertheless also involves an act of inscription is found in an episodewhere Aristides learns in a dream that he will die in two days. Thefate may be averted if he completes a series of sacrifices, makes anoffering of coins, and cuts off a part of his body for the sake of the well­being of the whole (6eLv 6E xat 'tou oWf.ta'to~ av'tou :7taga'tEf.tVeLV imEgow'tT]gLa~ "COu :7tav'to~, Or. XLVIII.27). Fortunately, Asclepius remits thisdemand and allows Aristides to substitute his ring (6mt'tvA.LO~) for hisfinger (Mx't'lJA.O~).30 By inscribing (E:7tLygu'ljJm) this ring with the words'0 son of Cronus' and dedicating it to Telesphorus, Aristides cheatsdeath.

The Telesphorus episode, like the Philumene story, points to thedesire to protect the body from writing. For it is precisely the body'sconversion into a textual surface that appears to preclude its regenera­tion. The fixed nature of the inscription is overdetermined as a signifierof the irreversibility of death, on the one hand, and the promise toremember divine benefaction, on the other. Philumene's fate and Tele­sphorus's ring suggest a relationship between inscription, memory, anddeath in Aristides' imagination.

Such a relationship may seem, at first glance, counter-intuitive, giventhe fundamentally important role of commemorative tablets and votivesin the healing events that take place in the cults of Asclepius and otherhealing gods. On reflection, however, we can see how the associationof inscription with death might make sense in such a context. Howeverspeculative, 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 persuadethe 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 tobe the combination of the adjective <J'X,A.T]QOl;, 'hard, rigid', and thealpha-privative, the stated rationale being that, as the god of healing,Asclepius opposes the hardening and withering brought on by diseaseand death. Porphyry's account is paradigmatic:"

'to aaxEM~ O'T)!-taLvEL 'to a.yav aXAT]Qov. aXEAAELV YUQ EO'tL 'to aXAT]QO:ltOLELV,xal. 0 aXEAE'to~ 0 xa'teaXAT]XW~ <'lui 'tT]V aaaQxLav, xal. 'AaXAT]:ltLO~ xa'ta.O'tEQT]OLV !-tE'ta. ~:ltLo'tT]'to~, 0 <'lui 'tfj~ La'tQLxfj~ !-tT] Miv axEMwltm. (HomericQyestions, 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 thename Asklepios comes from this word with an alpha privative, togetherwith the word for gentleness, that is, he who by the agency of the medicalart does not permit dryness.

Asclepius restores to life, as the symbol of the snake, capable of shed­ding its skin, suggests." In our earliest Greek poetry and philosophicalspeculation, 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 pro­tection of memory a crucial question. Every god needs poetry andmyth to keep their deeds visible in cosmic memory. The problem facedby Asclepius, however, is not simply the ephemerality of action andevent." For a god whose work lies in restoring to life, the site of hispower is uniquely resistant to manifesting that work in any lasting way.Gods like Apollo or Hecate or Aphrodite might break into the mor­tal world via symptoms; Asclepius erases them from the body. Whereashealth, 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 thenurture (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 oflife after seeing that corpses dry up (Theophr. Phys. op. fro I=DKII A 13). Disease couldalso be represented in medicine, however, as the liquefaction and disarticulation of thebody, an elaboration in materialist terms of the archaic concepts of 'limb-loosening'(A1J(JLI-LEA~I;) eras and death. See e.g. Archil. II8 0N), Sapph. 137(LP), Hes. Th. 121, withVermeule 1979, 145-177.

34 Ephemeral events such as sacrifices or, in healing cults, the nocturnal encounterwith the healing god, were often represented on votive offerings (van Straten 1981,83­86, 98; id. 1992, 256-257).

100 BROOKE HOLMES

its own history. Yet it is precisely the before-and-after that is importantto Asclepius: the very absence of the mark on the healed body belies itshistory of sickness and the intervention of the god.

We can contrast to the tabula rasa created by Asclepius's healing thealmost imperceptible scar discovered postmortem on the body of thesaint Macrina by her brother and the author of her fourth-century CEVita, Gregory of Nyssa." Through Macrina's nurse, we learn that thescar, 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 shehad prayed for healing. The scar is identified as a sign (OT]!1ELov) andcommemoration (!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 lifeunder the aegis of divine power. Macrina wears the memory of thisrenewal on her own person.

The difference between Macrina's scar and the Asclepian tabula rasawould seem to reflect a historical shift. For the interpretation of thatscar takes place against the backdrop of Christianity's valorization ofthe scarred, wounded, and inscribed body in the first centuries CE,a valorization that departs sharply from Greco-Roman ideas about thecorporeal mark. As a surge of recent scholarship has shown, throughoutGreco-Roman antiquity a mark such as the tattoo cued subjection toa master, narrowing one's identity to whatever was imprinted on theskin and locking that identity against the passage of time." The tattoocan thus be seen as concretizing the surplus of power that licensed themore general use and abuse of bodies deemed subhuman by mastersand governments and effectively canceled the individual's claims toself-determination." If we read Aristides' avoidance of the tattoo inthe dream with the barbarians in this context, it is possible to see itas a promising sign for Aristides' eventual recovery of health. Through

35 See Frank 2000 and Burrus 2003 for discussion of Macrina's scar, which Frankreads as an allusion to Odysseus' famous OUA~ and a site for fixing Macrina's 'shiftingidentities' (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'sletters.

38 For this argument in classical Athens, see e.g. Dem. Against Androtion 55; Pi. Leg.854d. Aristides himself uses lTt[~w in the metaphorical sense of 'to defame', 'to abuse'(xat 'tWV !-lEV OtXE'tWV oMEva 1tll:I11:m:' ElTtL!;a~ 'tWV oa1J'tO'u, 'tWV b' 'EM~VWV 'tOiJ~ EV'tL!-lO'tU-

AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY WI

the spectacular performances of the early martyrs, Christians reclaimedthe marked and tortured body as a site for the resistance to Romanpower while at the same time investing the concept of subjection toa higher power with new meaning," For most Greeks and Romans,however, corporeal inscription was strongly associated from at least thefifth century BCE with slaves, barbarians, and criminals, groups lackingin the corporeal integrity necessary for self-mastery and the mastery ofothers, i.e. the integrity of the citizen or elite body. If Asclepian healingis to restore this integrity, it is incompatible with the mark.

Asclepius's need for a site of commemoration independent of the pri­mary site of his power offers one explanation for why he so often issuesdirectives to create a record when dispensing cures.'? Ancient reportsand archaeological evidence indicate that sanctuaries ofAsclepius over­flowed with inscriptions and votive offerings." Anatomical ex-votos­both molded forms and body parts executed in repoussee relief ('tu­:itOL eYf-lUx:tOL, xu'tUf-lux'tOL)-have been discovered in healing sanctuariesthroughout the Greek world, particularly from the fourth century BCEonwards." By doubling body parts in durable materials-recall the sub­stitution of Aristides' ring for his finger-these votives commemorate

'to'lJ<; %ut 'tOiJ<; fm:EQ 'tfj<; %OLVfj<; EAE'lJ{}EQla<; aYOlvL~OJ.lEVO'lJ<; Lou %ut Q'tL!;U<; yEYEV1]OaL, ~dyou never tattooed any of your servants, but you have done as much as tattoo thosewho were the most honored of the Greeks and who fought on behalf of their commonfreedom.. .' Or. 111.651, cited inJones 2000, 9-IO).

39 See esp. Shaw 1996. On the changing meaning of the marked and torturedbody, see also Gustafson 1997, 98-I01; Gleason 1999, 305. In speaking of a 'newmeaning', 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 anoverview of the anatomical votives found in healing sites across the Greek-speakingworld, see Rouse 1902, 21Q-216; Lang 1977, 14-19 (votives from Corinth); van Straten1981, IOQ-I04, esp. the catalogue on pp. I05-151; Georgoulaki 1997. Miniature moldedbody parts have been found as early as Minoan Age Crete. Although their function hasbeen disputed, they are widely seen as some kind of a dedication to gods with healingcapacities (van Straten 1981, 146; Georgoulaki, op. cit., 198-202). Anatomical votivesbegin to appear again in quantity with the rise of healing cults, particularly the cult ofAsclepius, 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 inEdelstein and Edelstein 1945 (e.g.T428, 432, 43g-441). On other dedications to healinggods, 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 tochange.

Fixity is also, of course, an attribute of writing," Indeed, a second­century CE papyrus fragment in praise oflmouthes-Asclepius, the pref­ace of which bears remarkable similarities to the Hieroi Logoi, heraldswriting as the most suitable medium for committing Asclepius's deedsto memory, while placing votives on the side of (ephemeral) sacrifice;"

[nu]ou YUQ [a]vu-thi!1u'W~ Ti [fr]uoLu~ b[OO]QEU'tOY nUQuu't[L]KU !1[6]v[0]vaK!1a~EL KU [LQ] 6v, EqJl'tUQ­'tal bE 'tOY !1EMOV'tU, YQU­qJi] M aMvu'W~ xaQ[L]~ KU­'to. KaLQOV aVT]~aoK[o]uOU

'ti][v] !1VT]!1T]V. (P. O:ry XI, 1381, Col. ix Igl-lg8=T331)

For everygift of a votive offering or sacrifice lasts only for the immediatemoment, and presently perishes, while a written record is an undyingmeed of gratitude, from time to time renewingits youth in memory.

Aristides' archive and the Hieroi Logoi similarly ensure that if each dayand each night has a story, these stories are not lost by disappearingfrom the body'" Nor is the body compelled to remember them bybecoming 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 thecult, in 'mystical substitution', although he is happy to see such substitution as part of alater mentality (citing Or. XLVIII.27). The success of such substitutions may have beenrelated to a concept of the body as a collection of parts that could be exchanged, asRynearson 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 dedicationwith a couplet that comes to him in a dream. The inscription inspires him to persistwith his rhetorical career, 'as our name would live even among future men, since thegod had called my speeches "everlasting" (me; KUV 'tOTe; UO'tEQOV uvf}QOJltOLe; ovolLU ~lLliiv

EOOILEVOV, EltELI\~ yE uEvaoUe; 'tOile; Myoue; 0 {tEOe; E'tUXEV ltQOOELQT]KWe;). An epigram ofCallimachus playfully turns the votive tablet (ltLVU;) into a safeguard against Asclepius'sforgetfulness: 'to XQEOe; me; UltEXELe;, l\OKAT]ltLE, 'to ltQo YUVaLKOe; / dT]ILOIILKT]e; l\KEOlllVO)(PEAEV Eu;aILEVOe;, / YLVWOKELV. ijv II' c'iQu M{tn [ltaAL] KUL ILLV UltaL'tfje;, / qJT]OL ltUQE;Eo{}aLILUQ'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 ofAsclepius's deeds being erased.

The case of Pandarus, found in the third-century BeE Epidaurianmiracle tablets, suggests that the association between disease, corporealinscription, and commemoration may have been part of the imagina­tive world of the Asclepius cult from an early point." Pandarus arrivesat Epidaurus bearing tattoos (O'tLY!1U'tU) on his forehead. In a dreamvision, the god wraps a band (or fillet) around the marks, instructinghim to remove it in the morning and dedicate it as an offering. Uponremoving 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) thatonce appeared on his forehead. The votive, then, quite literally assumesthe disease-letters as part of the patient's release, thereby becoming thememory of the marks' erasure.t" The disease-inscription nexus is con­firmed in the second part of the stOry.49 Pandarus gives money to oneEchedorus to dedicate to Asclepius, whose aid Echedorus is seekingin the removal of his own tattoos. But Echedorus fails to deliver themoney, and goes on to lie about it in a dream; the quizzical Ascle­pius responds by fastening the old headband of Pandarus around thelying suppliant's marks." Echedorus's discovery the following morningreverses his predecessor's: taking off the headband, he finds that bothsets of letters are inscribed on his forehead, while the band itself isclean. The votive commemoration is erased, then, at the moment thatthe god applies signs to the body's surface.

owed thee by his vow for his wife Demodice. But if thou dost forget and demandpayment 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 thispoint. Note that 30.4, 30.5 in van Straten's catalogue are drawn from the problem­atic Meyer-Steineg collection. Some anatomical ex-votos are directly inscribed; otherslacking 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, hypothesizingthat the Pandarus element was a votive inscription to which a priest may have addedthe Echedorus component.

50 For the punishment motif, see also e.g. IG IV2.1 121 Iv, V, VIII=T423, with thecomments of LiDonnici 1995, 26 n. 9 and 40 n. 3. Compare the similar pattern oftransgression and punishment in the form of disease in propitiatory inscriptions foundin second and third-century CE Phrygia and Lydia, analyzed in Chaniotis 1995. Onthe whole, however, the cult's emphasis was primarily on cure, rather than on blameand expiation.

104 BROOKE HOLMES

The tension between fixed memorials and corporeal renewal that Ihave been describing would have always been available to cult devoteesfor thematic elaboration." In Aristides' ceuvre it becomes a majortheme. Even cases where Aristides does actively engage the conceptof the divine mark end up confirming his larger commitment to thebody'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 andcleans (aVExattUQEV) the bruise with a lancet of some kind, and Aristideshas the idea in his dream to tell Theodotus 'that you yourself made it awound'." Upon waking, Aristides finds that his knee does indeed havea small wound. Rather than causing trouble, however, it seems to bebeneficial for his upper body. Nevertheless, the cut disappears after thekatharsis is completed.

A longer-lived and more spectacular corporeal mark appears at theend of the first book. Aristides reports that a tumor suddenly appearedon his groin from no obvious source (an' aQxij~ oMEf.tL{i~ QlUVEQ{i~, Or.XLVII.62), as is true of so many of his diseases. Rather than tellingAristides to excise the tumor, however, the god commands him toendure it-indeed, he is to nourish it ('tQEQlELV 'tOV oyxov, Or. XLVII.63).And this Aristides does for four months, quite contrary to the adviceof his human doctors. The tumor brings with it an incredible burstof creativity that leads Aristides to declaim from his sickbed. Theflourishing of his talents suggests that the presence of a localized diseasegives rise to a more general katharsis, as in the bruising episode.

In the end, however, what Aristides chooses to stress in the story isthe dramatic reversion of the marked body to unblemished surface atthe point when Asclepius makes clear to him that the time has cometo expel the tumor with 'some drug'. Naturally, the success of the drugin deflating the tumor causes the doctors to marvel at the god's pronoia.Yet they persist with their advice to Aristides, suggesting that he allowthem 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 theperiod of the Epidaurian inscriptions and the Hieroi Logoi. Yet it is the relationship tothe 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 shavesaround the face, 'as if removing and purging defilement and changing it to its properstate' (olovAVl1a't' (upaLQoov xat xa{}aLQOlv xat l1E1:a[3uAAOlv Et~ 'to 1tQoai'jxov).

AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY

perceives his physicians' strategy as divergent from that communicatedto 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 disap­pearance of every last trace of the tumor, 'so that after a few dayshad passed, no one was able to discover on which thigh the tumorhad been, but both were entirely unscathed (pure, clean)' (WO'tE OAL­ywv ~I-tEQWV :n:UQEA:frO'Uowv oMel\; OLO\; r' ~v 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 Ascle­pius'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 regen­eration that seems to deny the passage of time so central to the archiveand narration more generally. Health is an absence of scars, forgetting,a washing away. I close by briefly looking at Aristides' commitmentto endless regeneration in light of both the incompatibility between themark or sign and the body and the ways in which Aristides controls andcircumscribes the public representation ofhis embodied experience.

Lethe andkatharsis

The concept of being remade in the wake of illness runs as an under­current throughout the Hieroi Logoi. Aristides, we have seen, often caststhe causes of his suffering as foreign elements that have breached theboundaries of the body. Although the elimination of a materia peccansplayed a key role in medical concepts of disease from the fifth centuryBeE onwards, the representation of disease as something foreign wascounterbalanced by the belief that disease was a process by which con­stituent elements within the body grew dangerously powerful. 54 Indeed,the idea that disease developed inside an individual body could be usedto 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 Ioffer here.

54 The classic account of 'ontological' versus 'physiological' concepts of disease isTemkin 1963. See also Niebyl 1969, 2-II for the overlap of these concepts in Greekexplanations of disease. For the medical idea of katharsis in the classical period, see vonStaden 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 naturallycomprise opposed elements whose interaction must always be man­aged. Aristides, as we have seen, resists attempts to locate his symptomswithin secular frameworks of interpretation. He thus implicitly rejectsthe premise that his suffering is the outcome of practices over whichhe might be held accountable." His strategy works in tandem with hisrepresentation of disease as invasive and hidden and the correspondingemphasis on cathartic expulsion and rebirth.

Indeed, in his evacuation of the inner body, Aristides was oftenwilling to go to extremes that expressly contradicted basic therapeu­tic principles of secular medicine, such as considering the strengthof the patient when undertaking therapy'" When the noted physicianand sophist Satyrus-a teacher of Galen's-hears how many purges ofblood Aristides has had, he orders him to stop immediately, lest he over­whelm and destroy his body (Or. IL.8; c£ Or. XLVII.73; Or. XLVIII.34­35).58 Aristides responds that he is not master (%UQLO~) of his own bloodand that he will continue to obey the god's directives.59 Aristides' abil­ity to survive the body's journey to the precipice of a void indicates hisprivileged relationship to Asclepius. Indeed, it is because he can endurethe diseased body's destruction that he is granted holistic renewal, anidea that bears some similarity to contemporary ideas of martyrdomand resurrection in early Christianity, with the notable difference thatAristides wants life after death in this life.60 The myth ofAsclepius, after

in OnAntecedent Causes XY.I87-196 (142,3-146,5 Hankinson) and Nutton 1983, 6-16 onresistance to 'ontological' concepts of disease on ethical grounds in the Greco-Romanperiod.

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 canprovide the information Aristides needs: the threats to his health are unpredictableand changeable.

57 On the importance in imperial-age medicine of establishing the patient's strengthbefore letting blood, see Niebyl 1969, 68-76 (and pp. 26-38 on the origins of theconcept in fifth and fourth-century BCE medicine).

58 Both Aristides and Satyrus accept the effectiveness of venesection but they takedifferent views of it. In medicine, bloodletting helps eliminate excess, rather thanaiding in the expulsion of a foreign body (Niebyl 1969). Yet Aristides seems to thinkof 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 arisefrom a shared cultural context rather than any direct claims of influence. C£ Shaw1996, 300 ('the discourse in which Aristides is engaged .. .is distinctively his own, and is

AELIUS ARISTIDES' ILLEGIBLE BODY 107

all, made clear the dangers involved when philanthropic gods pursuemore radical forms of resurrection."

In An Address Regarding Asclepius, Aristides casts renewal precisely inthe metaphorical terms of primeval creation.

a.AM Kat ItEAT] 'tou oWlta'tO~ ahu'i>vtaL 'tLVE~, Kat c'ivbQE~ MyooKat 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 owIta OUV{tEL~ re Kat OUIt:n:~~a~ au'to~ ebOOKE bOOQEa.V, Wo:n:EQIIQoltT]{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 theirnatural limbs had been destroyed; others list other things, some in oralaccounts, some in the declarations of their votive offerings. For us it isnot only a part of the body, but it is the whole body which he has formedand put together and given as a gift, just as Prometheus of old is said tohave fashioned man.

The representation of Asclepius's work as the gifting of new bodyparts, rather than the salvaging of old ones, lends credence to the ideathat the votive transforms permanent damage (the diseased body) intolasting memory and, as a result, gives the patient a fresh start. Neverone to be outdone, Aristides declares that, in his case, his whole bodyhas been destroyed and remade. In On Concord, Aristides' experienceof renewal is extraordinary because it has happened so many times.'I myself', Aristides declares, 'am one of those who under the god'sprotection, have lived not twice but many varied lives, and who on thisaccount 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 (andtorture)-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 cultof Asc1epius, we can also assume his exposure to contemporary concepts of, anddebates about, suffering and healing, given his elite education, his travel, and thecosmopolitanism of the Antonine Age.

61 In most versions, Asc1epius is struck dead by Zeus's thunderbolt for raising thedead (T66-8S; TrOS-IIS). Notably, it is Sarapis who appears to Aristides in a dreamabout the afterlife (Or. IL.48).

108 BROOKE HOLMES

The logic of regeneration shows up in dramatic ways in the HieroiLogoi. In addition to continual purgation and innumerable enemas andbloodlettings, Aristides boasts of being operated on more than anyother suppliant in the history of the Pergamene temple of Asclepius."These literal acts ofcutting and reassembling vividly express the processthat Aristides imagines takes place in less violent treatments. In thethird book, Neritus, one of his foster fathers, dreams that the god tellshim it is necessary to remove Aristides' bones and put in tendons, sincethe existing ones have failed (Or. IL.IS). Seeing Neritus's alarm at theprospect of such a surgical operation, the god gives a less shockingcommand: no need, after all, to knock the bones out directly and cutout 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 ofunsalted olive oil.

What is particularly striking in the Neritus dream is the idea thatstarting over involves, in the first formulation, not the replacement ofbones and tendons with new bones and tendons, but the replacementof hard (i.e. OXATlQ6~) bones with pliant tendons, as though the bonesthemselves were impediments to Aristides' reinvention (an idea thatrecalls the etymologies ofAsclepius's name that we saw above). Despitethe strong emphasis that Aristides appears to place on the foreignorigins of disease, then, his belief in regeneration in fact exaggeratessecular medicine's concept of a body complicit in the production ofsuffering. That is to say: it is not simply the invasive element thatmust be eliminated, but the damaged body itsel£ Purging the body'sstrangeness thus lays the groundwork for what is both a homecomingand a form of rebirth.

62 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)tUL 'tU!;EL~ EXOV'tE~ w~oA6yolJV 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 )tULoo~ 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 andheld appointments in the temple agreed that they had never known anyone who hadbeen 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 unbelievablethings', Or.XLVIII.47).

63 In the last two orations, we find similar instances where what must be changed isthe mind (Or. L.S2) or 'the dead part of the soul' ('to 'tEi}vT])tO~ 't'i'j~ 1jJlJxfj~, Or. LII.2). Inboth 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 writteninto 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 sucha way as to restore it to a primeval state of harmony in which the disso-nance between an opaque interior harboring something foreign, on theone hand, and the person who suffers and seeks the meaning of thatsuffering, on the other, is eliminated, at least temporarily. The body isrepeatedly released from death because, although it is recovered fromobscurity through stories, it is never captured by any one story. At thesame time, the slipperiness of the living body creates the need for afixed text to memorialize the work of Asclepius.

Even the casual reader of the Hieroi Logoi, however, cannot helpbut notice that that text does not always feel stable and fixed. It isoften jumpy, elliptical, and defiant of chronology.64 Its disorder stagesthe breakdown in Aristides’ understanding of what has happened, themoments when he is unsure how to match representation to reality;its lacunae recall the breaks in the archive. The tenuous grasp thatAristides has on his lived experiences in the Hieroi Logoi confirms thebody’s irrepressible strangeness that wells up in the gap between thedream and waking life, between the oneiric performance and the text.

At other moments, however, what escapes narration is precisely theglowing plenitude of well-being that rewards successful therapeutic ac-tion. This plenitude cannot be captured by the negative figure of thetabula rasa. For the feeling of being restored to wholeness that Aristidesdescribes after events such as the dedication of the surrogate-ring toTelesphorus have a positive charge.65 Such feelings are associated moststrongly with ‘the divine baths’ that Aristides narrates, and indeed

64 Castelli 1999, 198–202.65 See Or. XLVIII.28: τ8 δ" μετ τ��τ� *�εστιν εOκK�ειν @πως διεκε!με&α, κα0 -π�!αν

τιν Yρμ�ν!αν πKλιν TμAς Tρμ�σατ� - &ε�ς (‘After this it is impossible to imagine ourcondition, and into what kind of harmony the god again brought us’). As D. Goure-vitch has observed, the word Xγ!εια is found only once, at Or. L.69 (1984, 49). WhatAristides gains following the successful implementation of dream therapies is describedas <>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 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 Brown1978, 43; Miller 1994, 203–204. A kind of relaxation or sense of presence may alsoattend moments of inspired oratorical performance (e.g. Or. LI.39).

110 brooke holmes

with all his encounters with sacred water.66 Like other events thatexchange the damaged past for a unified and all-consuming present,such as the healing of the tumor or tasting the water from Asclepius’ssacred well, the baths are synonymous with lêthê: ‘So let us turn tothe divine baths, from which we digressed. Let the pains, the diseases,the threats, be forgotten’ (ν�ν δ4 @&εν �� 1ημεν τρεπ,με&α πρ8ς τλ�υτρ τ &ε�α· Pδ�ναι δ4 κα0 ν�σ�ι κα0 κ!νδυν�ι πKντες �ρρ�ντων, Or.XLVIII.71).67

In bathing, the body is restored to the conscious, first-person subjectas a singular entity suffused with warmth and oblivious of all that isstrange or painful. One famous passage in particular goes to somelengths in its attempt to describe the phenomenology of starting over:

κα0 τ �π8 τ��τ�υ τ!ς #ν �νδε!�ασ&αι δυνη&ε!η; :παν γρ τ8 λ�ιπ8ν τ7ςTμ ρας κα0 τ7ς νυκτ8ς τ8 εOς ε%ν"ν διεσωσKμην τ"ν �π0 τF. λ�υτρF. σ6 -σιν, κα0 �Nτε τι �ηρ�τ ρ�υ �Nτε Xγρ�τ ρ�υ τ�� σ,ματ�ς Moσ&�μην, �% τ7ς& ρμης �ν7κεν �%δ ν, �% πρ�σεγ νετ�, �%δ’ α` τ�ι��τ�ν T & ρμη _ν, �L�ν�ν τFω κα0 �π’ �ν&ρωπ!νης μη6αν7ς XπKρ�ειεν, �λλK τις _ν �λ α διηνεκ�ς,δ�ναμιν � ρ�υσα $σην δι παντ8ς τ�� σ,ματ�ς τε κα0 τ�� 6ρ�ν�υ.68 παρα-πλησ!ως δ4 κα0 τ τ7ς γν,μης εB6εν. �Nτε γρ �L�ν Tδ�ν" περι�αν"ς _ν�Nτε κατ� �ν&ρωπ!νην ε%�ρ�σ�νην *�ησ&α #ν εBναι α%τ�, �λλ� _ν τις �ρ-ρητ�ς ε%&υμ!α, πKντα δε�τερα τ�� παρ�ντ�ς καιρ�� τι&εμ νη, Sστε �%δ�-ρ.ν τ �λλα �δ�κ�υν -ρAν· �[τω πAς _ν πρ8ς τF. &εF.. (Or. XLVIII.22–23)

And who would be able to relate what came after this? For the entirerest of the day and the night until it was time for bed I preserved thestate following the bath, and I sensed no part of my body to be hotteror colder, nor did any of the heat dissipate, nor was any added, but thewarmth was not of that kind that one could obtain by human means; itwas a kind of continuous heat, producing the same effect throughout theentire body and during the whole time. And it was the same with mymind. For it was no obvious pleasure, nor would you say that it was inthe manner of human joy, but it was an inexplicable wellbeing that madeeverything second to the present moment, with the result that I seemedto see other things without even really seeing them. In this way I wasentirely 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 waterin 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 6ρ�ν�υ, MSS. Keil prints 6ρωτ�ς following Haury’s emendation.

aelius aristides’ illegible body 111

At such moments, the body becomes familiar without the mediationof the dreams, which are premised on self-estrangement in wakinglife. The outside world falls away, leaving only the divine embraceand a sense of inner unity.69 It is this experience of self-sameness—nopart of the body, for example, is warmer or colder than the others—that is shattered not only by the disease, but also by dreaming andwriting, practices that, as we have seen, are premised on self-splitting.In focusing Aristides’ attention wholly on the present, the baths standoutside of memory.

To the extent that the baths stand outside of time, they are in astrong sense extra- or anti-textual: private and eternally present. Nev-ertheless, Aristides wants to narrate the baths and other such momentswithin the Hieroi Logoi. The fact that he does so reminds us that ‘thebody’ 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 thegod, he treads a narrow path between opening that relationship up topublic interpretation and protecting the inimitable intimacy that leavesno place to the watcher, and between timelessness and commemora-tion.70 Following one outdoors bath, Aristides writes that ‘the comfortand relaxation that followed this were perfectly easy for a god to com-prehend, but for a person, not at all easy to imagine or demonstratein language’ (T δ4 �π0 τ��τFω κ�υ��της κα0 �ναψυ6" &εF. μ4ν κα0 μKλα<>αδ!α γν.ναι, �ν&ρ,πFω δ4 D νF. λα1ε�ν D �νδε!�ασ&αι λ�γFω �% πKνυ<>Kδι�ν, 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 indicationsof divine favor without Aristides’ willingness to speak and write aboutthem.

Aristides’ difficulty in sharing the comfort gained through the bathrestages 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 Herodotusor Pausanius, as closed books. Aristides’ Hieroi Logoi, named through—what else?—adream (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 extremeconditions that it required (Or. XLVIII.76).71 As on other occasionswhere Aristides insists that only he is capable of understanding whatthe god says and fulfilling his commands, that capacity is confirmedthrough 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 ofthis literary topos. Indeed, Aristides addresses the crowd following hisbath at Or. XLVIII.82 with a speech inspired by Asclepius. Still, expe-riences of inner unity lie outside the logic of interpretation that governsthe experience of the body in its opacity, where opacity ensures thereis always something hidden to be (potentially) known and explainedvia a boundless divine text. Moments of communion with the divineparticipate, rather, in an ongoing cycle by which Aristides has his sto-ries purged and washed from him as a condition of the renewal oflife.

Even Aristides, however, cannot remain with the god forever. How-ever much time seems to stand still within his states of joy, pleasureends, pain encroaches, and the body is again taken up as an object ofinterpretation and narration: story follows upon story. Thus, the body isOdyssean not only in its toils and its subterfuge, but in its refusal to stayat home in Penelope’s embrace: no sooner has it become familiar thanit is attracted into foreign territory once again, like Tennyson’s Ulysses,for whom ‘the deep/moans round with many voices’, beckoning himback to the open sea with its waves, its strangeness. Unlike Odysseus,

71 Although barefoot runs and wintry baths were part of the usual repertoire ofAsclepian cures, as Marcus Aurelius indicates (Ad se ipsum V.8=T407) and Aristideshimself acknowledges (Or. XLVIII.55).

72 Aristides elsewhere uses the experience of drinking the sacred water to capture asense of speech that would happen ‘all at once’: τ!ς �`ν δ" γ ν�ιτ’ #ν �ρ6�, D SσπερTν!κ’ #ν �π’ α%τ�� π!νωμεν, πρ�σ& ντες τ��ς 6ε!λεσι τ"ν κ�λικα �%κ τι ��!σταμεν, �λλ’�&ρ��ν εOσε6εKμε&α, �[τως κα0 - λ�γ�ς �&ρ�α πKν&’ 5�ει λεγ�μενα; (‘What, then, shouldbe the beginning (of our speech), or, just as when we drink from the well, raising thecup to the lips we never stop again, but pour in the liquid all at once, so too shouldour speech everything all at once’? Or. XXXIX.4=T804). That the sentiment is a toposdoes 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 (6ρ�ν�ς γ��ν α%τ�� �%6:πτεται, ibid. 9).

aelius aristides’ illegible body 113

however, this epic hero travels without a scar: the past belongs whollyto the god and the archive. By displacing writing from the lived self,Aristides manages to keep his distance from his stories and, hence, tosurvive 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 thankPaul 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 assistancein Paris. Thank you to William Harris for inviting me to take part in the conference atthe Center for the Ancient Mediterranean at Columbia and for continuing to involveme in the world of Aristides, to Brent Shaw, and to Glen Bowersock, whose commentson the written version of this article greatly improved it. I acknowledge two JosephE. Croft ’73 Summer Travel Fellowships from Princeton University and a Mellon Fel-lowship for Assistant Professors, which allowed me to complete this work under idealconditions 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 purportsto be a diary of illness and therapy. Aristides suffers from digestiveproblems, 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 myabdomen. And I will give an account of everything day by day’.1 Fromthe outset, descriptions of his night visions dominate the account, andas 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 famoushaunt—but from his ancestral estates in Mysia, in early 166CE, sometwo 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 atthe Symposium and for his assistance in the revision and editorial process. I am gratefulalso to Brooke Holmes and Ewen Bowie for their help, and to Christopher Faraone,Elizabeth Asmis, Shadi Bartsch and Jas Elsner for feedback on earlier versions. Thetext is substantially that of the paper as presented.

1 ν�ν δ4 )ς *σ6εν τ8 τ�� Zτρ�υ δηλ.σαι πρ8ς XμAς 1��λ�μαιk λ�γι��μαι δ4 5κασταπρ8ς Tμ ραν (HL I.4). The Diary closes at HL I.60: τ�σα�τα μ4ν τ περ0 τ�� Zτρ�υ (‘Somuch, 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 thepresence of the emperor in the East (HL I.33; for imperial activities and movementssee Birley 1966). Cf. Boulanger 1923, 483. The date of the composition of HL I is aseparate 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 and56; cf. Bowersock 1969, 79–80. Conjectures as to the date of composition are basedupon 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, adeliberately public account with a rhetorical aim.4 Aristides is as muchconcerned with developing a professional self-portrait as with offeringan account of divine medical care.

In this paper I examine the rhetoric of Aristides’ self-presentation ina narrative episode from the first Logos. Aristides’ dream account at HL

I.19–21 includes a declaration of his oratorical vocation that scholarshave taken as key to understanding the passage. But previous readingshave not offered an adequate account of what Aristides achieves byreporting this assertion in the context of a dream concerned with thesensual pleasures of bathing. I suggest we can appreciate the rhetoricalpoint of this juxtaposition by considering its place within the broadernarrative of bathing in HL I, and by reading the episode alongsidemoments of very similar polemic in Aristides’ Or. 33, ‘To Those whoCriticize him because he does not Declaim’. In both Or. 33 and HL IAristides draws on the precedent of Socratic self-portraiture as a way ofpresenting professional claims. At the same time, a comparison of thetwo texts also reveals what is distinctive about the Hieroi Logoi and itsnarrative of physical experience.

Midway through the Diary of the first Logos, Aristides describes adream in which he sees himself in conversation with an athlete, ayouth in training at one of Smyrna’s gymnasia.5 The subject of theirconversation is bathing—a pursuit which Aristides’ interlocutor takes tobe 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 notof Aristides at all, but of a later interpolator. However, his argument—based on theheterogeneity of this portion of the text and on its narrative confusion—is difficult toaccept. For reasons I explain more fully in my dissertation on Aristides’ Hieroi Logoi, Itake 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’ bycomparison with dream narratives of the other Logoi. Cf. Dorandi 2005. Contrast Quet1993, 220, who maintains that the Diary of 166 was ‘choisi et peut-être conçu pour êtrepublié’ by Aristides himself. On Aristides self-consciousness about the compositionalstatus 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 ‘EphesianGates’ at HL I.20. Cf. Cadoux 1938, 181. For gymnasia in Smyrna see AristidesOr. 17.11; 18.6. On baths as an outstanding feature of the Smyrnaean landscape, seeAristides Or. 17.11, 47.18–21, 29.30, 23.20. Cf. Yegül 1992, 306.

proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 117

α`&ις δ4 �δ�κ�υν πρ8ς α%τF. τF. �ΑσκληπιF. νεαν!σκ�ν τιν τ.ν γυμναστι-κ.ν *τι �γ νει�ν περ0 1αλανε!ων διαλ γεσ&αι, τ μεγKλα δ" �παιν��ντακα0 τ�ια�τας τινς τς �π�λα�σεις τ�� 1!�υ τι& μεν�ν. δε!�ας �`ν α%τF.τ"ν &Kλατταν oρ�μην εO κα0 �ντα�&α �μειν�ν λ��εσ&αι, D �ν μικρF.. ‘�νμικρF.’, *�η. μετ δ4 τ��τ� λ!μνην τιν *δει�α κα0 oρ�μην εO κα0 �ν λ!μνMητ�σα�τMη κρε�ττ�ν, D �ν μικρF.. συνε6,ρει κ�ντα�&α @τι αJρετ,τερ�ν τ8 �νμικρF.. ‘�%κ �ρα, *�ην, παντα6�� τ� γε με���ν αJρετ,τερ�ν, �λλ’ *στιν τιςκα0 μικρ�� 6Kρις’. κα0 :μα �νεν�ησα πρ8ς �μαυτ8ν )ς κα0 �πιδεικνυμ νFωπ�υ καλ8ν εOπε�ν @τι τ.ν μ4ν �λλων �ν&ρ,πων αJ Tδ�να0 κινδυνε��υσινX.ν τινων εBναι Tδ�να!, T δ4 �μ" κα&αρ.ς �ρα �ν&ρ,π�υ ε$η, @στις σ�νει-μ! τε κα0 6α!ρω λ�γ�ις.

And again, I dreamed that by the statue of Asclepius himself a youngman—one of the athletes, still unbearded—was lecturing about bathingestablishments. He was praising large ones and considered such thingsthe pleasures of life. So indicating to him the sea, I asked if it was betterto 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 betterin a harbor of that size, or in a small place. He agreed that in thatcase 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 alsosome charm in the small’. And at the same time I thought to myself thatalso if one were declaiming somewhere it would be well to say that thepleasures of other men risk being the pleasures of swine, but my pleasureis 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 ofbathing sites, by which Aristides exposes the absurdity of the youngman’s assumption that life’s physical pleasures should be enjoyed on alarge scale. Then, at the conclusion of this exchange, still inside thedream,6 Aristides gives an oratorical cap to the conversation in hisown mind: ‘What are the pleasures of the bath house’, he reflects,‘compared to the pure intellectual joys of one who dedicates himselfto rhetoric?’ I will come back—at the end of this paper—to whatensues. For in fact, while he strongly censures bathing as ‘the pleasuresof swine’, Aristides ends up making the surprising decision to indulgein the very activity he has repudiated (I.20–21). But to begin we shouldexamine the associative logic of the dream itself. How does Aristides’total rejection of bathing relate to the Socratic-style exchange thatprecedes it?

6 Implied by the phrase κα0 :μα �νεν�ησα.

118 janet downie

Scholars have noticed Aristides’ highly self-conscious expression,here, of his intellectual allegiances.7 However, the two studies that takesome time to interpret the passage have concluded that the episodeat HL I.19–21 is ultimately symbolic—either of literary aesthetics orof suppressed sexual desire; and neither offers an adequate accountof Aristides’ deliberate conjunction of bathing and oratory. CharlesWeiss 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—thatthere is a certain charm in the small.8 Weiss relates this to a liter-ary aesthetic of smallness in Callimachaean terms, and suggests thatit alludes to the plain style of the Hieroi Logoi themselves.9 Besides thefact that it is difficult to take the sprawling narrative of the HL asa study in literary miniaturization,10 there remains the issue that inhis rhetorical comment on the dream elenchos, Aristides does not drawdistinctions between different kinds of speaking or writing; rather, hecontrasts the so-called ‘pleasures of swine’ with oratorical culture inits widest sense: logoi. Weiss’s reading does not address why Aristidesrepresents the very broad categories of bathing and rhetoric as moralopposites. Michenaud and Dierkens, on the other hand, make Aris-tides’ opposition between bathing and oratory crucial. They read thedream encounter with the young athlete as representing a homosex-ual solicitation through which erotic energy is sublimated in intellectualpursuits.11 However, their overtly psychoanalytic approach misses theironic humor at work here and precludes any recognition of Aristides’deliberate construction of an ethical dichotomy between bathing anddeclamation.

7 Weiss 1998, Michenaud and Dierkens 1972. Keil 1898, ad loc. cross-references thispassage 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 ‘plainstyle’ as part of a bid for a position on the imperial staff (perhaps as tutor to the youngCommodus) when Marcus Aurelius visited Smyrna in 176 during a political-diplomatictour 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 andthose 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 thedream: first, the therapeutic motif of alousia (‘abstention from baths’)that structures the dream narrative of HL I; second, the rhetoric ofOr. 33, where Aristides characterizes bathing as a luxurious activity inorder to highlight the ethical value of oratory. Dating to approximatelythe same time as HL I, Oration 33 presents the physical concerns of epi-demic illness and of luxurious living as a testing ground for intellectualcommitments. The thematic parallels help to show what is at stake inHL I, where Aristides makes the care and cultivation of his body partof a strategy for self-presentation.

Alousia

From its first entry, the Diary of Aristides’ digestive complaints isframed by the god’s prescription for restoring balance in his body: alou-

sia, ‘abstention from baths’.12 This therapy makes sound medical sensein the ancient context.13 For, since abdominal disorder was understoodto result from an excess of moist humors, a ‘drying’ regimen was con-sidered the appropriate corrective in some cases. But Aristides’ Diarydoes not, on the whole, record simple abstention from bathing. Insteadhe presents a long series of dreams that require interpretation andseem, in a number of cases, to suggest that he ought to bathe. Thefirst of these dreams immediately follows Asclepius’ command of alousia

(HL I.7):

12 ΔωδεκKτMη δ4 τ�� μην8ς �λ�υσ!αν πρ�στKττει - &ε8ς (I.6): ‘And on the twelfth ofthe month the god prescribes abstention from baths’. Aristides uses the word alousiasixteen times in the Hieroi Logoi, all citations but one occurring in the first Logos. Theonly ancient author whose record approaches this is Galen (fifteen occurrences overhis entire corpus). There are, of course, other ways to describe the action of refrainingfrom bathing in Greek. In the Hippocratic context, for example, Villard 1994, 43 n. 9,finds the following verbal locutions: λ�υτρ.ν ε$ργεσ&αι/απ 6εσ&αι, �λ�υτε�ν, μ" λ��ειν.Alousia, then, is concise shorthand for the prescription.

13 Villard 1994, 52. Villard’s lexical analysis of Hippocratic texts shows that louesthaican indicate many different external therapeutic activities involving water, only some ofwhich involved immersion bathing. In the Hippocratic treatise The Art 5, bathing andabstention from bathing (alousia) appear in a list of polar opposites that guide medicaltreatment—including eating much and fasting, exercise and rest, sleep and wakefulnessand so on. In the Hippocratic Corpus, see especially: Regimen 2.57, Affections 53, Regimenin 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 actuallydefiled [molunthenai] in some way), but it seemed nevertheless a good ideato bathe, especially because if in fact I had suffered this [defilement],water was necessary. Straightaway, then, I spent some rather unpleasanttime in the bathhouse. And when I got out, all [my body] seemedfull and my breathing was like an asthmatic’s so that, to begin with, Iimmediately stopped taking nourishment. After this there was corruption(diaphthora) from night onwards, and it went on to such an extent that itscarcely 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 hisdigestive problems and by Asclepius’ previous instructions.14 The termmolunthenai is rare in the medical context; here, in the context of dreaminterpretation and in conjunction with diaphthora it acquires, rather, amoral resonance.15 Although Aristides is not explicit about the detailsof his vision, we might imagine an excrement dream of the sort thatArtemidorus and Galen both describe. Galen, attending primarily tohow dreams index the state of the body, says that when a dreamer seeshimself standing in excrement or mud it means either that his humorsare 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, bywhich Aristides attempts to render dream logic in language: narrative and interpreta-tion quickly merge.

15 The medical uses of μ�λ�νω are limited: in his treatise on the composition ofmedicaments, Galen uses the verb to talk about colors that stain; in the Hippocraticcorpus, the related μωλ�νω describes swellings that suppurate. Basically, μ�λ�νω refersto physical defilement, but this sense is easily extended metaphorically or symbolicallyto the moral sphere. Plato speaks of the person who is ‘defiled’ like a wild pig byhis ignorance (Rep. 535e); Artemidorus investigates the significance for the dreamer’ssocial life of various dreams of ‘defilement’ (ii.26). Cf. LSJ (s.v.) for attestations ofboth the physical and extended (or metaphorical) senses. While diaphthora can referto ‘corruption’ of a physical sort (see LSJ I.5, Aretaeus, CA ‘stomachic disorder’), inAristides’ corpus its moral overtones (cf. LSJ I.3 ‘moral corruption’) are marked: see Or.34.27 and Or. 29.29. Cf. Or. 33.30: �&�ρ (discussed below, and by Avotins 1982). In histreatise On Diagnosis from Dreams (VI.832–835K) Galen cautions that a doctor can errby interpreting in medical terms a vision whose significance pertains to a non-medicalaspect of the patient’s life.

16 VI.835K: ‘For, those who dream that they spend time in dung or mud—eitherthey have bad and malodorous and putrid humors inside, or an abundance of retainedexcrement in their digestive system’.

proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 121

dorus, however, whose interest in the interpretation of dreams coversthe whole range of symbolic meanings, a dream involving excrement(animal or human) may portend sickness, particularly if the excrementstains,17 but as a symbol of impurity it may also pertain to a variety ofissues relating to the dreamer’s social life.18 Although the Diary is ori-ented around physical concerns, Aristides responds to this dream as ifit marks impurity: he takes a bath. Seizing upon water as a conceptuallink between the social and medical realms19 he finds little success, asthe 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 andabstention from baths might be explained in either medical or socialterms. 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 Severaldream episodes accommodate both issues in the same narrative space.21

So, while Aristides’ preoccupation with bathing seems at first to belongto his therapeutic concern with alousia, it is also part of Aristides’ socialworld: a number of narrative vignettes in the Diary feature conven-tional bathing in purpose-built bathhouses. I suggest that he highlightsthis feature of contemporary health and recreation deliberately, in orderto make an ethical point about oratory.

Medical and dietetic writings of the Imperial period partly reflect thegreat popularity of public and private bathing facilities.22 Physicians likeGalen offer nuanced and complex advice on precisely how to calibrate

17 Artemidorus ii.26: ‘…[excrement] indicates despondency and harm, and—whenit 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 actualdeployment of dream theory was probably common (Harris 2003).

20 Oratory is part of what Aristides refers to as the ‘secondary business’ (πKρεργ�ν)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 inwhich 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 theRoman period was spurred by Asclepiades of Bithynia, who relied heavily on bathsin 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 65–68see Villard 1994, 43.

122 janet downie

bathing procedures to each health situation;23 Celsus also recognizes thewide dietetic and therapeutic possibilities of different kinds of bathing.24

It seems that bathing was such an important part of social life thatthere were perhaps few health conditions for which it was decisivelyproscribed. While Asclepius’ prescription to Aristides of alousia fits thelogic of humoral medicine, then, it remains somewhat surprising froma social perspective. Aristides’ abstention from bathing would appearto be partly a principled, ascetic position—a possibility that his ownwritings, and those of his contemporaries, support. Artemidorus, forexample, describing a progression from the primitive practices of thehardy 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 bathwhen they are about to have dinner. And now the balaneion is nothingother than the road to luxurious living.

A similar apprehension about the link between bathing and luxuryseems to underlie Plutarch’s cautious advice on lifestyle and regimenin his ‘On Keeping Well’: the bath is better avoided if you are in goodhealth, he says. And while there may be a place for warm bathing inrecovering from an illness, he emphasizes this is not to be overdone(131B–D; cf. 127E–F). The association of bathing with luxury made it auseful tool for rhetorical denunciations of contemporary mores, as we seein Philostratus’ Life of the first century sage Apollonius of Tyana. Themodel Apollonius makes philosophy his way of life, and his rejection ofwarm baths is the hallmark of an abstemious regimen of self-care: hedisparages public bathhouses as ‘men’s senility’ (1.16.4).26 Similar prin-ciples are attributed, in this text, to the Cynic lecturer Demetrius, whowaged a campaign against the excesses of the Emperor Nero partlyby 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 theybathed in [tubs] known as asaminthoi. But later generations, by the time balaneia were inexistence, considered it a bad [omen in a dream] both to bathe and to see a bathingestablishment, even if one did not bathe. And they thought that the balaneion indicateddisturbance (tarache)—on account of the tumult that arises there—and harm (blabe)—onaccount of the sweat exuded—and even mental anguish and fear because the skin andthe 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 defilethemselves with extravagance.27 In brief, Aristides’ preoccupation withbathing in the first Logos belongs within a whole contemporary cultureof the bathhouse. Conventional bathing in elaborate public and privatefacilities was a social institution of the imperial era that could be madeto bear ethical weight. Aristides himself uses bathing as part of an eth-ical polemic in his Oration 33, ‘To Those who Criticize him because hedoes not Declaim’, and we shall see that this polemical text sheds lighton the dream conversation at HL I.19–20, in which Aristides contraststhe 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 beendated to around 166, which would make it roughly contemporary withthe period covered by the Diary of HL I.28 In this Oration Aristidesdefends himself against accusations that he has been less than fullyengaged in his role as a public speaker.29 Defining and defending hispractice of rhetoric, Aristides argues, to the contrary, that his deepcommitment to oratory as a socially constructive force is clear from thefact that he continued to declaim in Smyrna, even when the plague wasat 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 epistolarypropemptikon, 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 (Behr1968, 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 writtenbefore 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 onAristides’ 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 withdefining 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 theplague was at its height and the god ordered me to come forward. And what I amabout 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 theopening 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 consequenceof the immediate charges against him, but rather reflects a fundamen-tal misunderstanding of his way of life, Aristides constructs a fictionalcourt scenario, in which he is compelled to defend his professional con-duct against unspecified accusers.34 His defense is an ethical one: likeSocrates he bases his self-portrait on claims that he has always beenconcerned primarily to foster the highest human faculties of intellectand spirit.

In the apologetic context of Or. 33, then, when Aristides invokes thecontrast between the pleasures of the bathhouse and the intellectualdiscipline of oratory, he makes a point about his own ethical persona.Conventional bathing is introduced as a sign of the degenerate luxurythat is the opposite of all Aristides claims to stand for. Refuting thecharge of failing to make public appearances, Aristides turns the tableson his accusers: they are the ones who are at fault for preferring bathsto 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 youmiss some of the speakers. But, it seems to me, you don’t want to tellyourselves the truth: that it’s not possible for people who love jewelryor who are attached to bathing, or who honor what they should not, tounderstand the serious pursuits (diatribas) of oratory.

Underscoring the contrast by his word choice, Aristides insists thatwasting 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 hisPlatonic Orations (Or. 2 and 3; Milazzo 2002). Gigante 1990 briefly discusses Socratesas a model for Aristides in the Hieroi Logoi. Early on, Isocrates appropriated the Socraticapologia tradition for rhetoric (Ober 2004). On Aristides’ use of Isocrates see Hubbell1913.

32 Or. 33. 34: ‘What I have said, then, is an apologia, if you will—or a well-intentionedcensure (�πιτ!μησις �π’ ε%ν�!ας)’.

33 Or. 33.3: ‘Shadow-boxing, I realize, is what is called for, somehow. For those towhom 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 werepresent and I were addressing them’ (Or. 33.5).

proper pleasures: bathing and oratory 125

lectual endeavors (diatribas). An immoderate dependence on bathing isas pathological, he suggests, as a passionate desire for jewelry. By wayof contrast, Aristides sketches the responsible attitude toward bathingin a passage that makes reference to Homer. Although he was bornthe son of the Mysian river Meles—so the legend goes—Homer didnot spend his life swimming idly about, the sophists say, but renouncedsuch activities for greater pursuits (Or. 33.29):

… Homer himself was not satisfied to dwell on his father’s banks and toswim along with the fishes who were his brothers (as their story goes),but rather lived a life so rough (auchmeron) that clearly he was generallysatisfied with access to basic necessities. And baths that were improvisedand, in fact, for the purpose of helping ailing bodies, as Plato says—thosehe 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 withthe ethical virtue of rejecting luxury. The legendary poet is said by hismodern admirers to have accepted only baths that were medically nec-essary36—and even these were to be ‘improvised’, not taken in the kindof well-appointed kolymbethrai that Artemidorus refers to. Aristides’ por-trait of Homer makes him representative of an old-fashioned austeritydiametrically 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. 33by encouraging his audience to derive their satisfactions from the bestpart of life—oratory of course. His image of the opposite, undesirableethical 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 thatif we are of the portion who are saved, we will be saved among thefinest pursuits—study and oratory—and we will not be wallowing in ouraccommodation to the swinish temperament night after night and dayafter day. But if we are not [of the portion who are saved], the gain willbe 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 thesestories 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 isnecessarily debarred after death) it’s a thoroughly distasteful idea to takepleasure in this during life, both by speaking oneself and by attendingwhen 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 weredeclaiming’ at the end of his dream conversation with the young athletein the first Logos. Here, he reverses the expected distribution of pleasureand profit: intellectual activities are pleasurable, while bathing is a prof-itless pursuit that Aristides associates with ritual treatment of the deadbody.38 In the context of a heightened awareness of mortality related tothe crisis of the Antonine plague,39 Aristides urges his audience to avoidthe kind of social degradation that so often accompanies epidemic ill-ness and to make the finest human preoccupations their most urgentconcern, whether they should live or die.40 By pointing to the fact thatone can be bathed after death but cannot participate in the oratori-cal community after death, Aristides draws a clear distinction betweenactivities that are purely physical and those higher ones that are mentalor spiritual as well. The description of bathers as swine, rolling about inthe mud, evokes a common image of the unregenerate mortal conditionused by Plato in several contexts—notably in the Phaedrus—to describethe life lived without philosophy.41 Bathing, as Aristides’ opponents pur-sue it, is the inverse of intellectual elevation and spiritual purification. Itis 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. Onallegorical 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 σ,�ειν in this passage implies physical survival of epi-

demic illness. He also reads �&�ρK at 33.30 as a reference to destruction caused by theAntonine plague. Avotins points out that Aristides echoes Thucydides here—specificallythe passage in which he describes the effects of the epidemic on Athenian morals (Th.2.53; Avotins 1982, 4). Thus �&�ρK also alludes, presumably, to the moral degenerationtraditionally associated with plague (on this traditional aspect of plague writing, seeDuncan-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 thisdialogue to face-to-face dialectic are described as ‘rolling about’ (κυλινδε�ται) indiscrim-inately even among those unable to understand or appreciate them; cf. Phd. 81d, 82e:�ν πKσMη �μα&!>α κυλινδ�υμ νην; Tht. 172c; Plt. 309a. For the association of mud with theuninitiated 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 ethicalterms and drawing on a Socratic tradition of polemical self-portraiturein the context of epidemic crisis. The issues in HL I.19–20 are, Isuggest, similar. The Hieroi Logoi, however, are explicitly concernedwith Aristides’ own health, and so he faces the challenge of explaininghow his therapeutic and physical activities reflect on the professionalvocation he values most. We have seen that Aristides does not takeAsclepius’ original command to refrain from bathing (HL I.6) as thestarting point for a simple narrative of ascetic self-restraint. In fact, afterhis conversation with the young athlete at I.19–20, and after his roundrejection of bathing as a swinish pleasure, Aristides’ dream goes on todescribe (and prescribe—we are led to believe) a decidedly pleasurablewarm bath (HL I.20–21):

�δ�κει δ’ �`ν τα�τα λ γειν - νεαν!σκ�ς περ0 τ�� 1αλανε!�υ τ�� πρ8ς τα�ςπ�λαις τα�ς εOς GΕ�εσ�ν �ερ��σαις, κα0 τ λ�ς *δ�� μ�ι 6ρ7ναι �π�πειρα-&7ναι—π�τε γρ δ" κα0 �λλ�τε &αρσ7σαι, εO μ" ν�ν;—�[τω δ" συν& σ&αιεOς Sραν 5κτην )ς τηνικα�τα �σ�αλ στατ�ν nν κινε�σ&αι… �π�ρευ�με&Kτε, κα0 )ς oν�σαμεν, �πιστς τM7 δε�αμενM7 τ�� ψυ6ρ�� �πειρ,μην τ�� [δα-τ�ς, κα! μ�ι *δ��εν παρ’ �λπ!δας �% μKλα ψυ6ρ8ν εBναι, κυαν��ν δ4 κα0Tδ? Oδε�ν. κ�γc, “καλ�,” *�ην, �Lα δ" γνωρ!�ων τ8 τ�� [δατ�ς �γα&�ν. )ςδ4 παρ7λ&�ν ε$σω, πKλιν εiρ�ν 5τερ�ν �ν &ερμ�τ ρFω �$κFω �νειμ ν�ν μAλ-λ�ν. κα0 :μα �γιγν�μην τε �ν τF. &ερμF. κα0 �πεδυ�μην. �λ�υσKμην κα0 μKλ’Tδ ως.

At any rate, the young man seemed to say these things concerningthe bathing establishment that was near the gates leading to Ephesus,

thought—not least in the context of the cult of Asclepius, where water appears tohave figured prominently (Parker 1983, 212–213). From early on, however, a distinctioncould be made between purification of the mind and purification of the body as, forexample, 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) isto think holy thoughts’ (Edelstein and Edelstein 1945, T.318; cf. 336). The distinctionis a prominent trope in leges sacrae from the Imperial period, including a first-centuryCE lex sacra from Lindos (Sokolowski 1962, no. 108) that specifies one should enter thetemple ‘clean not through washing, but in mind’ (�% λ�υτρ y�ι �λλ ν�Fω κα&αρ�ν); cf.the verse-oracle of Sarapis (Merkelbach 1995, 85): ‘Enter with pure hands, and with amind and tongue that are true, clean not through washing, but in mind’ (Yγνς 6ε�ρας*6ων κα0 ν��ν κα0 γλ.τταν �λη&7 | ε$σι&ι, μ" λ�ετρ��ς, �λλ ν�ωι κα&αρ�ς). For broaderdiscussion of this distinction and its implications, see Chaniotis 1997, especially 163–166.The metaphorical framework of religious initiation, to which Aristides briefly alludeshere, when he describes rival orators defiling their vocation, plays an important rolealso 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—forwhen else indeed would I be so bold if not now? Thus, I decidedupon the sixth hour as being the safest time to move about… Westarted out, and when we arrived, stopping at the cold pool I tried thewater. And contrary to what I expected it seemed to me not to be verycold, but dark and pleasant to look upon. And I said, ‘Good!’ as if toacknowledge the excellence of the water. When I went in, I found inturn another in the warmer chamber that was milder. And at once Ientered the warm chamber and began undressing. And I bathed withmuch pleasure.

In an ironic reversal, Aristides decides to bathe and asserts his ethicalindependence from the categories of intellectual and physical activityhe has so polemically set out. He decides to ‘test out’ the dream’sapparent prescription in spite of his intellectual reservations, and theresult is positive: a very pleasant experience in the bathhouse.43 In thisepisode, then, Aristides has begun the work of defining the physicalpractice of bathing in his own terms, setting aside its associations withluxurious indulgence so that he can appropriate it for his own purposesof self-portraiture.

With the narrative of this transgressive bath at I.21 Aristides takesa crucial step beyond the basic dichotomy of bathing and oratory thatplayed an important role in Or. 33. By claiming independence from theethical schema set out in the preceding dream narrative, he preparesthe way for the catalogue of extreme and paradoxical baths that will becrucial to the quasi-heroic healing narrative of the second Logos.44 For,once Aristides has defined his separation from conventional bathingthrough the narrative of alousia in the first Logos, he can incorporate thisconcept of abstention from bathing into a paradoxical physical regimenthat combines outdoor plunges into wintery rivers, harbors and wellswith taxing regimes of purging and fasting and with extraordinaryintellectual discipline.45 For all of this he claims Socratic precedent

43 In his decision to ‘test out’ what the dream message suggests Aristides againfollows a Socratic model: at the end of his life Socrates resorted to trial and error in thematter of the god’s command to compose poetry (Phd. 60e–61c: �π�πειρ,μεν�ς τ! λ γ�ι).On Aristides’ response to the dream Michenaud and Dierkens 1972, 88 comment:‘Ayant affirmé publiquement son éloignement de tout plaisir sensuel dans le bain, ilse permet l’après-midi un bain chaud et agréable, chose absolument exceptionelle dansles 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 ledduring 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 analmost irrational manner: writing and speaking and examining what Ihad written. And I stretched it out usually into the middle of the nightat least, and then on each occasion pursued my customary routinesthe next day, taking a correspondingly [minimal amount of] food. Andwhen abstention from food followed upon vomiting this was what wasencouraging: diligence and serious occupation about these [pursuits]. Sothat whenever I think of Socrates coming from the symposium to passhis day in the Lyceum, I think it no less fitting for me to give thanks forstrength 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 andshare a bed with Alcibiades without compromising his principles—allin the same spirit with which he endured the physical rigors of bat-tle at Potidaea, went barefoot, or regularly stood stock still, unaffectedby inclement weather and deep in meditative thought.46 Already wehave seen Aristides taking on the role of the philosopher in his con-versation with the young athlete earlier in HL I, and alluding to theSocratic 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 wesee Socrates invoked as the hero whose ethical seriousness is so solidit passes every physical test—whether of excessive strain or excessiveluxury.47 Through the dream narrative of HL I.19–21 specifically, Aris-tides wants to suggest that, like Socrates, he moves beyond conventionalmoral categories.48

In this paper I have argued that at HL I.19–21 Aristides’ narrative has adeliberate rhetorical aim that can be understood, first, in the contextof the broader theme of bathing and alousia in HL I and, second,with reference to Aristides’ professional polemic in Or. 33. The firstLogos and Or. 33 both give moral weight to the motifs of bathing andabstention 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 hisprofessional engagement during the epidemic crisis of the 160s CE—islinked to a Socratic concern for the soul. In the Hieroi Logoi, Aristideshas Socrates’ example in mind again, but in HL I he uses it to claima certain kind of liberty in his physical pursuits. He articulates an ethicof alousia and bathing that will ultimately serve the larger apologeticproject of the Hieroi Logoi, in which his intellectual vocation and physicalexperience 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 thecity of Cyzicus at a festival to celebrate the restoration of the templeof Hadrian, which had been damaged in an earthquake in 161. Thespeech 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 thesubject 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 bodyand the divine. Travel and the body are often explored separately, butwhen viewed in combination offer fruitful insights into Aristides’ out-look on himself and the world. I then go on to explore these themesmore broadly in Aristides’ work, and I argue that they are significantthroughout the corpus. This example of the use of the Sacred Tales toilluminate 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 theSacred Tales itself, but also for the corpus as a whole. It will be suggestedthat viewing Aristides’ corpus in the light of the Sacred Tales reveals theauthor’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 divineis established as central in Aristides’ statement that he is speaking at thecommand of the god Asklepios (Or. 27.2). His longstanding and ongo-ing relationship with the god is suggested further by mention of otherinstances 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). Aristidesself-consciously draws attention to the activity of his speechmaking inthe statement that he is extemporising—something which he was noto-riously unwilling or unable to do—and he repeats this statement at theend of the speech (3, 46). This introduction is important, and sets thetone for the entire speech. It presents the orator’s motivation in deliv-ering this oration, his overcoming of his physical difficulties, and theactual content of his speech as emanating from Asklepios. In this waythe speech itself, its public delivery at Cyzicus, and subsequent readingsenact (and re-enact) the divine/human relationship.

Aristides then proceeds to a geographical ekphrasis (Or. 27.5–15). Thedivine element is first established in the landscape by a reference to thefoundation of Cyzicus by Apollo (5). The structure of the descriptionof Cyzicus mirrors the process of movement and travel in that it startswith a passage on the situation of the city (its broad geographical con-text), continues with a more focused section on the city and culminateswith 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 aparticular and one might say even peculiar geographical hierarchy onthe landscape. Aristides first locates Cyzicus within a seascape: it is saidto be located between the Euxine and the Hellespont, ‘being a kindof link between the two seas, or rather between every sea upon whichmen sail’ (σ�νδεσμ�ς τις �`σα τ7ς &αλKττης \κατ ρας, μAλλ�ν δ4 YπKσηςgν �ν&ρωπ�ι πλ �υσι, 6).1 It is also said to be located in the midst ofthree 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 itslocation both geographically and in terms of the movement of peopleis further emphasised by the statement that it is ‘located in the midst ofthe sea, it brings all mankind together, escorting some from the innerto the outer sea, and others from without to within, as if it were a kindof navel stone at the point between Gadira and the Phasis’ (τ7ς γρ&αλKττης �ν μ σFω κειμ νη συνKγει πKντας �ν&ρ,π�υς εOς τα%τ�ν, τ��ς τε�π8 τ7ς ε$σω πρ8ς τ"ν *�ω παραπ μπ�υσα κα0 τ�?ς *�ω&εν πρ8ς τ ε$σω,Sσπερ τις Pμ�αλ8ς τ�� μετα�? τ�π�υ Γαδε!ρων κα0 ΦKσιδ�ς), 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 herereplaced by the concept of a perfect mixture of geographical featuresincluding mountains, plains and rivers.

This first section is like a broad cinematic panning shot, an aerialview of the geographical context of the city. The camera then zoomsin to focus on Cyzicus proper (11–12). Aristides plays with the idea ofCyzicus simultaneously being an island, a peninsula and a continent.This not only opens up the question of its geographical status, butalso introduces the idea of transformational viewing. The causewayslinking Cyzicus to the mainland are referred to as ‘legs’, σκ λη (11).This choice of word is interesting. It was used in the sense of walls, andin particular for the long walls between the city of Athens and Piraeus,by writers such as Strabo and Plutarch.2 This Attic association mayhave made it particularly appropriate in the eyes of Aristides. But itsprimary meaning of ‘legs’ should not be ignored. It implies viewing thelandscape in the form of the human body and the close linking of thetwo. Aristides then refers briefly to the beauty of the public buildings(13), but does not describe them. Instead he presents his religious visionof the city ‘as the work of one of the gods’ (τ.ν κρειττ�νων τιν�ς �στιπ�!ημα) and ‘sacred to all the gods’ (*�ικε γKρ τις YπKντων εBναι τ.ν&ε.ν JερK):

Sσπερ γρ κατ κλ�ρ�υς :πασι &ε��ς ��Mηρημ νη πAσα δ" μεμ ρισται, κα0α%τ"ν �J νε> διειλ��ασιν Sσπερ Yμιλλωμ νων 〈τ.ν〉 &ε.ν πρ8ς �λλ�λ�υςXπ4ρ σωτηρ!ας τ7ς π�λεως. &υσ!αι δ4 κα0 π�μπα0 κα0 πρ�σ�δ�ι κα0 &ερα-πε�αι &ε.ν μετ τ.ν κα&εστηκ�των &εσμ.ν … (Or. 27.14).

For as if it had been set aside and allotted among all the gods, it hasnow been all parceled out, and the temples have divided it up, as if thegods were competing against one another on behalf of the safety of thecity. There are sacrifices, parades, processions, and divine services underestablished codes…

The land of Cyzicus is envisioned as physically made up of the sum ofits sanctuaries, and simultaneously vivified by religious processions andrituals.

Just as the topography of Cyzicus is effectively rearranged by themanner of Aristides’ description, so the citizens of Cyzicus are said tomould 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 toCyzicus. Not only is Prokonnesos reduced in this way, but the outline ofthe land is radically altered by the new temple:

πρ�τερ�ν μ4ν γρ τ.ν ν�σων τα�ς κ�ρυ�α�ς �τεκμα!ρ�ντ� �J πλ �ντες,Κ��ικ�ς qδε, Πρ�κ�ννησ�ς α[τη, τ.ν �λλων gν $δ�ι τις· ν�ν δ4 - νεcς �ντ0τ.ν Pρ.ν �ρκε�, κα0 μ�ν�ις Xμ�ν �%δ4ν δε� λαμπτ�ρων �%δ4 πυρσ.ν �%δ4π�ργων πρ8ς τ�?ς κατα!ρ�ντας, �λλ’ - νεcς πληρ.ν :παν τ8 -ρ,μεν�ντ�ν τε π�λιν κα0 τ"ν μεγαλ�ψυ6!αν τ.ν �6�ντων α%τ"ν -μ�� δηλ��, κα0τ�σ��τ�ς sν καλλ!ων �στ0ν D με!�ων (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 onebeheld. But now the temple is equal to the mountains, and you alonehave no need for beacons, signal fires, and towers for those putting intoport. But the temple fills every vista, and at the same time reveals the cityand the magnanimity of its inhabitants. And although it is so great, itsbeauty exceeds its size.

The human intervention in the landscape of Cyzicus is here experi-enced through the process of travel, specifically through sailing. Thesection on the temple proper is not a systematic description of the kindPausanias gives in his Description of Greece, much less so of the kind foundin modern guidebooks. Instead it conveys the size, beauty and awesomenature of the building through a series of metaphors that transform thetemple:

�α!ης #ν τ.ν μ4ν λ!&ων 5καστ�ν �ντ0 νεc τ�� παντ8ς εBναι, τ8ν δ4 νεcν �ν-τ0 τ�� παντ8ς περι1�λ�υ, τ8ν δ’ α` περ!1�λ�ν τ�� νεc π�λεως �π�6ρ.νταγ!γνεσ&αι. εO δ4 1��λει τ τ7ς <>αστ,νης κα0 τρυ�7ς, �ντ0 γρ τ.ν �Oκι.ντ.ν τριωρ��ων κα0 τ.ν τρι�ρων πKρεστιν -ρAν νεcν τ8ν μ γιστ�ν, τ.νμ4ν �λλων π�λλαπλασ!�να, α%τ8ν δ4 τριπλ��ν τM7 ��σει. τ μ4ν γρ α%τ��κατKγει�ς �στι & α, τ δ’ XπερF.�ς, μ ση δ4 T νεν�μισμ νη. δρ�μ�ι δ4 Xπ8γ7ν τε κα0 κρεμαστ�0 δι’ α%τ�� δι�κ�ντες κ�κλFω, Sσπερ �%κ �ν πρ�σ&�κηςμ ρει, �λλ’ ��επ!τηδες εBναι δρ�μ�ι πεπ�ιημ ν�ι (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 precinctwas big enough to be a city. If you wish to consider the comfort andluxury which it provides, it is possible to view this very great temple likethree-storied houses or like three-decked ships, many times greater thanother temples, and itself of a threefold nature. For part of the spectacle issubterranean, part on an upper storey, and part in between in the usualposition. There are walks which traverse it all about, underground andhanging, as it were made not as an additional adornment, but actually tobe walks.

the body in the landscape 135

This series of comparisons has the effect of playing with the relativedimensions of the temple in the mind of the audience, effectively sug-gesting a series of magnifications to the effect that that each stone isthe size of the entire temple, the temple the size of the precinct, andthe precinct as large as a whole city. The height of the temple and itsoccupation of the air, the surface of the earth and underground is con-veyed by offering the audience the vision of the temple transformedinto ‘three-storied houses’ or ‘three-decked ships’, and the emphasison the activity of viewing the building is suggested by the use of theterm & α ‘spectacle’. The passage is revelatory in its description of theunderground area of the temple which, according to the archaeologicalevidence, was neither visible nor accessible.3 Finally Aristides choosesto highlight the walkways that traverse the temple and are actually inuse, and in this way suggests the experience of sacred space throughphysical movement.

A large portion of the speech is then devoted to praise of the rulingemperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, dwelling in particular onthe concord between the two rulers (22–39). In this respect Aristides’speech mirrors the temple, as both oration and building celebrate thefigure of the emperor. Finally the speech seems to come full circle inits return to the theme of the city of Cyzicus in a series of comparisonsbetween the concord of the emperors and the concord of the universeand 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’ �δελ�α! (44). In theseparallels Aristides employs the analogy of city and person, not unlikethe earlier vision of the landscape as the human body (11).

I turn now to the Sacred Tales, to consider Aristides’ account ofdelivering this oration in Cyzicus (Or. 51.11–17). The story opens witha chronological reference that locates the episode within the timeframeof 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 ‘SacredMonth of the Temple’. There follows a description of Aristides’ physicalcondition, his troubled sleep and inability to digest anything (11). Inthis state he receives a revelatory dream in which the doctor Porphyriopraises him to the citizens of Cyzicus and encourages them to gatherand listen to him speaking—an echo of the Homeric episode in whichAthena persuades the Phaeacians to assemble and listen to Odysseus—

3 On the archaeological evidence of the temple see Schulz and Winter (1990) andPrice (1984), 251–252, catalogue entry.

136 alexia petsalis-diomidis

and then Aristides finds himself in a theatre (12).4 This dream promptshim to depart immediately for Cyzicus. We are told a number of detailsrelating to the journey: there is mention of the order to the servants topack, the time of departure, the mode of transport (riding in a carriage),the leisurely pace of the journey. Aristides then describes his arrival atsome warm springs, but being forced to continue his journey with afew attendants because it was so crowded that he could find no shelter(13). Aristides then arrives at a village, and we are given the precisedistance traversed (40 stades). He decides to proceed, riding on into thenight, but is forced to stop by a lake because his servants are exhausted.Again precise distances are given: the night stop was 120 stades fromCyzicus, and he had already completed 320 stades (14). Aristides offersa detailed description of the furniture in the room in which he spendsthe night and comments on its cleanliness; he is equally concernedto give an account of his bodily state: he is thirsty and dusty, andspends 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 onhis own and finished the journey (15). Both the details of the journeyand of Aristides’ physical state are presented as significant indicatorsof divine charis in the light of the initial revelatory dream. Aristides’insistence on these details, including minutiae relating to his body suchas the state of his travel clothes, indicate the profoundly physical wayin which this journey was experienced. The initial statement about hispoor health also overshadows the narrative: his ability to endure such atiring journey despite his inability to sleep and eat is also implied to bethe result of divine favour.

But it is not only through his body that Aristides receives divinefavour on this journey: his oratory is also encompassed. And herewe come to climax of the story, the passage about composing anddelivering Oration 27:

κα! μ�ι παραμ�&ι�ν _ν της π�ρε!ας τ8 τF. λ�γFω πρ�σ 6ειν, ]ν *δει τ��ςΚυ�ικην��ς �πιδε��αι κατ τ"ν τ�� �νυπν!�υ ��μην· Sστε κα0 �π�ι�&η �[τωπαρ τ"ν -δ8ν τ εXρισκ�μενα αOε0 �ναλαμ1Kν�ντι. τ"ν μ4ν �`ν σπ�υδ"ντ"ν συμ1Aσαν περ0 τ8ν λ�γ�ν �% μ�ν�ν Tν!κα �δε!κνυτ� �ν τF. 1�υλευτηρ!Fω,�λλ κα0 [στερ�ν �ν τM7 πανηγ�ρει, εOδε�εν #ν �J παραγεν�μεν�ι κα0 �Jτ��των �κ��σαντες, �μ�0 δ’ �%6 qδι�ν �ν τ��ς τ�ι��τ�ις διατρ!1ειν (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 thespeech which I had to present to the Cyzicenes in accordance with theprophecy of the dream, so that I even composed it in this way, alwaysrecalling the ideas which I had conceived during the trip. Those whowere present, and those who heard about it from these, would know theenthusiasm which was shown toward my speech, not only when it waspresented in the Council Chamber, but also at the festival. But it is notso pleasant for me to linger over such things.

The threads are here interwoven very tightly. Aristides was undertakingthe journey to Cyzicus on account of a revelatory dream; his consola-tion during the arduous journey was to turn his mind to the speech; theactual speech was later composed by recalling ideas he had conceivedduring the journey; and it was a great success, delivered not once buttwice. The divine, his body and his oratory are intimately connected.

The story concludes with an account of the return journey to hisestate at Laneion. The god’s command for him to set off is experiencedas a refrain praising the water at his estate. He notes that his returnjourney was similar to the journey to Cyzicus: in both cases he left onthe same day he received the divine command, at about the same time,and both journeys were uninterrupted. We are given the specific timeof arrival at an outlying farm on his estate, a mention of the fact thathe had not eaten, the total distance travelled (400 stades) and that hearrived the next day at Laneion (17). He concludes the story with thestatement ‘And thus took place my first journey to Cyzicus and my staythere’ (κα0 τ μ4ν τ7ς πρ�τ ρας εOς Κ��ικ�ν ���δ�υ κα0 διατρι17ς �[τως*σ6εν, 18). Aristides’ decision to include the rather uneventful returnjourney and not end on the note of oratorical triumph in Cyzicusis interesting. Fundamentally it can be explained by the fact that thereturn journey no less than the journey to Cyzicus was ordered bythe god and its successful accomplishment is ascribed to him. Thisjourney also, then, is one of the many divine favours bestowed byAsklepios, for which Aristides is giving thanks through the compositionof the Sacred Tales. But it also reflects the importance of the journeyas a round trip, there and back. The Cyzicus episode is presentedas a sacred journey, undertaken at the command of the god, and theSacred 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 Christianand Islamic models of pilgrimage differ from Graeco-Roman ones, forexample, 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 massaudience—but there is evidence to suggest that it was published, andin this sense it is also a public text. It is self-conscious and polishedand by no means private musings, as has sometimes been thought. Itis, however, concerned with matters very personal to Aristides: divineepiphanies and communications vouchsafed him, the internal processesof his body, the processes of composition of his speeches. In the accountof 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 ofrevelatory dreams, his intentions during the journey, the subject of histhoughts, and later the process of composition of the speech). My ini-tial decision to focus on the themes of travel, landscape and the bodyin the Panegyric were partly inspired by the prominence of these themesin the account in the Sacred Tales; effectively I have used the latter as aguide, indeed a commentary, to illuminate the Panegyric. What clearlyemerges in both texts is Aristides’ preoccupation with landscape andtravel 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 themesof 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, andwhere 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 asthe achievements of Asklepios) and the toils of the archetypal travellerOdysseus.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 presentationof 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 Asklepiosorders Aristides to go from Pergamon to his old nurse Philoumene,and by this means the woman is saved from death.8 The account ofthe journey to Cyzicus is typical in its inclusion of details, such as thestate 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 oratorywith the divinely inspired journey. Travel in the Sacred Tales is gener-ally presented as being particularly difficult and dangerous for the sickAristides, but paradoxically it is undertaken for physical healing: manystories in the Sacred Tales refer to the fact that although Aristides wasunable 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 ofwell-being.9 As far as oratory is concerned, his illness is repeatedly saidto prevent him from making speeches and from travelling to cities inorder to deliver them, but conversely some of the journeys inspire himto compose,10 and Asklepios’ communications more broadly are seento benefit his oratory. In the Sacred Tales journeys are not only under-taken for the purpose of bodily healing; they are also experienced, oftenpainfully, through the medium of the body. Simultaneously Aristides’body is often described as a landscape, a space in which channels ofbreathing and eating become blocked,11 channels flow,12 and tempestsoccur (τρικυμ!αι).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 atSmyrna), 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 (journeyto Rome and back); Or. 49.1–6 (journey to Aliani), 7–14 (journey from the templeof Zeus Asklepios to Lebedos), 20 (ordered to go and worship the statue of Zeus atthe hearth of his foster fathers); Or. 50.1–12 (journey to the Aesepus), 31–37 (journeyto Rome and return via Delos and Miletos), 42–55 (second journey to Cyzicus), 83and 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 tofoster the growth, and says that ‘the source of this discharge was locatedabove, and these gardeners did not know where they ought to turn thechannels’ (εBναι γρ τ�� <ε�ματ�ς τ��τ�υ τς πηγς �νω, τ�?ς δ4 κηπ�υ-ρ�?ς τ��τ�υς �%κ εOδ ναι τ�?ς P6ετ�?ς Mr 6ρ" τρ πειν, Or. 47.63). Thebody is also frequently imagined as fragmenting, both in Aristides’ ‘re-al’ and oneiric life, for example in the feeling that his teeth were fallingout of his mouth and his intestines were hanging out of his body, and inhis 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 RomanEmpire, as there are references not just to journeys in Asia Minor,but also beyond to Italy and then back via Delos.15 The PergameneAsklepieion where Aristides spent two years at the command of the godalso features prominently. Some commentators have been disappointedby his apparent lack of interest in the sanctuary and the major buildingprojects 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 herefers only in passing to the magnificent new temple of Zeus Asklepiosin the context of a dream about the man who financed it, L. CuspiusPactumeius Rufinus.17 However, stories that occur in the sanctuary arefull of references to specific buildings and areas, suggesting that theminiature landscape of the Asklepieion also played an important partin the unfolding of Aristides’ relationship with Asklepios.18 This rela-tionship is presented as the lynchpin of Aristides’ life; his therapeuticand 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 propylaiaof 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 onhimself by the sacred well and bathes there; the next night runs three times aroundthe temple and then bathes in the well), 77 (smears himself with mud and sits in thecourtyard of the sacred gymnasium); Or. 49.7 (he was undergoing incubation in thetemple of Zeus Asklepios), 21–23 (story of the ointment of Tyche, including oneiricand ‘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 inthe stoa near the theatre), 66 (dream in which companions go towards the temple, andhe takes his leave).

the body in the landscape 141

ship with Asklepios, also occur not just in but through the medium ofthe landscape. Aristides does not offer us a comprehensive picture, buta specific, close-up, fragmented vision of the sanctuary, his body andthe 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 arenumerous references to Aristides either travelling or refraining fromtravel, often at Asklepios’ command, and several of the speeches aresaid to be fulfilling vows to gods in thanks for saving Aristides dur-ing a journey.19 In Oration 36, The Egyptian Discourse, there are extendeddescriptions of Aristides’ journey up the Nile, undertaken in 142A.D.20

The theme of safe travel as one of the blessings of Roman rule recursnumerous times.21 Travel is associated with religion both in the image offestivals continuously moving around the Empire and in the statementthat despite their fear of travelling, men cross the Aegean in order tosee ‘contests and mysteries’.22 Aristides uses the idea of territory beingmeasured 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 awhole.23 The image of the helmsman occurs frequently, and is asso-ciated with Rome, the emperor and Asklepios.24 Aristides himself isoften paralleled with the traveller (and wise speaker!) Odysseus.25 Hisspeeches 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 combinedwith the idea of viewing the landscape. He adopts a traveller’s changingperspective in his description of landscape. I traced this in the case ofCyzicus, 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 tohis 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 ofhis 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 followsthe course of a walk. In this speech there is a specific emphasis onthe changing views of the landscape, following the movement of thetraveller.

κα0 πρ�ελ&�ντι μικρ8ν T π�λις α`&ις Sσπερ παραπ μπ�υσα �να�α!νεται,κα0 γ!γνεται δι’ �λKττ�ν�ς �ντα�&α Zδη �ρι&μητ κα0 μετρητ τ κKλληα%τ7ς. κα0 �%δε0ς �[τως �πε!γεται @στις -ρ>A τ8 πρ�σω τ7ς -δ�� κα0 �%μετα1Kλλει τ8 σ67μα, τ μ4ν κατ’ P�&αλμ�?ς δε�ι π�ι��μεν�ς, τ δ4�ριστερ πρ8 τ7ς 'ψεως (Or. 17.17).

And when you have proceeded a little ways, the city again is visible as if itwere escorting you, and here its beauty can more closely be counted andmeasured. And no one is in such a hurry that he stares straight ahead atthe road and does not change his view, shifting that before his eyes to hisright, and what was to his left before his gaze.

In this case the changing views are directly related to the premise ofthe walk through Smyrna, but the theme occurs in more abstract ways,for example in the comparison of different views of a landscape andthe rhetorical discussion of which is best.27 The idea of moving throughthe physical, indeed man-made, landscape and reading it is beautifullyexpressed in Oration 46, The Isthmian Oration: Regarding Poseidon:

σ��8ν δ4 δ" κα0 κα&’ -δ8ν �λ&cν #ν ε[ρ�ις κα0 παρ τ.ν �ψ�6ων μK&�ις#ν κα0 �κ��σειας· τ�σ��τ�ι &ησαυρ�0 γραμμKτων περ0 πAσαν α%τ�ν, @π�ικα0 μ�ν�ν �π�1λ ψει τις, κα0 κατ τς -δ�?ς α%τς κα0 τς στ�Kς, *τιτε τ γυμνKσια κα0 διδασκαλε�α [κα0] μα&�ματK τε κα0 Jστ�ρ�ματα (Or.46.28).

While traveling about the city you would find wisdom and you wouldlearn 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 gymnasiumsand schools are instruction and stories.

But far more frequent are expressions of Aristides’ unsatisfied desirewhen viewing a landscape, his inability to see it from all angles andtruly possess it, and this theme I would connect to his ever repeateddesire 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 thanthe 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 themesuggests that to some extent ekphrastic tropes construct Aristides’ the-matics. One of the ways in which he repeatedly describes the landscapeis in terms of the human body. Cities can be sick, such as Rhodes onaccount of internecine strife and the world before the era of Romanrule.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 exampleof the σκ λη of Cyzicus. Examples include the harbour of Smyrna asthe navel and bosom of the city, the feet of Smyrna set firmly on thebeaches, harbours, and glades, the sea as the eye of Smyrna, Smyrna asthe 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 theislands 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 forthe landscape has particular resonance in the case of the descriptionsof Smyrna and Rhodes shattered by earthquakes and political insta-bility in Rhodes.33 The landscape is envisaged not only as parts of thehuman 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 ofempresses and crown of emperors, and to the crown of Ionia; the riverMeles is compared to a necklace; the sea to the belt of the Romanempire; Alexandria to the necklace or bracelet of a rich woman; andCorinth to Aphrodite’s girdle, and to the pendant and necklace of allGreece.34 The likening of cities and other landscape features to adorn-ments of the human body implicitly creates the image of the underlyinggeographical landscape as a vast human body.

From the plethora of images of the landscape as the human bodyin 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 expressedin terms of grasping the body or parts of the body: in the case of theAthenians and Lacedaimonians ‘their experience was the same as ifsomeone, in his desire to obtain mastery over a body, should get holdof some nails and hair instead of the whole body, and having theseshould think that he has what he wished’ (κα0 *πα&�ν δ" παραπλ�σι�νSσπερ #ν ε$ τις σ,ματ�ς �πι&υμ.ν γεν σ&αι κ�ρι�ς 'νυ6Kς τινας κα0�κρα λK1�ι �ντ0 @λ�υ τ�� σ,ματ�ς κα0 τα�τα 〈*6ων〉 *6ειν �$�ιτ� :περ�1��λετ�, Or. 26.43). It is implied that the Romans grasp and enjoy thewhole body. But the landscape/body analogy is interestingly invertedlater in the speech where ‘all former men, even those who ruled thelargest portion of the earth, ruled over, as it were, only the naked bodiesof their people’ (�J μ4ν �νω πKντες κα0 �J �π0 πλε�στ�ν γ7ς �ρ�αντεςSσπερ σωμKτων γυμν.ν α%τ.ν τ.ν �&ν.ν _ρ�αν, Or. 26.92); there is alacuna at this point of the text, but the sense is clearly that in contrastthe Romans rule over cities. To counterbalance this image of imperialconquest Aristides also gives us one of lovemaking in The Smyrnaean

Oration (II):

κα0 μ"ν �%δε πλKνης γε - Μ λης �%δ’ �L�ς �π���ιτAν, �λλ’ *�ικεν �ραστM7τινι τ7ς π�λεως �% τ�λμ.ντι μακρ�τ ραν �π�γ!γνεσ&αι, :τε, �Bμαι, �σ1ε-στ�ν μ4ν α%τ7ς τ8ν *ρωτα, �σ1εστ�ν δ4 τ"ν �υλακ"ν *6ων. Sστε α%τ�&εν-ρμη&ε0ς α%τ�� κα0 πα�εται, παρατε!νας κ,λFω τιν0 τ7ς π�λεως \αυτ�ν. (Or.21.15).

Indeed, the Meles is not erratic, nor such as to wander off its course, butit is like a sort of lover of the city, who does not dare to be farther apartfrom 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 thecity’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 oneway 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 thecentre of the earth in a number of speeches: Rome, Cyzicus, Corinthand the Aegean sea are at different times envisaged as the centre ofthe world; and at a microcosmic level, every location in Rome can beexperienced 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 thetemple of Hadrian is also present in passages of the ordering and re-arranging of the landscape by the Romans, for example in the fordingof rivers and the establishment of post stations in deserts, and on thecosmic level, in passages that describe the creation of the universe byHerakles 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 transformationalimages (such as the temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus as a three-storiedhouse or three-decked ship) occur in many orations. For example, theAegean is envisaged as containing cities and countryside in its midst,while the islands themselves are likened to ships of rescue and ships forLeto on her way to Delos; the city of Smyrna is imagined translatedinto heaven; the Pergamene Asklepieion is described as the hearth ofAsklepios in Asia and as the harbour of Pergamon.38 A more extendedexample of such transformational viewing can be found in the case ofRome. Aristides first presents the city of Rome as snow poured over thelandscape, using the Homeric image, and then considers the parts ofthe city rising high in the hills:

Sστ’ ε$ τις α%τ"ν �&ελ�σειε κα&αρ.ς �ναπτ��αι κα0 τς ν�ν μετε,ρ�υς π�-λεις �π0 γ7ς �ρε!σας &ε�ναι �λλην παρ’ �λλην, @σ�ν ν�ν �Ιταλ!ας διαλε�π�ν�στιν, �ναπληρω&7ναι τ��τ� πAν �ν μ�ι δ�κε� κα0 γεν σ&αι π�λις συνε6"ςμ!α �π0 τ8ν �Ι�νι�ν τε!ν�υσα (Or. 26.8).

Therefore if someone should wish to unfold all of it and to plant andset the cities, which are now aloft in the air, upon the earth, one besideanother, I think that all the now intervening space in Italy would havebeen 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 findsechoes not only in Pliny the Elder’s image of all the buildings ofRome 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 beno 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 andcosmic geography in the Sacred Tales.40 For example, Aristides writes:

Π μπτMη ��α!νετ� μ4ν τ8 Jερ8ν τ�� �Απ�λλων�ς τ8 �ν τF. 'ρει τF. Μιλ�>α·�δ�κει δ4 �Oκ�ματα �ττα πρ�σγεγεν7σ&αι, κα0 'ν�μα εBναι τF. 6ωρ!Fω �Ελε-�αντ!νη �π8 �Ελε�αντ!νης τ7ς �ν ΑOγ�πτFω. *6αιρ�ν δ" κα0 κατ’ α%τ τ�Oκ�ματα κα0 κατ τ"ν �Oκει�τητα τ�� τ�π�υ τF. τ�πFω (Or. 47.24).41

On the twenty-sixth, there appeared the Temple of Apollo, which is onMount Milyas. Certain buildings seemed to have been added and thename of the place to be Elephantine from Elephantine in Egypt. I waspleased, both because of the buildings themselves and because of thesimilarity 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 thegod or in the form of a prescription for Aristides’ body. But the sense ofthe divine within the landscape again is not limited to the Sacred Tales,but is fundamental to Aristides’ writings. It was traced in the case ofCyzicus, and further examples include Oration 39, Regarding the well in the

temple of Asklepios, where divine charis is located in a specific feature of thelandscape, but also in the idea of the divine sons of Asklepios travellingthroughout the earth and offering their divine aid universally, unlikethe heroes Amphiaraos and Trophonios who are limited to the vicinityof their oracles.42 Such place-related religion and immanent revelationof 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, especially4–6, 11, 14–15 (the sacred well in the Pergamene Asklepieion; its precise location inthe landscape; described as the god’s co-worker); Or. 44.11 (the Aegean is full of sweetmusic, 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 onhis chariot; mention of various temples to him dotted around), 20 (everywhere is histemple; the Isthmus is the headquarters of his kingdom).

the body in the landscape 147

ison between Aristides’ approach to travel and landscape and those ofPausanias and Menander Rhetor is instructive. Despite the importanceof the idea of the landscape of Greece in Pausanias’ work, there areremarkably few landscape descriptions, and instead the text follows thebare linear structure of a periplous narrative. Pausanias does not referto the practical details of his journey and rarely alludes to his feelingsor thoughts. In contrast Aristides inserts himself into the landscape byimitating the process of travel in geographical ekphrasis and by describ-ing his experiences of travel ranging from the details of his lodgings tointense moments of divine epiphany. By contrast, Menander Rhetor’sEpideictic Treatise I Book II has much in common with Aristides’ geo-graphical ekphrasis. In particular Menander Rhetor advises orators tolocate the country or city in relation to the surrounding territory andgeographical features, and includes statements in which a territory, cityor harbour is compared to the human body or parts of it.43 The lattertheme, however, acquires an unparalleled prominence in the corpus ofAristides’ orations, while transformational descriptions of the landscapeand personal journeys are wholly absent from the advice of Menan-der Rhetor. Aristides’ approach to travel and landscape can thus besituated within a broader cultural sensitisation to the subject and evenwithin similar literary tropes; but his linking of travel and landscapeto 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 betweenthe Sacred Tales and other orations is concerned. This is a question withfar-reaching implications for the interpretation of Aristides’ corpus, butI will here limit myself to a suggestion of direction. Again, I wouldargue that Cyzicus is not a special case, although it is a wonderfullyneat 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 asthe state of his health and his travels in order to deliver orations, andto 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 intersectswith public events such as earthquakes and the plague, for example inthe stories of Aristides stopping the spate of earthquakes and of Athenasaving him from the plague.44 The earthquake that destroyed Smyrnaalso features prominently in other orations, in particular Orations 17–21,and the plague is also referred to.45 Similarly, in the Sacred Tales publicfigures such as the emperors appear frequently, and Aristides’ teacher,the grammarian Alexander of Cotyaeum, is mentioned;46 these figuresalso 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 onlyin the Sacred Tales but also in a number of orations.47

There are also numerous cases of specific cross-referencing betweenthe Sacred Tales and other orations. In the Sacred Tales there are refer-ences to the composition of orations, some of which survive, such asOration 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 anapologetic text, partly aiming to silence those who criticised Aristidesfor not declaiming often enough.50 To this end it reveals the extent ofAristides’ constant bodily sufferings and the god’s constant commands,both of which prevented him from writing and delivering speeches onmany occasions. The relevance of this theme to the other orations isevident 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 theplague).

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 receivesletters from Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, confirming his immunity from publicoffice).

47 References to pilgrimage to Asklepios at Pergamon and to pilgrims known in theSacred 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 theMacedonian man’s dream of singing a paean to ‘Herakles Asklepios’, also referred toin Or. 40.21); Or. 51.39 (reference to delivering Oration 34, Against Those Who Burlesquethe Mysteries, and amazing feeling of ease during delivery); Or. 52.3 (possible allusions toOration 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 thefact that Aristides himself is not delivering the speech on account ofill health or at the commands of the god.51 At the same time, one ofthe key themes of the Sacred Tales is that of the god’s help to Aristidesin improving his oratory, and this directly connects the work with theactual extant orations. The Sacred Tales, especially in Book IV, revealsthe 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 graduallybecome beneficial to the latter. Eventually this complicated relationshipbetween ill-health and oratorical success is interpreted both by Aristidesand apparently by the orator Pardalas along the lines that he becameill ‘by some divine good fortune’ (τ�6Mη τιν0 &ε!>α) in order to improve hisoratory (Or. 50.27 and 29). At various points in the Sacred Tales Aristidesdiscusses in detail how the god effected this improvement, includingexhortations 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. 50.25–27and 39–41), and divine inspiration during delivery (Or. 50.22). In theorations themselves there are countless references to divine commandsto take up the challenge of certain topics, pleas for divine aid, andreferences to direct divine inspiration on the way.52 But whereas theseare brief and may appear conventional, the narrative of the Sacred Tales

reveals in depth the intimate processes of composition underlying theother orations, and how these relate to Aristides’ body and the divine.

Where does this discussion lead us? I suggest that it offers us the modelof using the Sacred Tales as a guide to reading Aristides’ corpus notonly in a specific way, as I hope to have demonstrated in relation toOration 27, Panegyric in Cyzicus and in relation to the theme of travel andlandscape, but also in a fundamental way, as a key interpretative textthat 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 Asklepioswas situated was ‘the most honoured of all and ever in my mind’ (τ8 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

YπKντων τιμι,τατ�ν κα0 〈δι〉 πKσης �ε0 μν�μης �μ�0, Or. 23.14), and thepassage in Oration 46, The Isthmian Oration: Regarding Poseidon ‘when I ammindful of the divine everywhere and when most of my lectures, moreor less, are concerned with this’ (�μ4 παντα6�� τ�� &ε!�υ μεμνημ ν�ν, κα0σ6εδ8ν τ7ς πλε!στης μ�ι διατρι17ς τ.ν λ�γων περ0 τα�τα �Nσης, Or. 46.3).Aristides’ deeply religious outlook can then be recognised throughouthis corpus as the prism through which everything is viewed and indeedtransformed, most importantly the landscape, his own body and hisoratory.

chapter eight

ARISTIDES AND PLUTARCH ON SELF-PRAISE

Dana Fields

This paper concerns the two longest and most elaborate discussionsof self-praise that survive from Greco-Roman antiquity, Plutarch’s On

Inoffensive Self-Praise and Aristides’ On an Incidental Remark.1 I propose toread these texts in a way that sets each author’s treatment of the topicagainst the social and political contexts that these same texts depict,while taking into account their differences in aim and genre. The focusof each work is on the arguments for or against self-praise (and inPlutarch’s case helpful how-to tips). At the same time, it is crucial notto overlook the fact that all of the advice, the complaints, and the self-justifications expressed by these texts take shape against the politicaland cultural background of the high Roman Empire. By comparingtwo figures who position themselves in such strikingly different ways inrelation to the agonistic elite display culture of this period, we can teaseout elements of the complex relationship between epideictic rhetoric,self-promotion, and political involvement.2

1 Περ0 τ�� \αυτ8ν �παινε�ν �νεπι�&�νως and Or. 28, Περ0 τ�� παρα�& γματ�ς.See Rutherford 1995, 199–201 for other sources on periautologia and self-praise morebroadly, plus Dio Chrysostom Or. 57 (a defense of Nestor’s boasting, which serves as apreemptive 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 strategythat rivals Aristides’ for self-aggrandizement), and Alexander of Cotiaeum’s ‘On theDifference 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 ofTacitus 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 strategiesin 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 involvementin 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 theemperor’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 andin its relations with other cities and the imperial authorities.

152 dana fields

Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise is an instructional treatise probablywritten during the first decades of the second century CE.3 Plutarchsets out reasons why self-praise is off-putting to others, situations whereit is acceptable, and ways to use it without offending (or avoid usingit altogether). Aristides’ On an Incidental Remark is by contrast defensiveand polemical rather than didactic. The situation that prompted thework can be gleaned from the text as follows: during his period of‘incubation’ at the temple of Asclepius in the mid 140’s CE, Aristidesapparently committed a faux pas while presenting a speech in honorof Athena. He inserted into his written remarks some extemporaneouspraise of the speech he was currently giving, allegedly provoking thecensure of an unnamed critic, who in turn convinced a friend ofthe rhetor to criticize him privately. On an Incidental Remark representsAristides’ public response to this criticism, in which he defends hiscomment 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 ofthe Roman imperial period, though, as has also been demonstrated,interest in this topic originates earlier.4 My primary question in thispaper is what use Plutarch and Aristides in particular make of thistheme and what this tells us about how each author envisioned the roleof 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. VibulliusPius, 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 otherGreek 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’sworks, see Jones 1966.

4 See Pernot 1998, though it does not necessarily follow that self-praise is not anespecial concern in the Roman period. See also Most 1989, arguing that throughoutGreek 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. Asone might expect, self-aggrandizement and other issues related to aristocratic competi-tion are also prominent in honorific inscriptions; see e.g. from third century OenoandaSEG 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 oneselfmeans 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-praisereceives during the high Roman Empire. These range from MikhailBakhtin’s perception of a widespread alienation of the individual fromhis society, which leaves the individual unsure as to how much self-assertion is allowed (1981, 132–135),5 to Ian Rutherford’s view that theissue is merely a matter of rhetorical decorum, an interpretation thatcuts 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 inrelation to society. After all, such a pervasive concern with how to talkabout oneself suggests not individuals alienated from society, but justthe opposite: an elite culture in which people are intensely engagedwith others, even to the point where this engagement verges on bloodsport (as we will see in the course of this paper).

Rutherford is right to say that ‘most of periautologia tradition inrhetoric is the working out of a problem of decorum created by a conflictbetween the social pressure to assert oneself in public and the socialcriticism of excessive assertiveness’ (ibid., 201). However, the agonisticpressure to self-promote and the opposing forces of social unificationthat aim to prevent any man from becoming too conspicuous must beexamined with reference to the particular historical contexts that givemeaning to these forces. For Plutarch and Aristides, this fundamentaltension 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’sown 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’ inDodds 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 ofperiautologia 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 studyof the robust political culture of Asia Minor in the High Empire (from which we havethe preponderance of our epigraphic material), see Mitchell 1993, 198–217; and for anexamination of the role of local officials as represented in inscriptions detailing civicoffices in the province of Asia, see Dmitriev 2005, esp. 140–188 (though see also thereservations 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 byRoman magistrates, except among the few ‘free’ cities.8 Some of thegreatest threats to the stability of the Greek cities were internal rifts,caused by aristocratic infighting, class conflict, or other factionalism, asshown in the writings of Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, and Aristides, aswell as epigraphic and numismatic evidence.9 As a result, the potentialfor Roman intervention always loomed, which provided elite oratorswith 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-politicalenvironment in which Plutarch and Aristides wrote, we should alsoacknowledge that the contrasts between their texts arise in part fromthe cultural role in which each of the authors generally chose to presenthimself—Plutarch as instructive philosopher and Aristides as rhetor(or ‘sophist’, much as Aristides might dispute that label).10 The roleto which each author lays claim plays a large part in determininghis approach to the long-standing problem of negotiation between theextremes of self-glorification and restraint in a highly competitive soci-ety. Greek elite culture always had an agonistic bent, but during thisperiod the emphasis becomes more narrowly focused on the sphere oforatorical 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 inthe Roman era.

The political dimension of self-praise is illustrated by the way theseauthors’ treatments of the topic tap into a larger tension betweenbehavior 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. Sheppard1984–1986, 241–248, provides an overview.

10 In framing this essay, I take Plutarch and Aristides to be representative to asignificant degree of the cultural roles they adopt, but I do not mean to suggest thatthey are identical to their roles. There are of course limits to how typical we can takethem to be, and I acknowledge that each was an idiosyncratic intellectual in his ownright. Furthermore, the roles themselves are malleable (i.e. each man takes an activepart 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 toPlato), Plutarch produced some sophistic works, while Aristides displays in his writingsa 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 messagethat within the polis the time for fierce competition and its accompa-nying self-promotion has passed (though self-praise always had to behandled with care, as his examples from orators of the classical periodillustrate).11 By contrast, Aristides represents what later became for eliteGreeks the dominant mode of public life, in which ambition aimedat 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 wecan attain a better perspective on the tension inherent in the very issueof self-praise and on the range of approaches to it that were available toprominent Greeks of the High Empire.

Plutarch: the Value of Harmony

When reading Plutarch’s On Inoffensive Self-Praise against Aristides’ workon the same theme, one aspect of Plutarch’s piece that becomes par-ticularly striking is its orientation toward the external viewpoint. Thisshould not be too surprising in and of itself—it is practically a cliché atthis point to say that the Greeks inhabited a culture carefully attunedto judgment in the eyes of others14—but it is Aristides’ lack of inter-est in discussing why self-praise creates problems and what effect it hason its listeners that makes the attention to these issues so noticeable inPlutarch.

11 For more on Plutarch’s relation to his political context, see Aalders 1982; Swain1996, 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 philosophicalbackground 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 theemperors more generally: Or. 19.1. See also Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum 582–583, andBehr 1968, 111, 142–144. Resistance to office: Or. 50.71–108; cf. Pernot, pp. 176–179 inthis volume, for a reading of Aristides’ evasion of office as prioritizing Asclepius over allelse, 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 RomanEmpire does not include a conception of an isolated individual, but a self that exists inrelation to others and is maintained with others’ judgments in mind (1996, 128).

156 dana fields

These other-oriented strategies are apparent in the ethical termsPlutarch uses to describe self-praise: he calls it offensive (�πα6& ς, 539a),unpleasant (τ"ν �ηδ!αν, 539b), emphasizes its role in inciting bothhatred and envy, and proclaims ‘we are appropriately disgusted at it’(εOκ�τως δυσ6ερα!ν�μεν, 539c).15 He draws an even stronger connec-tion between how one presents oneself and how others react whenhe scolds that ‘praise of oneself is most painful/distressing to others’(λυπηρ�τατ�ν, 539d). The man who promotes himself in this way is alsotaken 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 andseem 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 himselfjust as inappropriately as a flatterer does for others, and with equalshamelessness. 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 ofthe work, Plutarch maintains his focus on others’ reactions. In referenceto manipulative types who deliberately provoke someone into glorifyinghimself, Plutarch states:

�Εν :πασιν �`ν τ��τ�ις ε%λα1ητ �ν )ς *νι μKλιστα, μ�τε συνεκπ!πτ�ντατ��ς �πα!ν�ις μ�τε τα�ς �ρωτ�σεσιν \αυτ8ν πρ�ϊ μεν�ν. �ντελεστKτη δ4τ��των ε%λK1εια κα0 �υλακ" τ8 πρ�σ 6ειν \τ ρ�ις \αυτ�?ς �παιν��σι κα0μνημ�νε�ειν, )ς �ηδ4ς τ8 πρAγμα κα0 λυπηρ8ν :πασι κα0 λ�γ�ς �λλ�ς�%δε0ς �[τως �πα6&"ς �%δ4 1αρ�ς. �%δ4 γρ *6�ντες εOπε�ν @ τι πKσ6�μεν�λλ� κακ8ν Xπ8 τ.ν αXτ�?ς �παιν��ντων Sσπερ ��σει 1αρυν�μεν�ι τ8πρAγμα κα0 �ε�γ�ντες �παλλαγ7ναι κα0 �ναπνε�σαι σπε�δ�μεν. (547c–d)

In all these circumstances one cannot be too cautious, neither allowingoneself 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 attentionto others praising themselves and to remember that the matter wasdistasteful and painful to all and that no other speech is so annoyingor offensive. For though we cannot say that we have suffered any ill otherthan 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 anypraise 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 setfree and to breathe again.17

As an explanation for the offensiveness of self-praise, this passagestresses the inexplicability of the irritation that the act causes. Thewords used to convey the offense itself emphasize its weighty quality:it is ‘heavy’ (�πα6&�ς), ‘burdensome’ (1αρ�ς), and ‘oppressive’ (1αρυν�-μεν�ι), suggesting a quasi-physical dimension to the effects of self-praise.Yet Plutarch is only able to account for the unbearable heaviness ofauto-encomium by attributing it to ‘human nature’ (��σις). In usingimages of physicality to understand the effects of self-praise, Plutarchoccludes 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 resentmentcaused by others’ flaunting of their social or material advantages, asillustrated by the example of a resentful parasite (547d). Plutarch’savoidance of making this revelation explicit is as telling (if not moreso) than if he had said it outright: if the wealthy and prominent cankeep quiet about their privilege, he implies, the society as a whole willbe more stable, and those advantages will not come under threat. Here,as elsewhere, Plutarch reveals that he is concerned with the reactionsof less privileged ‘others’ as well as those of the reader’s aristocraticfellows.18

The preceding passage highlights not just the effects of self-praisebut 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 thetensions inherent in elite (and would-be elite) interaction and with keeping watch overoneself and others (ε%λK1εια and related forms in this connection: 49a, 58a, 70e, 71b;�υλακ� and related forms: 50e, 56f, 57a, 61d, 66e, 68d, 71d, 72d). See Whitmarsh2006, passim, but esp. 102. The emphasis on both self-mastery and the monitoringof others in this period has been widely recognized. This is especially so in thewake of Foucault’s influential analysis (1986, 39–95), which takes this preoccupationas 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 termsof the individual’s declining political efficacy has been seriously questioned in light ofevidence that the political environment of the Greek cities continued to foster robust

158 dana fields

#ν μνημ�νε�ωμεν, @τι τ��ς Oδ!�ις �πα!ν�ις �λλ�τρι�ς 5πεται ψ�γ�ς �ε0 κα0γ!νεται τ λ�ς �δ��!α τ7ς κεν�δ��!ας τα�της… ��ε��με&α τ�� λ γειν περ0αXτ.ν, #ν μ� τι μεγKλα μ λλωμεν h�ελε�ν \αυτ�?ς D τ�?ς �κ���ντας.(547e–f)

If we remember that censure of others always follows from praise ofoneself and that the end of this empty self-glorification is the oppositeof glory… we will avoid speaking about ourselves unless we intend somegreat advantage to ourselves or our listeners.

This ambiguous expression, ‘�λλ�τρι�ς… ψ�γ�ς’, manages to suggestboth criticism from others who are annoyed at having to listen to self-praise and the implicit criticism of others that praising oneself entailsin a context where competition is perceived as zero-sum. Both readingsillustrate Plutarch’s great sensitivity to the volatile nature of agonisticelite culture.20

In the course of this conclusion, Plutarch moves from discussingannoyance 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 andtheir audience, and thus creating a double perspective.21 The implica-tion is that one must be able to imagine one’s actions from an externalpoint 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 isgiving 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 thisending also throws into question the assumptions of the entire work byraising the possibility that self-interest is also a justifiable reason—if one

local involvement. See e.g. Swain 1999, 89, demonstrating that the proper regulationof the self and of private life was viewed in the high empire as a prerequisite for themanagement of public life.

20 See also 540a–b, 546c, 546f–547a, as well as Sympotic Questions 2.1, 630c–d onannoying self-praise.

21 Cf. Plutarch’s use of a similar tactic in How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend. The tricksof shifting focalization in both these works illustrate the importance of keeping watchover 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’ (�π’ h�ελ!>α τ7ς π�λεως, Republic 389b; �π’ h�ε-λ!>α τ.ν �ρ6�μ νων, 459d; see also 414b–415d). Both authors share the aim of politicalexpediency.

aristides and plutarch on self-praise 159

manages to self-promote without causing a negative reaction. At thispoint 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. Agenerous reader might grant Plutarch that the true statesman’s interestsare always in some sense the public interest; and, in fact, at the openingof the Political Precepts, Plutarch himself urges that a man should nevergo into public life to glorify himself but rather to serve his communitywith its best interests as his aim (798c–799a). However, this ending alsopoints 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 onwhy the issue of self-praise is so relevant to Greek politics under theRoman Empire. The advice in On Inoffensive Self-Praise is geared overalltoward maintaining social harmony and diminishing envy (phthonos) ata local level.23 The title itself in Greek is Περ0 τ�� \αυτ8ν �παινε�ν�νεπι�&�νως: On praising oneself without engendering the odium thataccompanies too-eminent success.24 Terms such as �μμελ�ς (literally:harmonious in the musical sense) come up fairly frequently and are setin opposition to the unattractive quality of self-love and the undesirableenvy of others (542b, 544b). Furthermore, Plutarch explicitly states thatharmony should be an aim both in interaction with one’s equals and inone’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 thevalue of social harmony lies in its necessity for maintaining local sta-bility.26 He illustrates this when he cautions that ambition (�ιλ�τιμ!α)

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 expressinghis concern not only about aristocratic phthonos but also about mitigating strategies fordealing with that envy, Plutarch echoes Pindaric themes, illustrating a parallel betweenthe 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 ofself-praise, which would in turn exacerbate the problem, while the masses’ envy isprompted by the self-praise of a public speaker.

26 Expressed as homonoia: 824b–e; and in a musical metaphor: 809e. See Sheppard1984–1986 on the importance of homonoia as an ideal in the works of Plutarch and inthis 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 (�ιλ�νεικ!α) 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 necessaryand weakens the authority of local governments (814e–815a).28 As inOn Inoffensive Self-Praise, Plutarch once again shows his concern over thedangers of class conflict: he warns that faction in the sense of quarrelsbetween the elites and (as he puts it) their ‘inferiors’ can destabilize acity, and cites the current ‘weak state of Greek affairs’ as a reason tobe especially careful in maintaining internal concord (homonoia).29 Seenagainst this background, it becomes clear that the importance of notoffending with self-praise during this period is so much more than astrategic 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 differentemphasis from that of Plutarch. Aristides’ work devotes far more spacethan Plutarch’s to providing justifications for self-praise and shows al-most no interest in the reactions of the listener. This emphasis, andmore specifically the kinds of justification Aristides produces, suggesta view of self-praise that focuses more on the qualities of the manspeaking and less on his social context.

Aristides repeatedly insists that it is his own talent as an orator, alongwith the inspiration and favor of the gods, that enables him to makecomments in praise of himself. The idea that self-praise is justified bythe nature of the man speaking is a theme that pervades the text, butAristides 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 preferredrhetorical exempla in the Political Precepts also emphasize harmony.

27 809c, 815a–b, 819e–820a, 824f–825f. Plutarch also notes that this ambition andcontentiousness are equally destructive to a statesman’s career: 811d–e, 816c–d. (N.B.that Hubert and Pohlenz prefer �ιλ�νικ!α at 811d, 815a.)

28 This advice is supported by episodes from the history of the Roman conquest ofmainland 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 fromaristocratic 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 thejust man to pay himself and others their due, and of a brave man tospeak the truth unafraid’ (�ρ�ν!μ�υ μ4ν γρ, �Bμαι, κα0 σ,�ρ�ν�ς γν.ναιτ"ν ��!αν, δικα!�υ δ4 τ πρ π�ντα κα0 αXτF. κα0 \τ ρ�ις �π�δ��ναι,�νδρε!�υ δ4 μ" ��1η&7ναι τ�λη&4ς εOπε�ν, 145).30

The assumption that underlies the first part of this statement is onethat recurs often in this speech: self-knowledge is reliable.31 Here we cancompare the attitude of Plutarch, who warns in On Inoffensive Self-Praise

and elsewhere that self-love makes self-knowledge extremely difficult toattain.32 Clearly this sense of caution is not shared by Aristides, whoproclaims, ‘I understand oratory better than the critic and those likehim and am more capable of judging what deserves praise than amember of the audience’ (κα! μ�ι παρ!ει περ0 τ��των �μειν�ν σ�� κα0τ.ν σ�0 πρ�σ�μ�!ων �π!στασ&αι, σκ�τ�δινι>A δ" πAς �ντα�&α �κρ�ατ"ςκα0 �%κ *6ει τ!ς γ νηται, 120). As this statement suggests, self-knowledgefor 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 criticthinks Aristides is a better judge than himself of what is suitable to sayin 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 comesto what is suitable for Aristides to say about himself ? While, as Aristidessays, he has to guess at the character of figures like Demosthenes, hethinks he knows his own character clearly (6–7).33

Besides the belief that one can be clear-sighted about oneself, thestatement quoted above (145) relies on two other suspicious assump-tions. The clause at the center of the sentence suggests that speakingwell of oneself is equivalent to speaking well of someone else, whichimplicitly locates the value of speech in its truth-content and therebydenies the importance of its role in social interaction.34 In connectionwith this, the belief underlying the final phrase is that speaking thetruth 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 �Bμαι in ‘τ8 δ’ �μαυτ�� σα�.ς, �Bμαι, �π!σταμαι’ is likely sarcastic.34 Cf. Plutarch on the limited circumstances (καιρ�ς κα0 πρK6ις) that might allow this

approach: On Inoffensive Self-Praise 539e.

162 dana fields

These assumptions are part of a tendency throughout this speech toreframe 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-praiseis untrue) (47). This argument, like many of those that Aristides makesabout himself in this speech, is based on the fundamental premise thatassertions 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:

�[τω τ�!νυν κα0 τ.ν �ν&ρ,πων @σ�ι &ε��ιλε�ς κα0 τ.ν -μ���λων πρ� 6�υ-σιν, �%κ αOσ6�ν�νται τ�λη&7 λ γ�ντες, �λλ’ Tγ��νται τ�?ς �λ�τας Xπ8 �π�-ρ!ας π�λλ ψευδ�μ ν�υς κα0 κατ τ"ν τ7ς 6ρε!ας αOτ!αν π�ι7σαι τ�Nν�ματ��τ� ] σ? �ε�γεις, τ8ν �λα��να, Fp πAσαν τ"ν �ναντ!αν *ρ6εται δ�π�υ&εν- τ�λη&7 λ γων. (49)36

All men dear to the gods and excelling their fellows are not ashamedto speak the truth, but they believe that beggars tell many lies out ofpoverty and because of their need have made up this name which youshun, ‘braggart’. This ‘braggart’ is entirely opposite to the direction thetruth-speaker proceeds.

With this ‘fanciful etymology’,37 the ‘god-cherished’ truth-speaker is setup as the opposite of the �λα�,ν, the braggart, who is implicitly animpostor because he praises himself dishonestly.38 Aristides even goesso far as to claim that his speech (or any true statement) cannot beblameworthy on the very basis that it is true when he reminds hisaudience that insult is not illegal, only slander. By the same logic, hecontinues, ‘if someone praises himself, he would not justly be blamed,so long as he does not tell lies’ (�[τως �%δ’ #ν περ0 \αυτ�� τις ε%�ημM7,δικα!ως #ν *6�ι μ μψιν, 5ως �πεστιν τ8 τ ψευδ7 λ γειν, 50).

Another ploy Aristides uses to shed a more positive light on hisbehavior is the depiction of his self-praise as having philanthropicmotives (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 �λ�της (beggar/wan-

derer) and �λα�,ν (braggart) and builds off a much older pun on �λη&�ς (truth) and�λ�της, which is first attested at Od. 14.118–127. Cf. Plutarch On Exile 607c–d; DioChrysostom 1.9, 7.1, 13.9–11. Cf. also Strabo 1.2.23, which connects the �λα�,ν withπλKνη (wandering)! On Homer, see Goldhill 1991, 38; Segal 1994, 179–183. On Dio, seeWhitmarsh 2001, 162.

38 On the history of the term �λα�,ν, see MacDowell 1990.

aristides and plutarch on self-praise 163

he even proposes that he is duty-bound to point out what is good abouthis speech since otherwise the crowd simply would not be capableof noticing all of its fine elements, much less judging which of itsqualities are most deserving of praise. Therefore the act of self-praiseis characteristic of a man who is ‘completely forthright and generous’(κα&αρ.ς Yπλ��ν κα0 �ιλKν&ρωπ�ν, 119).39 This formulation once againdepends on Aristides’ superior understanding of the oratorical art. Ina metaphor that oozes condescension, he compares his naïve audience,in their ignorance at how to judge his speeches, to soldiers in a battleline who have been surrounded and are thrown into confusion (120).In other words, his speeches are so good that they practically attackthe listener with a barrage of excellent techniques! Only with Aristides’help can the audience survive this onslaught by learning the true valueof his oratorical skill.

Aristides: Divine Sanction

In addition to the admirable qualities of frankness and benevolence thatAristides claims for himself, another factor that is crucial to justifyinghis self-praise is his self-presentation (in this speech and elsewhere) asboth a favorite of particular gods and the recipient of divine help.According to Aristides, help from the gods is part of what makes aman great,40 and (as we have seen) a great man must be honest andopen about his greatness. Honesty therefore includes attributing thisexcellence to the gods that made it possible; in Aristides’ case theseare Asclepius, Athena, and even the Muses. Aristides’ argument restsin part on the notion that his self-praise is indirectly praise of thesedivinities and that barring him from remarking on the greatness theyhave allowed him to attain is in some sense to disallow praise of thegods themselves.

Aristides’ comments about his connection to the gods range from thegeneral, 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, inconnection with ‘what is fitting’ (τ8 πρ π�ν), Rhetoric 1408a36–b20. See also Cicero DeOratore 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 herefers to Asclepius as his patron or protector (πρ�στKτης) and his onlyguide (παιδαγωγ�ς, 156).42 This image of Asclepius as a teacher andpatron is one that appears frequently in the Hieroi Logoi. Aristides relateshow, through the medium of a dream, the god encouraged and evencommanded him not to give up his oratorical training while he wasconvalescing in the temple at Pergamum (Or. 50.14–15). He also tellsof how his oratorical powers increased, not only because of the god’sencouragement of his practice, but also due to the god’s more specificinstruction in that training: for example, Asclepius tells Aristides whichancient authors he should study, and Aristides says that from thenon those authors were like comrades to him, with Asclepius as theircommon patron (κα! μ�ι πKντες �iτ�ι μετ’ �κε!νην τ"ν Tμ ραν \τα�ρ�ισ6εδ8ν ��Kνησαν, τ�� &ε�� πρ��εν�σαντ�ς, Or. 50.24).43

Oratorical assistance from the gods often takes the form of a dreamin 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 visitedby the goddess in a dream—Athena herself in this case, to aid himin composing the speech in her honor—and he insists that in praisinghimself 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 hadnever thought’ (π�λλ δ’ α%τ8ς λ γειν �δ�κ�υν κρε!ττω τ7ς συνη&ε!ας κα0e �%δεπ,π�τε �νε&υμ�&ην, Or. 50.25). These dreams not only provide aconnection to the god, but also assimilate Aristides’ source of inspira-tion to that of great literary figures of the past, bolstering his imageas rival to the ancients. Aristides further emphasizes the importanceof these dreams to his self-fashioning as a great rhetor when he statesthat 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 thegod 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’(κα0 μ"ν τ� γε πλε�στ�ν κα0 πλε!στ�υ ��ι�ν τ7ς �σκ�σεως T τ.ν �νυπν!ων_ν *��δ�ς κα0 -μιλ!α, Or. 50.25).

A more extreme version of assistance from the gods takes the form ofdivine possession during the course of an oratorical performance.46 Bythis tactic, Aristides absolves himself of responsibility for the offensehe caused, since, as he claims, the god is truly in control. Aristidesdescribes this experience as a series of quasi-physical sensations, height-ening the suggestion of the god’s presence: the light of god comes overthe 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 claimsthat inspired speech, once set in motion, is like an automaton, like anobject moving by the force of its own inertia (111–112). And it is not thespeeches of Aristides’ alone that are heaven-sent. ‘This is the one font oforatory’, he says, ‘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, τ8 )ς�λη&.ς Jερ8ν κα0 &ε��ν π�ρ τ8 �κ Δι�ς �στ!ας, 110).47 The upshot of thiscollection of mixed metaphors is the generalized connection betweenoratory and divine possession, which has a number of implications. Forone 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 oforatory 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. Aristidesinforms his audience that even if there were no precedents for self-praise, divine possession would be enough to justify it, stating:

Sστ’ εO κα0 μηδ να μηδ’ ��’ \ν8ς ε$δ�υς ε$6�μεν εOπε�ν �π’ α%τF. τι �ρ�-ν�σαντα, μηδ’ _ν �ναγκα��ν τ.ν λ�γων τ8 τ�ι��τ�ν πK&ημα, TμAς δ’ εOςτα�την - &ε8ς ν�ν _γεν, �%κ #ν τ πρεσ1ε�α δ� π�υ συμ��ρν �π�ι��με&α.σ? δ’ αOτι>A τ8 σ�μ1�λ�ν α%τ�� τ�� <�τ�ρ�ς. (117)

46 Cf. the more common trope of poetic or rhapsodic possession, as depicted inPlato’s Ion 533d–536d, 542a–b. Aristides seems to be playing on the traditionally poetictriangulation 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 proudof himself, and if this condition were unnecessary in oratory, but the godled 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 andhistorical examples of self-praise that Aristides uses to justify his own,the effect of the counterfactual construction above is both to overwritethe earlier arguments and to prove twice over that Aristides’ self-prideis defensible. And, what is more, by the assertion that this behavior isthe orator’s defining characteristic, Aristides strengthens his claim to bethe consummate public speaker.

Aristides: the Critic’s Critic

Next we will examine the relationship between these defense tactics andAristides’ self-promotion. It has been noted that Aristides performs a slymaneuver in this speech by using the premise of a defense against thecharge of self-praise to praise himself further, and the speech is indeedfull of ruthless self-promotion.49 For instance, the examples Aristidesuses 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 thatit rests on Aristides’ claim to be so famous and important that heis the subject of others’ conversations. Likewise, the extensive lengthand the public performance of his response to what was originally aprivate critique further adds to the promotional value of the text. Wemight even suspect that there was no such critic and that the wholeissue 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 dramaticallychange the effect of these examples.

51 Isocrates, Antidosis 8–14 provides a classical model for the same tactic, but onein which the author is open about the fictionality of the attack against him. Isocratesexplains this choice by stating that he is trying to avoid phthonos, an aim that Aristidesdoes not seem to share. But, as in Aristides’ text, issues of truth and frankness figurelarge 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 extendeddiscussion 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 highlyconcerned with individual glory throughout, even as he attributes thatglory to the gods and presents it as a conduit for their glorification. Aclaim of divine favor is after all one more type of boast.

Another method Aristides uses to promote himself in this work is aseries of vicious attacks against his anonymous (and possibly invented)critic. Aristides’ avoidance of mentioning the critic’s name could beinterpreted as part of an attempt to belittle him, a subtle hint that therewas no such critic, or even an elaborate fiction to give the impres-sion of belittling.52 In addition, every item of vituperation against thiscritic can be taken as an attempt to increase the status differentialbetween him and Aristides, in some instances more explicitly than inothers. This abuse includes suggestions that the critic is ignorant (�μα-&�ς, 135), insolent, a slanderer, a meddler (X1ριστ"ν 'ντα κα0 συκ��Kν-την κα0 περ!εργ�ν, 95), in need of re-education (μεταπαιδε�ειν, 3), andeven nausea-inducing (πλε��ν D ναυτιAν, 1). More explicitly competitiveremarks characterize the critic as wretched and far from the gods (�&λιεκα0 π�ρρω &ε.ν, 103),53 call him a ‘nobody’ (�%δε!ς, 97)54 who oughtto be pleased if he is even allowed to attend Aristides’ speeches in thecapacity of a slave (�λλ’ �γαπAν σ�ι πρ�σ7κ�ν, εO κα0 �ν �Oκ τ�υ τK�ειπαρ7σ&α τ��ς γιγν�μ ν�ις, 97), and speculate that he would probablylike his children to turn out like Aristides (155).55 On the whole, it isclear 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 ofapologia (defense speech): Fisherman, Defense of ‘Portraits’, and Apology, which have raisedcomparable suspicions that the attacker is a fabrication. Similarly, at the end of Lucian’sA Slip of the Tongue (another contentious response to having committed an embarrassingerror in speech), the author suggests that his critics may accuse him of inventingthe story of his greeting gaffe merely for the sake of display (epideixis)—a reaction heprovocatively seems to encourage as an indication of the quality of his prose (19). Formore on rhetorical apologetics in Lucian and in the High Empire more generally, seeWhitmarsh 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 Antidosis14.

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 differencesin the authors’ attitudes become apparent. Overall, while both authorsare negotiating the same tensions inherent in the issue of self-praise,their cultural roles and related generic aims cause them to approach theissue in strikingly dissimilar ways. Plutarch’s didactic, philosophically-oriented piece focuses more on social cohesion while, in the context ofAristides’ self-promotional harangue, individual glory is more impor-tant. Differences also become apparent when Aristides calls justifiedpride a particularly Greek characteristic, a tactic that challenges hisaudience to condone his behavior or discard some part of their cul-tural tradition.56 For Plutarch, by contrast, such ‘Hellenizing’ ideologyis beside the point: he is less interested in discussing whether a manmerits pride in himself than in the modesty and subtlety that makepossible harmony and political expediency (factors that could have realeffects on how the Greeks lived under Roman domination).57 This atti-tude is not completely foreign to Aristides58—there are a few speecheswhere he promotes concord between Greek cities and avoidance of fac-tion within then59—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 asMarathon or Plataea, because the reaction they incite is harmful to the common goodin the circumstances of Roman rule (814a–c). One might argue that the problem inthis passage is that contemporary Greeks (compared to children trying on their father’sshoes or garlands) do not merit this pride, but in fact it is their ancestors in whom theytake pride—it is only the actions to which this pride leads them that are inappropriateto the ‘present times and matters’ (παρ��σι καιρ��ς κα0 πρKγμασιν, 814a).

58 Though cf. To Plato: In Defense of Oratory for self-referential comments on thelimited relevance of contemporary oratory (Or. 2.430, quoted on p. 168 below), andalso Or. 23.4 on what he characterizes as the rare opportunity to make his oratoricalpractice useful.

59 Or. 23, 24, 27. In fact, the opening of Aristides’ On Concord between the Cities scornsexactly the sort of behavior he is displaying in On an Incidental Remark, referring tooratory that is characterized by contentiousness (*ρις) and is not beneficial to theaudience (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 lessemphasis than Plutarch on homonoia between individuals. Here we can once againcompare Plutarch’s Political Precepts, this time on the potential for private quarrels tospiral 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 amatter of decorum.61 There is something to this, as I suggest above,if we remember that decorum is never just decorum. In some sense thetension between Plutarch’s approach to self-praise and Aristides’ liesin an implied contest over the definition of what is suitable, that is,whether the social context or the man speaking is more important fordetermining what is appropriate. For Aristides, his relationship to thegod even figures into the determination of oratorical kairos, the criticalor opportune moment. Instead of referring to fitting one’s speech toits context or providing what is necessary for the public good at somecritical juncture, as in Plutarch’s work on self-praise,62 kairos, accordingto Aristides, is the point at which not saying what is inspired becomesunbearable and impossible (115). In this passage and throughout thespeech, it is clear that Aristides’ position in this pseudo-debate is onethat considers fidelity to himself (and thereby to the god) to be thehighest good.63

In considering these stances we can perhaps also look to the waysPlutarch and Aristides depict their own lives for parallels. Aristides’avoidance of public office, as narrated in the Hieroi Logoi, raises thequestion of whether we should read these actions as a claim that Aris-tides’ allegiance to the god is a higher priority than responsibility to hisfellow citizens. The great lengths to which Aristides goes to avoid publicservice 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 theaffairs of Greek cities to some degree, for example in his interventionwith Marcus Aurelius in favor of aiding Smyrna, his speech on behalfof Rhodes after a similarly devastating earthquake, and the speecheson concord mentioned above.64 But it is significant that he is willing tocontribute only in the role of an orator and a go-between rather thanproviding 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 raisesmethodological 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 somethingset 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 andOn an Incidental Remark set Aristides’ rhetorical career at odds with anypolitical participation required of him. By comparison, we might notePlutarch’s active public career, discussed most explicitly in the Life of

Demosthenes (2.2) where he strikes a careful balance in presenting himselfas 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 differentapproaches to civic involvement illustrate the wide gulf between thepriorities of Plutarch and those of Aristides regarding public life, andthat gap also matches the disparity in their treatments of the issue ofself-praise.

Conclusion: the Cost of Self-Praise Versus its Value

What then do these two approaches to the issue of self-praise tellus about the contemporary concern surrounding writing and talkingabout oneself and about imperial-era political culture more broadly?The divergence between Plutarch’s and Aristides’ treatments of theissue can largely be attributed to the vast difference in the culturalroles 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 withone another, a strong connection emerges between how one talks aboutoneself and what position one takes in relation to the political and socialenvironment. Each of these works is trying to persuade its audience orreader of something. In Plutarch’s case, taking his advice on public self-assertion also involves privileging broader social stability over individualself-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 Sudaand 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 asan attempt to correct the behavior of a man who bragged too much, benefaction beinganother form of self-aggrandizement (hence often denoted by the word �ιλ�τιμ!α).

aristides and plutarch on self-praise 171

on the grounds that the nature of the man speaking is enough to justifywhat is said, this requires taking a stance that puts less value on publicresponsibility.

The task of the politician in this period is trickier and more fraughtthan ever, and the same rhetorical skills needed for political effec-tiveness can be used to much more self-serving ends if the educatedand privileged man chooses not to engage in local politics. I do notmean to suggest by this that the agonistic elite display culture of theHigh Empire is as a whole fundamentally incompatible with politicalengagement—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 thestatus of the individual, serves as one frame for discussions of self-praisein the Roman imperial era. At the same time, the political context cre-ates another means of framing the issue by necessitating at least theappearance of solidarity on the part of the elites in order to main-tain local stability and avoid Roman intervention. ‘Sophists’ are amongthe 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 drawa facile correlation between epideictic, self-praise, and the avoidance ofpolitical responsibility. Rather, many options were open to those withrhetorical training.71 A rhetor who takes an active part in political lifemust negotiate between the requirements of these two contexts, and thisnegotiation necessitates putting limits on self-aggrandizement (as wellas on other techniques of rhetorical display). The way to avoid theserestrictions, 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 whatdegree he places his priorities with his own reputation or with the goodof 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 ofrhetorical training to various aspects of public life in the second and third centuries, ascomplementary 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 operateswithin the larger hierarchy of the Roman Empire, he must of necessitybe more careful than his classical predecessors in avoiding contentiousself-promotion so that the remaining local Greek autonomy might notbe lost. Plutarch’s ideal statesman recognizes that modesty is necessaryfor the politician, given the ‘weak state of Greek affairs’, but devoteshimself to his city all the same (Political Precepts 824e). The flip side ofthis response is the rhetor who, in Aristides’ own words, ‘does not easilyappear 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 areconsiderably lower.72

72 My thanks go to Tim Whitmarsh, Simon Goldhill, Marc Domingo Gygax, JosephStreeter, the participants of the Aelius Aristides conference, and the editors and anony-mous readers of this volume for suggestions and critiques. I am particularly gratefulto conference organizer William Harris for allowing me to join such a distinguishedprogram.

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 RomanEmpire in many of his works: in the Smyrnean Orations, in the speechTo 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 godsto keep the imperial family in their favor. Such a display of loyaltyis not surprising from a man who was a member of the provincialnobility, possessed Roman citizenship and had numerous contacts withinfluential Romans and even with the imperial court.

Scholars have often said and written, and rightly so, that Aristidesis representative of the fidelity of Greek-speaking elites to the RomanEmpire. He contributed to what L. Robert called, in a phrase that sum-marizes the spirit of the age, ‘la symbiose gréco-romaine dans l’empireromain’.1 Aristides’ works are marked by the ideology of concord andconsensus, an ideology that he himself shaped and spread with the aidof epideictic rhetoric. On account of its elevated language and culturaland moral authority, as well as the public and ceremonial conditionsof performance, epideictic rhetoric gave political messages persuasiveforce.

All of these facts are known, and I myself have contributed to someextent to establishing them in regard to the rhetoric of praise and tothe speech To Rome in particular.2 Therefore, the subject of the presentpaper may seem paradoxical. It is thus necessary to begin with somepreliminary comments. Reading and re-reading Aelius Aristides, with aview to the edition being prepared for the Collection des Universités deFrance 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, cracksand doubts regarding the Empire and the emperors. These passagesbetray, often implicitly, a sort of malaise; they seemed to be worthy ofan explanation.

Generally speaking, there are two reasons that make it possible andlikely, 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 capitalwas extremely difficult, since it was at that time that his illness firstbegan (or, more precisely, the series of illnesses that would overshadowthe 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 acertain amount of time he ended up going back to his homeland, whereAsclepius took over the responsibility for his care. The time spent inRome, during which he probably delivered his speech To Rome, lookslike a failure. In any case, Aristides chose to describe it in precisely thisway 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 thatcould have exerted an influence over the way that he judged the city.

Second, it is necessary to take into account a reason drawn fromhistorical sociology. Here it will be enough to indicate an idea thatdeserves a much longer discussion. In brief: it was not the case thatin accepting and cooperating with Roman rule, the Greeks were deeplysatisfied with it; nor did they completely adhere to it, despite seeingadvantages in it; nor did their privileged position within the RomanEmpire blind them to other aspects of their situation. The Greeks wereconvinced of their distinctiveness and their superiority in regard toother peoples, even the Romans. One should not accept too quicklythe impression of enthusiastic support for Rome that some ancientspeeches give, and it is very possible that the authors’ experienceswere, 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 theone hand, the cooperation and accord between Greeks and Romanswithin the Roman Empire was a reality; on the other hand, someGreeks of the Imperial Era had mixed feelings towards the gloriousHellenic past and the Roman Empire.4 It is well known that authorslike Dio of Prusa and Lucian, for instance, in some of their works andin some periods of their lives, uttered critical judgments of the RomanEmpire or fostered a difficult relationship with it. Unlike rebellious andphilosophical types like Dio and Lucian, Aristides outwardly resembledan applied panegyrist, the good student in the class. Yet even goodstudents can have misgivings.

Here, then, are two reasons that might lead one to think that itis not impossible that Aristides could have had ambivalent feelingstowards Rome. It is neither a matter of frontal attacks, nor of being‘pro-Roman’ or ‘anti-Roman’. We are not speaking of opposition ordissidence, phenomena that did exist in other contexts in the RomanEmpire.5 It is more a question of psychological complexity and subtleundertones. Indeed, it is interesting to note that some scholars haverecently begun to take into account the less obvious aspects of Aristides’writings and their polyvalent meaning.6 The present study will examinethe emergence of an ambivalent attitude, first in passages from The

Sacred Tales, in which Aristides writes about significant dreams andbiographical events, and then in passages from other discourses, wherethe thoughts of the author seem to be expressed in veiled terms. Thisdossier 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 onAristides alone. It is not intended as a study of the immense and muchdisputed question of the relations between Greeks and Romans as awhole.

4 On these mixed feelings see e.g. Schmid 1887–1897, I.38–40 n. 13; W. Schmid invon 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’; Franco2005, 401–408: ‘Selezioni e omissioni’; P. Desideri, in Fontanella 2007, 3–22: ‘Scritturapubblica 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. Itis a dream, however, that has its roots in actual events from Aristides’life:

πρ�σειπ�ντ�ς δ4 κ�μ�� κα0 στKντ�ς �&α�μασεν - α%τ�κρKτωρ, )ς �% κα0α%τ8ς πρ�σελ&cν �ιλ�σαιμι. κ�γc εBπ�ν @τι - &εραπευτ"ς ε$ην - τ���Ασκληπι��· τ�σ��τ�ν γKρ μ�ι Zρκεσεν εOπε�ν περ0 �μαυτ��. ‘πρ8ς �`ν τ��ς�λλ�ις’, *�ην, ‘κα0 τ��τ� - &ε�ς μ�ι παρ�γγειλεν μ" �ιλε�ν �Xτωσ!’· κα0@ς, ‘�ρκε�’, *�η· κ�γc �σ!γησα. κα0 ]ς *�η, ‘κα0 μ"ν &εραπε�ειν γε παντ8ςκρε!ττων - �Ασκληπι�ς’ (Or. 47.23).7

When I too saluted him and stood there, the Emperor wondered whyI too did not come forward and kiss him. And I said that I was aworshipper 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 notto kiss in this fashion’. And he replied, ‘I am content’. I was silent. Andhe said, ‘Asclepius is better than all to worship’.

When Aristides went to Rome in 144, he was welcomed by his formerprofessor, the grammarian Alexander of Cotiaeum, who was living inthe capital as one of the tutors of Prince Marcus, the future MarcusAurelius. There is a hint of these events in two speeches, To Rome andThe Funeral Oration in Honor of Alexander of Cotiaeum. In the Funeral Oration,the author recalls the eminent role that Alexander had with regard tothe 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 thesepast events (Alexander has been dead for fifteen years). In his dream, hesees 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 situationin particular held Aristides’ attention). Alexander delivers an address tothe emperor, and then the emperor responds, as do the members of hisentourage. Then it is Aristides’ turn to speak, and the situation turnsupside down.

7 Throughout this paper I have used the editions of Lenz-Behr 1976–1980 forOrations 1–16 and Keil 1898 for Orations 17–53. Translations of Aristides are from Behr1981–1986.

aelius aristides and rome 179

According to court etiquette, Aristides should have kissed the em-peror (the Greek word used is the verb �ιλε�ν). There are numeroussources that note the custom of saluting the emperor by means of a kissthat could be placed on the hands, the mouth, the eyes, the neck orthe chest. In the court ceremony, the privilege of kissing the emperor isattested to most notably by Fronto.8 But Aristides refuses to pay homageto the emperor by giving him a kiss, as he is invited to do. The reasonhe gives for his refusal is that it is the will of Asclepius: he is, he says,‘a worshipper of Asclepius’ (&εραπευτ�ς),9 and the god has ordered himnot to kiss the emperor in this manner.

The text does not say any more about this, so we do not know whyexactly Asclepius established this ban. The commentators on this pas-sage have not found a precise explanation. But, in any case, the generalsense of the scene is clear. Aristides adopts a peculiar manner, refus-ing to submit to court protocol and to pay the expected homage to theemperor, and his behavior is attributed to his bond with Asclepius. Hisidentity as a devotee of Asclepius has given him a reserved attitude, anattitude almost of insolence, even of rebellion, that arouses surprise inthe 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 fortheir refusal the ties that unite them to their God.10 Here, luckily forAristides, it is all a dream, and everything ends well. Antoninus recog-nizes in Aristides the quality of a &εραπευτ�ς (using the verb &εραπε�-ειν), and he accepts, without getting angry, that devotion to Asclepiuscomes before the respect due to an emperor.

The following text is about a dream that Aristides had in 166, abouttwo weeks later, and it illustrates a similar attitude:11

εBπ�ν δ4 �[τω πως· ‘Sστ”, *�ην, ‘εO μ" γεγυμνασμ ν�ς _ν �ν &ε!αις 'ψεσιν,�%κ �ν μ�ι δ�κ. <>αδ!ως �%δ4 πρ8ς α%τ"ν τ"ν πρ�σ�ψιν �ντισ6ε�ν, �[τωμ�ι δ�κε� &αυμαστ� τις εBναι κα0 κρε!ττων D κατ’ �ν&ρωπ�ν’. *λεγ�ν δ4&ε!ας 'ψεις, μKλιστα δ" �νδεικν�μεν�ς τ8ν �Ασκληπι8ν κα0 τ8ν ΣKραπιν(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 beentrained in divine visions, I think that I would not easily endure thisspectacle. So wonderful does it seem to me and greater than man’sestate’. I said ‘divine visions’, meaning especially Asclepius and Sarapis.

This time Marcus Aurelius appears to Aristides (evidently, the sophistwas very preoccupied with emperors), together with the king of theParthians, Vologeses III (whose presence in the dream is explained bythe fact that it occurs during the time of the Parthian Wars). In hisdream, Aristides sees himself giving a speech addressed to the twosovereigns. This speech, in technical rhetorical terms, is a διKλε�ις orπρ�λαλιK, that is to say a brief address serving as an introductionto the recitation of a longer work and containing compliments tothe audience.12 In this address, Aristides tells Marcus Aurelius andVologeses how happy and flattered he is to have the privilege of givinga reading of his works before them. He then adds that his divine visionshave prepared him for the occasion and given him the ability to endurethe gaze of the two sovereigns before whom he is standing.

These words are certainly intended as a compliment, since Aristidesemphasizes the superhuman character of the sovereigns and comparesthe spectacle that they present to those presented by the gods. But ifhe is comparing the two types of vision, Aristides does not assimilatethem. He carefully distinguishes between divine visions, that is to saythe 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 anexercise, a preparation for the vision of the sovereigns. The word ‘exer-cise’ (εO μ" γεγυμνασμ ν�ς _ν) is a flattering means of expression, but itdoes not imply that it is easier for Aristides to look at the gods thanit was for him to look at the kings. On the contrary, it is because hewas 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, Aristidesdescribes himself as being, above all, a man of Asclepius. When heappears before emperors and the kings, he is crowned with the glow ofhis relationship with the divine. In his dealings with temporal author-ity, he remains detached and distant since there is in him a spiritualrichness 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 alittle later than the others:

- δ4 �&α�μασ ν τε [κα0] πειρ,μεν�ς τ.ν λ�γων �ντ0 πKντων τε *�η τιμA-σ&αι 6ρημKτων α%τ�?ς κα0 �πε�πεν ‘τ��τ�ις τ��ς λ�γ�ις εO πρ�σ7σαν �κρ�-ατα0 @σ�ν κα0 πεντ�κ�ντα’· κ�γc Xπ�λα1,ν, ‘σ�� γε, *�ην, 1�υλ�μ ν�υ,1ασιλε�, κα0 �κρ�ατα0 γεν�σ�νται, κα0 @πως γ”, *�ην, ‘&αυμKσMης, τα�τα eνυν0 λ γεις �μ�0 Xπ8 τ�� �Ασκληπι�� πρ�ε!ρηται’ (Or. 51.45).

He was amazed; and when he had tested my speech, he said thathe valued it at any price, and added, ‘Would that there were also anaudience of about fifty present at this speech’. And I said in reply, ‘If youwish, Emperor, there will also be an audience and’, I said, ‘so that youmay well be amazed, these things which you now say have been foretoldto me by Asclepius’.

As at Or. 47.23, Aristides evokes the surprise of the emperor (who isMarcus Aurelius here): �&α�μασεν. As at Or. 47.23 and 38, Aristidesinvokes, while facing the emperor, his own relationship with Asclepius.What the emperor says had already been predicted by Asclepius, asa written text proves (that is to say the parchment on which Aristidesnoted the premonitory dream that Asclepius had sent to him). Onceagain, Aristides, in his connection to political power, displays a sense ofsuperiority that comes to him from his company with the divine.

These analyses may allow a passage of Philostratus to be clarified bygiving it its full weight. The extract is taken from the biography ofAristides, written by Philostratus fifty years after his death. Philostratussays that he received this anecdote directly from Damianus of Ephesus,who was a student of Aristides:13

πρ�σειπcν δ4 α%τ8ν - α%τ�κρKτωρ ‘δι τ! σε’, *�η, ‘1ραδ ως ε$δ�μεν’; κα0- �Αριστε!δης ‘&ε,ρημα’, *�η, ‘{ 1ασιλε�, oσ6�λει, γν,μη δ4 &εωρ��σKτι μ" �π�κρεμανν�σ&ω �i �ητε�’. Xπερησ&ε0ς δ4 - α%τ�κρKτωρ τF. Z&ειτ�νδρ8ς )ς Yπλ�ικωτKτFω τε κα0 σ6�λικωτKτFω… (Philostratus, Lives of theSophists 2.9.2 [582]).

The Emperor addressed him, and inquired: ‘Why did we have to wait solong to see you’? To which Aristides replied: ‘A subject on which I wasmeditating kept me busy, and when the mind in absorbed in meditationit must not be distracted from the object of its search’. The Emperor wasgreatly pleased with the man’s personality, so unaffected was it and sodevoted 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 surprisedthat Aristides has not yet come before him to greet him. The greatman is sought out and eventually brought before the emperor. Aris-tides’ excuse for not presenting himself to the emperor earlier is that hewas absorbed in a ‘meditation’, a ‘contemplation’ (&ε,ρημα). The storydoes not tell us what this meditation was about. It is doubtful that theepisode was due, as some scholars have suggested,14 to uncertainty onAristides’ part about the proper protocol to follow from a political pointof view. It was due, rather, to Aristides’ intellectual reflections and hispreparation of a speech. In any event, the structure of the anecdote issimilar 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 tookon 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 theemperor.

In Search of Immunity

Let us now consider the biography of Aristides and the problem of hisrefusal of official duties. It is well known that, in the Greek-speakingworld of the second century AD, the wealthiest citizens were obligedto fulfill official duties by paying costly public and honorary expensesin accordance with the system of euergetism. Such duties were offeredto Aristides several times in Smyrna and in the province of Asia, buteach time he got out of this responsibility, taking advantage of the legalmeasures that provided an exemption for rhetoricians working as teach-ers. He expended a great deal of effort on obtaining the ‘immunity’(�τ λεια) 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 doesnot 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 thisprivilege. What is amazing it that Aristides discusses it at such length.G.W. Bowersock, who undertook an in-depth study of this episode inAristides’ life, has observed, quite rightly, that the narrative is excep-tionally detailed: ‘Thanks to [Aristides’] prolixity, we know more abouthis case than anyone else’s’.15

In general, one did not flaunt behavior that could pass for a refusalto 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 thewhole narrative of the Sacred Tales. By speaking at length about hisefforts to avoid paying public expenses and about the problems thatpitted him against his fellow citizens and the Roman authorities on thissubject, Aristides constructs his own image of himself: the image of anexceptional man, whose talent was recognized, but who held himselfapart on the margins of society and ordinary professional life becausehe was bound by membership in a superior order, that is, by his ties toAsclepius. Aristides felt that he possessed two identities: his identity as apublic figure and his identity as a protégé of Asclepius. When he had tochoose, 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 processis just beginning in 147—Aristides is 30, according to C.A. Behr’schronology—and it ties together the twists and turns of the affair asa kind of comedy.

Act One: The people and magistrates of Smyrna nominate Aristidesfor 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 (*πεισα). Aristides does not say exactly what argu-ments he used to decline the nomination. Probably, in view of the logicof the entire passage, his arguments had something to do with Ascle-pius.

Act Two: After Aristides refuses the high priesthood, the assemblyoffers him the priesthood of Asclepius. It seems as though the Smyr-naeans were looking to catch Aristides in his own trap: since he hasinvoked his relationship with Asclepius, they take him at his word andpropose to put him in charge of the service to the god to whom he hassaid he is particularly attached.

15 Bowersock 1969, 36.

184 laurent pernot

But our sophist had other resources, as Act Three shows. Resistingbit by bit, he declines the new proposition, saying that he needs anorder directly from the god to accept the offer, an order that he has notreceived:

κα0 �Bδα ε%δ�κιμ�σας �Lς �πεκρινKμην· *�ην γρ )ς �%δ4ν �Nτε με���ν�Nτε *λαττ�ν �L�ν τ’ ε$η πρKττειν μ�ι �νευ τ�� &ε��, �%δ’ �`ν α%τ8 τ8JερAσ&αι ν�μ!�ειν ��ε�ναι πρ�τερ�ν, πρ0ν #ν α%τ�� π�&ωμαι τ�� &ε��. �J δ’�&α�μασKν τε κα0 συνε6,ρ�υν (Or. 50.102).

And I know that I found approval with my reply. For I said that it wasimpossible for me to do anything, either important or trifling, without thegod, 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 andyielded.

Thus Aristides turns his fellow citizens’ arguments upside down. Theclose relationship between Aristides and Asclepius is, for the Smyr-naeans, a reason for him to accept the priesthood. For Aristides, on thecontrary, it is a reason to refuse (since he can do nothing without thepermission of the god, and in this case, such permission is lacking). Theargument is completely turned around, as in a sophistic debate. Aris-tides himself emphasizes the skillfulness of his response, which allowshim to win over the Smyrnaeans.

Later, the Smyrnaeans make another attempt, forcing Aristides tocall on the governor of the province, who gives him at least temporaryrespite.

The reasons for Aristides’ refusal were many. One discerns a finan-cial reason: if the temple of Asclepius was under construction, as thetext 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 asolitary, irritable temperament. But above all, his devotion to Asclepiuswas 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 doanything without his permission. He was deprived of autonomy, as ifdispossessed of himself. Public life and concern about general interestno longer counted for him, absorbed as he was in his exclusive rela-tionship with the god. Therefore, service to Asclepius conflicted withintegration into the city.

In comparison with the dream texts examined above, these passagesreveal 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 andhis province. He resists all types of functions, municipal magistracies, aswell as the priesthood, and even the priesthood of the imperial cult. Itis a form of resistance to all official responsibilities, which placed himoutside 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 lastaspect of a rhetorical nature.

If we admit that Aristides had reservations about Rome and theRoman Empire, these reservations could only be expressed in a subtleand implicit manner, first because Aristides might not have admittedthese reservations to himself, and second because a frank expression ofdistance from Rome was inconceivable for a man of his social standing:it would have cost him his position in society and could have puthim in danger. The reservations, if there were reservations, had to beexpressed in a roundabout way. Dream narratives and autobiographicalaccounts, which we have been looking at until now, are two suchoblique methods.

There also exists in Greco-Latin rhetoric a theory and a practiceof indirect expression that carries the name ‘figured speech’ (�σ6ημα-τισμ ν�ς λ�γ�ς, figuratus sermo, figurata oratio). This important conceptoffers a key to a rhetorical reading of some of the passages from Aris-tides.

By ‘figured speech’ ancient rhetoricians mean cases in which anorator has recourse to a ruse in order to disguise his intentions, usingindirect language to communicate the point that he wants to make inan oblique manner. In this specialized use, the terms σ67μα or figura

(with the verbal forms �σ6ηματισμ ν�ς, figuratus) do not designate figuresof style, but assume a particular significance and indicate a process thatconsists 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 wereHermogenes (or Pseudo-Hermogenes), Apsines, and the Pseudo-

186 laurent pernot

Dionysius of Halicarnassus.16 Figured speech was widely used in Latinand Greek declamation, as can be seen in the Elder Seneca and Philo-stratus. There were different kinds of figured speech. One consistedof 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 oppositeof 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 andputting himself in danger when he has something unpleasant to say.In the second case, he does not feel afraid, but feels obliged to respectcertain norms lest he upset his audience, compromise his message, andfail to accomplish what he has set out to do. Such is the situation, forexample, for one who must accuse a superior while recognizing that itis not in his best interests to do so openly.

It is a technique of doublespeak, then, that rhetoric made available toits practitioners. This technique was used not only in schools of rhetoricand in literary criticism, but also in actual discourse, as passages fromDemetrius’ On Style and Quintilian indicate.17 Thus rhetoric furnishesus with a concept whose usefulness is not slight, if figured speech canindeed allow us to better decipher ancient works, and in particularthose of the rhetorical authors of the Imperial Age. This trail hashardly been explored, since figured speech has been studied by scholarsprimarily 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 σ6ηματ!�εσ&αι appearsin his work, with technical validation. Aristides is talking about hisown method of debate against Plato, and he emphasizes: �γc μ4ν γρ

16 Hermog. Inv. 4.13; Meth. 22; Apsines On Fig. Probl.; Ps.-Dion. Hal. Rhet. 8–9. Onfigured speech, see Ahl 1984; Ahl-Garthwaite 1984, 82–85; Schouler 1986; Desbordes1993; Chiron 2003; Calboli Montefusco 2003; Heath 2003; Morgan 2006; Milazzo2007, 46–125. More references, ancient and modern, in Pernot 2007a and Pernot2008.

17 Demetr. On Style 287–295; Quint. Inst. Or. 9.2.74.

aelius aristides and rome 187

��αιν�μην �%δ’ �ν α%τ��ς τ��ς �ναγκα!�ις �π�τ�μως τF. λ�γFω 6ρ,μεν�ς,�λλ πε�εισμ νως κα0 σ6ηματι��μεν�ς τ πρ π�ντα (‘Even in the neces-sary points clearly I did not argue brusquely, but with restraint and in adecorous way’, Or. 4.33). The last words, σ6ηματι��μεν�ς τ πρ π�ντα,are probably an allusion to the sort of figured speech that consists ofsoftening the blame in order to respect social propriety, ε%πρ πεια.18

Aristides also isolates another type of figured speech. The authoris addressing his adversaries, who are reproaching him for not givingclasses in oratory, while couching this reproach in terms of flatteryby saying that he could give excellent classes…if he only wanted to.But Aristides sees through their game: he is perfectly aware that theyare only praising his talent as a teacher to better reproach him fornot practicing it. He unveils their tactic by saying: 1λασ�ημε�τε μετ’ε%�ημ!ας (‘you malign me with your praise’), an expression that definesthe strategy of disguising blame as praise (Or. 33.25). We will come backto this device later.

Still another passage, from Oration 28, is more or less the same as theprevious quotation, that is, censure disguised with apparently favorablewords: π�λλ τ�ια�τα �6αρ!�ετ� τ�� παραδ �ασ&αι τ"ν αOτ!αν TμAς (‘heattempted to ingratiate himself in many such ways so that we mightadmit the charge’, Or. 28.2).

Let us also add as a subsidiary consideration the fact that figuredspeech is to be seen in a larger framework. It must be restored to itsintellectual context, which is constituted by the precise techniques ofencryption and deciphering that had currency in the ancient world.Such techniques were, for example, the genre of the fable, a narrativeincorporating an implicit or explicit meaning; enigmas and oracles thatcalled for deciphering and interpretation; Socratic irony, which offersanother case of double meaning; the notion of ambiguity (�μ�ι1�λ!α);allegorical interpretation; judicial interpretations taking into consider-ation the spirit behind the letter of the law; and the interpretation ofdreams. 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 forthem. The practice and the theory of the double entendre are ubiqui-tous, appearing in literature, philosophy, law, religion, and medicine.

18 For ε%πρ πεια 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 funeraloration delivered by Socrates in Plato’s Menexenus. This speech purportsto be an encomium of Athens from the point of view of the city’shistorical and political achievements. It was taken seriously by mostreaders, and only in recent times has it been fully recognized as ironicaland parodical.19 The case of the Menexenus illustrates the possibility thata rhetorical speech could play with the rules of praise and conveyconcealed messages accessible only to part of the audience and somereaders.

Now it is time to return to Aristides’ texts. We will present remarkson an entire discourse, whose very conception and construction arerevealing, 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 thesubject, then describes the place and situation of Rome. He next praisesat length the civil and military organization of the Empire before fin-ishing with a brilliant synthesizing tableau. The presentation involves alarge number of comparisons; the tone is admiring and hyperbolic. Inall 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 ofspeaking, Aristides finds a way to say nothing about the origins of thecity, the relations supposedly shared between the Greeks and Romans,or the stories surrounding the founding of Rome. He says nothingabout the history of Rome. He completely neglects its monuments,architecture, art, literature and language. He says not one word aboutRomulus, the Scipios, Caesar or Augustus. He contents himself withrefering once to Aeneas, through an allusion to Homer. He does notmention a single Roman proper name, nor does he speak a word ofLatin.

How should one interpret these omissions? It would have beenappropriate 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 whichthe rule over the provinces was exercised. He chooses to consider onlythe current state of affairs and the present functioning of the Empirein the political domain, which leads him to avoid local color, as well asall the artistic, religious, mythological, and historical facts (those whichconcern Rome, of course, since there are abundant references to Greekmythology and history). The only Roman fact that interests Aristidesis the rule that Rome exerts over the Empire, and, more precisely, theRoman links to the Greek-speaking provinces, the provinces to whichhe belonged. This is why the speech To Rome is actually a discoursein honor of the Roman Empire and the manner in which this empireexerted control over the Greek world. Aristides is very careful not toexpress any contempt for Roman history and civilization: he simplydoes not talk about them. By reducing Rome to nothing more than agovernmental 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 thespeech: omissions concerning the Roman conquest. Aristides avoidssaying that the Roman Empire was forced upon the Greeks. At thevery most he allows himself to allude to the traditional play on the word<,μη, which means both ‘Rome’ and ‘force’ (in section eight).21 But hedoes not develop this idea. He says nothing about the Roman conquestor the military and political processes that led to the installation ofRoman rule over the Greek world.22

What is brought into play here is silence, eloquent silence, a deviceattested to in the rhetoric of figured speech. The theorists of figuredspeech observe that sometimes orators can be confronted with a banon speaking that they do not have the right to break; for instance, inthe judicial sector, there might be such a ban on speaking about a caseof incest, which would be indecent to mention, or about a deed at thelimits of legality; or, in the public domain, about past crimes protectedby an amnesty law forbidding mention of them. The theory of figuredspeech concerns the case where the orator is confronted with a heavyand well-known situation, of which he does not have the right to speakand 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 isthat of the ‘ruling power’.24 This heavy truth weighed on the speech,but Aristides could not allow himself to speak about it openly. Hetherefore proceeded by means of an omission, an omission so drasticthat is becomes significant in itself as the carrier of a hidden message.

To summarize, Aristides suggests that Rome consists merely of theimperial power that it exercises, that its history and culture do notmatter, 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 wastoo risky, Aristides thought, to express this opinion directly, he made itunderstood indirectly.

Therefore, this speech is much less flattering than has previouslybeen thought, and it incorporates a certain audacity. Aristides sug-gests that the Empire is a system imposed on the Greeks from theoutside and that the Greeks have submitted according to the rule ofthe stronger without feeling any admiration for Roman civilization andculture. Such is, we can believe, the encrypted message of To Rome,a deeply realistic and embittered message if one knows how to readbetween the lines. Aristides weighs his praise, and he concentrates onwhat he approves of, namely the material benefits of Roman peace. Asfor the rest, he makes himself understood without having to spell outhis meaning by suggesting that Roman culture does not matter andthat Roman rule must be endured with pragmatism.

The Hidden Key

We can now turn to the examination of some scattered passages thatexpress 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 theinformers could not seize on any explicit statement. I succeeded on both counts’, trans.Russell); Hermog. Inv. 4.13, (Rabe 206): κατ *μ�ασιν δ �στιν, @ταν λ γειν μ" δυνKμεν�ιδι τ8 κεκωλ�σ&αι κα0 παρρησ!αν μ" *6ειν �π0 σ6�ματι �λλης ��ι,σεως �μ�α!νωμεν καττ"ν σ�ν&εσιν τ�� λ�γ�υ κα0 τ8 �%κ ��8ν εOρ7σ&αι, )ς εBνα! τε ν�7σαι τ��ς �κ���υσι κα0μ" �πιλ�ψιμ�ν εBναι τF. λ γ�ντι· (‘It is by implication whenever we are not able to speakbecause hindered and lacking freedom of speech, but in the figure of giving a differentopinion we also imply what cannot be spoken by the way the speech is composed, sothat the hearers understand and it is not a subject of reproach to the speaker’, trans.Kennedy); Apsines, On Fig. Probl. 27 (Patillon 120): κατ παρKλειψιν κα0 �π�σι,πησιν (‘byomission 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 onthe general method of saying one thing while suggesting somethingdifferent.

It is a question in this case of slipping a parenthetical remark intoa speech that casts a new light onto the whole argument. The pro-cess is analyzed by Pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who perceivedthe model of this process in the texts of Homer and Plato: ‘What isthis art? It is, after having spoken on a subject that carried convic-tion, to introduce at the end, incidentally, the most pertinent subject’(α[τη �`ν T τ 6νη τ!ς �στι; τ8 �π’ �λλης Xπ�& σεως πεπεικυ!ας πρ�τε-ρ�ν 〈εOπ�ντα〉 �π0 τ λει )ς πKρεργ�ν �ρρ!πτειν τ"ν �Oκει�τ ραν Xπ�&εσιν,Rhet. 9.6= Usener-Radermacher 335). The orators who use this pro-cess, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, begin by developing at length anopinion that the audience already agrees with, then throwing out ‘asan afterthought’, ‘at the end’, an additional point, which is the onein which the orator truly believes. In any other speech, such uneven-ness in composition, which produces the effect of an inverse proportionbetween the essential and the incidental, would be quite a grave error.But the peculiarity of ‘figured speech’, that prodigious art, is that allthat is vice elsewhere here becomes virtue, as the theorists are fond ofrepeating. I would like to draw the attention to three passages that fitthis definition.

‘The City is Almost as Fortunate as Before’

In the Panathenaic, Aristides sings the praises of Athens. He reviews thehistory 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 developmenton the dissemination of the Attic dialect follows, and then the ora-tor seems to remember that the history of the world did not stop inthe fourth century BC. In a brief chapter dedicated to the honorsreceived by Athens, he comes back to the Macedonians in order toemphasize that they, after defeating Athens, treated the city with par-ticular consideration. In this passage he slips in two sentences aboutthe present situation to show that once again Athens enjoyed specialtreatment:

τ�σ��τ�ν \τ ρως T π�λις πρKττει τ ν�ν, @σ�ν �% πραγματε�εται. τ δ4 τ7ς�λλης ε%δαιμ�ν!ας μικρ�� δε�ν παραπλ�σιK �στιν α%τM7 τ��ς �π’ �κε!νων τ.ν6ρ�νων, @τ’ εB6εν τ7ς =ΕλλKδ�ς τ"ν �ρ6"ν … �π0 δ4 τ7ς πKντα �ρ!στης κα0

192 laurent pernot

μεγ!στης τ7ς νυν0 κα&εστηκυ!ας τ πρεσ1ε�α παντ8ς *6ει τ�� =Ελληνικ��κα0 π πραγεν �[τως, Sστε μ" <>αδ!ως �ν τινα α%τM7 τ�ρ6α�α �ντ0 τ.νπαρ�ντων συνε��ασ&αι (Or. 1.332, 335).

Now the only difference in the city’s condition is that it is not involved introublesome affairs. But for the rest, it is almost as fortunate as in thosetimes, 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 away that no one would readily wish for its old state instead of its presentone.

Aristides acknowledges that the situation of Athens has changed, andhe 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 (althoughthe scholia on this passage do).25 Following the method to which weare beginning to become accustomed, Aristide expresses no criticism.On the contrary, he extols the happiness of Athens under the power ofthe Roman Empire, and he displays his own loyalty by expressing thewish, twice, that this power would last forever, in accordance with thecustom of praying for the immortality of the Empire. Under Romanrule Athens is happy, because it is set free from the political andmilitary responsibilities that it had assumed before and enjoys honorsand supremacy among the Greeks. In sum, the city is rid of all theinconveniences of power and only the advantages remain. Is everythingbetter then? Let us take a look at the text more closely, and take note oftwo nuances: Athens is today ‘almost’ (μικρ�� δε�ν) as happy as it wasin the past, and one would not ‘readily’ (<>αδ!ως) wish for it to return toits former state. If one gives to these words their full weight, they betraysome reservation and throw doubt on the encomium of Rome beingpronounced.

In the same passage, again concerning the present situation ofAthens, the phrase ε$ τFω κα0 τ��των �!λ�ν μεμν7σ&αι (‘if someone wishesto mention these points too’) also conveys the impression that the cur-rent state of affairs is not the favourite subject of the orator, who prefersto praise the past.26

Out of a hundred pages of mythological and historical account, theseremarks 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: �κ τ�� εOπε�ν ε$ τFω κα0 τ��των �!λ�ν

μεμν7σ&αι δε!κνυσιν @τι, εO κα0 τ παρ�ντα &αυμαστK, �λλ’ �%6 �Lα τ πρ�σ&εν, pν κα0μεμν7σ&αι μAλλ�ν κα0 &αυμK�ειν πρ�σ7κεν (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 thissituation, which was the heart of the problem of Greece under Rome, isnot so simple. For precisely this reason, Aristides did not want to keepsilent on the subject, but neither did he wish to address it head-on. Hedeemed that it would be cleverer and more prudent to resort to thestrategy of ‘figured speech’ by slipping into his text, fleetingly, wordswith far-reaching implications. That ‘almost’ (μικρ�� δε�ν) is a nugget oftruth. It was up to his audience and his readers to discover it and drawconclusions from it themselves.

‘Seeing that the Situation is Other’

In the speech To Plato in Defense of Oratory, Aristides offers an assessmentof the Greek situation under Rome identical to that found in thePanathenaic Oration and expressed in the same terms: ‘the situation isother’:

εO τ�!νυν τις κα0 τ�ι��τ�ς �γγ ν�ιτ� �L�ς <ητ�ρικ"ν *6ων εOς μ4ν δ�μ�υς<>αδ!ως μ" εOσι ναι, μηδ4 περ0 π�λιτε!ας �μ�ισ1ητε�ν -ρ.ν \τ ρως *6�ντατ πρKγματα…(Or. 2.430).

If someone should be of such a nature so that he does not easily appearbefore the people with his oratory and engage in political disputes, sincehe 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 Platobrought against it in the Gorgias. The argument is conducted in theterms that Plato had established, and it is by drawing on Platonicconcepts and examples that Aristides tries to make his point of viewtriumph in a refutation conducted across the centuries. At the end ofhis work, Aristides turns to the figure of the ideal orator, who embodiesall of the qualities of rhetoric. He comes to refer to his own case as anexample of a life consecrated to eloquence in all of its purity, untouchedby concern about popular favor, wealth or any other form of materialsuccess: this example of a disinterested way of life may serve as anargument to refute the reproach of flattery that was often addressedto the followers of rhetoric. Yet although Aristides speaks of himselfin the third person, he does not hesitate to take his audience into hisconfidence, sketching the portrait of a person who is at the same timean 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 thelast ones: -ρ.ν \τ ρως *6�ντα τ πρKγματα (‘seeing that the situationis other’, or, in the translation of C.A. Behr: ‘since he sees that thegovernment is now differently constituted’). The reader has had to waituntil section 430 of the discourse to come across this remark, which isthrown in as though it were an afterthought, but is in reality of greatimportance.28 The words signify that the situation has changed betweenthe time of Plato and that of Aristides, since the Greeks are now underRoman rule.29 Leaving aside for the moment the problem raised byPlato, Aristides finally refers to current events. He acknowledges thepolitical situation and recognizes that this change has had an impact onrhetoric, insomuch as the Greeks orators of the Roman Era, contraryto their predecessors of the Classical Era, are no longer in a position totreat the important issues that concern their lives and the functioningof their cities.

Let us understand what Aristides wants to suggest here. With thisremark, he does not at all intend to undermine his own argument.Everything that he has said previously remains valid because the debateabout rhetoric, according to Aristides, keeps presenting itself throughthe ages. The aspects of rhetoric that Aristides deals with earlier in thespeech by means of the Platonic schemas (the political, philosophicaland mystical worth of rhetoric) have lost none of their topicality in thesecond century AD. The present remark does not, therefore, nullifythe debate; rather, it gives it another dimension. It invites the readerto examine the changes that have occurred during the Imperial Eraand to make an inventory of those in the sphere of rhetoric, as Tacitusdoes, for example, in the Dialogue on Orators, or as ‘Longinus’ does inthe treaty On the Sublime, or Plutarch in the Political Precepts. Such aninventory would be the subject of a long speech, which Aristides didnot want to write for reasons of his own and about which we canonly speculate. These reasons have something to do with discretion andprudence, love of subtlety, and probably a period of political abstentionand 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 ofRoman rule. He was keen to address it, but in his own way: he suggestsits importance through a remark made implicitly in one sentence. Thestrategy 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 pairof 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 historyof Thucydides. Since the Athenian expeditionary corps sent to con-quer Sicily had encountered difficulties after its arrival on the island, adebate 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 armyto help the first. Aristides imagines the speeches that could have beendelivered on that occasion, his first orator opining in favor of sendingreinforcements, the second in favor of recalling the expedition.30 In thefirst Sicilian Oration, however, as the argument begins to come to an end,we suddenly read the following assertion: ‘Now here one would see bestthe divine quality of empire. For it preserves itself ’ (ν�ν δ’ �ντα�&α δ"κα0 κKλλιστα $δ�ι τις #ν )ς &ε��ν τ8 6ρ7μα τ7ς �ρ67ς· α%τ" γρ \αυτ"νσ,�ει, Or. 5.39). In this context, the sentence applies to the AthenianEmpire. 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 itspower.

The hypothesis that comes to mind, however, is that this sentencecould also have been aimed at the Roman Empire. Indeed, Aristidesconducted parallel analyses of the Roman and Athenian Empires inthe speeches To Rome and The Panathenaic Oration respectively, and hecarefully compared these two empires in To Rome.31 Such a comparisonwas made all the easier by the fact that the word meaning ‘empire’,�ρ6�, is the same in Greek in both cases. In addition, the passage fromthe 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 health32—anda precise verbal echo connects the two texts.33

If the declamation has a contemporary resonance, it would seem tobe, 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 encomiumengineered to self-destruct. In fact, immediately after stating that theEmpire is divine, the orator presents it in a less favorable light:

Sσπερ γρ �ν τ��ς Oδ!�ις �$κ�ις \ν0 μ4ν κα0 δυ��ν �Oκ ταιν 6αλεπ8ν 6ρ�σα-σ&αι, �J δ4 π�λλ�0 κατ �λλ�λων XπKρ6�υσιν, �[τω κ�ν τα�ς δυναστε!αιςτ8 πλ7&�ς τ.ν δεδ�υλωμ νων 1ε1αι�� τ"ν Oσ6?ν τ��ς πρ�σειλη��σι· πKντεςγρ �ν κ�κλFω δεδ!ασιν �λλ�λ�υς … 6ειρω& ντες γρ �ν&ρωπ�ι π�λλ�0 κα0παντ�δαπ�0 γ ν�ς �%6 5��υσιν �π�στρ���ν, �λλ πAν τ8 μ" περαιτ ρω τ��παρ�ντ�ς κακ8ν Sσπερ 5ρμαι�ν Tγ�σ�νται τ��ς @λ�ις �πειπ�ντες (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 thenumber of the enslaved strengthens the power of those who have addedthem to it. For everyone fears each other in turn… For when many menof various races have been defeated, they will have no refuge, but incomplete despair they will regard as their good fortune every evil whichdoes 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 thePeloponnesian War, and the Empire collapsed.

The allusion to the Roman Empire, if there is one, thus provesto be ambiguous. We may read it as a compliment to Rome, if weconsider only the first line of the excerpt. We may also imagine thatthe text suggests an opposition between the situation of Athens in thefifth century BC and that of Rome in the second century AD (Romebeing superior to Athens in the art of governing). But we can also seehere, and this will seem more plausible, a parallel between the Athenianand Roman Empires. In this case we are dealing with praise that turnsto blame in a way that conforms exactly to the process analyzed byAristides himself in the passage from Oration 33 mentioned above.34

32 Notably Or. 26.103–109.33 Compare Or. 5.39 (�J δ4 π�λλ�0 κατ �λλ�λων XπKρ6�υσιν) with Or. 26.56 (μ ν�ντες

μ4ν �π’ �λλ�λ�υς XπKρ��υσιν α%τ��ς).34 Above, p. 181.

aelius aristides and rome 197

The word ‘divine’ (&ε��ν), used in section 39 of the first Sicilian Decla-

mation, deserves consideration. The pious Aristides does not use a termlike this lightly. The beginning of the sentence celebrates the Empire asdivine, but the rest of the passage and the following events show thatit is, in reality, the complete opposite of divine, since it is lacking thetwo qualities essential to divinity in the minds of Aristides and his con-temporaries: concern for mankind and eternity. The orator indicatesthat the Empire inspires fear and despair in its subjects (therefore thereis no solicitude towards mankind), and the course of events will showthat the Athenian Empire is destined to disappear (therefore it is noteternal). The Empire (the Athenian Empire, but perhaps the RomanEmpire 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 thedevice of the �ναντ!�ν (‘opposite’ or ‘contrary’), which appears in theclassificatory schemas of the theorists of figured speech. Hermogenes:�ναντ!α μ4ν �`ν �στιν, @ταν τ8 �ναντ!�ν κατασκευK�ωμεν, �i λ γ�μεν

(‘Problems are “opposed” whenever we are arguing for the oppositeof what we actually say’).35 Pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus: τρ!τ�νσ67μK �στι τ8 �Lς λ γει τ �ναντ!α πρα6&7ναι πραγματευ�μεν�ν (‘A thirdfigure consists of making sure that the opposite of what one says iseffected’).36

Is the point of this speech only to denounce the deceptions and thedishonesty of the imperialists of the fifth century BC, as Thucydideshad already done? Or are we not dealing with an argument withbroader implications, one that suggests that the value of the RomanEmpire could be a matter of dispute? Regardless of what one says, thepassage suggests, the Empire’s aim is not the wellbeing of its subjects.No matter what one says, empires can fall apart. No matter what theysay, the panegyrists can be mistaken. Aristides, the man who, in hisdreams, stood up to Marcus Aurelius, might have revealed with a sort ofbitter irony and in a text where such sentiments would be least expectedthat he had no illusions about the generosity or the immortality ofRoman supremacy, no more than about the speeches in honor of theRoman Empire. For those who knew how to read it, he delivered aphilosophy 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 theadvantage of reminding us that the problem of the unsaid in rhetoricis part of the larger problem of the unsaid in literature. Maternus, thefamous advocate and poet, has presented a tragedy titled Cato, whichhas displeased the emperor and the court because of the contemporaryallusions that they believe they have recognized in it. A friend asksMaternus if he intends to suppress what could have given rise to such anegative interpretation:

An ideo librum istum adprehendisti ut diligentius retractares et, sublatis si quae pravaeinterpretationi materiam dederunt, emitteres Catonem non quidem meliorem, sed tamensecuriorem? (Tac. Dial. 3).

Or is it with the idea of going carefully over it that you have takenyour drama in hand, intending to cut out any passages that may havegiven a handle for misrepresentation, and then to publish a new editionof ‘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. Thestudy 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 bymaking a simple and univocal interpretation impossible. Certain peo-ple understand the overtones, others do not, and even those who dounderstand them may be incapable of proving that they exist.38 Multi-ple layers of comprehension and an absence of certitude are inherentfeatures of ‘figured speech’. That is why we, the modern scholars, mustlearn to read between the lines.

strongest, and that the differences between the various empires are differences ofdegree, not of nature. See Or. 1.306: :πασα γρ δ�π�υ&εν �ρ6" τ.ν κρειττ�νων �στ0 κα0παρ’ α%τ8ν τ8ν τ7ς Oσ�τητ�ς ν�μ�ν (‘For every empire obviously belongs to the strongerand is contrary to the very law of equality’); Or. 28.125: … τ8ν τ7ς ��σεως ν�μ�ν, ]ςκελε�ει τ"ν τ.ν κρειττ�νων Xπερ1�λ"ν �ν 6εσ&αι κα0 �7ν πρ8ς τ8 Tγ��μεν�ν (‘…the lawof nature, which commands us to endure the excesses of the stronger and to live inaccordance 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 rhetoricalnotion of ‘figured speech’ offers us an objective standard with which toread texts that may admit of multiple layers of meaning. Aristides has anumber of resources—such as dream narratives, autobiographical con-fessions with the character of aretalogy, eloquent silences, and hiddenkeys—that permitted him to slip discrete messages into his works. Hecould therefore distance himself from the rules of encomium.

One may wonder how Aristides’ reservations interacted with theapproval and the loyalty that he felt towards the Roman Empire inother respects. Certainly there was a kind of contradiction. The reser-vations did not form any conscious system or program. The momentsof dissonance were of limited scope; they did not command the wholeof 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 wellas with his conviction that he had a message to deliver. Fundamentally,Aristides’ reservations towards Rome were due to two reasons: he wasGreek and he was a disciple of Asclepius. These two identities, whichare not on the same level, made him pull back.

As a Greek, Aristides seems to have felt a sort of tension as a resultof the discrepancy between his situation and the opinion that he had ofhimself. Even though he cooperated with Rome, he remained Greek.He belonged to a ruled people, but one that regarded itself as superioron account of its language, culture, religion, and history. From thisidentification come the jolts of pride, the cunning phrases, and theembittered remarks that we see here and there and that cannot beignored (as one might be tempted to do if one accepts Aristides’ protestsof loyalty at face value); on the contrary, it is important to probe theseremarks in his works. The occasional betrayal of Aristides’ uneaseabout subjects that touched on the contemporary political situationdeserves our consideration.

But Aristides was not a Greek like the others. He was the protégéand the servant of Asclepius, and his relationship with his god was closeand constant throughout his entire life. Behind the official image of aGreek-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 byhis individual course of action.

If one has a strong personal identity, one risks not knowing one’splace in the laws of society. This is what happened to Aristides. Weobserve, in a very interesting way, that for Aristides, devotion to Ascle-pius ended up in conflict with his civic duties to Smyrna and theprovince of Asia Minor, as well as to the Empire and his relationshipwith the emperor. The testimony of Aristides is particularly enlighten-ing as concerns the strength and the specific details of the religion ofAsclepius in the second century AD in the Roman Empire.

Finally, there is another question, which is impossible to answerfully in the space allotted, but which is nevertheless worth asking. Thequestion is just how original Aristides was compared to other men of hisera. When we read the Sacred Tales, we get the impression that we aredealing with a very unusual personality. And yet, if we go back to thedifferent points addressed in this paper, it is possible to draw parallelsbetween Aristides and his contemporaries every time.

As we said at the beginning, among those Greek orators who werelikely to voice criticism about Rome, one finds, for example, Dio ofPrusa and Lucian. Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists contains several anec-dotes about sophists standing up to the emperors.40 Figured speech waswidely 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, Hermocratesof 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 personasof the holy man and the thaumaturgist, who are gifted with supernat-ural powers thanks to their proximity to the divine and who playeda charismatic role in society. Some of them could have clashed withRome, as Apollonius of Tyana and Peregrinus of Parion did. Peregrinusleads 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, inGalen, 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. Onecould compare the periods during which Aristides lived as a recluse—chaste, emaciated, unbathed, and willing to renounce everything forhis god—with a certain type of asceticism and the life of a hermit.Through his suffering, his willingness to bear witness, and his vaguedesire to rebel against the emperor, Aristides is at times reminiscent ofthe martyrs. Like some Christians of his time, Aristides was ready bothto accept and to rebel against the Empire. This does not mean thatthere was a Christian influence on Aristides, but that there are points ofencounter and similarities between Christians and the orator that canbe explained by a common spirituality (on a general level) and by thespirit of the times. Therefore, the expressions of malaise that can beobserved in Aristides are interesting not only because they reveal hisown inner tensions, but also because they build bridges between himand contemporary trends.42

42 I warmly thank Professor Brooke Holmes for her editing of this text.

chapter ten

THE ENCOMIUM ON ROMEAS A RESPONSE TO POLYBIUS’ DOUBTS

ABOUT THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Francesca Fontanella

In the so-called second introduction of his Histories, Polybius explainsthe reasons that led him to end his work not in 167BC (the date whenRome completed its conquest of ‘the whole inhabited world’, 1.1.5),as he originally intended, but in 146 (the year of the destruction ofCarthage and Corinth).1 He maintains (3.4) that it is impossible toform a definitive judgement on the victors or the defeated if one onlyconsiders ‘simply the results of the military conflict’,

because it has often happened that what seemed to be the greatestsuccesses have as a result of misuse brought the greatest disasters in theirtrain…. Therefore I must add… an account of the subsequent policy ofthe victors and how they ruled the world, and consider the reactions ofthe defeated and their behaviour towards their rulers… For it is clearthat this will show our contemporaries whether the domination of Romeis to be avoided or rather to be desired, and will show posterity whetherRoman power is to be judged worthy of praise and imitation or of blame… Neither historical actors nor those who write about them should thinkthat the aim of every undertaking is to win and to subjugate everyoneelse… in fact all men act with the aim of obtaining the pleasure, honouror profit that will result from their action.

Among the ‘posterity’ who took on the task of delivering this judgementon the Roman Empire we can obviously count the Mysian rhetorAelius 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 byW.V. Harris and I would like to thank him also for giving me the opportunity to publishthis paper.

2 Cf. my comm., p. 79.

204 francesca fontanella

bius’ Histories is not merely an interesting a posteriori indication of howthe 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 accountof 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 inpart to the relations between rulers and ruled and by the benefit itmay provide to both; he says so explicitly (To Rome sect. 15). After anopening passage describing the size, magnificence and prosperity of thecapital (sects. 4–13), he shifts attention from the city to its empire (�ρ6�)with a transition that emphasizes the superiority of the Roman Empireover the empires of the past: ‘it is not easy to decide whether Rome’ssuperiority to other cities of its time, or the Roman Empire’s superior-ity to past empires, is the greater’ (sect. 13). The comparison with pastempires starts with the Persians (sects. 15–23), continues with Alexander(sects. 24–26) and the Macedonians (sect. 27), and ends with the varioushegemonies 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 theother 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] sizeand what happened during its existence. That means that we mustexamine both how they enjoyed their conquests and how they treatedtheir subjects.

On the basis of these criteria, the characteristics of the Persian Empireare examined and then condemned without the possibility of appeal:

These then were the ways they enjoyed their famous power. And theysuffered 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, anddefections and civil wars and constant strife and ceaseless rivalries. Thesewere their rewards, as if they ruled in consequence of a curse rather thanin answer to their prayers, while the subjects underwent all that whichthe subjects of such men must of necessity undergo… A boy’s good lookscaused 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 whowere condemned to destruction (sects. 20–21).

The mention of a ‘law of nature’, understood almost as a necessaryunfolding of effects following from causes, may certainly make one sus-pect Stoic influence on this passage of Aristides,3 given in particular theStoic identification of the λ�γ�ς not only with ��σις but also with theεJμαρμ νη.4 We recall, however, that Polybius too, when he spoke aboutthe birth of the various forms of government and of their degenera-tion (at the beginning of Book VI), several times used expressions suchas �υσικ.ς (6.4.7), κατ ��σιν (6.4.9 and 11 and 13; 6.5.1; 6.6.2; 6.9.13)and ��σεως �Oκ�ν�μ!α 6.9.10) to indicate a natural and therefore nec-essary unrolling of political-constitutional changes in the various states(cf. 6.10.2: �ναγκα!ως κα0 �υσικ.ς). In fact he combined with his theoryof the anacyclosis of constitutions a ‘biological theory’5 already detectablein Anaximander6 and widely favoured by Greek thinkers. (It was widelydiffused in Greek thought: in its more general formulation it amountedto no more than the statement of a natural law that determines thebirth, growth and degeneration of everything,7 though ‘by the Hellenis-tic period it was identified with the Stoic εJμαρμ νη’).8 Aristides there-fore seems to have followed Polybius in attributing the manner of astate’s evolution to a law of nature that is reminiscient in both works ofthe Stoic concept of the εJμαρμ νη.

Aristides’ conclusions about the Persians were also inspired byclassical Greek thinking that distinguished between the δεσπ�της andthe 1ασιλε�ς,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 δεσπ�της in the sense of

absolute ruler in Herodotus (e.g. 1.90.2; 115.2), and Plato (Laws 697c) asserts, also withrespect to the Persians, that τ8 �λε�&ερ�ν λ!αν ��ελ�μεν�ι τ�� δ�μ�υ, τ8 δεσπ�τικ8νδ’ �παγαγ�ντες μAλλ�ν τ�� πρ�σ�κ�ντ�ς, τ8 �!λ�ν �π,λεσαν κα0 τ8 κ�ιν8ν �ν τM7 π�λει.Plato also distinguishes two kinds of monarchy, tyranny and kingship, depending onwhether 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 theterms τ�ρανν�ς and δεσπ�της 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 1ασιλε!α … κατ ν�μ�ν, like that of Sparta,

206 francesca fontanella

Polybius10 but also in Roman political thought:11

The reason was that the Persians did not know how to rule and theirsubjects did not cooperate, since it is impossible to be good subjects ifthe rulers are bad rulers. Government and slave-management were notyet differentiated: king and master were equivalent terms. They did notproceed in a reasonable manner towards great objectives. For the term‘master’ applies properly within the circle of a private household, andwhen 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 onGreek political thinking of the classical period, without having to relyon Polybius as an intermediary, that seems not to apply to the sectionsconcerning the comparison between Rome and the hegemonies of theGreek cities. Here the traces of Polybius are easily detectable in certainjudgements about Greek history: Aristides, like Polybius (6.43), connectsthe victory of Thebes at Leuctra in 371BC with the mistakes madeby the Spartans and the hatred that all the Greeks felt for them (To

Rome 50). Aristides’ assertion (in the same passage) that it would havebeen better if the Cadmeia had stayed in Spartan hands and if Spartahad not been defeated by Thebes is more comprehensible if one takesaccount of the fact that public opinion, which Polybius gives voice toin 4.27, had firmly condemned the surprise occupation of the citadelof Thebes carried out in 382 by the Spartan general Phoibidas. Finally,the general judgement of the Greeks given in To Rome, extending to allof them ‘what has been said about the Athenians’ (sect. 51), seems to

and an �λλ� μ�ναρ6!ας εBδ�ς, �Lαι παρ’ �ν!�ις εOσ0 1ασιλε�αι τ.ν 1αρ1Kρων. *6�υσι δ’αiται τ"ν δ�ναμιν πAσαι παραπλησ!αν τυρανν!σιν …; and, according to Plutarch in DeAlexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute (Mor. 329b), Aristotle advised Alexander to behave τ��ςμ4ν bΕλλησιν Tγεμ�νικ.ς, τ��ς δ4 1αρ1Kρ�ις δεσπ�τικ.ς (the source of this story musthave 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 onlyone that is recognized by the common will of its subjects and rules more by persuasionthan by terror or violence’.

11 The distinction between 1ασιλε�ς and δεσπ�της or τ�ρανν�ς was made use of bythe 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 δεσπ�της.It is theorized, in a Stoic fashion, by Seneca (Clem. 1.11–13, with a description of thedistinguishing 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 inhis Orations on Kingship (on which see Desideri 1978, 283–318) constructed a theory of themonarchical 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

echo12 the observations formulated by Polybius in Book VI, when heemphasizes the inability of the Athenians to rule in peace-time:

And what has been said about the Athenians is perhaps also true forall the Greeks: they were better than anyone at resisting foreign rulers,at defeating the Persians and the Lydians, and at knowing how to dealproperly with both prosperity and adversity; but they were not trained torule, and when they tried they failed (To Rome 51).

The Athenian people behave like a crew without a captain: as long asfear of the enemy or the threat of a storm prevails on the sailors tocooperate with each other and obey the captain, everything on the shipgoes perfectly. But when their confidence comes back and they beginto disregard the officers and debate among themselves…, then someof 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 peopleand its leaders, it has recklessly got into trouble in times of peace andtranquility (Polyb. 6.44.3–5).

The sections of To Rome dealing with the comparison with the Greekworld show, however, how Aristides, while recalling Polybius, sanctionsthe superiority of Rome over the Greeks and draws on motifs thatbelonged to Roman imperial ideology.

I well know that Greek achievements will appear even more insignificantthan the Persian ones I have just examined, both with respect to theextent of their power and with regard to their political importance.But to surpass the barbarians in wealth and power, and the Greeks inpolitical wisdom and moderation (σ��!>α κα0 σω�ρ�σ�νMη), seems to me toconstitute an irrefutable argument in favour of your valour as well as themost glorious subject for my oration (sect. 41).

What this σ��!α and σω�ρ�σ�νη consist of is made clear in section 51,where the Greeks are recognized as being superior to all other peoplesin wisdom, and the Romans in ‘knowing how to rule’:

I wanted to show precisely that before you the art of ruling did noteven exist. If it had existed, it would have been among the Greeks, whocertainly distinguished themselves above all other peoples in every formof wisdom. In fact this art is a discovery of your own, which has beenextended 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 theAthenians. But see Fontanella 2007, 114–117.

208 francesca fontanella

In this case too Aristides’ judgement recalls Polybius Book VI insome ways: the latter of course linked the success of Roman expansionto the superiority of Rome’s form of government over the constitutionsof the Greek cities. But since Polybius’ comparison does not concernmethods of ruling subject peoples, we can fairly confidently say thatAristides is now making use of the Roman point of view,13 which hadpreviously been set out by Cicero (Tusc.Disp. 1.1–5)14 and then renderedcanonical by Vergil (Aen. 6. 847–853):

excudent alii spirantia mollius aeracredo equidem, uiuos ducent de marmore uultus,orabunt causas melius, caelique meatusdescribent radio et surgentia sidera dicent:tu regere imperio populos, Romane, mementohae tibi erunt artes, pacique imponere morem,parcere subiectis et debellare superbos.

The same judgement recurs in a passage of To Rome in which Aristidesfirmly ties the vastness and power of the Roman Empire to Romansuperiority in the art of governing, in such a way as to make Romanexpansion unproblematic, indeed an essential precondition for the real-ization of ‘good government’:

What had eluded practically everyone before was reserved for you aloneto discover and perfect. And that is not at all surprising, for just as inother 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 bythe other. Because of the empire’s size, experience necessarily accrued,while, because of your knowledge how to rule, the empire flourished andincreased justly and reasonably (sect. 58).

In this last half-sentence one can, I think, hear an echo of the theorieselaborated by Panaetius in the mid-second century B.C. in his workΠερ0 τ�� κα&�κ�ντ�ς and taken up by Cicero in De Officiis.15 Even onewho denies, like Ferrary, the Panaetian origin of the justification ofRoman imperialism in Book III of Cicero’s De Republica,16 has to admitthat Panaetius apparently taught the Romans in Περ0 τ�� κα&�κ�ντ�ς

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 andthe 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 andglory are only genuine if they are founded on justice and subordinatedto reason.17 Aristides clearly thought that Panaetius’ lesson had beenthoroughly absorbed by the Romans (De off. 1.13: ‘nemini parere animusbene informatus a natura velit nisi … utilitatis causa iuste et legitimeimperanti’), and that their empire had grown ‘justly and reasonably’.

Rome’s ‘imperial vocation’, which distinguishes it from all otherpeoples, is explained in sections 68 and 91 of To Rome by means ofthe well-known theory of the ‘natural’ rule of the ‘better’:

It is not safe to rule without power. The best alternative [to ruling] is tobe governed by one’s betters, but you have by now shown that this is infact the best situation (sect. 68).

For you alone are rulers according to nature, so to speak… Since youwere free right from the start and had immediately become rulers, youequipped yourselves with all that was helpful for this position, and youinvented 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 menwho are destined to obey, and that this unequal relationship is in theinterest of both parties, is certainly traceable to the Politics of Aristotle,18

however one wants to understand the Aristotelian concept of a lawof 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 Romanexpansionism in the name of iustitia. Laelius, in his reply to FuriusPhilus (who is made the spokesman of Carneades’ complaint), defendsthe 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 (Xμε�ς �ρ6�ντες … κατ ��σιν. �J μ4ν γρ �λλ�ι �J πρ8 Xμ.ν δυναστε�σαντεςδεσπ�ται κα0 δ��λ�ι �λλ�λων �ν τF. μ ρει γιγν�μεν�ι … �� �ρ67ς 'ντες �λε�&ερ�ι κα0 �L�ν�π0 τ8 �ρ6ειν ε%&?ς γεν�μεν�ι), see, for example, Arist. Pol. 1252a: … �ρ6�ν δ4 ��σει κα0�ρ6�μεν�ν δι τ"ν σωτηρ!αν. τ8 μ4ν γρ δυνKμεν�ν τM7 διαν�!>α πρ��ρAν �ρ6�ν ��σει κα0δεσπ���ν ��σει, τ8 δ4 δυνKμεν�ν [τα�τα] τF. σ,ματι π�νε�ν �ρ6�μεν�ν κα0 ��σει δ��λ�ν·δι8 δεσπ�τMη κα0 δ��λFω τα%τ8 συμ� ρει; 1254a: κα0 ε%&?ς �κ γενετ7ς *νια δι στηκε τ μ4ν�π0 τ8 �ρ6εσ&αι τ δ’ �π0 τ8 �ρ6ειν; 1255a: @τι μ4ν τ�!νυν εOσ0 ��σει τιν4ς �J μ4ν �λε�&ερ�ι�J δ4 δ��λ�ι.

210 francesca fontanella

nature dictates that power should be exercised by the best people, inthis case the Romans, justly and in defence of the interests of theweaker: ‘An non cernimus optimo cuique dominatum ab ipsa naturacum summa utilitate infirmorum datum?’ (Cic. De rep. 3.37). Later on,Dionysius of Halicarnassus was to exhort his readers not to grieve overthe fact that they had to submit to the power of Rome, on the groundsthat this had come into being in a just and proper way and was likea natural law that time cannot destroy. The law is that those who aresuperior will always rule over those who are inferior: μ�τε �6&εσ&αι τM7Xπ�τK�ει κατ τ8 εOκ8ς γεν�μ νMη (��σεως γρ δ" ν�μ�ς :πασι κ�ιν�ς,]ν �%δε0ς καταλ�σει 6ρ�ν�ς, �ρ6ειν �ε0 τ.ν Tττ�νων τ�?ς κρε!ττ�νας)(Dion. Hal. Ant.Rom. 1.5.2). Modern scholars, while almost unanimouslyrecognizing the Aristotelian origin of this theory, divide into thosewho affirm and those who deny the mediation of Panaetius and/orPosidonius in adapting it to the Roman Empire.20 Since Augustan timesthis formulation had become ‘canonical’,21 so it is difficult to identifythe source from which it reached To Rome. But when Aristides in section91 writes κατ ��σιν, it is possible to recognize a more specific referenceto 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 completeancient expression in Stoicism: we find this theory mentioned in twofragments of Posidonius22 from which I think that it is reasonable todeduce that he used exactly this kind of argument to justify Romanimperialism.23 The possible echo of Panaetius traceable in sect. 58 andthose of Posidonius in sects. 68 and 91 could therefore allow us toidentify a Middle Stoic influence on Aristides which probably cameto him through Dionysius.24 We should remember in any case that thearguments of Aristides in sects. 58 and 91 and of Dion. Hal. 1.5.2 hadclear-cut precedents in Cicero, who certainly knew and made use of theworks 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: Strasburger1965, 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 omnibusgentibus imperare voluerunt … Aliae nationes servitutem pati possunt, populi Romaniest propria libertas’.

polybius’ doubts about the roman empire 211

The passage in which Aristides interprets Roman constitutionalarrangements 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 andRoman worlds.

However your political system is not like any other but is a mixture ofall of them (κρAσις Yπασ.ν τ.ν π�λιτει.ν), without the disadvantages ofany of them; hence it is precisely this system of government that hasturned out to be successful. If you consider the power of the peopleand how easily they obtain everything they desire and ask for, you willthink that it is a democracy, apart from the single fact that it avoids themistakes that the people make. If you look at the Senate deliberating andexercising power, you will conclude that it is a perfect aristocracy. Butwhen you look at the overseer and chairman of all this, thanks to whomthe people are able to obtain what they desire and the few are able togovern and wield power, you will see the man who possesses the mostperfect monarchy, free from the evils of tyranny and above the prestigeof 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 Platoand Aristotle.27 It was taken up by Peripatetic and Stoic thought inthe third century out of ‘a desire to define the relationship betweenthe 1ασιλε�ς, the ruling class of the cities and the mass of the peoplewithin the new Hellenistic π�λις’.28 The first person to have applied thisschema to Rome (and therefore not just to any π�λις but to an imperialpower) had been Polybius, who had asked himself the question ‘howand with what form of government (π.ς κα0 τ!νι γ νει π�λιτε!ας) theRomans had in only fifty-three years conquered and subjugated almostthe 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 thescheme of the mixed constitution, though in a diachronic fashion, to the transitionat Athens from monarchy to aristocracy and finally to democracy, remarking at thesame time how in each of these phases the three elements were to a certain extentcombined. In fact the description of a city’s political system and in particular praisefor 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), thoughthat does not mean that in Aristides’ case the theme lacked ideological content (eitherin To Rome or in the Panathenaikos).

27 Plato (Laws 712d) interprets the Spartan political system in this fashion, whileAristotle (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 popularassemblies: a system of reciprocal checks between these three elementswas able to maintain them in equilibrium in such a way as to make thisform of government stable and not liable to decay like ‘pure’ systems ofgovernment (cf. Polyb. 6.11–18). Undoubtedly Aristides’ identification ofthe aristocratic element with the Senate looks like a rhetorical anachro-nism that owes much to the classical model of the mixed constitutionand 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 onthe interaction of three principles (potestas, auctoritas, libertas) present ina single united ruling class, and not, as in Polybius, on the equilibriumof three juxtaposed powers (consuls, Senate and people).31 Aristides, inspeaking of a κρAσις Yπασ.ν τ.ν π�λιτει.ν, seems almost closer to aCiceronian view (though his reference to Polybius is beyond doubt), notleast because To Rome makes it obvious that the Polybian principle ofreciprocal control and equilibrium ‘has been replaced by a hierarchicalsystem’,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 theydesire and the few are able to govern and wield power’.

The passages of To Rome examined so far show that Aristides, thoughhe never cites Polybius explicitly, knew and used the Greek historian’swork; but also that he had made his own the essential arguments thathad been worked up in both the Latin and Greek worlds in defenceof 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’: theuse of the term Pλ!γ�ι, though it may rather oddly evoke one of the ‘degenerate’ regimeforms, oligarchy, nonetheless makes it possible to interpret the aristocratic element inthe Aristidean mixed constitution in a wider sense, by identifying it with the governingclass of the whole empire, already defined in sect. 59 of To Rome as the 6αρι στερ�ν τεκα0 γενναι�τερ�ν κα0 δυνατ,τερ�ν element.

30 ‘La citazione ‘sintattica’ del testo […] sta forse ad indicare […] una continuitàdi rapporti tra Roma e gli esponenti delle classi dirigenti del mondo greco; un filo chelega Polibio, storico greco vissuto all’epoca degli Scipioni, ad Elio Aristide, originariodella 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’ answerto Polybius seems even more explicit in the sections of To Rome thatimmediately follow the comparison with the hegemonies of the Greekcity-states (sects. 58–70). Here, first of all, he identifies in the diffusion ofRoman citizenship the characteristic ‘that more than any other deservesto 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 yourselfairs about this and you have made it wonderful not by excluding peoplefrom it, but rather you have sought out a population worthy of it. Youhave 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 allthe others together. For you no longer divide the nations into Greeksand barbarians, and indeed you have demonstrated the absurdity of thatdistinction—for your city by itself is more populous than the whole tribeof the Greeks. You have instead divided humankind into Romans andnon-Romans, so far have you extended the name of the capital city (sect.63).

Hence

No envy (�&�ν�ς) enters into your empire: you in fact were the firstpeople to rise above jealousy, having made all things generally availableand having conceded to all who are capable of it the chance of takingtheir turn in command as well as being commanded. Not even those whoare excluded from positions of power nurture resentment (μ�σ�ς). Giventhat there is a single system of government shared by all, as if this werea single city-state, it is natural that those who hold office treat peoplenot as foreigners but as fellow-citizens, and under your government eventhe mass of the population feels safe from those who hold power amongthem… For your rage and vengeance (Pργ� τε κα0 τιμωρ!α) immediatelycatch up with them if they dare to upset the established order. Thus it isnatural that the present state of affairs pleases and suits (κα0 �ρ σκει κα0συμ� ρει) both the poor and the rich and no other way of life any longerexists. There has emerged a single harmonious system of government(μ!α Yρμ�ν!α π�λιτε!ας) 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-statesaroused against themselves.33 The terms employed by Aristides todescribe 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 peoplesis 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 rulingpower ceases to pay attention to the interests of its subjects and thinksonly of its own profits, which leads to the degeneration of monarchyinto tyranny, which in turn leads to attempts to overthrow it: ‘thus theyprovoked envy (�&�ν�ς) and hostility, then hatred (μ�σ�ς) and violentanger (Pργ�), until monarchy gave way to tyranny’.

There is no such disaffection towards the Romans, according toAristides. While rage, Pργ�, refers in Polybius to the rage of the subjectstowards tendentially tyrannical power, and in Aristides too targets thosewho abuse their power, it is not in the latter writer expressed by thesubjects but by the central Roman power itself, which directs it towardsthose who ‘dare to overturn the established order’.34

So great is the convenience of the Roman Empire for the subjectpeoples that

they all stay close to you, and no more think of parting from you thanship-passengers think of parting from their helmsman. Just as bats incaves cling to each other and to the rock, so all of them are attachedto you and fearfully take care that no one falls down from the clingingmass: they are more likely to fear being abandoned by you than to thinkof abandoning you themselves (sect. 68).

Finally, thanks to the Romans, peace reigns throughout the oikoumene:

Peoples no longer struggle for empire and supremacy (�ρ67ς τε κα0πρωτε!ων), because of which all previous wars have been engaged. Somepeople, like quietly running water, live voluntarily in peace, pleased tohave put an end to troubles and misadventures, and aware of the factthat they had fought to no purpose against shadows. Others do not evenknow 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 speechon 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 (κα0 γ γ�νε μ!α Yρμ�ν!α π�λιτε!ας :παντας συγκε-κλεικυ�α) 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 Yρμ�ν!α: τ�ια�της δ’ �Nσης τ7ς \κKστ�υ τ.νμερ.ν δυνKμεως εOς τ8 κα0 1λKπτειν κα0 συνεργε�ν �λλ�λ�ις, πρ8ς πKσας συμ1α!νει τςπεριστKσεις δε�ντως *6ειν τ"ν Yρμ�γ"ν α%τ.ν, Sστε μ" �L�ν τ’ εBναι τα�της εXρε�ν �με!νωπ�λιτε!ας σ�στασιν: cf. Volpe 2001, 308. A final ‘Polybian citation’ is perhaps detectablein sect. 103 of To Rome: ‘once you arrived… laws appeared, and people began to puttrust in the altars of the gods’ (&ε.ν 1ωμ�0 π!στιν *λα1�ν)’. Here Aristides may havehad in mind Polyb. 6.56, where δεισιδαιμ�ν!α towards the gods and the π!στις affordedto oaths are recognized as strong points in Roman society: so Oliver 1953, 948, andR. 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 werealready on their own funerary pyre as a result of their mutual rivalriesand struggles came back to life in a moment as soon as they all acceptedyour hegemony. They cannot say how they reached this state, and theycan do nothing but marvel at it. They feel like a man who was dreaminga moment ago and suddenly wakes up to find himself immersed in a newreality (sect. 69).

Just this eulogy of peace, contrasted with the lives lived by the variouspeoples before the advent of Rome, allows us to understand betteranother aspect of Aristides’ response to Polybius’ problem about theRoman 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 placeto the ones whose histories he has sketched in the opening sections ofhis encomium, that is the Persians, Macedonians and Greeks.35 But theRomans 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, hadfought wars de imperio.36 How the Romans of that time saw their wars isa matter of some controversy. Cicero later on took a moralistic stand,asserting (probably in the footsteps of Panaetius)37 that ‘wars are only tobe 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 aboutwhat constituted iustae causae for war.38 In To Rome, however, all thisproblematic is absent: what matters is the present, a world hegemonyin which, theoretically at least, peace reigns (sects. 69–71). How thissituation had been arrived at, one cannot (as Aristides remarks) say,or one would prefer not to, and hence the wars de imperio only seemto concern the past of other peoples and not that of the Romans. Toeveryone, and above all to the Greeks, the Romans brought peace.39

35 Demosthenes too (On the Crown 18.66) describes Athens as �ε0 περ0 πρωτε!ωνκα0 τιμ7ς κα0 δ��ης �γωνι��μ νην, and sees Philip as initiating war Xπ4ρ �ρ67ς κα0δυναστε!ας.

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 tobe found in the letter of Cicero to his brother in which he observes, with regard to theprovince Asia, that ‘nullam ab se neque belli externi neque domesticarum discordiarumcalamitatem afuturam fuisse, si hoc imperio non teneretur’ (Ad Q. fr. 1.1.34). Tacituslikewise 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 unsuccessfulhistory of the Greek hegemonies, thus demonstrates how Rome’s riseto power was in a sense a fulfillment of the objectives that the Greeksthemselves had pursued but had not succeeded in achieving. ‘It fell tothe political dominion of the Romans to bring about that consortiumof cities united by a shared consensus to master city—the only possibleway of unifying the Greek world’.40 Aristides’ attention is centred on apresent in which Greece enjoys the fruits of Roman rule and on a pastthat could be said to have fully justified that rule. There is completesilence on the other hand about what stood chronologically betweenthe two periods in question—Rome’s conquest of the Greek world,during which Rome combined acts such as the proclamation of thefreedom of Greece by Flamininus in 196 with acts of brutal imperialismsuch as the destruction of Corinth in 146.

The silence in which Aristides covered the history of the Hellenisticperiod is of course to be connected with the archaizing and classicizingelements in the style, citations and often in the subject matter of theauthors of the Second Sophistic.41 But another consideration will haveplayed an even bigger role—that it was better not to bring up now aperiod that was one of the most problematic, from an ‘ethical’ pointof view, in the history of Rome. Polybius reserved judgement on thatperiod, at least in public, but extended his history to the last of theMacedonian Wars and to the Achaean War, that is to say to thetime when ‘the common misfortune of all Greece had its beginningand its end’ (3.5.6). Aristides prefers not to speak about these events.The reader may wonder whether this silence about Rome’s methodsof conquests indicates not so much approval of Roman hegemonyhowever it was achieved but rather, as Pernot argues elsewhere in thisvolume, tacit resignation in the face of a power that it seemed no longerpossible to question.

‘terram vestram ceterorumque Gallorum ingressi sunt duces imperatoresque Romaninulla cupidine, sed maioribus vestris invocantibus quos discordiae usque ad exitiumfatigabant’ (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 allusionas 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 thedistressing 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 toassert 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 beseen 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 theattention of contemporary scholars.1 Beyond its literary interest, therich and brilliant virtuoso prose of the Greek sophists, together withthe evidence of coins, inscriptions, and archaeology, provides histori-ans with invaluable material for the study of civic life. The connectionsbetween higher education and social power, rhetoric and politics, cen-tral and local power, rulers and subjects, are becoming more and moreevident. On the surface, the subjects approached by the orators wereescapist (although perhaps no more escapist than a conference of clas-sical scholars today), but on many occasions the sophists’ speeches wereclosely 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 appearworthy of careful study. Having examined the Smyrnean Orations else-where, I will focus in this paper on two speeches about the ancient cityof Rhodes that are included in the Aristidean corpus.2 They are goodcase 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 thesedisasters revealed. The size and beauty of those poleis were sometimesdarkened and challenged by serious crises. But it was precisely in suchemergencies that the educated discourse of the orators played a pivotalrole. Leaving aside the momentous problem of the sophists’ politicalefficacy, we may claim that their speeches met above all the emotionalneeds of the cities: lamenting the disaster and preaching moral values,the orators tried to restore mutual confidence and concord, therebypreserving the deepest values of ancient civic life.3

The Rhodiakos

In modern critical editions of Aristides’ works, the sequence of the twoRhodian speeches reverses their chronology: Oration 24, To the Rhodi-

ans on Concord, was apparently delivered more or less five years afterOration 25, the Rhodiakos. In order to examine those texts from a histor-ical point-of-view, it is expedient to observe their proper chronologicalorder by considering the Rhodiakos first.4

Oration 25 was delivered in Rhodes some time after a tremendousearthquake, 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 lossof Rhodes’ former greatness and beauty (Or. 25.1–10), there is a heart-felt exhortation to endure the disaster (11–16). The earthquake and itseffects are vividly described in the central section of the speech (17–33),which goes on to reassess the importance of Rhodes and the duty ofendurance (34–49). The oration then turns to a consolation, with anempathetic narration of the most ancient traditions of Rhodes and aforecast 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, 143 f.

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 219

Keil’s judgment, accepted until recently,6 has heavily conditioned thecritical evaluation of the text: the speech has generally been considereda spurious and tasteless piece, deprived of literary, not to say histori-cal, value.7 It may be useful to remember that, before Keil, importantscholars like Dindorf and Schmid judged the Rhodiakos perfectly appro-priate to the style of Aristides.8 Recent studies have reconsidered thequestion and shown that Keil’s condemnation was too hasty and prob-ably wrong. The bulk of the evidence adduced against an attribution ofthe text to Aristides was discussed and rejected by Jones.9 Upon care-ful scrutiny, no element of content and language was seen to conflictexplicitly 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 thespecial occasion, the kairos, that dictated the choice of material to theorator, even in historical narratives: ad tempus orator retractat sententiam, aswas 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 ofthe structure); Cortés Copete 1997, 175–178. For a different hypothesis, namely thatthe extant Rhodiakos is spurious and that the original Rhodian speech was delivered inEgypt and subsequently lost, see Behr 1968, 16 and n. 48.

8 Aristides’ style was perfectly consistent with the Atticist mode. According to thecareful analysis in Schmid 1889, vol. II, the Rhodiakos shows no remarkable differencefrom 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, indexs.v.; Cortés 1995; Cortés Copete 1995, 29ff.

10 Much was made of the allocution to the daimones (Or. 25.33). This seems allowedby Men. Rhet 2.435.9–11: see Puiggali 1985, quoting in a note not only Or. 25.33, butalso Or. 37.25, Or. 42, and Or. 46.32.

11 According to the author of the Rhodiakos, the members of the democratic groupthat 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 theywere ‘little more than fifty’ (sixty, according to Paus. 1.29.3). The contradiction is ofslight import and should not be used as a proof against the Aristidean authorship of theRhodiakos. A rhetor was not bound to consistency in the evocation of ancient deeds. Onthe treatment of the events of 404/3BC by the authors of the Second Sophistic: Oudot2003.

12 In the Smyrnean Orations Aristides gives three different accounts of the origins ofthat city, choosing between several traditions according to the circumstances and thedifferent aims of his speeches: Franco 2005, 425ff.

220 carlo franco

for judging a speech’s authenticity, the study of these texts would face amountain of contradictions.13

The strongest argument against the authenticity of Oration 25 is basedon a debatable argumentum e silentio: in the speech To the Rhodians, On

Concord, Aristides does not refer to any prior declamation given onthe island, despite the fact that he refers to his actions on behalf ofthe 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 weunderstand ‘for the first time’, as the more common usage suggests,or ‘for the present’? Whichever interpretation is chosen, the expressionseems compatible with the attribution of the Rhodiakos to Aristides. Butif this is the case, why did he fail to quote his previous speech aboutthe earthquake? Here, too, various answers, which have underlined thedifference between oral performance and written texts and betweenpublic and private declamations, have been given. There may be amore compelling explanation. When he was in Egypt, Aristides metthe Rhodian ambassadors who were seeking help after the disaster (Or.24.3). Five years later, in the same way, Rhodian delegates again cameto meet him, presumably in Pergamum this time, and requested helpfor their city in the name of prior relations: the meeting in Egypt, butnot the form of the aid given, is duly recalled. The oration On Concord isremarkably reticent about many themes, so the silence about Aristides’previous involvement with Rhodes may be not so relevant and shouldbe considered in a wider context. The speech is fully oriented towardsthe present situation of Rhodes; the earthquake is briefly alluded toonly at the beginning and at the end of the text, as though it had beenforgotten and completely obliterated by the rapid renaissance of thecity. I will discuss at greater length later what the real motive for thesechoices may have been. The same attitude appears in the Aristides’Panegyricus to Cyzicus, where the very reason for the reconstruction ofthe temple, viz. an earthquake, receives no mention at all. This attitudemay explain the omission in the Concord oration: Rhodes faced a newcrisis, that is, stasis, and needed encouragement. So it might haveseemed 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 theSmyrnean 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, whichmight eventually outnumber the alleged discrepancies, the Rhodiakos

shares many themes, like the beauty or sea power of Rhodes, as wellas several stylistic echoes, with other works. All of these similarities leda specialist like Keil to express the bizarre hypothesis that Aristides him-self imitated the Rhodiakos (allegedly the work of a different author) inhis Smyrnean orations. It is high time to abandon such a theory, sinceneither the analysis of content, nor that of style, provides irrefutableevidence against the authenticity of the Rhodiakos.14 Indeed, the debateon its disputed authorship is showing signs of reaching a generallyaccepted conclusion. The diction of the Rhodiakos is compatible withAristidean authorship, and authorship of the Rhodiakos is also consis-tent with Aristides’ biography. In the description of the earthquake, theauthor of the speech compares the rumble of the collapsing buildingswith the noise produced by the Egyptian cataracts (Or. 25.25): this maybe a fresh memory, for, in fact, when he went to Egypt, Aristides sawthe cataracts, a customary detour for tourists on the Nile.15 Thus, theRhodiakos could plausibly have been delivered during the journey backfrom Alexandria to Asia.16 To sum up, I will assume that the speechwas written by Aristides. But in order to avoid bias in the analysis of thetext, I will for the time being maintain a neutral designation and speakof ‘the author of the Rhodiakos’.

The first theme worth consideration in the text is the description ofRhodes, which obviously refers to the days before its destruction. At thebeginning of the speech, the orator recalls the ‘many great harbours’,the ‘many handsome docks’, the triremes and the bronze beaks ‘alongwith 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 ofthe interspersed towers’. Up until the day of the earthquake, he says,the ancient renown of Rhodes had remained largely intact: althoughthe glory of past sea battles was irremediably lost, ‘all the rest of thecity was preserved purely pure’.17 All this material follows the familiar

14 Linguistic and philological analysis does not always definitively confirm or rejectthe 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 andthe total destruction of all the city’s treasures, statues and monuments.Although largely conditioned by rhetoric, the description is not a mereliterary essay. The task of an orator in front of a civic community wasto 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 ispossible to compare aspects of the speech with the actual city, so far asit is known from literary and archaeological evidence.

Let us first consider the naval structures. At the beginning of theImperial 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 marginalizedby the increasing, and eventually prevailing, role of Rome. During thelast century of the Republic, the Rhodians were still fighting against thepirates and collaborating with Caesar.20 But after heavy depredationsat the time of the siege by Cassius in 43BC, the size and strength ofthe Rhodian navy had been reduced to insignificance. Only commer-cial exchange and the local patrolling of the islands still under Rhodianrule continued.21 So the author’s reference to triremes, ‘some ready forsailing, others in dry dock, as it were in storage, but if one wished tolaunch 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 docksand the huge triremes are preserved, but not all of them are actuallyin use. The author of the Rhodiakos is fully aware of this situation, sincehe praises this state of affairs as unique to Rhodes among the Greekcities: ‘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 ofthe 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 inthe case of Dio’s speeches for Tarsus or Nicomedia, or Aristides’ for Smyrna: Classen1980; Bouffartigue 1996.

19 Strabo 14.2.5 reports that the ‘roadsteads had been hidden and forbidden to thepeople 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 inaqua. Rhodes and commercial routes in the Imperial Age: Rougé 1966, 132 f.

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 Archaeologicalexcavations have revealed significant traces of the dockyards beneathlater Roman structures;23 it is tempting to suppose that they wereabandoned after the earthquake. Surely, no one could possibly haveforecast at the time of the speech that the Rhodian navy would recoversomething of its former glory when in the third century AD the seasbecame less safe. A decree possibly dating to the beginning of the thirdcentury AD honours an Ailios Alexander, who patrolled the area ofthe Rhodian Chersonese and ‘provided safety and security for sailors,seizing and handing over for punishment the piratical band active atsea’.24

The memories of this great past provided the Rhodians with consid-erable moral strength. As a witness to the fierce character of the citizensin the face of extremely serious situations, the author of the Rhodiakos

quotes an old local saying:

Καιρ8ς δ4 ν�ν ε$περ π�τ4, { �νδρες =Ρ�δι�ι, σ.σαι μ4ν XμAς α%τ�?ς �κ τ.νπεριεστηκ�των, 1�η&7σαι δ4 τF. γ νει τ7ς ν�σ�υ, στ7ναι δ4 πρ8ς τ"ν τ�6ηνλαμπρ.ς, �ν&υμη& ντας Xμ.ν τ8ν τ�� π�λ!τ�υ κυ1ερν�τ�υ λ�γ�ν, ]ς *�η6ειμα��μ νης α%τF. τ7ς νεcς κα0 καταδ�σεσ&αι πρ�σδ�κ.ν τ��τ� δ" τ8&ρυλ��μεν�ν, �λλ’ { Π�τειδν, $σ&ι @τι Pρ&ν τν να�ν καταδ�σωk (25.13).

Now is the time, O men of Rhodes, to save yourselves from thesecircumstances, to aid the race of the island, and to stand gloriouslyagainst fortune, keeping in mind the words of your fellow citizen, thehelmsman, who, when his ship was tempest tossed and he expected thatshe would sink, made that famous remark: ‘Know well, Poseidon, that Iwill lose my ship on an even keel’.

Recourse to examples of ‘vulgarized philosophy’ was common enoughin sophistic rhetoric, and especially in consolatory texts. The Rhodiakos

also reveals a rich display of traditional wisdom, very apt for a popularassembly. Needless to say, the sailor’s phrase, which is widely attested inthe 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. QF1.2.13]; 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 authormentions the monuments which had borne witness, at least until theday 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 cultureof the Second Sophistic, the memory of the past is limited to the Ageof Alexander, and the approach is largely generic and selective. Rhodeshad fought against the pirates already in the fourth century BC, beforethe Age of Alexander, and had won power and glory, but the author ofthe Rhodiakos does not mention this phase of Rhodian history.26 Actuallythe spoils exposed in Rhodes were not all the result of military opera-tions, nor was the Rhodian attitude towards piracy unambiguous, sinceRhodes had taken part, as has been recently argued, in a system ofraids in the eastern Mediterranean.27

Other events in the local history enjoyed even greater renown. Ofthe sieges, for example, the author says, ‘and of old you showed tovisitors the engines of war made from the shorn hair of your women,and it was a wonderful thing’ (κα0 πKλαι μ4ν τ �κ τ.ν γυναικ.ν τ.ν�π�κειραμ νων μη6αν�ματα �δε!κνυτε τ��ς �πιδημ��σι κα0 &αυμαστ8ν_ν, Or. 25.32). Apparently female hair was commonly used for torsioncatapults in the Hellenistic and Roman epochs: Heron asserts thatsuch hair is long, strong, and elastic—particularly suitable for militaryengines. After the great earthquake of 227BC, King Seleucus II gavethe Rhodians, among many other gifts, a large amount of hair. And afew years later, in 220BC, the favor was returned by the Rhodians, whoallegedly sent several tons of (female?) hair to Sinope as help against theattack by Mithridates.28 In the tradition of war stratagems, the use offemale hair during sieges was seen as a sign of dramatic emergency andof 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 obruitmare 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, 108 f.; 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. (and75 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 imagefor the Rhodians resisting the present catastrophe. The war enginesdated presumably to the siege by Demetrius, more or less four centuriesbefore, but all details are omitted in the speech: the orator uses theanecdote solely as a source of exhortation for the survivors. Somehave suspected a play on words involving the shorn women in thepast and Rhodes’ present condition, which is like that of a mourninglady.30 The opposition is between the past and the present: before theearthquake the Rhodians took pride in showing the war machinesthat had preserved their city; now the city itself appears destroyed.Nevertheless, there was chance in the misfortune, since

�% γρ π�λ μFω λη�&ε�σα Xμ.ν T π�λις �$6εται �%δ’ �νδρ.ν 6ε!ρων �α-νε�σα, �%δ’ *στησεν �π’ α%τ7ς τρ�παι�ν �%δε0ς, �%δ’ �π8 τ.ν Xμετ ρων�να&ημKτων τ παρ’ αXτF. τις Jερ κ�σμ�σει, Sσπερ Xμε�ς τ��ς *�ω&ενλα��ρ�ις τ"ν Xμετ ραν α%τ.ν π�λιν κατεκ�σμ�σατε (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 anyoneadorn their temples with your offerings, as you have adorned your citywith foreign spoils.

Thus, paradoxically, the orator may confidently judge the destructionof the city by earthquakes a reason to praise Rhodes, since the city‘perished with a record of total invincibility’ (62), a claim that is surelyfalse, but aptly conceals the defeat inflicted by Cassius.

After praising the spoils and the memories of the past, the oratorturns to Rhodes’ artistic ornamentation:

τεμ νη δ4 &ε.ν κα0 Jερ κα0 �γKλματα τ�σα�τα μ4ν τ8 πλ7&�ς, τηλικα�ταδ4 τ8 μ γε&�ς, τ�ια�τα δ4 τ8 κKλλ�ς, Sστ’ ��ια εBναι τ.ν �λλων *ργων6αριστ�ρια, κα0 )ς μ" εBναι διακρ�ναι τ! τις α%τ.ν μAλλ�ν &αυμKσειεν (Or.25.5).31

There could be seen the precincts of the gods, temples and statues, ofsuch number, size and beauty, that they were worthy thank offerings fromall the rest of the world, and that it was impossible to decide which ofthem 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 apparentlyinterpolated.

30 Dindorf 1829, I.809 n. 4, ad loc. Towers as the city’s hair: Eur. Hec. 910 f.; 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 celebratedpaintings by Protogenes were said to have been spared by Demetriusand were later recorded by Strabo.32 Pliny the Elder, relying on theauthority of Mucianus, stated that there were thousands of signa inRhodes,33 although the famous oration by Dio Chrysostom informsthe reader that, in his time, the Rhodians engaged in the dubiouspractice of recycling old statues for new honorands.34 The practise,albeit common elsewhere, was criticized by Dio.35 The author of theRhodiakos, to be sure, does not mention this deplorable habit, but statesthat any one of the monuments that could be seen on the island ‘was asufficient source of pride for another city’ (5).36

The speech then turns to the city walls, ‘a wonder […] which couldnot satiate the eye’ (7). This sort of praise also was very commonin ancient descriptions of cities.37 According to Strabo, the Rhodianenceinte was among the most noteworthy structures of the island, andDio Chrystostom assures us that the Rhodians took great care andspent 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 hadseen: since his journeys are dated to the middle of the second centuryAD, this could mean that he saw them after their reconstruction.38 Butan 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: seeGualandi 1976, 18. Late Hellenistic casting-houses for large bronzes are studied inKanzia and Zimmer 1998. Some monuments appear to have been restored afterearthquakes: Papachristodoulou 1989, 186 n. 29b (dated to the first century AD forpalaeographic reasons).

35 Recycling of statues at Athens: Paus. 1.18.3; Mycenae: Paus. 2.17.3, where criticismof 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 otherlarge statues: sed ubicumque singuli fuissent, nobilitaturi locum. In the Rhodiakos, mention ofthe Colossus occurs at Or. 25.53.

37 Franco 2005, 391ff.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 beseen from a distance when sailing to or from Rhodes and served asa sort of lighthouse.39 Enceintes had no real importance in a worldcompletely 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 fourthcentury BC, and later in the great siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.40

Following those events, according to historical tradition and to thearchaeological evidence, they had been restored after the earthquakein 227BC (this phase is probably the one alluded to by Philo) and againafter the Mithridatic wars.41 But such wars and troubles had no placein 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 theenceinte (Or. 25.7), a situation exactly contrary to what ancient militaryengineers recommended for defence in the case of a siege.42

In comparison with other elements of the speech, the description ofthe city itself is rather hasty. The author takes note of the Acropolis,whose terraces have been identified in modern excavations,43 and thegeneral appearance of the city, marked by the regularity of its build-ings: ‘Nothing higher than anything else, but the construction ampleand equal, so that it would seem to belong not to a city, but to asingle house’ (�%δ4ν 5τερ�ν \τ ρ�υ Xπερ 6�ν, �λλ διαρκ7 κα0 $σην τ"νκατασκευ"ν �`σαν, )ς γ ν�ιτ’ #ν �% π�λεως, �λλ μιAς �Oκ!ας, 6). Theshape of the city was especially praised in antiquity, not only becauseof its regular grid but also because of its theatre-like structure, whichRhodes, among other cities, shared with Halikarnassos, although theresemblance between the city’s shape and a theatre belonged more tothe 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 Pédarros2003.

41 Diod. 20.100; Philo Byz. Bel. 84 f., 85; App. Mithr. 94; Kontis 1963; Konstantino-poulos 1967; Winter 1992, Philemonos-Tsopotou 1999. See the historical analysis inPimouget Pédarros 2004.

42 See the prescriptions of Philo Byz. Bel. 80. This was actually attested by thearchaeological 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. 91ff. 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 recordany ‘Roman’ element: this is hardly surprising, when we consider theattitude of intellectuals in the Second Sophistic. Thus, no mention ismade of the many statues decreed (or reused) to honour Roman cit-izens, nor is there any mention of the imperial cult.46 The author issilent, too, about the gladiators, although this may reflect the actual sit-uation: Louis Robert years ago remarked upon the peculiar absence ofgladiatorial 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. Dioquotes a law from Rhodes that ‘forbade the executioner to enter thecity’ (31.122).48 The author of the Rhodiakos may refer to the same lawwhen he writes, ‘it was not even in keeping with your religion to passa death sentence within the walls’. The allusion to the Rhodian law isdebatable, however, since the orator is making a rather different pointabout the perverse impact of the earthquake, which transformed ‘thecity which could not be entered by murderers’ into a ‘common gravefor the inhabitants’ (Or. 25.28).

It is easy to see that any orator appointed to praise Rhodes couldwalk a well-trodden path, a path amply supplied with literary andhistorical models; it would be even better if the author, as is the casehere, was familiar with the place and the local traditions. The outlinesfor a eulogy of Rhodes were already established in Hellenistic times,as Polybius’ digression on the great earthquake of Rhodes in 228/7BCmakes clear.49 Relying on local sources, the historian lists in great detailthe gifts received by the city from several kings, dynasts and cities afterthe disaster. He sings the praises of Rhodian freedom, opportunity,and conduct, following the classical scheme described by the rhetoricaltreatises (thesis, physis, epitêdeumata).50

In Polybius’ epoch, Rhodes was at the peak of its internationalpower: 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 forpaideia: Blinkenberg 1941, 2.449 and 2.465 D (second century AD). Decay of Rhodianrhetoric 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 issimilar to that of Polybius. Here again, contemporary elements andsecond-hand information are mixed together:

=Η δ4 τ.ν =Ρ�δ!ων π�λις κε�ται μ4ν �π0 τ�� \ω&ιν�� �κρωτηρ!�υ, λιμ σι δ4κα0 -δ��ς κα0 τε!6εσι κα0 τM7 �λλMη κατασκευM7 τ�σ��τ�ν δια� ρει τ.ν �λλωνSστ’ �%κ *6�μεν εOπε�ν \τ ραν �λλ’ �%δ4 πKρισ�ν, μ� τ! γε κρε!ττω τα�τηςτ7ς π�λεως (14.2.5).52

The city of the Rhodians lies on the eastern promontory of Rhodes andit is so far superior to all others in harbours and roads and walls andimprovements in general, that I am unable to speak of any other city asequal 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 navalaffairs, and the city’s faithful conduct towards Rome, all of whichresulted in Rhodes being granted the status of autonomy and receivingthe large number of votive offerings that adorned the city. Especiallycelebrated are the provisions granted by the local government to thepoor: the redistribution of wealth is considered an ‘ancestral custom’(patrion ethos). The description of the city, stylized rather than basedon autopsy, is nevertheless not remote from reality: some elements,such as the ‘Hippodamian’ plan or the harbours, have been confirmedby modern archaeological research.53 A brief historical outline alsoprovides some useful hints. The Dorian origins of Rhodes are discussedin reference to Homer: here Strabo’s fondness for the poet joins withlocal tradition.54

The image of Rhodes put forth by later authors followed the samepattern. 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 formationof this literary image of Rhodes, but their works are irremediably lost to us: Wiemer2001.

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 ingolden 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 1996,150 f.

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 contextof an anecdote about Demetrius’ siege of the island (15.31.1). Apolloniusof Tyana’s short visit to the island is also of interest: according toPhilostratus, the holy man debated with Damis in the vicinity of theColossus, engaged a talented flautist in conversation about his art, andrebuked both a rich and ignorant young man and an overweight boyfond of food. The island appears here in all its wellbeing and prosperity,although apparently Apollonius did not pay homage, not even from acritical perspective, to the beauty of Rhodes, as he did, for example, inSmyrna.56 The brilliant ekphrasis of Rhodes from the beginning of theAmores ascribed to Lucian is also worth attention. After his departurefrom Tarsus and his visit to the decayed cities of Lycia, on the wayto Cnidus, the narrator arrives in Rhodes (6–10), where he admiresthe Temple of Dionysus, the porch, and the paintings; he does not seeany sign of decline or crisis, nor does he mention the earthquake.57

The Amores are commonly believed to be a later composition.58 Theauthorship of Lucian has been denied because the text does not alludeto the earthquake of 142AD, among other reasons. But this silence doesnot imply a terminus ante quem. In Xenophon’s Ephesian Histories, whichare dated toward the middle of the second century AD, there is anice description of Rhodes that includes the crowded festivals of theSun, the votive offerings, and the altar of the gods, without making anyreference to the earthquake:59 the peculiar ‘atemporality’ of these texts,which show no interest in historical change, conditions the selection oflocal 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 theatresare empty of men’ (Or. 25.9). The orator turns the description into thelamentation, exploiting the same classical topoi of the laus urbis, such asthe 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 Stratonicusin Plut. Mor. 525B.

57 The omission of the earthquake has been considered, perhaps erroneously, arelevant 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 sunkbeneath the earth and has gone from mankind’ (29). And if Zeus had‘poured wealth’ and ‘rained down gold’ on the island, as Homer andPindar had once sung, now ‘the god of fortune’ has poured on Rhodesvery different gifts (30).

The orator’s efforts are directly primarily to restraining the grief ofthe survivors and delivering a persuasive exhortation to them: theirsufferings do not admit of any consolation, nonetheless, ‘they must beendured’ (34). He must prove that so terrible a catastrophe is bearableand that the Rhodians, because of their glorious past, must be confidentthat the city will flourish again. The skill in arguing in many differentways about a single subject was a sophistic heritage: the author of theRhodiakos 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 ofprosperity. Take Rhodes’ past, for example. When the Rhodians cre-ated the new city of Rhodes by unifying Lindos, Cameiros and Ialysosat the end of the fifth century BC, they did not choose an existingschema, but created a totally new one.60 Thus the reconstruction of thecity after the earthquake ‘is much easier […] than the original foun-dation was’, because what is needed is ‘only to make a Rhodes fromRhodes, a new city from the old one’ (52–53). The argument about themonuments in the city, like the walls, is different. The earthquake hasdestroyed them, but their loss is bearable because, according to the oldsaying, ‘Not houses fairly roofed, nor the well-worked stones of walls,nor avenues and docks are the city, but men who are able to handlewhatever circumstances confront them’ (�%κ �Oκ!αι καλ.ς �στεγασμ ναι�%δ4 λ!&�ι τει6.ν ε` δεδ�μημ ν�ι �%δ4 στενωπ�! τε κα0 νε,ρια T π�λις,�λλ’ �νδρες 6ρ7σ&αι τ��ς �ε0 παρ��σι δυνKμεν�ι, 64). Thus, ‘even if yourwalls fell ten times, the dignity of the city will not fall, so long as oneRhodian is left’.61

All of the local traditions could be used by the orator to promoteendurance and confidence—except, it would appear, the tradition of anegative 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 beenperfectly plain to the audience, but it is less evident for us. One mustturn to Pausanias. Speaking about Sikyon, he attributes the final declineof the city to an earthquake that ‘damaged also the Carian and Lyciantowns, and shook above all the island of Rhodes, so that it was believedthat the ancient prediction of the Sybil to Rhodes was accomplished’(2.7.1). It is difficult to define the period alluded to by Pausanias, sincethe passage seems to be vague in its chronology. Elsewhere, Pausaniasrecords the same earthquake, adding that it occurred under Antoni-nus.63 Thus, even if the identity of the events is not assured, one mayassume 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 itseems, in the so-called Oracula Sibyllina, among several others concern-ing earthquakes. The tone is obscure and allusive, and thus does notallow irrefutable identification, but the passage provides good elementsfor the analysis of the Rhodiakos.

}Ω =Ρ�δε δειλα!η σ�· σ4 γρ πρ,την, σ4 δακρ�σω·/ *σσMη δ4 πρ,τη π�λεων,πρ,τη δ’ �π�λ σσMη,/ �νδρ.ν μ4ν 6�ρη, 1ι�τ�υ δ τε πKμπαν *�δευκ�ς*(Orac. Syb. 7.1–3).

O poor Rhodes! I will mourn you as first. Thou shall be first among thecities, but also first in ruin, deprived of your men, totally *deprived* oflife.

And again:

κα0 σ�, =Ρ�δ�ς, π�υλ?ν μ4ν �δ��λωτ�ς 6ρ�ν�ν *σσMη,/ Tμερ!η &υγKτηρ,π�υλ?ς δ τ�ι 'λ1�ς 'πισ&εν/ *σσεται, �ν π�ντFω δ’ 5�εις κρKτ�ς *��6�ν�λλων (Orac. Syb. 3.444–448).64

And you, Rhodes, for a long time shall be free from slavery, O nobledaughter, and great prosperity shall be upon you, and on the sea youshall 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 areminder of the symbolic and religious dimension of earthquakes inantiquity. 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 problemsof reconstruction. This was the task for the ambassadors, and requiredcareful study: it is hardly surprising that natural catastrophes becamea common subject in imperial and late antique literature. This subjectwas studied in the schools of rhetoric and appeared in the works of menof letters and historians.65 More than a century ago, Rudolf Herzogproposed the label of genos seismikon for this specific genre of speechesabout earthquakes and suggested locating its origin in Rhodes.66 Thiskind of rhetoric was particularly linked to the life of the ancient city,and orators focused their attention especially on the cities. The collapseof buildings, the destruction of urban beauty, and the death of men andwomen struck the general imagination much more than the destiny ofthe rural areas did.67 This explains why in the Rhodiakos, after a sym-pathetic description of the earthquake, small islands around Rhodesreceive only a short and dismissive mention: to the dismay of the culti-vated, a great and beautiful city was in ruins, while unimportant placeslike 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 doesnot reflect any personal experience of the events, and the high dramaticstyle, the impressive list of ruins and casualties, and the heavy rhetoricalexpression are the substitutes for autopsy; this is the normal case inantiquity, with the possible exception of the letter of Pliny the Youngerabout the eruption of the Mount Vesuvius. At ‘that wretched noonhour’ says the orator,

- δ4 qλι�ς τελευτα�α δ" τ�τε �π λαμπε τ"ν \αυτ�� π�λιν, κα0 παρ7ν ��α!-�νης πKντα -μ�� τ δεινK. Xπανε6,ρει μ4ν T &Kλαττα κα0 πAν �ψιλ��τ�τ.ν λιμ νων τ8 �ντ8ς, �νερριπτ��ντ� δ4 �Oκ!αι κα0 μν�ματα �νερρ�γνυντ�,π�ργ�ι δ4 π�ργ�ις �ν πιπτ�ν κα0 νε,σ�ικ�ι τρι�ρεσι κα0 νεFc 1ωμ��ς κα0�να&�ματα �γKλμασι κα0 �νδρες �νδρKσι, κα0 π�ργ�ι λιμ σι, κα0 πKντα�λλ�λ�ις (Or. 25.20).

65 In the Progymnasmata by Aelius Theon, the seismos is listed among the themes forekphraseis (118.18 Patillon-Bolognesi).

66 Herzog 1899, 141ff.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 terrorwas at hand at once. The sea drew back, and all the interior of theharbours was laid bare, and the houses were thrown upwards, and thetombs broken open, and the towers collapsed upon the harbours, andthe storage sheds upon the triremes, and the temples upon the altars,and the offerings upon the statues, and men upon men, and everythingupon one another.

The destiny of the population is a plurima mortis imago:

κα0 �J μ4ν τς \αυτ.ν �ε�γ�ντες �Oκ!ας �ν τα�ς \τ ρων �π,λλυντ�, �J δ’ �ντα�ς \αυτ.ν Xπ’ �κπλ��εως μ ν�ντες, �J δ4 �κ& �ντες �γκαταλαμ1αν�μεν�ι,�J δ4 �π�λει�& ντες Tμι&ν7τες, �%κ *6�ντες ��αναδ�ναι �%δ4 αXτ�?ς <�σα-σ&αι, κακ.ν �πι&�κην τ8ν λιμ8ν πρ�σελKμ1αν�ν, κα0 τ�σ��τ�ν κερδα!ν�ν-τες, @σ�ν γν.ναι τ"ν πατρ!δα �%κ �`σαν, �παπ,λλυντ�. τ.ν δ4 δι κρινε τσ,ματα T τ�6η, κα0 τ μ4ν Tμ!σεα ε$σω &υρ.ν �πε!ληπτ�, τ δ’ Tμ!τ�μα*�ω πρ�Nκειτ�. κα0 τ��τ�ις 5τερα α` πρ�σεν πιπτε σ,ματα, σκε�η, λ!&�ι, @τι \κKστFω � ρων - σεισμ8ς �ν μι�εν (Or. 25.22).

Some in fleeing from their houses perished in those of others, otherstransfixed by fear perished in their own, some overtaken while runningout; others left behind half alive, unable to emerge or save themselves,starved in addition to their other miseries, and profiting only to theextent of knowing that their country did not exist, they perished. Others’bodies were sundered by chance, half left within doors, half lay exposedwithout. And in addition other bodies fell upon them, and householdimplements, and stones, and whatever the earthquake carried off andtossed upon each.

Nor is the description of the aftermath much better:

Tμ ραι δ4 κα0 ν�κτες �πιλαμ1Kν�υσαι τ�?ς μ4ν @σ�ν �μπνε�ν �.ντας �ν -�αιν�ν τραυματ!ας τ.ν λ�ιπ.ν τ��ς πλε!στ�ις, τ�?ς δ4 τελευτ�σαντας σεση-π�τας, �%δ’ -τι��ν *6�ντας �κρι14ς τ.ν μελ.ν, �λλ’ )ς \κKστ�υ τι ��ε�λενD πρ�σ &ηκε τ8 πτ.μα (Or. 25.27).

The ensuing days and nights revealed those who were alive, at least whowere breathing, to be wounded and those who had already died to berotting, and without any limbs intact, but however the ruin had workedits amputations and its graftings on each.

This description is very different from the euphemistic and patheticbut reticent approach that a reader observes in other Aristidean writ-ings, say, in the Smyrnean Monody. Some scholars have considered theentire description tasteless and abhorrent to the writer’s style.69 Their

69 Swain 1996, 294 n. 146, still rejects Aristides’ authorship, underlining the ‘gorydetails’.

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 235

disappointment originates, perhaps, from a misunderstanding about thegenre. The style of the Rhodiakos has been judged in comparison tothe restrained grief of the Smyrnean Orations. In fact, it shares with themonodies some stylistic features such as parataxis, dramatic questions,repetitions, pathos, asyndeta, antitheseis, figures of speech ‘especially rapidand vigorous’ (gorgotera kai akmaiotera),70 but it goes beyond the measureand the restraint typical of the monodies.71 Thus there are abundantdetails 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 goeson to seek support from the emperor; he selects his topics accordingto his different aims, describing in great detail the damage suffered bythe buildings, but speaking more cautiously about the dead citizens.74

In Rhodes, the commemoration of the catastrophe is focused ratheron the survivors. Thus, much as in a funeral speech, the details arepertinent and would have been requested; the style could develop atlength what Apsines called ‘graphic descriptions’ (hypographai).75 Therewas no obligation to temper dramatic elements in the narration or toconceal the worst aspects of the catastrophe; indeed, ‘these descriptionssatisfied the victims’ need to feel that they were not neglected in theirsuffering and their fear’.76

A striking difference between the Rhodiakos and other Aristideanwritings does exist: notwithstanding some echoes in the Monody forSmyrna, carefully noted by Keil,77 the search for parallels goes beyondthe age of Aristides. Apart from some Latin examples,78 one may referin particular to the impressive tsunami that occurred in 365AD, whichwas 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; onAmm. 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 Nicomediain 358AD. Intertextual analysis leads to the attractive hypothesis thatthe Rhodiakos itself was a model for Libanius: in both writers one findsthe polyptoton evoking walls collapsing over other walls and an allocutionto the Sun, who sees everything but did not prevent the disaster.80

Together with minor narrative details,81 these similarities might be anargument for the attribution of authorship of the Rhodiakos to Aristides,since the speech in Libanius’ epoch was probably included in theAristidean corpus.

The horrific evocation of the earthquake constitutes the negative sideof the speech, which in the end tends towards consolation and exhorta-tion. The past and the present of Rhodes become the basis for a rapidreconstruction: upon the sudden catastrophe a prosperous rebirth willfollow. The Rhodians are happier than their ancestors, who ‘foundedthe city in times of war and unrest’ (Or. 25.54), since the present is ‘atime of much peace and deep calm, which has benefited and prosperedthe affairs of all mankind’ (55). Thus, they ‘should confidently expectthat there will be many Greeks to assist the restoration’. Such was theglory of Rhodes and the gratitude towards its inhabitants, who ‘werethe common hosts and friends of all and also the saviour of many’ (40),that everybody, when asked to give help, will ‘think that he gratifieshimself rather than that it is a favour to them’ (43). Here is anotherline of argument: after the earthquake of 227BC, according to Poly-bius (or rather, we may confidently assert, according to his source), theRhodian ambassadors who were requesting aid for the city’s recon-struction behaved in such a wise and dignified manner that they wereable to transform the disaster into an opportunity for the city.82 Suchwas the strength of the delegates’ request that those to whom it wasaddressed felt obliged to honour it, and it was not Rhodes that wasindebted to the donors, but quite the opposite, since the recipient wasso 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 derivedfrom funeral orations and the equation between city and man. The Rhodiakos does notmention 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, allakai 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 ofreciprocity, which regulated the relations between cities and the rulingpower. On a higher level, the assistance of the gods, Sun and Neptune,is invoked. The invocation participates in a religious system of divinejustice,83 but in the text there is no explicit theodicy: only the god ofFortune is held responsible for present sufferings, and all will revert tohappiness in the future.

Besides willing Hellenes and compassionate gods, there was anotherleading figure to invoke as a source of assistance: the emperor. Above allthe Rhodians must have hope in a ruler ‘who should certainly decideapace to restore the city as much as he can, so that the fairest of hispossessions may not lie upon the earth in dishonour’ (Fp μKλιστα 6ρ"δ�κε�ν εBναι δι σπ�υδ7ς )ς #ν �L�ν τε M_ τ"ν π�λιν �ναλα1ε�ν, )ς μ"τ8 κKλλιστ�ν α%τF. τ.ν κτημKτων �τ!μως �π0 γ7ς κ �ιτ�, Or. 25.56). Thedynamics of imperial subventions in the face of natural catastropheshave been repeatedly studied: the Rhodiakos fits by and large the typicalpatterns.84 Our information about the provisions granted to the islandfor its reconstruction comes first from Pausanias. In his detailed eulogyof the emperor Antoninus, he says that ‘when the Lycian and Cariancities, 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 Antoninuswas honoured in Rhodes as ktistês.86 His generosity towards the islandwas referred to as a model by Fronto when he pleaded in the Senate forthe reconstruction of the Carthaginian forum.87 In Rhodes, imposingRoman architecture began to transform the shape of the city.88 Thus,the author of the Rhodiakos correctly forecast imperial aid. Like mostof his Greek contemporaries, however, he did not take an interest inthe broader dimension of the Empire. In this respect, at least, thisintriguing 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 mirificeinstauravit.

86 Pugliese Carratelli 1940 = AE 1948, 199; BullEp 1946–1947 n. 156.87 Fronto, Pro Carthaginiensibus, pp. 256–259 van den Hout2: 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 between147 and 149AD.89 Because of his physical condition, Aristides did notdeliver the speech personally, but rather sent the text to be read inRhodes. His intervention had been requested: some Rhodian delegateshad come to visit him to ask for his help in settling some internaltroubles, and he had declared himself ready to intervene, being deeplyinvolved 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 towardsRhodes (1–3), the speech begins with a discussion about the good effectsof concord and the evil consequences of faction (4–22). Then followsa section devoted to historical examples from the Greek past (23–27)and a moving eulogy of concord (41–44): this attitude is repeatedlydeclared to be best suited to the Rhodian temper and the city’s politicaltraditions (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 mannerthat is dramatic, but also quite general. This approach may be dueto the situation of the author, who would have been less informedabout local matters, as well as to his decision to euphemein, that is, toallude only cautiously and indirectly to the problem. Civic dissent wasconsidered a serious and unpleasant subject, and therefore in need of avery prudent approach.

�γγελλ�μ νων δ μ�ι π�λλF. δειν�τ ρων, εO �L�ν τε εOπε�ν, τ.ν ν�ν, @τι�πιστε�τε Xμ�ν α%τ��ς κα0 διM�ρησ&ε κα0 ταρα6ς �% πρ�σηκ��σας Xμ�νταρKττεσ&ε, �N&’ @πως 6ρ" πιστε�ειν �N&’ @πως �πιστε�ν εB6�ν (Or. 24.3).

But when the present situation, which is much more terrible, if it ispossible to say so, was reported to me, that you distrust one another,have taken sides, and are involved in disturbances unsuited to you, I didnot know whether I should credit it, or disbelieve it.

The city was apparently split into factions, each of whom Aristides triesto placate in the speech.91 He speaks of ‘the envy felt by the poor for therich’, 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 ofAlbus 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 deficienteither in property or in some other fortune’ (34). The quarrel probablyhad social and economic roots, which is why Aristides has recourse tothe authoritative example of two ancient poets: Terpander, who settledcivic unrest in Sparta (3), and Solon.92 The Athenian legislator ‘wasmost of all proud of the fact that he brought the people together withthe rich, so that they might dwell in harmony in their city, neither sidebeing stronger than was expedient for all’ (14). Beyond the cultivatedreference to an ancient figure of Greek history, the example of Solonreveals the role that Aristides himself hoped (or pretended) to play inthe matter.

The argumentation follows a regular pattern. The undesirability offaction is a self-evident truth, needing no demonstration: within thecity, the house, and the individual, discord makes clear its negativeimpact, involving evil, peril, and dishonour. In the same way, everybodymust recognise the good of concord: thus the present attitude of theRhodians, so unworthy of local traditions, is patently dangerous andabsurd. The social unrest involved in the stasis threatened to subvertthe traditional structures of power. This may explain why, in the midstof numerous exhortations and pathetic appeals, there is in the speech aparticularly frank passage:

ν�μ�ς γKρ �στιν �iτ�ς ��σει κε!μεν�ς �λη&.ς Xπ8 τ.ν κρειττ�νων κατα-δει6&ε0ς, �κ��ειν τ8ν qττω τ�� κρε!ττ�ν�ς. κ�ν τις �λευ&ερ!ας σ�μ1�λ�νπ�ι7ται τ8 δια�&ε!ρειν τ8ν ν�μ�ν, αXτ8ν ��απατ>A (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 oneregards the corruption of law as a sign of liberty, he deceives himself.

Here, the topical reference to a ‘natural law’, while mitigating thestrong and conservative political advice, does little to conceal the rhe-tor’s effort to protect the privileges of the higher ranks by means ofa message of reconciliation and amnesty: ‘those who have suffered’should not await the punishment of ‘those who have committed thesewrongs’, since evil is not ‘the remedy for evil’, and ‘good things shouldbe 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 permitus to be more specific about the context and the nature of the crisis,although the decline of the coinage—there is no minting later thanCommodus—might be considered evidence of the island’s economicdecline.94 We may also link the troubles and the stasis, which challengedtraditional forms of social appeasement, to the aftermath of the earth-quake that had occurred some years before. Whatever relationship wemay suppose between the Rhodiakos and On Concord, the cautious way inwhich 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 classicalconsolation argument, but keeps silent about the internal and externalsolidarity expressed on the occasion of the catastrophe.96 We are led tothe conclusion that the rebirth after the earthquake had been very dif-ferent from the happiness prophesied by the author of the Rhodiakos: ifit is Aristides, it is evident that he decided to omit any mention of hisprevious actions towards the city, since the predictions of prosperity andrecovery had been disproved by subsequent events, notwithstanding theefforts 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 Infact, the text contains scant reference to the local situation and lacksan adequate context.98 Aristides was aware of these limits. At the verybeginning of the text he anticipates all possible objections:

qδιστα δ’ �ν μ�ι δ�κ. τ��τ’ �πιτιμη&7ναι, )ς �ρ6α�α λ γων κα0 �%δ’ -τι��νκαιν8ν εXρηκ,ς. π.ς γρ �%κ �τ�π�ν τF. μ4ν λ γ�ντι μ μ�εσ&αι )ς λ!ανγν,ριμα κα0 παλαι κα0 πAσι δ�κ��ντα συμ1�υλε�ει, α%τ�?ς δ4 μ" τ�λμAν6ρ7σ&αι τ��ς �[τω �ανερ��ς, �λλ μ" μ�ν�ν πρ8ς αXτ�?ς στασιαστικ.ς*6ειν, �λλ κα0 παντ0 τF. μ 6ρι τ��τ�υ 6ρ�νFω δια� ρεσ&αι; �γc δ’ �Nτε τ8νσ�μ1�υλ�ν �Nτε τ�?ς 6ρωμ ν�υς Tγ��μαι τ��τ� δε�ν σκ�πε�ν, τ8ν μ4ν @πως

94 Kromann 1988; Ashton 1996. See in general Head 1897, esp. CXVI–VII, andRPC I (19982), 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 possibleto say so’ than ‘the misfortune of the earthquake’ (Or. 24.2), and in the peroration thecitizens 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

�ρε� τα�τα e μηδε0ς, τ�?ς δ’ @πως �κ��σ�νται τα�&’ e μ" πρ�τερ�ν, �λλ’@ τι μ λλει κ�ιν7 συν�!σειν, τ��τ� κα0 λ γειν πρ�αιρε�σ&αι. �%δ4 γρ �ντα�ς τ�� σ,ματ�ς 6ρε!αις τ��&’ Tμ.ν 5καστ�ς �σπ��δακεν, @πως τι καιν8ν�κ��σεται, �λλ’ �iτ�ς �ριστ�ς Oατρ8ς @στις #ν Xγιε�ς π�ιε�ν �π!στηται· �%δ’*σ&’ @στις Xμ.ν �γανακτ�σει, �ν δι τ.ν α%τ.ν σω&7 δι’ pν τις Zδη κα0πρ�τερ�ν (Or. 24.5).99

I would most willingly, I think, be criticized because my arguments wereold and I had found no new ideas. For is it not strange for you to blamethe 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 beat odds with your history up to now? I believe that neither an adviser northose who employ him should give any consideration to the following,the one to how his remarks will be original, the others to how they willhear new material, but that they should prefer a speech on what willbe expedient for all in common. In our bodily needs each of us has notsought to learn of some new treatment, but the best doctor is the onewho knows how to make men well. No one of you will be annoyed if heis 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 choiceof local themes was crucial. From the very beginning of the oration, thetroubled status of Rhodes is contrasted with the tradition of long-lastingconcord, so that present disturbances can be defined as ‘unsuited’ (3) tothe city’s attitude.

Ample use is made of examples from the Hellenic and Rhodianpast. The vicissitudes of the Athenian and Spartan empires were anoverused point of reference for On Concord speeches during the imperialperiod: many centuries before, the two cities had lost their hegemonybecause of endemic discord.100 In order to make these models moreeffective for his audience, the orator had only to underline a connectionbetween them and Rhodes. The Athenians shared the Rhodians’ lovefor 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 ananti-Spartan rebellion in Rhodes in 395BC: Diod. 14.79.5–7; HellOxy 15, with Barbieri1955, 116ff. Note especially Paus. 8.52, where Conon is included in a list of benefactorsof 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 isfitting, O men of Rhodes, to believe that a common embassy has comefrom all these cities, urging you to reconciliation’ (28). The Dorian pastconveys the more explicit caveat: the city, suffering from self-inflicteddivisions, is compared to the Laconian Cleomenes ‘who chopped uphis body, beginning with his feet’ (38): the remote source for the wholestory 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. Andthe example of the Doric past is particularly fitting for an audience thatis said to have preserved perfectly the qualities of its ancestors: the pureDoric temper was a symbol of manliness.103 That symbol is exploited byDio Chrysostom in the Rhodiakos, as well as by Aristides, and not onlyin the Rhodian orations.104

The prevailing attitude to faction in Rhodes is presented as com-pletely unsuited to the Dorian tradition, which the Rhodians havecarefully preserved: ‘You are originally Dorians from the Peloponnese,and alone to this day have remained purely Greek’ (45), so that in therecent past it was impossible ‘to find any word among you which wasnot Dorian’ (57). How far do these aspects correspond to the actualsituation in Rhodes? Pride in being ‘purely Hellenes’, as well as thepreservation of the Doric temper, were topics of praise attributed toseveral cities.105 The concern for purely Greek names, too, was typi-cal of the Greek East. Apollonius of Tyana was said to have rebukedthe Smyrneans because of the diffusion of Roman names in the city,whereas Aristides could praise Smyrna for its care in the preservation ofits Ionian character.106 On the other hand, the Dorian language was notuniversally appreciated. If Marcus from Byzantium was famous for theDoric flavour of his oratory, the Atticists considered this dialect ratherrough.107 This opinion was shared by Tiberius: the emperor did not

102 On the links between Rhodes and Argos, which share the common ancestorTlepolemos: ISE I 40; Thuc. 7.57.6; Pind. Ol. 7.36ff.

103 Men. Rh. 1.354.19 f. (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, 198 f.; Schmitz 1997, 69ff.,176ff.

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation 243

appreciate men who spoke Greek with a Dorian accent, since it was anunpleasant reminder of his long sojourn in Rhodes.108

For a Rhodian audience, needless to say, things were different. Therenaissance of Greek literary dialects has been sometimes consideredan artificial and literary phenomenon, largely surpassed by the diffu-sion of the koinê. Some Dorian elements in the language of Rhodianinscriptions in the Imperial Age may be a superficial phenomenon,but, in fact, Roman names became widespread on the island only ata late date. Along with other elements, this has been judged as a signof resistance to Romanization. The loss of civic freedom in the earlyImperial 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 Romansettlement’ was interpreted years ago as proof that Rhodes was ‘largelyuninfluenced’ by Rome because of a ‘lack of penetration of Romancivilization in depth’.110 If that is true, it is not the whole truth, forwe have learned of some Rhodian citizens who were deeply interestedin Roman politics; we know, too, of important Roman elements thatpenetrated the religious sphere of Rhodian life. The cult of Rome, forexample, included a priest and a festival from the second century BConward; the imperial cult, then, is already documented in the reign ofAugustus.111 Thus the pure Doric temper was only one part of Rho-dian identity, although the diminished visibility of the Roman elementallowed the ancients (and sometimes the moderns) to minimize theinfluence of the ‘barbarians’.

References to local culture were more beneficial and more suitablefor the audience than remote events from Greek history, althoughthe speech treats events from local history only in a selective andsomewhat random way.112 The leading principle is not historical truth,

108 Perhaps his own pronunciation of Greek had been conditioned by his time onRhodes: 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 ingeneral, see Adams 2003; Adams, Janse, and Swain 2002.

110 Fraser 1977, esp. 11, 74 f.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 distinctionis made between the ancient glory and the contemporary inactivity. On differentgrounds, 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 agiven situation. The theme of origins, for example, was particularlywell-suited to preaching the good of concord.113 Since the Sun was thefounder of their race, the propatôr and archegos tou genos, the Rhodiansshould ‘feel a sense of shame’ (Or. 24.50) on account of their improperattitude.114 All of the arguments that might support the traditionalinclination of the Rhodians towards concord are carefully exploited:115

the solidarity of the ancestors when they unified the three communitiesof Lindos, Camiros and Ialysos and Homer’s references to Rhodes arequoted as the perfect counterbalance to the present state of division.How could the Rhodians ruin the renown they had won on the basisof their ancient spirit of concord? It was only on account of suchconcord that they had successfully fought against the Etruscans and thepirates, ruled the seas, adorned their city, and left ‘their descendantsthe right to be proud over these deeds’ (53). No detailed account isgiven, only a sequence of uninterrupted examples of military virtue.Difficult moments in local history are silenced, particularly those suchas the siege by Cassius, which caused faction in the civic body, andtimes when an improper attitude was adopted towards Rome.116

The most explicit political point in the speech concerns the problemof democracy and freedom. As in many other orations delivered inthe cities of the Greek East, exhortations to peace and concord incivic conduct aimed at deterring people from actions that would leadto the undesirable intervention of the Roman authorities.117 Rhodeswas at the time a free city in the Roman Empire. Thus, the broaderpolitical context of the strife did not fall within the sphere of theRoman governor and his legions.118 The danger that the citizens ofRhodes 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 waycare for its reconstruction.

114 Sun: Diod. 5.56. On the local cults see Morelli 1959; Papachristodoulou 1992, withreference to recent discoveries and ongoing research.

115 See Or. 25.31–32, with the mention of the nymph Rhode, symbol of the unitedcity: 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, fromthe visits of Augustus to the long stay of Tiberius to the quarrels thatled to its loss of freedom under Claudius.119 Rhodes experienced thesame change of status as Cyzicus, perhaps on the same grounds: themistreatment or killing of Roman citizens.120 Some years later, Nerogranted the Rhodians the recovery of their freedom and reportedlydid not plunder their statues. Imperial favor ceased under Vespasian,perhaps unexpectedly.121 Once again freedom was lost, but after furtherquarrels under Domitian, the island probably recovered it in the earlyeighties.122 Incapable of stability, the Rhodians alternated between goodfaith (and flattery) towards Rome and unrest and internal sedition.

Aristides’ reflections are supported by an acute awareness of theRhodian situation: ‘You are proud of the fact that you are free andyou praise your democracy so much, that you would not even acceptimmortality unless someone would allow you to keep this form ofgovernment’ (Or. 24.22), says the orator, adding that since the Rhodiansare not ‘able to calculate that if things continue in this fashion, it isquite possible that you will be in danger of being deprived of thisapparent liberty. And if you do not voluntarily heed this advice, anotherwill come who will forcibly save you, since, as a rule, rulers are neitherignorant of such behaviour nor disregard it’ (22).123 This remark followsa long section about the dynamics of tyranny that contains, it wouldseem, historical analysis that draws on remote epochs of Greek history.It is true that the reference to Lesbos (54–55) does not hint at thecontemporary situation of the island,124 but alludes to the troubled timesof Alcaeus. The orator could address a concealed admonition to hisaudience: at the present, faction was the best ally of Roman power.

Of course, Rome and Roman magistrates are not explicitly namedin the speech. More explicit caveats in Plutarch and Dio, however,

119 Augustus: Jos BJ 1.20.287. Tiberius: see recently Jacob-Sonnabend 1995, withsources 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 Momigliano1951, and now Bresson 1996.

123 ‘Apparent liberty’ (tên dokousan eleutherian): supposedly a negative judgement, but itsmeaning seems debatable. See Dio Or. 44.12: tên legomenên eleutherian.

124 Labarre 1996, 91ff.

246 carlo franco

are illuminating. If a stasis allowed the Roman rulers to assume a sortof tyrannical power over the Greek cities (Dio Or. 38.36), the risk oflosing the existing freedom was serious and became a strong argumentfor preaching self-restraint.125 And if the precarious status of freedomgranted by the emperor did not automatically imply exemption fromtribute, at least it allowed the cities to control their own laws andinstitutions and partially freed them from the obligations connectedwith their status within the province.126 Beyond the arguments createdout of conventional topoi, care for civic concord was indeed the lastresort of the local authorities, as Plutarch knew:

Λε!πεται δ" τF. π�λιτικF. μ�ν�ν �κ τ.ν Xπ�κειμ νων *ργων, ] μηδεν8ς *λατ-τ�ν �στι τ.ν �γα&.ν, -μ�ν�ιαν �μπ�ιε�ν κα0 �ιλ!αν �ε0 τ��ς συν�ικ��σιν,*ριδας δ4 κα0 δι6��ρ�σ�νας κα0 δυσμ νειαν ��αιρε�ν :πασαν (Praec. ger.824D).127

The present situation leaves the politicians a benefit, which is not ofslight importance: to develop concord and mutual friendship among thepopulace, to eradicate quarrels, discords, enmities.

To be sure, the oration On Concord is far from the polemical attitudeof Dio Chrysostom, and does not express an anti-Roman attitude. AsAristides argues now, the present state of things is the best foundationfor concord, for the empire brings unity and freedom for everybody (Or.24.31). Thus the Rhodians must preserve their wisdom and reason, aswell as their (limited) freedom: ‘Believe […] that is more profitable tobe a slave than to use freedom as a means for evil, and that nonethelessthere is some fear that you may even be deprived of this means’ (58).

Whatever its actual content, the democratic pride of the Rhodiansdeserves closer consideration. Modern information on local institutionsis unsatisfactory. The Rhodian politeia was analyzed by Aristotle, whostudied the troubled political situation of the island.128 After changeswere introduced in the early Hellenistic age,129 the politeia was praisedby 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 ofthe ‘system of honour’ which was very important in the civic life of the Empire: Lendon1997, 154ff.

126 But not from the correctores or from the inspections by the governor, if needed:Sartre 1995, 205 f.

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. 569R3 = 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 socialwelfare in late Hellenistic Rhodes, specified that ‘their rule was notdemocratic’.130 Strabo’s statement on the Rhodian welfare has beenrepeatedly discussed: from a social point of view, we may note that ifthe government cared for the have-nots, this implies that they actuallyexisted and needed help.131 Like Cyzicus, Rhodes could benefit froma real eunomia (Strabo 12.8.11). This was perhaps due in both cities tothe permanent efficacy of the civic courts: during the Hellenistic age,Rhodes apparently hosted no foreign judges, but was able to send itsown arbitrators to other Greek cities, as Aristides aptly remarks (Or.24.55).132

Perhaps influenced by the authority of Panaetius and Posidonius, theRoman tradition followed the same path: Cicero in the De re publica hadspecial praise for Rhodes, which he considered together with Athensas a city with a sort of mixed constitution and as a place where thedefaults of democracy were limited.133 A later allusion in Tacitus’ Dia-

logus again couples Rhodes and Athens, where oratory flourished, butunder an ochlocracy where omnes omnia poterant, and his words appearmore as an allusion to the situation of Rhodes in the first centuryBC than to the Hellenistic age.134 The troubles of the Roman civilwars apparently destroyed that admired democratic balance and trans-formed Rhodes, as they did many other Greek cities, into a battlefieldof local factions. When Cassius approached Rhodes in the late springof 43BC in order to collect ships and soldiers against Dolabella, hemet with resistance:135 a faction faithful to Caesar held power on theisland and refused to help him. Cassius’ delegate Lentulus branded theRhodians as foolish and arrogant (amentia, superbia).136 The subsequentsiege 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 31ff. 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 minimisdisceptat; 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 someRhodian delegates, among them his former teacher during his stay onthe island. Archelaos begged him to spare the city, using typical ‘Rho-dian’ arguments like the city’s love for freedom, its Dorian origins, andits warlike attitude against Demetrius and Mithridates.137 This concreteexhibition of Rhodes’ goodwill towards Rome proved useless: the Rho-dians were defeated by sea, they lost many ships, and after a short siegethey surrendered to Cassius. According to Plutarch, some Rhodianstried to flatter the conqueror by proclaiming him ‘king and lord’. Cas-sius refused the honours: instead, 8500 talents were collected by theseizure of all private treasure, and the city paid an indemnity of 500 tal-ents. Later, in 42BC, thirty more Rhodian ships were seized by CassiusParmensis, and the remains of the navy were burnt.138 It was the endfor 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 thedays of Aristides.140

The orators of the Second Sophistic repeatedly urged the cities inthe Greek East to preserve even the palest form of freedom.141 Thisbehaviour has been considered both by the ancients and the modernsto be a kind of wishful thinking that concealed the real situation oftotal submission. The Rhodians called ‘democracy’ what was in facta timocratic and elitist form of rule, where most of the local powerwas in the hands of a restricted elite of families.142 The winged wordsof 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 positivelycontrasted to that of the Alexandrians (these lines however were bracketed by vonArnim).

140 Also, the collection of possibly fictional epistles attributed to Brutus preserves acouple of letters to and from Rhodes: Ep. Brut. 11–12 Hercher. In Ep. 13–14 (Letters toand from Cos), Rhodes appears as having been won over by Cassius. Links betweenBrutus and the islanders are unattested, but the material is close to the Plutarcheannarration, and might be of some historical relevance. Asked to choose between enmityor friendship, the Rhodians give a proud answer, which exhibits a deep fondness forfreedom.

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 thewealthy.143 The orator had the cultural and political skill necessary toshore up the pride of the imperial oligarchies, since his celebration ofconcord opened the path to the preservation of a total subordination ofthe masses to the few.144 It was for the wealthy that the Roman Empireformed a comfortable structure. Freedom, octroyée as it might be, wasstill preferable to a complete dependence within the formula provinciae:

ν�ν δ4 τ!ς D στKσεως ���ρμ", D <>αστ,νης �%κ ���υσ!α; �% κ�ιν" μ4ν:πασα γ7, 1ασιλε?ς δ4 εLς, ν�μ�ι δ4 κ�ιν�0 πAσι, π�λιτε�εσ&αι δ4 κα0σιωπAν κα0 �πα!ρειν κα0 μ νειν �δεια -π�σην τις 1��λεται; (Or. 24.31).

But now what cause is there for faction, or what lack of opportunity fora pleasant life? Is not all the earth united, is there not one emperor andcommon 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 athome?

I cannot say whether this attitude was realistic or pessimistic, ingenu-ous or marked by illusion: I only understand very well that these textsexpress above all the fear of losing a privileged status and reveal sadresignation to the limits of political participation.145 Both attitudes makethe 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 thatGalen had observed Aristides, classing him among those ‘whose soulsare strong by nature and whose bodies are weak… This man was oneof the most outstanding orators. So it happened that lifelong activityin talking and declaiming caused his whole body to fade away’.1 Galensurvived 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 isalmost certainly earlier than Galen’s. This witness is Phrynichos, whommodern scholarship usually calls an Atticist or a lexicographer, whenit calls him anything at all. Unlike Galen, Phrynichos does not speakfrom 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 ownprofession.

Phrynichos’ discussion of Aristides is preserved in the summary ofthe Sophistic Preparation made by Photios in the ninth century, not in hisonly extant work, the Ecloge. In the present paper I will first (1) examinewhat he has to say about Aristides, at least in the form mediated byPhotios, 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 literarycontext, that is, what in his views of language and literature might havehelped 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 asfollows:3

=t δ4 ��ε�7ς Μην�δ,ρFω πρ�σπε�,νηται πKλιν, �ν Fp κα0 �Αριστε!δ�υ τ��ςλ�γ�ις (Sς �ησιν) �ντυ6cν �ρτι, τ�τε �κμK��ντ�ς, π�λ?ν τ�� �νδρ8ς *παι-ν�ν π�ιε�ται, κα0 Μαρκιαν�ν �ησι, τ8ν κριτικ8ν συγγρα� α, Xπερ�ρAν μ4νΠλKτων�ς κα0 Δημ�σ& ν�υς, τς δ4 Βρ��τ�υ τ�� �Ιταλ�� �πιστ�λς πρ�-κρ!νειν κα0 καν�να τ7ς �ν λ�γFω �ρετ7ς �π��α!νειν. Τα�τα δ4 �iτ�ς �ησιν�%60 τ"ν τ�ια�την κρ!σιν �π�δε6�μεν�ς, �λλ’ εOς τ8 μ" &αυμK�ειν ε$ τινεςκα0 τ7ς �Αριστε!δ�υ δ��ης �λKττ�να τ8ν �νδρα ν�μ!��υσιν, �[τω κλ �υς τ���ν λ�γ�ις εOς �κρ�ν �λKσαντα· qψατ� γρ - �&�ν�ς Xπ’ �ν!ων πεμπ�μεν�ςκα0 �Αριστε!δ�υ, Sσπερ κα0 �λλων π�λλ.ν παιδε!>α διενεγκ�ντων.

The next (book) is addressed to Menodoros again, and here, havingrecently read the works of Aristides, so he says, who was then at theheight of his success, he lavishes high praise on the man, and says thatMarcianus the critic despises Plato and Demosthenes, and prefers the let-ters of the Italian Brutus, and considers them the standard of excellencein style. This he says not because he approves of this judgment, but sothat it should not be cause for wonder that some people considered Aris-tides less than his reputation, when he had progressed so far in literaryfame; for envy emitted by certain people had touched even Aristides, asalso many others conspicuous for their culture.

For the sake of the following argument, two items of this translationneed to be justified. Where I have translated ‘having recently read(�ντυ6cν �ρτι) the works of Aristides’, Henry in the standard editiontranslates ‘après avoir découvert depuis peu les écrits d’Aristide’ (‘hav-ing recently discovered the writings of Aristides’). Though �ντυ6ε�ν canmean ‘to come across’, ‘to meet with’, in a literary context it shouldmean ‘to read’, a sense in which Photius uses it again in this samepassage, though he usually prefers �ναγιγν,σκειν.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 sofar in literary fame’, Henry understands, ‘pour qu’on ne s’étonne passi 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 myown unless otherwise noted.

4 Bibl.101a, 13, �ντυ6cν τ��ς γεγραμμ ν�ις, where Henry again translates ‘après avoirdécouverts ses écrits’. On the various verbs signifying ‘to read’ in Greek, see Chantraine1950, especially 122–126 for �ντυγ6Kνειν.

aristides’ first admirer 255

atteint un tel degré d’illustration dans les lettres’ (‘in order that oneshould not be surprised if certain people place below the fame ofAristides [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’, �κμK�ων.In addition, Henry’s translation turns the definite τ8ν �νδρα into theindefinite ‘a writer’, whereas it surely stands for the pronoun α%τ�ν,as it does twice in this same passage (Zκμασε δ4 - �ν�ρ, ‘the manflourished’, π�λ?ν τ�� �νδρ8ς *παιν�ν π�ιε�ται, ‘he gives high praise tothe man’). Photios means that some people consider Aristides less thanhis reputation, in other words to be overrated, but that such a judgmentis no surprise: he was at the height of his reputation, and so likely toattract jealousy, and moreover, an eminent critic had made the similarmistake of rating the letters of Brutus more highly than those of Platoand Demosthenes. When Phrynichos was writing, therefore, Aristideswas 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 isthe work, a written and not a spoken one, On the Passing Remark orOn the Digression (περ0 τ�� παρα�& γματ�ς). The work is usually datedto the year 152/53 or shortly thereafter, since the speech in which thedigression occurred was almost certainly the extant To Athena (Or. 37K.), which must belong to that year.5 The unnamed critic to whom thespeech On the Passing Remark was addressed had carped at Aristides forinserting praise of himself into a speech in praise of the goddess. Tomake matters worse, the wretch had pretended to make his observationout of pure goodwill; there was no need, he said, for Aristides to praisehimself, since everyone knew how good he was. From various allusions,it appears that the critic heard the speech as a member of an audiencegathered in the Asclepieion of Pergamum, and one could well imaginethat 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 hisown works, is the brief and corrupted entry in the Suda (Φ 764, IV 766Adler):6

Suda. Φρ�νι6�ς, Βι&υν�ς, σ��ιστ�ς. �Αττικιστ"ν D Περ0 �Αττικ.ν Pν�μKτων1ι1λ!α 1�, Τι&εμ νων συναγωγ�ν, Σ��ιστικ7ς παρασκευ7ς 1ι1λ!α μ��, �J δ4�δ�.

‘Phrynichos, Bithynian, sophist. (He wrote) Atticist, or On Attic Words, twobooks; a collection of tithemena [perhaps, ‘approved locutions’]; SophisticPreparation in 47 books, though some say in 74’.

Since Photios makes Phrynichos an ‘Arabian’, not a ‘Bithynian’, eitherhe or the Suda is in error, or else Phrynichos came from somewhere inthe Near East populated by ‘Arabs’ in the ancient sense (not necessarilythe province of Arabia) and later settled in Bithynia, not at all anunlikely progression.

The question when Phrynichos wrote both the extant Ecloge andthe lost Preparation is complex and controversial. In brief, the Ecloge isdedicated to a certain Cornelianus, a man of high culture who hasbeen appointed secretary (epistoleus) by plural emperors.7 Provided thatthe plural implies two joint emperors, as is usually understood, otherreferences in the work narrow the choice to either Marcus and Luciusor Marcus and Commodus. While there is no clear means of decidingbetween the two pairs, it might be inferred from a reference to ‘a letterof Alexander the Sophist’ that Phrynichos had read a letter penned bythe sophist Alexander of Seleuceia, the so-called Clay-Plato, who wasab epistulis Graecis to Marcus during the German Wars.8 If that is right,then the joint emperors under whom Cornelianus held the same postwill be Marcus and Commodus, and there is a gap in the fasti of thisoffice just about the years 177–180. As we shall see, such a date is alsoclose to the likely date of the Sophistic Preparation.9

6 I read �Αττικιστ"ν D Περ0 �Αττικ.ν with Bernhardy: �Αττικιστ"ν (or -τ"ς) Xπ’ �Α.mss., followed by Adler.

7 �κ πρ�κρ!των �π��αν& ντα Xπ8 1ασιλ ων �πιστ�λ α α%τ.ν, 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. PIR2 A 503.9 Cornelianus: PIR1 S 716; PIR2 C 1303; Eck 1991, expanding the suggestion in

PIR1 (ignored in PIR2) that he is the Sulpicius Cornelianus recommended by Fronto (adAmicos 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:

GΗκμασε δ4 - �ν"ρ �ν τ��ς 6ρ�ν�ις ΜKρκ�υ 1ασιλ ως =Ρωμα!ων κα0 τ��παιδ8ς α%τ�� Κ�μμ�δ�υ, πρ8ς ]ν κα0 τ"ν �παρ6"ν τ�� συντKγματ�ς π�ι-ε�ται �πιγρK�ων· ‘Κ�μμ�δFω Κα!σαρι Φρ�νι6�ς 6α!ρειν’. �Αλλ Κ�μμ�δFω τ81ι1λ!�ν πρ�σ�ων.ν, κ�κε!νFω πρ��ιμια��μεν�ς, κα0 παρα!νεσιν �ιλ�μα&!αςκατατι& μεν�ς, κα0 ��α!ρων τF. λ�γFω τ8 1ι1λ!�ν, �ν �Lς λ γει λ�� α%τF. μ 6ριτ�� τ�τε καιρ�� συντετK6&αι λ�γ�υς, �fς κα0 �να& σ&αι λ γει τF. 1ασιλε�,�παγγ λλεται κα0 �λλ�υς τ�σ��τ�υς �ιλ�π�ν�σασ&αι τ7ς �ω7ς α%τ8ν �%κ�π�λιμπαν��σης.

He lived in the time of Marcus, the emperor of the Romans, and his sonCommodus. He addresses the dedication of the work to the latter, begin-ning ‘To Caesar Commodus from Phrynichos, greetings’. But thoughhe addresses the book to Commodus, and dedicates the preface to him,gives him advice about the love of learning, and magnifies the book byhis language, saying that he has composed thirty-six books up to thepresent time, which he says he dedicates to the emperor, he promises tocomplete 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 stillalive, though that is suggested by Phrynichos’ addressing Commodusas ‘Caesar’ and not ‘Augustus’, which Commodus begins to be calledin documents from 177; a date in Marcus’ lifetime is compatible withPhrynichos’ also referring to Commodus as ‘emperor’ (basileus).10 Thephrase ‘advice about the love of learning’ (parainesin philomathias katatithe-

menos) would also fit better if addressed to a young prince rather than toa mature emperor. Commodus was born in 161, became Caesar in 166,and joint Augustus with his father in 177. Thus the indications seemto converge on a date in the middle 170’s for this prefatory book, eventhough 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 thework going up to 47 or even 74 books, then Photios must have comeacross some kind of first edition, when the author had not yet fulfilledhis promise of adding further books.

of ab epistulis, see Bowie 1982, 57–59; for the date of his probable predecessor, VibianusTertullus (ca. 175–177): Mitchell 2003, 146–148.

10 Cf. the opening of Athenagoras’ Legatio, in which the two rulers are addressedboth as autokratores and as megaloi basileôn (ed. Pouderon, Sources chrétiennes 379, 70); it isalso possible that basileus is Photius’ own contribution. A date after 180 is preferred bySwain 1996, 54.

258 christopher jones

If a date in the 170’s provides a likely terminus ante, at least for this firstversion, what are the termini ante and post of the reference to Aristidesin the eleventh book? Here the crucial clue lies in the dedication to thefirst book. According to Photios, Phrynichos dedicated this to ‘a certainAristocles, [being] eager for the work to be an amusement suitablefor his birthday, and for him to be his (Phrynichos’) fellow-celebrant(sympaistês)’. He also dedicated the next two books to Aristocles, butaddressed the fourth to a compatriot and friend called Julianus, sinceAristocles had become ‘a participant in the great council at Rome byroyal decree’.11

This ‘certain Aristocles’, whose name meant nothing to Photios, isnowadays agreed to be Claudius Aristocles, the Pergamene sophist,who is known from a notice in Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists and froman inscription found at Olympia. He had been converted to rhetoric byhearing Herodes Atticus lecture at Rome and, what particularly mattersfor us, he later became the teacher of Aristides. Both Philostratus andthe inscription call him consular, so that he was perhaps plucked out ofhis academic career and raised from equestrian status into the senate,not at all an unusual progression in this period. Assuming that hewas younger than Herodes and older than Aristides, he should havebeen born approximately about 110; but since Philostratus also saysthat he died ‘with his hair half-gray, approaching old age’ (mesaipolios,prosbainôn tô gêraskein), he presumably did not live much past the year170. It follows that Phrynichos had reached at least the thirteenth book,the last to be dedicated to Aristocles, by this date; his move to Romementioned in the fourth book might have occurred as early as the150’s.12 It also follows that Phrynichos’ reference to Aristides in theeleventh book must fall in Aristides’ own lifetime.

The Social and Geographical Setting

Phrynichos’ easy friendship with Aristocles before the latter’s move toRome implies that the two men were social intimates in Pergamum,

11 100b, 18–29.12 Aristocles: Philostr. VS 2.3 p. 74 Kayser; PIR2 C 789; Avotins 1978; cf. Puech

2002, 145–148, putting Aristocles’ consulate not before 160 and his death at the endof the 160’s. The notion of a rivalry between Pollux and Phrynichos in the reign ofCommodus has no ancient basis: Swain 1996, 54 n. 48.

aristides’ first admirer 259

and this perhaps suggests one way in which Phrynichos came to formso early and so high an opinion of Aristides; they might have beenfellow-pupils of Aristocles, who according to Philostratus attracted ‘allthe Hellenes in that region’ to his lectures.13

There is another link between Phrynichos and Pergamum, the solepassage in the Ecloge in which he refers to an inscription rather thanto a literary work. Under the rubric κατ’ 'ναρ, ‘in accordance with adream’, he observes (396), ‘Polemo the Ionian sophist set up a bronzestatue of the rhetor Demosthenes in the shrine of Asclepios at Perg-amon in Mysia, and put the following inscription on it: “Polemo toDemosthenes of Paiania in accordance with a dream (κατ’ 'ναρ)” ’.Phrynichos objects that the correct expression is not κατ’ 'ναρ but 'ναρor 'ναρ Oδ,ν, 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 κατ 'ναρ, and similarexpressions 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 onthe subject of his illnesses. In the fifth book he mentioned a whole seriesof them: stranguria (an affliction of the bladder), phrenitis (inflamma-tion of the brain), gastric bleeding, and many other ailments; in theeighth book, he complained of nosos, and again in the fourteenth hementioned a recent recovery.15 He was therefore perhaps a patient inthe 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 theseis Julianus, whom he calls his ‘friend and compatriot’ (sympolitês kai phi-

los). Dedicating his fourth book to Julianus in place of the now-absentAristocles, 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 �ντυ6cν �ρτι do not imply that Phrynichos had ‘recently discovered’ Aristides.

14 Inscription: Habicht 1969, no. 33. For this and similar phrases in inscriptions: vanStraten 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 occasionof 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 inscriptionas proconsul of Asia in 145, and in that position helped Aristides in oneof his immunity suits. He must also be the Tiberius Julius Julianus whohas 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 beof the right social standing to succeed Aristocles as the recipient of thenext book of the Preparation. If that is right, then both men must origi-nate either from ‘Arabia’ or Bithynia. Bithynians are to be expected inthe Asclepieion of Pergamum. One is the praetorian Sedatus of Nicaeawhom 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 thebenefactor, who by his full name is L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus,consul ordinarius in the year 142.19 A Rufinus appears in Phrynichos’ listas the dedicatee of the ninth book. According to Photios, the authorsaid that Aristocles was responsible for his beginning the work, andRufinus would be responsible for his finishing it, since having read whathe had written, he was able to see its usefulness and praised the author’slabor.20 Like Julianus, he would be a worthy counterpart to Aristocles,who now sat in the Roman senate, and the ‘early’ chronology presumedhere would fit, since Aristides speaks of Rufinus as present in Pergamumin the mid-150’s. He was one of Aristides’ most influential admirers, anda 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;PIR2 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 furtherHabicht 1969 discussing no. 47; Bowersock 1969, 86–87, though the identification withSedatius Severianus, cos. suff. 153, is now excluded: see Syme 1991a [1986], 227 n. 128,citing AE 1981, 640.

19 PIR2 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 ClaudiusRufinus, the sophist of Smyrna first attested under Commodus, as suggested in PIR2

C 998.20 101a, 11–14, �Kσκων α$τι�ν μ4ν τ�� �πKρ�ασ&αι τ7ς συγγρα�7ς �Αριστ�κλ α γεν -

σ&αι, τ�� δ4 �π0 π ρας �λ&ε�ν α%τ8ν ��ι�ν *σεσ&αι, @τι �ντυ6cν τ��ς γεγραμμ ν�ις τ� τε6ρ�σιμ�ν συνιδε�ν *σ6ε κα0 �παιν σειε τ8ν π�ν�ν.

21 Or. 50, sections 28, 83, 107.

aristides’ first admirer 261

other dedicatees is known, though the names are certainly compatiblewith a west Anatolian context. ‘Basileides the Milesian sophist’, whoreceived the fifteenth book, may one day be revealed by epigraphy,if indeed he is not already one of the several men named Basileidesalready known at Miletus.22

Phrynichos on Language and Literature

Phrynichos’ tastes reveal him not merely as an Atticist, as he is oftenlabeled, but an Atticist of an especially conservative stripe, and in thisrespect too he and Aristides would have had much in common. Ingeneral, his ideal is the Attic usage of the fifth century, as representedabove all by Thucydides and the writers of Old Comedy. When hecites Xenophon, it is to complain that he offends against the rules of hisnative dialect in using odmê rather than osmê (62), or to say that his singleuse of acmên in place of eti does not justify others in using it (93). Theform acmên also appears in Polybius as well as in papyri and inscriptions,and it survives as the modern akomê, an instance of Phrynichos’ valueas an observer of the transformation of classical Greek into medievaland modern.23 He is particularly incensed by what in his eyes is adepraved taste for Menander, from whom he cites a whole series ofsupposed vulgarisms (394). We are reminded of his disapproval of thecritic Marcianus, who similarly put the letters of Brutus above those ofDemosthenes.

There is no study of Aristides’ citations similar to that of Helmboldand O’Neil for Plutarch or of Householder for Lucian, so that it is noteasy 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 toEupolis and Cratinus. He mentions Menander only twice, once for hisportrait of an immoral Phrygian girl and once for a dream where hisname 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 ApolloDidymeus in the later second century.

23 Klaffenbach 1939, 213. Phrynichos also censures the use of the word νηρ�ν tomean ‘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 indispensableto his arguments about Greek history. He also differs from Phrynichosin his frequent citation of the lyric poets such as Pindar, but then thelexicographer was not likely to cite these poets when recommendingAttic usage. Among the orators, Aristides cites only Lysias, Isocratesand Demosthenes, omitting even Aeschines. Phrynichos cites Lysias,not always with approval, and otherwise only Demosthenes, omittingAeschines as well as Isocrates. Like Aristides, he cites none of the Hel-lenistic poets or prose writers, except in passing to disapprove of a wordin the historian Phylarchus (399). He does, it is true, refer to the badlinguistic habits of ‘Alexandrians’, for example the form τε&εληκ ναι inplace of the correct o&εληκ ναι (305), and here he perhaps refers to Hel-lenistic writers rather than contemporaries, since the forms he indictshad been in use for centuries.25

In conclusion, Phrynichos is certainly an ‘Atticist’, but in the firstplace he is, as the Suda correctly says, a sophist, one of those manysophists whom, for reasons now difficult to discern, Philostratus passedover in the Lives. Perhaps of Arabian origin, he resided in Bithynia, butappears to have frequented Pergamum and its famous Asclepieion. Hisacquaintance with the notable sophist of the city, Aristocles, helps toexplain 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 closeto that of the first edition of the Sophistic Preparation. Phrynichos’ way ofaddressing Commodus might even suggest that he was one of the royaltutors, or at least was close to the court. Above all, he was sufficientlyin touch with advanced opinion of the day to recognize the genius ofAristides, a judgment that succeeding centuries were to reaffirm intoearly modern times.26

25 For τε&εληκ ναι see Gignac 1981, 247 (but Phrynichos does not say that τε&εληκ -ναι is the ‘proper Alexandrian and Egyptian form’). The other example (367) is 6ειμK�ωwith 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 FOURTHCENTURY: 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 queenin a fairy tale) confirmed that he was the most marvelous rhetor in theempire. He dedicated a tripod to Asclepius, and immediately a dreamcorrected his self-effacing dedicatory inscription, offering another inwhich the god assured him of his future fame by calling his speeches‘everlasting’.1 In another dream Aristides expressed his wish to live formany 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 histriumphs and the frenzy of his audience, even though in passing helamented that, because he was not interested in humoring the masses,his contemporaries sometimes preferred more flamboyant orators whocatered to their tastes.3 Posterity (hoi hysteron anthropoi), in any case, richlyrewarded 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 ferventadmirers, and paid tribute to him in letters and orations.5 The lettersreveal a circle of cultivated friends who exchanged painted portraitsand works of Aristides and the declamations and speeches that theywrote in response to his works. Several extant orations of Libaniuswere 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 thequestions I ask in this paper is why Aristides was so irresistible toorators in the fourth century: what were the reasons (besides his perfectAttic style) that made him a cardinal point of reference? In addition,since the direct references to Aristides in Libanius date to the firstphase of his activity in Antioch, it is meaningful to inquire whetherAristides’ influence on the fourth-century sophist can be perceived inlater periods.

In the year 361 Libanius sent a letter from Antioch to his friendDemetrius who lived in Cilicia. Demetrius was a proficient orator, whohad been governor of Phoenicia years before, and was the uncle oftwo of Libanius’ students.6 Libanius wrote that he was sending twospeeches 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, Libaniusvied with Herodotus and in the other with Aristides. Foerster inferredthat the latter was the extant Or. 64, On the Dancers, but the testimonyis far from conclusive.8 Libanius admired Demetrius’ eloquence andhad corresponded before with him. In a previous letter, Ep. 283, hehad discussed the delivery of some orations and told his friend thathe was sending him a declamation on some points of Demosthenesand a couple of introductions.9 In another letter, the gift consisted ofa dream in which Libanius saw Demetrius as a triumphant oratordelivering to applauding students a hamilla in rebuttal of an orationof Demosthenes.10

Sending speeches to friends to elicit their admiration and perhapssome criticism was not unusual among the pepaideumenoi. In a letterLibanius 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 hecontended 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 hisbook but was not absolutely certain and had to read the work slowly,syllable by syllable, according to the technique taught in school.12 Weare in almost the same predicament because Thersites is not among theextant works of Aristides, but we may perhaps try to recover tracesof 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 thatAristides preserved the traditional view of this Homeric figure in hisencomium.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 withcourage and longing for glory, a kind of ‘democratic’ hero, concernedwith the common good, fearless before kings, incapable of flattery, andeven comparable to Demosthenes—this being the highest acknowledg-ment. Libanius’ Thersites may have been a work written in rebuttal ofAristides’.

A few years later, in 364, another close friend, Quirinus, urgedLibanius to vie with Aristides.15 Libanius esteemed this sophist highly,to the point of declaring that he regarded him as his teacher,16 andhe missed his presence in Antioch as a supporter of his speeches.Quirinus apparently insisted that Libanius would compose a speech onthe Olympic games in Antioch even though he approved of a previousoration of the sophist on the same subject.17 Libanius suspected thatbehind this request there was Quirinus’ desire that he would vie withtwo 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 theancients 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 amongthe 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 didThemistius in the fourth century, Or. 21.261–262.

15 Ep. 1243. Quirinus, PLRE I pp. 760–761, was the father of his student Honoratus3.16 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 hadcelebrated the Pythian games. He wrote back to his friend saying thatwhat Quirinus wished was impossible because the latter did not takeinto account how ‘Teucer was inferior to Idas and Heracles’, a slightlyobscure reference, perhaps a proverb, in which Aristides was comparedwith Idas, whom Homer described as ‘the mightiest of men upon theearth’, but Apollonius on the other hand presented as a rather insolenthero.18

In the same year Libanius wrote a very interesting letter to hisschoolmate Fortunatianus. Fortunatianus was a rhetor, a poet, and aphilosopher who had apparently just discovered the works of Aristides.19

It was fated that Aristides also enjoyed your attention. Albeit slowly, youare coming closer to a writer who has and offers power, if one wishesto use it. You must not discriminate among his works but must seekafter everything, take advantage of everything, and leave out nothing.I marvel—as in the case of owls to Athens—that books and speeches aredispatched to Laodiceia, which has so many. But I sent you an envelopewith his arguments in opposition, some definitely authentic, and othersperhaps.20

It appears that Fortunatianus was slower than Libanius’ other friendsto 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 assitting beside a portrait of the orator while reading his works, as if hewere trying to capture the true essence of the writer and the man bytaking in both his features and his words. The search for Aristides theman bordered on the obsessive: Libanius compared two portraits sentby Theodorus with the one another friend had promptly dispatchedto 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 perishedin a quarrel with the Dioscuri, Pindar, Nem. 10.60–72; Theocritus 22.210–211. Salzmann1910, 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, seeEp. 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 inanother. Was lack of hair associated with the orator’s illness? Did hishair grow back when he was better? Theodorus, who, as the governorof Bithynia was close to where Aristides had resided, was in charge offinding some answers there.22

Vying with another writer meant acknowledging one’s forebears anddisclosing one’s literary pedigree but might also involve a degree ofantagonism and the attempt, often botched, to improve on a forerun-ner. Aristides, in his oration In Defense of Oratory, had emphasized thesuperiority of nature over art and maintained that great artists andwriters were such because they were aware of the primacy of theirinborn qualities, tried to surpass their predecessors, and ‘made themappear as children’.23 At the beginning of his oration For the Dancers,Libanius emphasized his great debt to Aristides and declared the loveand attraction (*ρως, �!λτρ�ν) he felt for him.24 He had to justify hisattempt to vie with him by proclaiming his lack of animosity and utterdeference. The effect of his words—that he would choose the abilityto imitate, even to a small degree, Aristides’ art over surpassing Midasin wealth—is somewhat weakened by the fact that in 363 he used asimilar expression in a letter to the controversial governor Alexander,referring to the favors the latter bestowed on him.25 Yet we shouldnot doubt that he felt indebted to his second-century predecessor. Tofollow the rules of perfect oratory that Aristides had set out was tohonor him. Libanius declared that in composing his orations he always‘trod the tracks’ of Aristides, an expression that he usually employedto refer to the relations of compliant students with their teachers andto 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 placeas 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 followedon the ‘same tracks’. On following exactly the ‘footprints’ of great predecessors, seeLucian, 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 toindicate 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 washappy to maintain some independence and not be tied to a specificteacher since in that case his eloquence would have been too close tothat of an individual he did not esteem. The classic writers were theonly 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 objectof recent attention. It suffices to say that here Libanius evokes in detailAristides’ lines of argument so that scholars have tried to reconstructthe main points of the latter’s speech Against the Dancers. In fact, far fromopposing the views of hypothetical opponents as he does in most of hisspeeches, Libanius responds directly to his predecessor in a relentlessdebate, saying that as a Syrian he could not stay silent. While he haddeclared that ‘speaking in opposition (�ντιλ γειν) to what Aristides hadsaid’ had to be considered a way of paying homage to him, the readercannot help but feel that in the encounter Libanius is victorious andcaused his opponent ‘to retire silenced’ as it happened many timeswhen he confronted others.

Even though the precise date of Or. 64 is not necessarily 361, itsstyle, the sanguine disposition of Libanius, and the lack of those themesthat will become prevalent in his maturity make it likely that he didnot compose it many years later. Other orations, all relatively early, inwhich 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 the360s, direct references to Aristides disappear from Libanius’ letters, andthis reinforces the impression that the rhetor’s influence on him hadwaned. The argument from Libanius’ correspondence is quite weak,since his letters survive from only two distinct periods: the vast majorityis from the first ten years of his activity in Antioch, 355–365, and therest from 388 to 393. That there is no mention of Aristides in the lettersof the second period is hardly significant.27 But besides that, Normanargued that in later years ‘the style and outlook of Libanius were notconsciously 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 relationsbetween 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 standfor Asclepius’ pronoia).29 In addition, Pack noted the similarity betweenthe greeting of the emperor Julian to Libanius in the Autobiography andthe greeting of Marcus Aurelius to Aristides, as related by Philostratus.Pack therefore suggested that Libanius, in the first part of the narrativeof his life written in 374, deliberately imitated Aristides’ Sacred Tales, acontention 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 whenhe wrote in 374. A passage in the Autobiography is a good example ofdeliberate imitation. When Libanius was granted a leave from Con-stantinople in 353 to spend some time in Antioch after many yearsof absence, he returned to his native city in triumph, at least as hesays.31 The passionate and frenzied account of it, which he wrote downtwenty years later (Or. 1.86–89), has the texture of a literary dream andis strongly reminiscent of Sacred Tales 5.30–34, where Aristides narratedhis triumphant arrival in Smyrna to declaim in 167.32 After Aristidesentered the city and was well received, he heard of a little Egyptianorator, an �ν&ρωπ!σκ�ς, who had corrupted some of the councilorsand had burst uninvited into the theater. At that point Aristides hada dream, so vivid that he doubted whether it was a vision or reality, inwhich he saw himself proclaiming that he was going to declaim in theearly morning. He went to the city hall and did so:

Despite my unexpected appearance and the fact that many people failedto know about it, the council was so packed that one could not seeanything except men’s heads, and it would have been impossible to getback one’s hand if it were inserted anywhere between the people. Andthe shouting and good will—or rather, if we must tell the truth—thefrenzy on all sides was such that no one was seen to sit either during theintroduction 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 autobiographyand the hieroi logoi but saw a similarity in Libanius’ and Aristides’ views that rhetoricand Greek religion were connected.

31 On the dokimasia, the test that usually awaited students as they left school, seeCribiore 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 connectsit with the dream in Sacred Tales 1.22.

270 raffaella cribiore

stood up, suffered, felt joy and awe, assented to what I said, cried outthings which were never heard before, and everyone counted it his gainif he paid me some great compliment.

After this triumphant performance, which of course Aristides disclosedonly to render honor to Asclepius, he went to the baths and was toldthat the Egyptian orator had declaimed a few days before but only afew people had attended, even though he had publicized his lecturewell.

Like Aristides’, Libanius’ declamation did not need promotion orindividual invitations since people ran to the oratorical display as soonas they heard his name.

Before daylight, they packed the city hall, which for the first timeappeared 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 ofconfidence, and won over his audience immediately. He rejoiced seeingthe 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 restof my oration? Everyone, even the elderly, the naturally lethargic, andthe sick, jumped up in enthusiasm and did all kinds of things. Those whofound it hard to stand up because of gout also stood up, and when I triedto get them seated, proclaimed that my speech did not allow them to andkept on interrupting it with clamorous demands that the emperor restoreme to my city. They did this until they stopped from mere exhaustionand then turned to my speech and declared blessed both themselves andme (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 totouch him. In this section, Libanius twice invoked his tutelary deity,Tyche, who allowed him to disprove the adage that ‘a prophet is nothonored in his own country’. Then, immediately after this ecstaticaccount 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 theirrespective 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 audiencestanding 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 1ακ6ε!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. Libaniusalso appropriated Aristides’ passage by filling it out with lifelike detailsthat end up sounding slightly humorous, such as those old, slow, sick,and gouty people jumping up in acclamation. One could object thatsophistic displays generally aroused similar reactions, but analogousnarrations 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 besidesthe confidence of the speakers.34 Libanius must have found Aristides’words truly rousing and adapted them to his own needs, producing aslightly surreal narration that stands out in his Autobiography. Was hereading Aristides closely as he had done in previous years? It is difficultto know since he must have assimilated passages he found particularlyinspiring.

In his late years, when he had so many axes to grind against theLatin language, Roman law, the crisis of Greek rhetoric, and the apathyof his students, Libanius turned again to his predecessor for somecomfort. 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 attemptto vie with him was evident enough that the scribe of one manuscriptof Oration 3 gave it the same title as Aristides’ speech.35

Silence is at the center of both speeches. Orations are often born outof silence. At the beginning, a speaker bursts out, saying that silenceis unacceptable and he must break it on some issue.36 Silence then isfollowed by λ�γ�ς, which naturally derives from it. In this case silencebecomes the λ�γ�ς 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 intocensure (�πιτ!μησις) of their audience’s disinterest.37 Aristides declines tohumor his distant audience, who reproach him for his inactivity andask for a speech: his argument is that they do not deserve one andthat he does not need anything else to enhance his reputation. Yet thisoration, which he sends to his distant admirers through the agency of afriend leaving for Smyrna, and which he calls ‘not a pleasant speech’, ishis answer to their remonstrations. Libanius is equally exasperated bythe complaints of his students who desire the speech at the end of theschool year that he refuses to give it on account of their bad behavior.

Aristides uses Oration 33 as a propemptikon, a speech for the departureof a friend. His audience is remote, although he feigns to address it as ifit were at hand, and he remarks on the absence of a real public, includ-ing foreigners, before whom his addressees might feel some shame. Thislack injects some artificiality into his indictment. As he defends himselfand 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 andto make them acceptable. It is his audience that is supposed to woohim; orators would waste their resources by trying to assemble a groupof listeners. He is not in the least responsible for their disinterest, sincehe is the λ�γ�ς itself. His literary production is abundant and impecca-ble and is the fruit of his accomplished education and of his unfailingdevotion to the art. No doubt Libanius could identify with this portraitof the orator. At this point of the speech, Aristides directs his atten-tion to his public, those ‘false lovers’ (δυσ ρωτες) who proclaim that ‘heis the best of the Greeks’, and yet neglect him and spend their timeat the swimming pools. Everyone hastens there, pursuing pleasure andunable to recognize what is truly valuable. They neglect ‘the first of theGreeks’, and their education is compromised.

The reasons why Aristides’ speech attracted Libanius can be foundnot 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 hefelt had gone awry, found some comfort in commiserating with ‘the bestof the Greeks’. Yet Libanius was in a worse predicament than Aristides,and this is what gives his words the authentic grief that seems to beabsent from the work of his predecessor. Aristides’ honor (δ��α) was notcompromised by his refusal to write one more speech. He declared thathe had survived his difficulties (health and everything else) ‘by cling-ing to our raft like a kind of Odysseus’ (18) and felt above criticism. Atthe beginning of Oration 3, Libanius says that his determination to besilent jeopardizes the δ��α of his students, since their punishment willbe evident to everybody, as will their poor performance.38 At the end,he reiterates more forcefully that they will incur utter shame when theywill be expelled ‘from the holy rites of oratory for defiling the haunt ofthe Muses’.39 Yet one cannot but feel that it is the teacher’s honor thatis irremediably compromised for failing to attract the attention of hispupils and for his inability to adapt to the changed times.

Aristides’ remoteness and isolation from his audience is not confinedto this speech. While in Oration 34, Against those who Burlesque the Mysteries,he declared that the beauty of oratory had ‘the power to enchant theaudience’ (26), he continued by saying that he had never pronounceda 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 initself.40 Attention to the audience made a speech plunge downwards sothat words lost their feverish intensity.41 Libanius, who while still totallyenamored of rhetoric, seems to have lost some of his competitive edgein the second part of his life, must have found some support in thesewords. The sole aim of an orator was writing the best possible speech,but—said Aristides—oratory in its most perfect form was very hard tofind. ‘Just as lions and all the nobler animals are naturally rarer thanthe 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 hislate 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 Norman2000, 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 profoundcommitment to teaching and reaching his students, of his attachmentto these foster children, and commensurate pride in seeing them flyaway.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 notloyal to me, do not memorize my words, hate me, and even delight inmy 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 notexist. Undoubtedly Libanius had more power over his listeners since hecould expel delinquent students, as he contemplates doing at the end ofthe speech (Or. 3.33–37). Immediately after, though, his power crumblesas he realizes that he couldn’t possibly diminish his ‘flock’ because his‘command’ (�ρ6�) would be compromised, and the bad students wouldpass to the ‘enemy’, that is, to rival teachers.44 He also has to retainthem on account of their fathers, a realistic reason which neverthelessseems to refer to the remark of Aristides that his listeners behaved likethe sons of famous men who, aware of their good birth, could afford tomisbehave.45

I am not convinced that Oration 3, which is pervaded with bitingacrimony, represents (as it is generally assumed) the formal speechthat Libanius gave at the end of the course, an oration that might beattended by governors and other officials, by citizens of Antioch, andparticularly 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 dryhumor that pervades some of Libanius’ work. It probably appealed toan audience of students.47 Libanius declared in another oration that hisstudents 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 hismost 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, regardedhumor 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 wastethe money for their tuition, he deliberately uses the masculine Home-ric word αOδ�!�ις (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, whichparents might fail to really appreciate (Or. 54.11–14). The remark on thepleasure of going to the baths even before dinner—a true indulgence—takes the reader back to Aristides, who faulted people’s passion for thebaths as the principal cause that made them miss his lectures.50 In hisview, the baths are ‘what darkens the beauty of education’. Yet in Aris-tides the mention of people anointed with oil, the Homeric referencessuch as the Sirens’ song ‘come and stop your ship’,51 the man with hispalm fan who lures the spectators away, are not as vivid as the corre-sponding vignettes in Libanius. When Aristides says that everyone runsto 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 humoris weak (Or. 33.29).

While one of the themes of Or. 33 is education, Aristides’ audiencewas not made up specifically of students. In Or. 29, Concerning the Pro-

hibition of Comedy, he reclaimed for the orator the role of educator thattraditionally appertained to the poet and manifested some concern forthe environment in which young people matured. I would like to con-sider once more his role as teacher to clarify only a few points. Thathe was not engaged in this profession on a regular basis and did nothave a school is evident from the question of his immunity from civilservice as it appears in the Sacred Tales.52 In this work Aristides occa-sionally mentions students, but these are either those he is advised tohave 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 maynot 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’ (ν �ι) and once employs the word μα&ητα!.54 He alsoonce 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 per-mission to have his γν,ριμ�ι present so that they could cheer for himat the declamation, and the word is usually translated as ‘students’ (VS

583). I am not convinced that gnorimoi were always the students in theinner 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 onlyhas the meaning ‘friend or known person’.56 It seems likely that whenAristides asked the emperor to allow his followers to be in the audience,the latter were friends and people who admired him and were in hisretinue, not necessarily his students or only students.57

In Or. 33.23 Aristides sheds some light on his role as a teacher. ‘Tothose who were eager to meet with me on a private basis I offeredmyself not only as I declaimed, but I also indicated to them wellhow in my opinion they would become somewhat better’. He uses theexpression Oδ!>α συνε�ναι, that is, ‘to meet privately’ (probably in his or inhis student’s residence), which contrasts with Libanius’ expression ��ωσυνε�ναι, ‘to meet students at school’ (Ep. 1038.1). Aristides consideredhis declamations models for instruction and occasionally met someyoung men to correct their rhetorical imperfections. His involvementwith teaching was probably not very significant and did not leave aprofound mark on him. The nineteenth -century Italian poet GiacomoLeopardi, who studied Aristides in his youth, reported an amusingadespoton epigram which may have referred to a namesake of therenowned rhetor: ‘Hail to you seven pupils of the rhetor Aristides, fourwalls and three benches!’58 This epigram in any case may have beenrealistic if it alluded to Aristides having a school.

Two other orations are usually taken to show that Aristides had someinvolvement 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 dearfamily’, the word ‘teacher’ does not necessarily refer to the orator. Thespeech is a conventional and artificial presentation of the city’s and thefamily’s glory and of the accomplishments of the young man. When hecomposed it, Aristides had just emerged from a nearly two-year periodof incubation in the temple of Asclepius, so that his acquaintance withApellas 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 tohave been more involved in this youth’s upbringing. And yet one per-ceives that some remarks may be out of place. A vain Aristides seemsto be in competition with his student, as when he says that Eteoneuswas so devoted to him that he never even conceived of being at hislevel (Or. 31.7–8). In a speech concerned with the study of rhetoric, theboy’s silence—sometimes considered a positive quality in antiquity60—nevertheless occupies too much space in the background of the effusive-ness of his teacher.61 The insistence on Eteoneus’ handsomeness (fourremarks in such a small compass) also sounds a bit excessive.62 Whenthe orator says that in studying and declaiming Eteoneus used gesturesthat would be appropriate in a painting, one cannot agree more: thesilent Eteoneus belongs in a painting (Or. 31.8). Aristides, the masterfulorator, appears at the end in a grand, emotional consolation that Liba-nius, if he knew the passage, cannot have failed to appreciate, as whenEteoneus is compared to ‘a poet who has ended his play while peoplestill desire to see him and hear him’.63

If we now return to the question I posed at the beginning, manyof the reasons why Aristides appealed so strongly to Libanius, andimplicitly to other rhetors in the fourth century, are already clear. Inthe fourth century, when rhetoric was not as effective as before andrhetors had lost some of their power, it was comforting to rememberan age when ‘rhetoric flashed like lightning’.64 Aristides was a shiningprotagonist of that age, and applying his rhetorical rules reinforced theillusion 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 theemperor Julian, ‘rhetoric moved you towards reverence for the gods’,but also because Aristides’ conception of oratory inspired by ‘a sacredand divine fire’ stirred him.65 Aristides powerfully roused the emotions,and his authoritative tone and confidence in his own ability stronglyattracted a sophist who doubted he could make a comparable impact.So what was Libanius reading under Aristides’ portrait? So many arethe words of his predecessor that may have appealed to him, but weknow with certainty that he identified with Aristides declaring his lovefor rhetoric in Or. 33.19–20:

Alone of all the Greeks whom we know, we did not engage in oratory forwealth, fame, honor, marriage, power, or any acquisition… But sincewe were its true lovers, we were fittingly honored by oratory… Forme oratory means everything, signifies everything, for I have made itchildren, 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 in2.396–399. Cf. Swain 2004, 372–373.

chapter fourteen

AELIUS ARISTIDES’ RECEPTION ATBYZANTIUM: THE CASE OF ARETHAS

Luana Quattrocelli

Non posso sapere se lo sono o no. Voglio dire che lo sciamano è unmesso 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 ofreligion 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 oratoricalperformances, Aristides refers more than once to his universal repu-tation (Or. 47.50; Or. 50.8, 19, 26), to the delirious enthusiasm of thecrowds (Or. 50.20, 48, 101; Or. 51.16, 29, 32–33), to insistent requestsfrom 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 thatbestowed 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 needthat Aristides felt to write an entire oration, To Those Who Criticize Him

Because He Does Not Declaim (Πρ8ς τ�?ς αOτιωμ ν�υς @τι μ" μελετF,η),in order to complain bitterly about the scant interest in attending hisperformances that people showed. One may wonder if Aristides’ longabsences 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, allof these reasons were only excuses designed to hide the reality of ficklesuccess. 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 topresent this paper before such an important audience.

280 luana quattrocelli

Greek rhetoric in those years would have included the works of greatprofessionals of the calibre of Polemon, Herodes Atticus, and Apollo-nius Tyanensis.

Although Aristides made a great display of his success, he oftenworried about the judgement of posterity. In a dream, he replies to adoctor who is insisting that he recite something: ‘Because, by Zeus, it ismore important for me to revise some things which I have written. For Imust also converse with posterity’ (Or. 51.52).2 He writes elsewhere:‘After the inscription, I became much more eager, and it seemed inevery way to be fitting to keep on with oratory, as our name would liveeven among future men, since the god happened to have called ourspeeches “everlasting” ’ (Or. 50.47).

Posterity has indeed paid Aristides all the honours of which hedreamt while he was alive. Among the late Imperial Age rhetoricians,Aelius Aristides is the only author whose oeuvre has been handed downnearly 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 tothe high position reserved for him in schools and in scriptoria. If in thethird century Apsines, Longinus, and Menander Rhetor already con-sidered Aristides to be a classical author and quoted him as a model forstyle and composition, in the fourth century Aristides was often studiedand imitated in lieu of the classical authors themselves. Libanius (314–393AD) shows himself a true devotee of Aristides, imitating him justas 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’spupils, even two church fathers of this period, Basil and John Chrysos-tomus, took Aristides as a model, as did all the Christian authors whoserhetorical style was deeply influenced by the Second Sophistic. Even afourth-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 AeliusAristides as part of the ‘Aristides Programme’, which will result in an edition of thecomplete 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 Aristidesand his orations to acquire first-class authority with lexicographers,the authors of rhetorical manuals, commentators, and erudite schoolsfrom the sixth century through the Byzantine period. At the end ofthe thirteenth century, Maximus Planudes was still making scribes copya specimen of Aristides’ orations in his scriptorium for his library,5 andTheodorus 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 scruplesabout mocking pagan authors like Homer, Plato and Demosthenes inhis Hymns, he could not avoid the scorn of one tenth-century com-mentator, who attacked his personality as it emerges in the pages ofthe most autobiographical of his orations, namely the Sacred Tales. Iam referring to the scathing notes written in the margins of the sheetsof 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 outsidethe exegetical-grammatical typology of medieval comments, representa genuine attack by a Byzantine author on a pagan one.

Manuscript A, which is divided into two parts, Laurentianus 60, 3and Parisinus graecus 2951, is the well-known manuscript of the Aris-tidean tradition that belonged to Arethas, the famous archbishop ofCaesarea who read and commented on a number of pagan authors.The manuscript was prepared around 920AD for Arethas by JohnCalligraphus,8 undoubtedly after Arethas had become archbishop ofCaesarea in Cappadocia.9 Arethas himself (see fig. 1) added the titles,the capital letters, and the paragraph signs. He also wrote scholia inhis 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 SacredTales 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 insacris 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 monogramΑΡΕΘ.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 alsowritten 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 todistinguish 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 κα!.

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 textas an inverted pyramid or in the shape of a funnel, closed with a littleleaf or a small wavy line.

Once the handwriting has been securely identified as Arethas’s, itis difficult to doubt that the ideas expressed are also his own, ratherthan copied from notes in other manuscripts. That the notes werecopied is highly unlikely for two reasons: first, no copyist would haveever transcribed such extensive comments into his own copy, even ifhe had read them in the antigraph; second, and most importantly,there is a large repertoire of attacks in the same tone that Arethasaddresses to other classical authors, enough to make Wilson speakof ‘the characteristic style’ of Arethas’s notes on other authors (1983,212). Therefore, even the unedited notes to Manuscript A should beincluded among the other short polemical and scornful commentswith which Arethas glossed the texts preserved in the manuscripts heowned.

It is true that, like Photius, the philologist of Patras belongs to theperiod of the Byzantine culture commonly referred to as the ‘Renais-sance’, which followed the Iconoclastic period. It is also true that, likePhotius, Arethas made a career in the church, eventually becoming thearchbishop in Cappadocia. However, if Photius provides an exampleof the tolerance shown towards the pagan literature of the past by themen occupying the highest offices of the church, this is not the casewith Arethas.

Those who deal with the Platonic textual tradition know the codexClarkianus 39 very well: it contains twenty-four Platonic dialogues, thatis, all of them except the Timaeus, the Republic, and the Laws. It wascommissioned from John Calligraphus by Arethas while he was stilldeacon in November, 895AD. In this manuscript, too, Arethas writesscholia in his own hand, and he adds strictly personal evaluations tothem from time to time. Here is the passage from the Apology in whichSocrates defends himself against the charge of atheism:

εO δ’ α` �J δα!μ�νες &ε.ν πα�δ ς εOσιν ν�&�ι τιν4ς D �κ νυμ�.ν D *κ τινων�λλων pν δ" κα0 λ γ�νται, τ!ς #ν �ν&ρ,πων &ε.ν μ4ν πα�δας Tγ��τ� εBναι,&ε�?ς δ4 μ�; -μ�!ως γρ #ν �τ�π�ν ε$η Sσπερ #ν ε$ τις jππων μ4ν πα�δαςTγ��τ� D κα0 'νων, τ�?ς Tμι�ν�υς, jππ�υς δ4 κα0 'ν�υς μ" Tγ��τ� εBναι (Pl.Apol. 27d–e).

If on the other hand these supernatural beings are bastard childrenof 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 youngof 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 comparethe Athenians’ gods to donkeys and horses’. Obviously, Socrates hasnot done this, but the note gives us a glimpse of Arethas’s lack ofphilosophical subtlety and familiarizes us with one of his characteristichabits, namely that of conversing with his authors in a confidential andintentionally irreverent tone. For the scholiast from Patras, the text thathe is reading is not just a monument of the past: the ancient authorcomes to life in front of him, provoking his likes and dislikes dependingon his mood at that moment. A sort of dialogue opens up betweenthe reader and the author. Arethas addresses the author directly, bothto blame him and to express pleasure when he finds that he is inagreement 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 σω�ρ�σ�νη,14 inthis way: ‘be cursed, Plato, for so cunningly corrupting simple souls’.15

At a later point, he goes to the heart of the philosophical discussion todefend Charmides and to attack Socrates once again:16

Socrates, you are deceiving the noble Charmides with your speeches andconfusing him with sophistry. Because even if he has not shown adequatetemperance (σω�ρ�σ�νη), he was not in conflict with the truth. It is atleast a part of temperance to act in a quiet and orderly way; for by quietI mean non-violent, but you take it as the equivalent of lazy, and ofcourse 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):

�μ�0 μ4ν �[τω παιδεραστε�ν γ ν�ιτ� κτλ.], describing him as �πKρατ�ς: μ�γις π�τ , μιαρ4κα0 �πKρατε, τ8 σαυτ�� ��ε�πας. ��,λης κα0 πρ�,λης γ ν�ι�. (‘With much hesitation youadmitted this about yourself, you damned scoundrel! May you be utterly destroyed!’). Aprevious passage in the same work (Amores 35) had irritated Arethas’s sensitivity aboutthe issue of male homosexuality: the Byzantine reader calls Lucian μιαρ�λ�γ�ς, anadjective 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, namelyLucian. Lucian had already been the target of insulting epithets fromthe first Christian authors: in the ancient and medieval scholia toLucian, the editor Rabe has registered no less than thirty-nine con-temptuous terms used against him.18 Arethas readily adds his voice tothe chorus of reprobation directed against Lucian, who neverthelesslived on among the favourite authors of Byzantine readers. Leafingthrough the comments on Lucian’s works, one realizes that of thirty-nine spiteful allocutions, as many as fourteen can be read in the noteswritten by Arethas’s hand in the margins of the codex Harleianus 5694(tenth century—E), and another thirty such epithets can be found inthe three manuscripts (Vindob. gr. 123, eleventh century—B; Coisl. gr.345, tenth century – C; Pal. gr. 73, thirteenth century—R), in whichRabe has identified scholia that can be ascribed to Arethas. Generally,Lucian is blamed for his jokes about Greek religion and philosophy, forhis hyperbolic attacks against individuals, and for his presumed ped-erasty. In the dialogue Hermotimus, or Concerning the Sects (=Ερμ�τιμ�ς Dπερ0 ΑJρ σεων) Lycinus, that is to say Lucian, is explaining to Hermo-timus why no philosophical school can guide man in the quest for truth:

ΛΥΚ. κατ τα%τ τ�!νυν :παντες μ4ν �J �ιλ�σ����ντες τ"ν ε%δαιμ�ν!αν�ητ��σιν -π���ν τ! �στιν, κα0 λ γ�υσιν �λλ�ς �λλ� τι α%τ"ν εBναι, - μ4νTδ�ν�ν, - δ4 τ8 καλ�ν, - δ4 @σα 5τερK �ασι περ0 α%τ7ς. εOκ8ς μ4ν �`νκα0 τ��των 5ν τι εBναι τ8 εNδαιμ�ν, �%κ �πεικ8ς δ4 κα0 �λλ� τι παρ’α%τ πKντα. κα0 ��!καμεν Tμε�ς �νKπαλιν D �6ρ7ν, πρ0ν τ"ν �ρ6"ν εXρε�ν,�πε!γεσ&αι πρ8ς τ8 τ λ�ς. *δει δ4 μ�ι πρ�τερ�ν �ανερ8ν γεν σ&αι @τι*γνωσται τ�λη&4ς κα0 πKντως *6ει τις α%τ8 εOδcς τ.ν �ιλ�σ����ντων. εBταμετ τ��τ� τ8 \�7ς #ν _ν �ητ7σαι, Fp πειστ �ν �στ!ν.

ΕΡΜ. Sστε, { Λυκ�νε, τ��τ� ��ς, @τι �%δ’ #ν δι πKσης �ιλ�σ��!ας6ωρ�σωμεν, �%δ4 τ�τε πKντως 5��μεν τ�λη&4ς εXρε�ν. (66)

LUC: In the same way, all philosophers are investigating the nature ofHappiness; they get different answers, one Pleasure, another Goodness,and so through the list. It is probable that Happiness is one of these; butit is also not improbable that it is something else altogether. We seem tohave reversed the proper procedure, and hurried on to the end beforewe had found the beginning. I suppose we ought first to have ascertainedthat the truth has actually been discovered, and that some philosopher orother has it, and only then to have gone on to the next question, whichof 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 haveno certainty of finding the truth even then; that is what you say (trans. HW. and F.G. Fowler).

At this point, that is, at Hermotimus’s τ�λη&4ς εXρε�ν, the Christianorthodoxy in Arethas objects:19

jνα κα0 ε[ρMη, τ!ς sν εXρ�σει, 1δελυρ,τατε, �ν&ρωπ�ς Wν; κα0 τ!ς τ��τFωπιστε�σει, τ7ς �ν&ρ,π�υ ��σεως κατ σ4 �%δ’ @λως �6��σης τ8 κεκριμ ν�νκα0 �διKπταιστ�ν;

To discover it (sc. the truth), who, oh despicable person, will find it whilehe 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 forjudgement and for not making errors?

Arethas uses the adjective 1δελυρ,τατ�ς, which Lucian often usedagainst his rival in Pseudologistes, or the Mistaken Critic (Ψευδ�λ�γιστ"ς DΠερ0 τ7ς Απ��ρKδ�ς).20

If the convicia against Lucian reveal both the failure on Arethas’s partto acknowledge the pagan author’s irony and his habit of excessivelyliteral interpretation,21 the mood is different in the notes written in themargin of the Sacred Tales in the Laurentianus 60, 3, whose content, in myview, confirms their attribution to Arethas.

In the first note on the left margin of f. 36v, we read:

�λλ τ! τα�της *δει τ7ς τ�σα�της κα0 �νην�τ�υ πραγματε!ας, �Αριστε!δη;κα0 τ7ς τ�σα�της τ�� 6ρ�ν�υ τρι17ς; κα0 τ7ς �ασματ,δ�υς Pνειρ,�εως;εO δ�ναμις Xπ7ν τF. &εF. σ�υ �ΑσκληπιF., ��Kντη σε ν�σ�υ κα&ιστAν κα0�ν 1ρα6ει>A καιρ�� <�πM7 @περ *ργ�ν &ε�� )ς τ παρ’ Tμ�ν *6ει &ε�α τ.νν�σων �υγαδευτ�ρια. Z �% κα0 αν��τ�ις τ��τ� σα�4ς )ς T παρ�λκ" τ7ςXγε!ας τ"ν ��σιν �στ0ν �πισκ�π��ντ�ς* \αυτ"ν �Oκ�ν�μ��σαν κα0 πρ8ςXγε�αν �να� ρ�υσαν, μην��ντ�ς δ4 τα�τα, �λλ’ �%κ �νεργ��ντ�ς τ"ν τ.νλυπ��ντων �παλλαγ�ν; �ε0 σ? συνιδε�ν �%κ *6ων τK6α συγκKμν�ντ�ς τ��λ�γισμ�� τF. σ,ματι, λ�ρ�υς �ναπλKττεις μακρ�?ς κα0 �Kσματα �ασμKτωνεOς κ�μπ�ν �π�τελευτ.ντα κεν8ν Pδ�ντων.22

* κα0 �ναμ ν�ντ�ς.

What is the need, Aristides, of such a never-ending business? Of such awaste 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 bythe scribe Baanes (text) with scholia and marginal notes by Arethas. We are thus hereright 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 eyebeing 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 [thereturn 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 indeclaring such a view does not act in order to deliver himself from thosethings which grieve him? But you, who are never able to see, perhapsbecause your reason suffers along with your body, you invent heaps ofnonsense and ghosts of ghosts that produce only the empty gnashing ofteeth.

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 strategythat Asclepius used to order him to fast. In this case, it is a questionof poisoned figs, fortune-tellers, sanctuary doctors and phlebotomies,between Smyrna and Pergamum.

The argument in this note is repeated in the margins of the thirdSacred Tale:

κενεαυ6"ς �ν&ρωπ�ς �� �γαν κ�υ��τητ�ς jνα μ" κα0 �μπλη�!αν λ γω.(f. 54v, ad 47.43)

A vainglorious man in consequence of his excessive levity, so that I amnot talking stupidity.

It appears again in the margins of the fourth:

�Oηματ!ας �ν&ρωπ�ς κα0 κ�μπ�ρρ�μων κα0 περιαυτ�λ�γ�ςk τ δ4 πKντα �κκ���ης γν,μης κα0 6α�ν�υ. ��’ pν κα0 T �π ραντ�ς α[τη α%τF. Pνεριπ�λε-σ6!α (f. 62v, ad 50.48).

A conceited person and a boaster and always talking about himself: all ofthis comes from a weak wit and from vanity. From this it comes to himeven this boundless talking in dreams.

In more recent times, Giacomo Leopardi, at the age of sixteen, wroteof the Sacred Tales: ‘Dopo aver letto tutto ciò, la persona saggia non puòsottrarsi, a causa del cieco egocentrismo dell’autore, ad una sensazionedi nausea’.23 In light of the judgement of such a sensitive and learnedmind, Arethas’s lack of restraint in his criticism of Arstides appearsless objectionable. Certainly, it is true that before the strange ravingsof 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 sophisticexpertise in the more typically rhetorical orations (Orations I–XV Keil),where there is almost no trace of diseases, dreams, and the cult ofAsclepius. As a Christian Arethas must have been uneasy about the title=Ιερ�0 λ�γ�ι, Sacred Tales, which echoed his Sacred Scriptures too much.When he then had to associate such an elevated title with contentthat would have been completely improper in relation to the conceptof sacredness upheld by the Christian orthodoxy, Arethas could nolonger refrain from reprobation, albeit administered in small doses ofironical comments, annoyed reactions, concise judgements, and truecontumelies. Later on he says:

$δε �μ1ρ�ντησ!αν κα0 �μπλη�!αν �ν&ρ,π�υ κα0 τα�τα δ��αι σ����.24 (f. 44r;ad 48.41)

Look at the stupidity and the rashness—and such things are the opinionsof a wise man.

A bit later still, Arethas has the following opinion about an enema towhich Aristides submits in order to purify his liver:

καλ.ς γε τ��τ� μ�ν�ν εOσελ&8ν, )ς #ν �π�κα&KρMη τ"ν �αντασι�κ�π��σανκ�πρ�ν, κα0 πρ8ς τ8 �ρ�νε�ν τε κα0 σω�ρ�νε�ν �πανα6&ε!ης εO κα0 μ�δε�[τω25 τF. δ �ντι μετεγ ν�υ (f. 44v, ad 48.43).

This is the only good thing that has come into his mind, that he mightpurify the dung that overworks his imagination and that you might bereturned to your mind and your senses although you have not comeback to this condition at the point when it was necessary.

In the other notes the tone continues to alternate between insultingepithets and scornful irony, resulting in some cases, as in the one justseen, in unexpected vulgarity in a church man and a scholar likeArethas. Soon after, Arethas mocks even the dietary remedies adoptedby Aristides:

δε〈λ〉��νι�ν �σ&!ων κα0 6ην8ς rπαρ—τ �πεπτ�τατα—�1��λ�υ τ8ν στ�-μα6�ν ε%ρωστε�ν; Tδ?ς εB26 (f. 44v, but the reference is ad 48.43).

Eating delphynion and goose liver—by far the most indigestible food—didyou want to strengthen your stomach? How ingenuous!

24 Dindorf (1829, III,343) here adds an *6�ντ�ς that is not in the original text.25 Dindorf (1829, II,344) writes 'ντως.26 Cf. Pl. Gorg. 491e: )ς Tδ?ς εB (‘how foolish you are’!).

290 luana quattrocelli

In his aversion to our pagan author, Arethas goes so far as to exploitthe 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 encouragingapparition of the goddess Athena, he decided to administer to himselfan enema of Attic honey in order to purify his bile:

κα0 μετ τα�τα rκεν OKματα κα0 τρ��α!k πρ.τ�ν μ4ν rπαρ, �Bμαι, 6ην8ςμετ τ"ν π�λλ"ν �π�ρρησιν πρ8ς :παντα τ σιτ!α, *πειτα Xε!�υ τι Xπ�γα-στρ!�υ. (Or. 48.43).

And after this came curatives and nourishment. First, I think, goose liverafter frequent refusal of all food. Then some sausage.

The Greek text, then, mentions rπαρ 6ην8ς and Xε!�υ τι Xπ�γαστρ!�υ.In his comments on δελ��νι�ν κα0 6ην8ς rπαρ, Arethas, who was evi-dently in the dark about dietary habits and pharmacopoeia in the sec-ond century, deliberately distorts the foods prescribed with escalatingirony. The ‘some sausage’ (Xε!�υ τι Xπ�γαστρ!�υ) appears to Arethasquite curious and out of place: it has become the vulgar δελ��νι�ν,which is probably the diminutive of δελ��ς, δελ���ς (vulva, uterus).

Given the harshness of Arethas’s censure, it is not surprising thatAristides is also called a ‘terrible drunkard’: )ς *�ικεν �Oν�π�της δειν8ς�Αριστε!δης (f. 53v, ad Or. 49.32). In this case, the commentator showsthat he has fully understood the Greek author’s references (Or. 49.32):

@σ�ν μ4ν �`ν τινα 6ρ�ν�ν δι�νεγκα τ"ν Xδρ�π�σ!αν, �%δ4 τ��τ� *6ω λ γειν,@τι δ’ ε%κ�λως τε κα0 <>αδ!ως, αOε! πως πρ�τερ�ν δυσ6ερα!νων τ8 [δωρ κα0ναυτι.ν. )ς δ4 κα0 τ��τ� �λελειτ��ργητ�, τ�� μ4ν [δατ�ς ��!ησ! με, �$ν�υδ4 *τα�εν μ τρ�ν, κα0 _ν γε τ8 <7μα ‘Tμ!να 1ασιλικ�’· γν,ριμ�ν δ�π�υ@τι *�ρα�εν Tμικ�τ�λι�ν. �6ρ,μην τ��τFω κα0 �[τως Zρκει )ς �%κ Zρκειπρ�τερ�ν τ8 διπλKσι�ν, *στιν δ’ @τε κα0 �ειδ�μ νFω Xπ8 τ�� δεδι ναι μ� μ τι λυπM7 περι7ν. �% μ"ν τ��τ� γε �π�ι��μην ��α!ρετ�ν εOς τ"ν Xστερα!αν,�λλ’ �� �ρ67ς *δει τF. μ τρFω στ ργειν. �πε0 δ4 κα0 τα�την εB6ε τ"ν πε�ραν,��!ησιν Zδη π!νειν πρ8ς ���υσ!αν, �Xτωσ! πως 6αριεντισKμεν�ς, @τι μKται�ιτ.ν �ν&ρ,πων εBεν @σ�ι τ.ν Jκαν.ν ε%π�ρ��ντες μ" τ�λμ.σιν �λευ& ρως6ρ7σ&αι.

I also cannot say for how long I endured water drinking, but it was easyand pleasant, although before I always found water somehow disagree-able and disgusting. When this duty also had been performed, he tookme off water, and assigned me a measure of wine. The word was ‘ademiroyal’. It is quite clear that he meant a half pint. I used this, andit sufficed, as formerly twice the amount did not. Sometimes there waseven some wine left over, since I was sparing through fear that it might beharmful. 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, hepermitted 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 anddo not dare to use them freely.

Aristides speaks about Tμικ�τ�λι�ν, that is to say, a ‘half kotyle’, inreferring to the amount of wine assigned to him by the god. If thequantity of wine permitted by Asclepius was so limited, the quantity ofwine that Aristides regularly drank prior to his disease must have beenmore excessive—hence Arethas refers to him as a ‘terrible drunkard’(�Oν�π�της δειν�ς).

Even if we are simply observing Arethas’s usual behaviour here, asthe 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 ofhis cultural context, with the Sacred Tales he engages in a polemic ofa religious nature. He is no longer confronting Plato’s obvious pagan-ism or Lucian’s alleged atheism; rather, he is confronting a true rivalof Christianity. Insofar as Aristides is devoted to one god alone, albeita pagan one, he becomes an imitator of Christian monotheism forour Byzantine commentator. What appears most hateful about Aris-tides is his representation of Asclepius as precisely the kind of god thatArethas’s God is for the Christians: a god of redemption, who seeseverything, knows his believers, and does everything necessary for theirsalvation.

If we are to understand Arethas and ‘his’ Aristides, we cannot losesight of two aspects of the Sacred Tales. First, we must consider the imageof Asclepius. The god is usually invoked as ‘the Saviour’ (- Σωτ�ρ):he is a god who loves his devoted suppliant Aristides and intervenesdirectly to secure his salvation, a god who achieves miracles for himand through him. Second, with respect to Aelius Aristides, we shouldnote the Aristidean triangle patient-god-tales that begins to emerge inthe Sacred Tales as a self-conscious reworking of the Hippocratic trian-gle patient-disease-doctor.27 Without an addressee, Aristides’ experiencewould 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 beingrecounted in the Sacred Tales, Aristides’ spiritual experience participatesin 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 thegreatness of the god himself through a direct testimony before others,regardless of whether they, too, are followers. It is evident that therepresentation of Asclepius as a savior god, together with the religioustestimony 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 forArethas’s virulent attacks on Aristides in the margins to the Sacred

Tales, attacks that, as one might expect, are absent from the marginsto Aristides’ other orations.

It is because of his deep-seated aversion that Arethas directs hisirreverent contempt not only against Aelius Aristides and his travails,but also against Asclepius. We have already seen in the first note howironic Arethas can be about Asclepius’ capacity to heal: εO δ�ναμις Xπ7ντF. &εF. σ�υ �ΑσκληπιF. ��Kντη σε ν�σ�υ κα&ιστAν …(if the power residesin your god Asclepius to make you free of your disease…). After readingthe long account of the baths in the river and in the sea that Asclepiusimposes on Aristides (Or. 48.52–55), Arethas comments in the samescornful and vexed tone:

)ς *�ικεν �ντ0 6ην8ς �&�ρματ! σ�ι �κ 6ρητ�, �Αριστε!δη, - &αυμαστ�ς σ�υ&ε8ς �Ασκληπι8ς τ�σ��τ�ις λυτρ��ς σε διKγων. (f. 46r, ad 48.52–55)

It seems, Aristides, that instead of a goose your wonderful god Asclepiushas made you his pet, amusing you with such baths!

The &αυμαστ�ς σ�υ, referring to Asclepius, and the �&�ρματ! σ�ι,directed at Aristides, show the self-satisfaction that Arethas derives fromhis displays of irony and contempt.

One particularly striking detail of the scholia is the contrast betweenthe 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 thoseconvicia. Although the style of the Sacred Tales is certainly not one of thebest examples of Aristidean Atticism—indeed, André Boulanger hasspoken of their ‘naïveté profonde’ (1923, 348)—nevertheless it shines incomparison with the writing of the medieval commentator. Lacking inany rhetorical structuring or philological severity, Arethas’s phrasing isdifficult 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 havehad their corpus of works so richly preserved in multiple manuscripts(232). In the eleventh century, not too long after the Archbishop ofCaesarea wrote his harsh notes, Psellus, perhaps the most outstand-ing author of the Byzantine Middle Ages, registers his high esteem forAristides’ 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 thebreadth 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 weightyvolumes containing Aristides’ entire œuvre and smaller manuscripts ofselected orations, which were indispensable to the learned humanist’sstudies. We are now at the beginning of the fourteenth century. For theeastern Renaissance, which first develops in this period, Aelius Aristideshas 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 undKommentar (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 Powerin Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius’, ANRW II.32.1, 40–124 (Berlinand New York).

Aleshire, S.B. (1989) The Athenian Asklepieion. The People, Their Dedications, and theInventories (Amsterdam).

Anderson, G. (1989) ‘The pepaideumenos in Action. Sophists and Their Outlookin 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 penséegréco-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’, inStudies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey, 41–42 (London).

Avotins, I. (1978) ‘The Sophist Aristocles and the Grammarian Phrynichus’, LaParola 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’, Hermes63:261–287.

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 recherchesur l’hellénisme post-classique (Paris).

Beck, M. (2004) ‘Plutarch on the Statesman’s Independence of Action’, in deBlois et al., 105–114.

Beecke E. (1905) Die historischen Angaben in Aelius Aristides Panathenaikos auf ihreQuellen untersucht (Strasbourg).

Behr, C.A. (1969) ‘Aelius Aristides’ Birth Date Corrected to November 26, 117A.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 BiographyRevised 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/CastleHernen, 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 grecqueoffertes à André Plassart par ses collègues de la Sorbonee, 1–7 (Paris).

———, (1993) ‘Quatre styles d’autobiographie au IIe siècle après J.-C.: AeliusAristide, Lucien, Marc-Aurèle, Galien’, in Baslez et al., 199–209.

Bost-Pouderon, C. (2006) Dion Chrysostom. Trois discourses aux villes (Orr. 33–35), 2vol. (Salerno).

Boudon, V. (1994) ‘Le rôle de l’eau dans les prescriptions médicales d’Asclépioschez Galien et Aelius Aristide’, in L’eau, la santé et la maladie dans le mondegrec. 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 sièclede 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). Originallypublished 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’, inPlutarco y la Historia (Actas del V Simposio Español sobre Plutarco Zaragoza1996). 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 IambicPoetry’, 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’, REA106:177–185.

———, (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.421BC–AD 2007. Ed. E. Hall and A. Wrigley, 32–51 (Oxford).

———, Forthcoming (a) ‘Quotation of Earlier Texts in τ �ς τ8ν Τυαν α �Απ�λ-λ,νι�ν’, in Theios Sophistes [Mnemosyne Supplement]. Ed. K. Demoen andD. 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 lemonde grec. IIe siècle av. J.-C-Ier siècle ap. J.-C. Circulation, Activités, Intégration. Actesde 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 (Iers. 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 FinnishInstitute 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 Studies33:403–417.

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’, Klio25:86–113.

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 neiDiscorsi 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 griechischenKultgesetzen’, in Schuld, Gewissen und Person: Studien zur Geschichte des innerenMensche. Ed. J. Assmann and T. Sundermeier, 142–179 (Gütersloh).

Chantraine, P. (1950) ‘Les Mots grecs signifiant lire’, in Mélanges Henri GrégoireII = 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 RomanEgypt (Princeton).

———, (2007a) The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton).

300 bibliography

———, (2007b) ‘Lucian, Libanius, and the Short Road to Rhetoric’, GRBS47:71–86.

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 Mémoires3:1–242.

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 tothe 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’, Prometheus28:139–150.

———, (2003) ‘Roma e la Grecia: una cultura per due popoli’, Studi Ellenistici15:229–243.

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 von69/70 bis 138/139’, Chiron 13:147–237.

———, (1991) ‘P. Aelius Apollonides, ab epistulis Graecis, und ein Brief desCornelius Fronto’, ZPE 91:236–242.

Edelstein, E.J., and L. Edelstein (1945). Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation ofthe Testimonies (Baltimore).

Edwards, C. (1999) ‘The Suffering Body: Philosophy and Pain in Seneca’sLetters’, in Porter, 252–268.

Elsner, J. and I. Rutherford, eds. (2005) Pilgrimage in Graeco-Roman and EarlyChristian 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 inGreece’, in DeLaine and Johnston, 57–66.

Fassò, G. (2001) Storia della filosofia del diritto I: Antichità e medioevo. Edizioneaggiornata a cura di C. Faralli. (Rome and Bari). Originally publishedBologna: 1966–1970.

Ferrary, J.L. (1984) ‘L’Archéologie du De re publica (2,2,4–37–63): Cicéron entrePolybe et Platon’, JRS 54:87–98.

———, (1988) Philhellénisme et impérialisme. Aspects idéologiques de la conquête romainedu 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 ofFoucault 1954–1984. Vol. I. Ed. P. Rabinow, 208–222 (New York).

302 bibliography

———, (1997b) ‘Technologies of the Self ’, in Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. EssentialWorks 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 delcorpo e direzione spirituale’, in Cultura e promozione umana. La cura del corpo edello spirito nell’antichità classica e nei primi secoli cristiani. Ed. E. Dal Covolo andI. 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 Hellenikeskai latinikes Epigraphikes. Athena, 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’, Arethusa36:235–254.

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 ofEmpire. 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 XIthInternational Hippocrates Colloquium, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 27–31August2002. 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 Bulletin5:135–144.

Gruen, E.S. (1984) The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. 2 vol. (Berkeleyand Los Angeles).

Gualandi, G. (1976) Sculture di Rodi. [Annuario della Scuola Archaeologica diAtene 54].

Guerber, É. (2002) ‘Le thème de la liberté des grecs et ses prolongementspolitiques sous le haut-empire’, in Idéologies et valeurs civiques dans le monderomain. 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 maladied’Aelius Aristide’, Littérature, médecine, société 5:83–90.

Gunderson, E. (2000) Staging Masculinity: the Rhetoric of Performance in the RomanWorld (Ann Arbor).

Gustafson, M. (1997) ‘Inscripta in fronte: Penal Tattooing in Late Antiquity’, CA16:79–105.

Habicht,C. (1969) Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Altertümer vonPergamonVIII3(Berlin).

304 bibliography

———, (2005) ‘Review of Sviatoslav Dmitriev. City Government in Hellenistic andRoman 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 zwischenPergamon 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 diMartin 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

ΠΑΝΑΘΗΝΑΙΚΣ (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’, inI 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 inAncient Greece (Princeton).

Holowchak, A.M. (2001) ‘Interpreting Dreams for Corrective Regimen: Diag-nostic Dreams in Greco-Roman Medicine’, Journal of the History of Medicineand 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 inAncient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine. Ed. H.F.J. Horstmanshoff andM. 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 hautempire’, 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 Europeanand 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 NewYork).

———, (2008) ‘The Survival of the Sophists’, in East and West: Papers in AncientHistory Presented to Glen W. Bowersock, 113–125 (Cambridge, Mass.).

de Jonge, P. (1977) Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus MarcellinusBook 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. Meyerand 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 Gebiete13:212–213.

Klein, R. (1995) ‘Zum Kultur- und Geschichtsverständnis in der Romrededes 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, LiteraryDescription, 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. deLigt 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 tes hellenistikes ochyroseos’,

Archaiologiki Ephemeris, 115–128.———, (1973) ‘Anaskaphai eis Rhodon’, Praktika tis en Athinais Archailogikis Etai-

reias, 127–136.Kontis, I.D. (1952) ‘Anaskaphikai ereunai eis ten polin tes Rodou. II’, Praktika

tis en Athinais Archailogikis Etaireias, 547–591.———, (1953) ‘Anaskaphikai ereunai eis ten polin tes Rodou. III’, Praktika tis en

Athinais Archailogikis Etaireias, 275–287.———, (1954) ‘Anaskaphikai ereunai eis ten polin tes 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 tes Rhodou’, Archaiologokon Deltion 18:76–94.

bibliography 307

Kontorini, V. (1983) Rhodiaka I. Inscriptions inédites relatives à l’histoire et aux cultes deRhodes 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 ResearchTool 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 �λα�,ν,’ 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 inthe 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, andthe 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 Studies53:139–159.

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’ CA2:251–278.

———, (1990) ‘The Kingship Orations of Dio Chrysostom’, Papers of the LeedsInternational Latin Seminar 6:297–375.

Molloy, M.E. (1996) Libanius and the Dancers. [Altertumswissenschaftliche Texteund 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 theLate Republic’, JRS 41:149–153. Reprinted in Quinto Contributo alla storia delmondo 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 semblerdire 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 derRenaissance. 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 inthe Second Century After Christ through the Roman Oration of AeliusAristides’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 43:871–1003.

———, (1989) Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscripitions andPapyri. [Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 178] (Philadelphia).

O’Neil, J.L. (1981) ‘How Democratic was Hellenistic Rhodes?’, Athenaeum59:468–477.

Oudot, E. (2003) ‘Athènes divisée et réconciliée: le point de vue des orateursde la seconde Sophistique sur les événements de 404–403’, in Fondements etcrises du pouvoir. Ed. S. Franchet d’Espèrey, V. Formentin, S. Gotteland, andJ.-M. Roddaz, 253–270 (Bordeaux).

———, (2004) ‘Athènes la Périégèse de Denys d’Alexandrie ou la mutation d’uneimage’, 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 sullaMagna Grecia, Taranto, 4–8 ottobre 1981. Ed. A. Stazio and S. Ceccoli, 249–273(Taranto).

———, (1994) Istoria tou Rodou. Apo tous proïstorikous chronous eos ten ensomatose tesdodekanesou. 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 méditerranéeancienne. 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 del’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 deslettres, 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 Asclepionell’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) ‘Paratereseis sten ochyrose tes archaia Ro-

dou’, in Rodos 2400 Chronia. E pole tes Rodou apo ten idryse tes mechri ten katalepseapo tous Tourkous. Diethnes Epistemoniko Synedrio, Rodos, 24–29 Oktobriou1993, Praktika, Athena 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 RenéLabrun. Ed. M. Mazoyer and O. Casabonne, 212–239 (Louvain-la-Neuveand 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. DavidHalperin et al., 365–387 (Princeton). [Originally published in Past and Present113 (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 aTiberio e ad Antonino Pio’, in Studi di antichità classiche offerti da colleghi ediscepoli 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) ‘Daimon 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 ladéstruction de Smyrne (177/8 après J.-C.)’, in La ‘crise’ de l’Empire romain deMarc 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’, REG79:733–770. Reprinted in Opera Minora Selecta VI.551–588 (Amsterdam 1969).

bibliography 313

———, (1967) ‘Une tête de femme sur les monnaies de Rhodes’, in Monnaiesgrecques. Types, légendes, magistrats monétaries et géographie, 7–14. (Geneva andParis).

———, (1970) ‘Deux concours grecs à Rome’, in Comptes rendus de l’Académie desInscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 6–27. Reprinted in Choix d’Écrits (Paris, 2007), 247–266.

Rochette, B. (1997) ‘=Ρ,μη=<,μη’, 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 AeliusAristides’, Aevum Antiquum 12:133–148.

Rynearson, N. (2003) ‘Constructing and Deconstructing the Body in the Cultof 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’, inKonstan and Saïd, 47–60.

Salmeri, G. (1999) ‘La vita politica in Asia Minore nei discorsi di Dione diPrusa’, 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 derersten Berührung bis zum Aufgehen des Inselstaates im römischen Weltreich (Munich).

Schmitz, T. (1997) Bildung und Macht. Zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweitenSophistik 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’, JRS55:40–53.

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 Religionand 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 andGroom 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 andM. 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, FromAntiquity 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. 2vol. (Amsterdam and Atlanta).

van Straten, F.T. (1976) ‘Daikrates’ Dream. A Votive Relief from Kos, andSome Other kat’onar Dedications’, Bulletin antieke beschaving 51:1–38.

———, (1981) ‘Gifts for the Gods’, in Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of ReligiousMentality 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’AeliusAristide (Or. XLV)’, Euphrosyne 33:325–339.

Vermeule, E. (1979) Aspects of Death in Greek Art and Poetry (Berkeley and LosAngeles).

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 andLos Angeles).

Webb, R. (2001) ‘The Progymnasmata as Practice’, in Education in Greek and RomanAntiquity. 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 übergriechische Lyriker (Berlin).

———, (1925) ‘Der Rhetor Aristeides’, Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie derWissenschaften 28:333–353.

Williams, G.D. (2006) ‘Graeco-Roman Seismology and Seneca on Earthquakesin 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 AeliusAristides’, 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: Entwicklungsliniender kaiserzeitlichen Geschichtsschreibung vom 1. bis zum frühen 3. Jh. n.Chr.’, in Geschichtsschreibung und politischer Wandel im 3. Jh. n. Chr. Kolloquium zuEhren von K.-E. Petzold. Ed. M. Zimmermann, 17–56 (Stuttgart).

INDEX

Achilles, 1Aelius 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; andByzantine 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; detachmentfrom 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; andthe 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 RomanEmpire, 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, 275–277Oration I: 31–49, 191–193Oration II: 16, 193–195, 273Oration III: 16Oration IV: 186–187Oration V: 195–196Orations XI–XV: 58Oration XVI: 1–3, 16Oration XXIII: 107Oration XXIV: 238–248Oration XXV: 218–237Oration XXVI: 2–3, 47–48, 144,145, 188–190, 203–216

Oration XXVII: 131–150Oration XXVIII: 18–21, 160–163,165–167, 187, 255

Oration XXIX: 275Oration XXX: 276–277Oration XXXI: 277Oration XXXIII: 116, 119, 123–127, 129–130, 187, 271, 272,275–276, 279

Oration XXXIV: 60, 75, 273Oration XXXVI: 141Oration XXXVII: 255Oration XL: 17Oration XLII: 107Oration XLV: 16Orations 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, 290Oration L: 93, 95, 183–184, 164,165, 280, 288

Oration LI: 96–97, 131, 135–138,181, 269, 276, 280

Thersites (lost): 264–265agonistic culture, 154, 166–167, 171,218–219, 228–229, 232, 269–270

Alcaeus, 10Alcman, 10–11Alexander of Cotiaeum, 178Alexander of Seleuceia, 256alousia (abstention from bathing),119–123, 125, 128, 130

Ammianus Marcellinus, 235Anacreon, 13, 14Antonine plague, 87, 126Apollonius of Tyana, 122Apsines, 185, 280Archilochus, 11–12, 13–14, 15Arethas, 279–293Ariphron, 15Aristophanes, 9, 261Aristotle, 209, 211, 246Artemidorus 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, 96Bakhtin, M.M., 153Basil of Caesarea, 280, 293bathing, 121–122: and see Aelius

Aristides, alousiaBoulanger, A., 293Bowersock, G.W., 2, 3, 183Bowie, E.L., 2Byzantine Renaissance, 284–285

Celsus, 122Christian rampages, 70Cicero, 208, 209–210, 212, 215, 247Claudius Aristocles, 258–260, 262

Commodus, 257consolation orations, 218, 220, 235–236

Cribiore, R., 2, 5L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus, 260,262

Cyzicus, 131–138

Damianus of Ephesus, 181dancing, 60–61, 73–74; and see pan-

tomimesdeath, 125–126Demetrius Poliorcetes, 226–227Demosthenes, 161, 264–265, 293Dierkens, J., 118Dindorf, G., 219Dio of Prusa, 12–14, 51, 56, 154, 177,200, 226, 228, 240, 242, 245–246

Diodorus Siculus, 246–247Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 210Dionysius Periegetes, 48dreams, 89; and see Aelius Aristidesdunamis (power), 34–37, 47

Epidaurian miracle tablets, 103Eunapius, 271, 281

Ferrary, J.-L., 208Fields, D., 3, 4–5‘figured speech’, 185–188; and see

Aelius AristidesFoerster, R., 264Fontanella, F., 3Franco, C., 3Freud, S., 89Fronto, 237

Galen, 86, 106, 120, 121, 253Gangloff, A., 51Gellius, A., 229–230Gkourogiannis, T.K., 9Gotteland, S., 51Gregory Nazianzenus, 293Gregory of Nyssa, 100

Hadrian of Tyre, 72Helen, 81–82, 91, 92, 94

index 321

Henry, R., 254–255Heracles myth, 51–52, 54, 56, 57–64Hermogenes, 185, 197Herodian, 76Herodotus, 242Herzog, R., 233hieroscopy, 96–97Himerius, 280Holmes, B., 4Homer, 1, 9, 81–82, 125, 265, 266,275

homonoia, among Greek elites, 159–160

imitation, 267Imouthes-Asclepius, 102Isocrates, 63, 66Iulius Apolaustus, Ti., pantomime,74–75

Iulius Iulianus, Ti., 259–260, 262

John Chrysostom, 280Jones, C.P., 5, 219Julian, 70

kairos, 169, 218, 244Keil, B., 218–219, 221, 235

laudes urbium, 222, 226–228, 230Leopardi, G., 276, 288Libanius, 69–74, 76–77, 236, 263–278, 280

local autonomy, 159–160, 171–172,244–246, 248–249

Longinus, 17, 194, 280Lucian, 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, 293Maximus of Tyre, 14–15Menander, 261Menander Rhetor, 146–147, 280Michenaud, G., 118

mixed constitutions, 211–212, 247muthos, 51–57

national character, 33, 40Neritus, 108Norman, A. F., 268–269, 271

Odysseus, 81–82, 86, 91, 92, 94, 112Oracula Sibyllina, 232

Pack, R., 268–269Panaetius, 208–210, 247pantomimes, Chapter IV passimParis the pantomime, 72–73parrhêsia, 162Pausanias the periegete, 12, 146–147,232, 237, 242

Pax Romana, 214–215Pearcy, L., 97periautologia, in public life, 152–155,

Plutarch and, 155–160, Aristidesand, 160–167

Pericles, 33, 36–37, 44–45Pernot, L., 2, 3, 47, 216Persian Empire, 204–207philanthropia, 34, 38, 42Philostratus, 15, 122, 181, 186, 200,230, 258, 271, 276

Photios, 253–258, 260, 284Phrynichos, 253–262phthonos (envy), 159, 213–214Pindar, 10, 16–18, 21, 262Plato, 16, 59, 65, 124, 126, 129, 186,188, 193–194, 211, 215, 284–285

Pliny the Elder, 226Pliny the Younger, 233Plutarch, 3, 4, 12, 44, 48, 122, 152–160, 161, 168–170, 172, 194, 245,246

poets, archaic, Chapter I passimPolybius, 203–216, 228, 246, 261Posidonius, 210, 247Prokonnesos, 133–134Prometheus myth, 65–67Psellus, 291Pseudo-Dionysus of Halicarnassus,186, 191, 197

322 index

Quattrocelli, L., 5Quintilian, 186

Rabe, H., 286Rhodes, 218–249Robert, L., 73, 74, 76, 228Rome, 189–190, 215–216; and see

Aelius AristidesRutherford, I., 153, 169

Said, S., 2Sappho, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16Satyrus, 106Schmid, W., 219Sedatus of Nicaea, 260Seneca the Elder, 186Sider, D., 20Simonides, 11, 14, 18–19, 20, 21Solon, 14, 20–21, 239Socrates, 124, 129–130Sophocles, 9Sparta, 40, 71–72, 75–77Stesichorus, 11, 13, 14, 15Strabo, 48, 226, 229, 246

Swain, S., 5Synesius, 281

Tacitus, 194, 198, 247Telesphorus, 98, 109Tennyson, A., 112Terpander, 239Theodorus Metochites, 281Theodotus, 104Thucydides, 31–49, 195, 197, 261tragedy, 73–74

Vergil, 208Verus, L., 135Vologeses IV, 179–180

Xenophon, 261Xenophon of Ephesus, 230

Watts, E., 276Weiss, C., 118Wilson, N.G., 284Wissmann, J., 66

Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition publishes monographs by members of theColumbia 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 andmodern manifestations.

1. MONFASANI, J. Georg of Trebizond. A Biography and a Study of his Rhetoric andLogic. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04370 5

2. COULTER, J. The Literary Microcosm. Theories of Interpretation of the LaterNeoplatonists. 1976. ISBN 90 04 04489 2

3. RIGINOS, A.S. Platonica. The Anecdotes concerning the Life and Writings ofPlato. 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 66. SCHEIN, S.L. The Iambic Trimeter in Aeschylus and Sophocles. A Study in Metrical

Form. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05949 07. O’SULLIVAN, T.D. The De Excidio of Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date. 1978.

ISBN 90 04 05793 58. COHEN, S.J.D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a

Historian. 1979. ISBN 90 04 05922 99. TARÁN, S.L. The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram. 1979.

ISBN 90 04 05957 110. 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 ArtisticTradition. 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 andInterpretation. 1987. ISBN 90 04 07862 2

15. BROWN, R.D. (ed.). Lucretius on Love and Sex. A Commentary on De Rerum NaturaIV, 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 418. SCHWARTZ, S. Josephus and Judaean Politics. 1990. ISBN 90 04 09230 719. BARTMAN, E. Ancient Sculptural Copies in Miniature. 1992. ISBN 90 04 09532 220. DORCEY, P.F. The Cult of Silvanus. A Study in Roman Folk Religion. 1992.

ISBN 90 04 09601 921. 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 522. BILLOWS, R.A. Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism. 1994.

ISBN 90 04 10177 223. ROTH, J.P. The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. - A.D. 235). 1999. ISBN

90 04 11275 124. 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 430. MARZANO, A. Roman Villas in Central Italy. A Social and Economic History. 2007.

ISBN 978 90 04 16037 831. BAROLINI, T. & H. WAYNE STOREY (eds.). Petrarch and the Textual Origins of Interpretation.

2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16322 532. CICCOLELLA, F. Donati Graeci. Learning Greek in the Renaissance. 2008.

ISBN 978 90 04 16352 233. 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