Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Sophistry in the High Roman Empire Mnemosyne Supplements Monographs on Greek and Latin Language and Literature

Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Sophistry in the High Roman Empire Mnemosyne Supplements monographs on greek and latin language and literature Executive Editor G.J. Boter (vu University Amsterdam) Editorial Board A. Chaniotis (Oxford University) K.M. Coleman (Harvard University) I.J.F. de Jong (University of Amsterdam) T. Reinhardt (Oxford University) Advisory Board K.A. Algra – R.J. Allan – M.A. Harder – S. Harrison C.H.M. Kroon – A.P.M.H. Lardinois – I. Sluiter – F.M.J. Waanders volume 385 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mns Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Sophistry in the High Roman Empire Maximus of Tyre and Twelve Other Intellectuals By Jeroen Lauwers leiden | boston Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lauwers, Jeroen. Philosophy, rhetoric, and sophistry in the high Roman Empire : Maximus of Tyre and twelve other intellectuals / by Jeroen Lauwers. pages cm. – (Mnemosyne supplements : monographs on Greek and Latin language and literature, ISSN 0169-8958 ; VOLUME 385) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-30152-8 (hardback : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-90-04-30153-5 (e-book) 1. Maximus, of Tyre, active 2nd century. 2. Philosophy, Ancient. 3. Sophists (Greek philosophy) 4. Rhetoric, Ancient. I. Title. B588.Z7L38 2015 184–dc23 2015022563 This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0169-8958 isbn 978-90-04-30152-8 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-30153-5 (e-book) Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 Scholarly Reception 3 From the Collective to the Individual 6 From Macrolevel to Microlevel 11 Why Maximus? 12 1 Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Sophistry in the Roman Empire 15 1 The Traditional Conflict: A Short Overview 16 2 Greco-Roman Imperial Culture 20 3 A Functionalist Approach 38 4 Individual Authors 40 2 The dialexeis of Maximus of Tyre 125 1 Reading Maximus’ dialexeis 125 2 Communication and Pedagogy 136 3 Sophistry 166 4 Rhetoric 175 5 Philosophy 201 6 Purpose and Meaning 235 7 Analysis of Individual dialexeis 269 Conclusion 290 Bibliography 295 Index Locorum 321 Index of Persons and Concepts 328 Acknowledgements Over the past few years, a number of people and institutions have helped me complete this monograph. First of all, my generous supervisor and colleague Luc Van der Stockt deserves an infinite number of thanks for his continuous encouragements and for his critical eye, which studied several previous ver- sions of this manuscript. Warm regards also go out to my cosupervisor Michael Trapp, whose great generosity and knowledge about Maximus and his culture have proven invaluable for the eventual argument in this book. I have also greatly benefited from the feedback of Geert Roskam, Jan Opsomer, Ortwin de Graef, and Thomas Schmitz, whose critical yet encouraging readings have greatly increased the quality of this contribution. The same can be said of Mnemosyne’s anonymous reviewer, who pointed out several areas for improve- ment. Needless to say that I still take full responsibility for any remaining over- sights or errors in this manuscript. Other people who have definitely helped me a great deal in the writing process, maybe even without them knowing, include Judith Mossman, Katerina Oikonomopoulou, Michiel Meeusen, Bram Demulder, Thomas Schampaert, Tom Deneire, Dries De Crom, Martin Korenjak, Chiara Thumiger, Tim Whit- marsh, Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, Miriam Leonard, Maarten De Pourcq, Ewen Bowie, and Lucia Athanassaki. Special thanks go out to Christopher Ransom, who went through the entire manuscript in order to correct all unidiomatic and faulty expressions. Many friends and colleagues, both from the department of classics at the University of Leuven and from the department of literary studies, have each in their own way contributed to the project that resulted in this monograph. Their various initiatives and efforts have greatly been appreciated. The research that produced this volume would not have been possible without the support of the Research Foundation—Flanders (fwo) and the Univer- sity of Leuven. The former institution also supported a scholarly stay at King’s College London, which was highly desirable if not necessary for the develop- ment of the argument of this book. The final stages of the writing process took place at the inspiring library of the Freie Universität Berlin, for which I thank Almut-Barbara Renger and the Junior Mobility Allowance of the University of Leuven. Last but not least, I wish to thank my parents, my brother Freek, my wife Ann, and my son Magnus, to whom I dedicate this book. Introduction Is Maximus of Tyre, the Imperial Greek author of 41 orations about philosoph- ical topics, to be regarded as a philosopher, a rhetor, or a sophist? This is the primary question regarding which the author of this study undertook his doc- toral project, of which this book is the final result. It is, all in all, a straight- forward question, but the answer proves to be a lot more complicated, as the main scholarly judgements about the Tyrian so far tend to be more indicative of these scholars’ own interpretative assumptions than of the dynamic intellec- tual background of Imperial literature and philosophy. By means of a detailed study of Maximus’ dialexeis and important concurrent voices, this book pro- poses to resolve this scholarly problem in a fashion that is more historically accurate. For our answers, Maximus’ life and career are sources of information upon which we can hardly rely. Unlike many rhetoricians and philosophers from the period of the so-called ‘Second Sophistic’, Maximus of Tyre, the historical author of the dialexeis, is almost entirely unknown to us. Moreover, as a result of the uncertainty about the adequateness of our sources, most elements of the little information that we do possess can be doubted as well. Consequently, the status of Maximus’ own autobiographical accounts, which are already not very numerous to begin with, is often hard to verify. A first problem arises when we confront the data of our two most important sources, viz. the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea and the Suda.1 Accord- ing to the former, Maximus of Tyre ‘came to prominence’ around the 232nd Olympiad, which corresponds to the period of 149 to 153ad. This would imply that Maximus’ floruit was, or at least started, during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138–161). However, scholarly research has evidenced that Eusebius’ account is probably fallacious.2 The Suda, on the other hand, which took its information from the Onomatologos of Hesychius, situates Maximus a couple of decades 1 Suda, s.v. Μάξιμος, Τύριος. 2 Eusebius’ sources do not give any impression of being historically accurate. Jerome’s version pairs Maximus with Arrian, who comes much earlier. Syncellus confuses Maximus Tyrius with the proconsul of Africa Claudius Maximus, who functioned as a judge in the trial of Apuleius’ Apology. The Armenian translation makes both mistakes together, suggesting moreover that Maximus (together with Arrian) was a teacher of Marcus Aurelius. We can strongly doubt, therefore, whether Eusebius’ account itself was unambiguously correct. See Trapp (1997a), xii n. 4. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi: 10.1163/9789004301535_002 2 introduction later, under the reign of Commodus (180–192). There is no real reason to question this date, even though there is no decisive evidence to support it. Some scholars3 have tried to identify Maximus of Tyre as Cassius Maximus, the addressee of Artemidorus’ Oneirocriticon, and this identification appears rather seductive, since Artemidorus depicts his addressee as a writer,4 a Phoeni- cian,5 and the wisest of all men.6 Nevertheless, this argumentation is not par- ticularly cogent. Moreover, this would almost necessarily imply that Maximus was recognized and honoured in his time as a talented philosopher, a conclusion which, even though it corresponds to Maximus’ educated self-promotion in his speeches, cannot simply be taken for granted. Evidence based on Maximus’ name remains disappointing as well, for it does not necessarily point to Roman citizenship or special privileges, as the adoption of a Roman name had become a rather frequent custom among Greek aristocrats. Furthermore, Maximus seems to have been one of the more popular Roman names both in Rome and in Greece.7 His toponym Tyrius does not lead to decisive conclusions either. For sure, it has something to do with Tyre (nowadays Sur), an important city in modern Lebanon,8 but we cannot be certain as to whether Maximus was born and had lived there, whether he had only studied there, or whether he had any other connection to the city.9 In any case, he does not appear to feel the urge to boast frequently about his home city, at least not in the same self-conscious way as a Dio Chrysostom or an Aelius Aristides.10 Perhaps this lack of chauvinism is caused by the addressees of Maximus’ dialexeis.

Load more