PHILOSTRATUS' PORTRAIT of HERODES ATTICUS , the Lives Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE KING OF ATHENS: PHILOSTRATUS’ PORTRAIT OF HERODES ATTICUS ESTELLE STRAZDINS HILOSTRATUS’ THIRD-CENTURY-CE TEXT, the Lives of the Sophists, which invents and defines the so-called “Second Sophistic,” privileges Athens Pover any other city in the empire and Herodes Atticus over any other soph- ist. Athens is the center of sophistic activity; Herodes is the city’s most promi- nent citizen, and both the city and the man combine to create and reinforce each other’s significance within this work to the extent that the whole sophistic scene seems to be controlled by Herodes, and Athens itself becomes his domain.1 Re- cently, much scholarly attention has been paid to Herodes, but less to Philo- stratus’ rhetorical presentation of him, since many scholars have long accepted Philostratus as a eulogist or at least an apologist for the great man.2 On a superfi- cial level this picture, particularly Philostratus’ defensive stance toward Herodes, holds true. Yet, I argue, a closer look reveals that the anecdotal biography is in fact a complex mix of praise and blame. Herodes appears as a “larger than life” char- acter, who is ever teetering on the verge of antisocial behavior at the same time as he dominates sophistic society in Athens. The most prominent aspect of Phi- lostratus’ critique involves the refraction of Herodes through a sophistic lens; that is, Philostratus uses the opposing concepts of the tyrant and the king, the ambig- uous figure of the hero, and the revered figure of the philosopher (who appears as a foil to highlight Herodes’ excesses) to meditate on his place as an elite Greek in both Athens and the Roman empire.3 Herodes’ nature is in sharpest relief when juxtaposed to Roman emperors and, in this relationship, Herodes comes to resem- ble Athens’ legendary king, Theseus. I am grateful to Tim Whitmarsh, Jaś Elsner, Jason König, Janet Downie, and CP’s anonymous reviewers, all of whom have provided insightful criticisms of various iterations of this article; all errors remain my own. Re- search for this article was generously funded by an Onassis Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship and an Austra- lian Endeavour Research Fellowship. 1. Anderson 1986, 83; Eshleman 2008, 397–99; 2012, 128–32; Kemezis 2011; Civiletti 2002, 30–31. Kemezis (2014, 212) describes an exiled Aeschines’ foundation of the “movement,” its early flourishing in Asia, and Herodes Atticus’ agency in returning it to Athens to make that city its center. Cf. Bowie 2015, 241–42. As well as personal identity and legacy, I will touch on aspects of cultural identity, whether literary or historical, that have been a focus of “Second Sophistic” studies. Some of the most important of these are: Bowersock 1969; Bowie 1970; Swain 1996; Gleason 1995; Schmitz 1997; Connolly 2001; Whitmarsh 2001 and 2005; König 2014. 2. E.g., Tobin 1997, 7: “Philostratus tries to present the more negative events in Herodes’ life ...in as pos- itive a light as possible ...he could not completely hide unpleasant facts about Herodes’ life. Instead, he tried to defend them or minimize them.” Cf. König 2014, 253; Papalas 1979, 96. See also Kemezis 2014, 209 for Philostratus’ Herodes as “the embodiment of everything a sophist should be.” Cf. Kemezis 2011, 8–11. 3. At VS 481 Philostratus describes his conception of the “Second Sophistic” and the importance of epideixis in character. See Whitmarsh 2001, 42; 2005, 4–5. Classical Philology 114 (2019): 238–264 [q 2019 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved] 0009-837X/19/11402-0004$10.00 238 THE KING OF ATHENS 239 The majority of our evidence for Herodes is monumental, demonstrating his desire to write himself into the landscape on his own terms as prominently and vastly as possible.4 Like many of his contemporaries, he combines monumen- talization with epigraphic activity, but on a grander scale than his sophistic peers.5 A sensitive reading of this material evidence confirms the individuality, ambiguity, and complexity of Philostratus’ rhetorical portrait, but also empha- sizes Philostratus’ influence in shaping Herodes’ memory despite his own best efforts. In this article, I reconsider Philostratus’ Herodes by demonstrating how he uses stock rhetorical figures to characterize the Athenian magnate. Secondly, I show how reading Philostratus alongside elements of Herodes’ material-culture footprint builds a fascinatingly complex picture of one of the most charismatic and repellent figures of second-century Greece. Finally, I suggest reasons for the am- bivalent portrait of Herodes that emerges from this process. By way of introduc- tion, I will consider one episode during which Philostratus constructs the various aspects of Herodes’ character on which I later enlarge. 1. TYRANT,KING,HERO, OR GOD?THE ISTHMUS OF CORINTH ἤλαυνε μὲντὴν ἐπὶ Κορίνθου ὁ Ἡρώδης ξυγκαθημένου του̃ Κτησιδήμου, γενόμενος δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἰσθμὸν “Πόσειδον,” εἶπεν “βούλομαι μέν, ξυγχωρήσει δὲ οὐ δείς.” θαυμάσας οὖνὁ Κτησίδημος τὸ εἰρημένον ἤρετο αὐ τὸντὴναἰτίαν του̃ λόγου. καὶ ὁ Ἡρώδης “ἐγὼ ,” ἔφη “πολὺνχρόνονἀ γωνίζομαι σημειον̃ ὑ πολείπεσθαι τοιςμετ̃ ’ ἐμὲ ἀ νθρώποις διανοίας δηλούσης ἄνδρα καὶ οὔπω δοκω̃ μοι τη̃ς δόξης ταύτης τυγχάνειν.” ὁ μὲνδὴ Κτησίδημος ἐπαίνους διῄ ει τω̃ντελόγωναὐ του̃ καὶ τω̃ν ἔργων ὡ ςοὐ κ ἐχόντων ὑ περβολὴνἑ τέρῳ , ὁ δὲ Ἡρώδης “φθαρτὰ,” ἔφη “λέγεις ταυ̃τα, καὶ γάρ ἐστι χρόνῳ ἁ λωτά, καὶ τοὺς λόγους ἡ μω̃ν τοιχωρυχου̃σιν ἕτεροι ὁ μὲντὸ μεμφόμενος, ὁ δὲ τό, ἡ δὲ του̃ Ἰσθμου̃ τομὴ ἔργον ἀ θάνατον καὶ ἀ πιστούμενον τῇ φύσει, δοκει̃ γάρ μοι τὸ ῥ η̃ξαι τὸν Ἰσθμὸν Ποσειδω̃νος δεισθαι̃ ἢ ἀ νδρός.” Herodes was driving to Corinth with Ctesidemus sitting by him; on arriving at the Isthmus, Herodes cried: “Poseidon, I want to do it, but no one will let me!” Amazed at what he had said, Ctesidemus asked him the reason for his remark. So Herodes replied: “For a long time I have been striving to leave behind to men that come after me some sign of an intention that reveals me as a man, and I consider that I have not yet achieved this reputation.” Then Ctesidemus narrated praises of his words and deeds which no other man could surpass. But Herodes replied: “All this that you speak of is perishable and liable to conquest by time, and others will plunder my speeches, criticizing now this, now that. But the cutting of the Isthmus is an immortal achievement and unbelievable by nature, for it seems to me that to cleave through the Isthmus requires Poseidon rather than a mere man.”6 (Philostr. VS 552) This passage reveals three important aspects of Philostratus’ Herodes: his am- bition to make a unique mark on the world that is suitable to his self-conception; his fear of mortality and loss of control over his reputation that it ensures; his desire for a heroic kind of immortal fame. Moreover, Herodes’ language iden- 4. On Herodes’ monuments, see Tobin 1997 and Galli 2002. 5. Ameling (1983) and Tobin (1997) contain inscriptional catalogues relating to Herodes. Arafat (1996, 191–92) describes the grand scale of his benefactions. 6. Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 240 ESTELLE STRAZDINS tifies the metaphorical framework within which we are to locate him: he is striv- ing (ἀ γωνίζομαι) to leave a sign (σημειον̃ ) of a purpose/intention (διανοία) that reveals him as a man (ἀ νήρ); yet, here, ἀ νήρ is perhaps best taken to mean the (great) man that he is.7 The verb ἀ γωνίζομαι signals a contest and, in context, suggests he is striving with himself, future generations, and the past, in that he wants to leave something indelible, remarkable, and unique. Since Homer, σημειον̃ has invoked a funeral monument or tomb marker. Herodes’ σημειον̃ must also be concrete, physical, and not open to misinterpretation, unlike his words, which have brought him contemporary fame but which can be manipu- lated by future audiences, with the implied potential consequence of manipulat- ing his memory. Concurrently, it suggests rivalry with the past, since carving the Isthmus places him in competition with all those who have tried and failed be- fore him.8 The phrase “an immortal task and unbelievable in nature” (ἔργον ἀ θάνατον καὶ ἀ πιστούμενον τῇ φύσει) stresses the “man-made” quality of the hypothetical canal, but also the enormity of the task. So, it is fitting that Herodes’ words and deeds are praised, concepts that, when paired, recall Homer and Thu- cydides, and are features suitable to the “hero” (ἥρως) that Herodes’ name (Ἡρώδης) conjures and that Philostratus plays on throughout his anecdotal bi- ography.9 This notion of altering nature is consistent with the pre-Troy, questing gener- ation of mythic heroes, who performed a civilizing function on the natural world. In particular, the Isthmus is associated with the Athenian hero-king Theseus, who supposedly erected a pillar there delineating the border between the Peloponnese and Ionia (Strabo 3.5.5, 9.1.6–7; Plut. Thes. 25.4). A link to Theseus is not created solely by mythic tradition: Herodes embedded himself in Isthmia by donating chryselephantine statues of Poseidon, Amphitrite, and Melicertes/Palaemon to the temple of Poseidon (Philostr. VS 551; Paus. 2.1.8), which may have been cult statues and may indicate a desire to represent himself monumentally as a “new Theseus.”10 The son of Poseidon, Theseus was believed to have transformed the Isthmian games from funeral games for Melicertes into an event in honor of his father (Plut. Thes. 25.4). Herodes too may have hoped his offerings at the temple would be interpreted as a filial act. Moreover, two more monuments echo Theseus: the arch raised at Marathon celebrating eternal matri- monial harmony between Herodes and his wife Regilla, which intertexts with Theseus’ pillar by delineating the spouses’ respective spaces within Herodes’ es- tate; and the bull on the nymphaeum dedicated by Regilla at Olympia that may recall the Marathonian bull captured and sacrificed by Theseus (Paus.