Introduction

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 conclu- sion 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. For if we are to believe the Suda and the title of the Codex Paris- inus Graecus 1962, Maximus’ extant texts are written recordings of speeches performed during his first visit to Rome. This setting seems far from implau- sible, for in his first introductory oration, Maximus himself alludes to the fame 3 E.g., Pack (1963), xxv–xxvi; Puiggali (1983), 11–12; Szarmach (1985), 5; Bowersock (2004), 56. For others, see the recent overview in Harris-McCoy (2011), 423–424 n. 1. 4 Art. On. 2.proem. 5 Art. On. 3.66. 6 Art. On. 2.70. 7 Trapp (1997a), xii; for a more general discussion, see Solin (2001). 8 On the importance of Tyre in the history of the Roman East, see, e.g., Millar (1993), 285–295. 9 Unlike other sophists discussed in Avotins (1975), it has as yet been impossible to link Maximus to any sort of institution like the chair of rhetoric or philosophy in a certain city. 10 Batty (2002) thinks differently about these matters, but, to my mind, Maximus does not talk more vigorously about ‘his’ Tyrian harbours than about any other ‘Greek’ subject that has nothing to do with Tyre whatsoever..

Load more