Platonic Receptions in the Second Sophistic DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Katarzyna Anna Jazdzewska Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Anthony Kaldellis, Advisor Richard Fletcher Tom Hawkins Copyright by Katarzyna Anna Jazdzewska 2011 Abstract My dissertation examines interactions of three Second Sophistic authors (Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, and Ailios Aristeides) with Plato and his dialogues. Although the significance of Plato and his dialogues for Greek literature of the imperial period is well-known, there is lack of nuanced case studies attempting to uncover the mechanics and purpose of literary interactions with Plato. Scholarship tends to explain Plato’s presence in the Second Sophistic literature en masse as a socio-cultural phenomenon, interpreting Platonic presence in the Greek imperial authors as a cultural and stylistic statement on their part: as a means by which authors create their cultural identity and construct the cultural status of the present. Consequently, particular instances of the interaction between Second Sophistic authors and Plato frequently remain unexamined. In my examination of texts by Dio, Plutarch, and Ailios Aristeides, I focus on their meaning and how it is shaped and modified by placing Plato in the background. In the Introduction, I offer a broad picture of the reception of Plato and his dialogues before and during the Second Sophistic. I draw attention to the fact that by interacting with Plato, a Second Sophistic author located himself within a lengthy and complex tradition of Platonic reception. I examine different literary strategies by means of which Second Sophistic authors interact with Plato, with special emphasis on a literary ii allusion and a dialogic genre as two ways of positioning one’s work vis-à-vis Plato’s text(s). The three chapters of my dissertation examine different approaches to Plato and Platonic legacy. In the first chapter, I examine two dialogues which evoke Plato both structurally and verbally: Dio Chrysostom’s Charidemos and Plutarch’s Symposion of the Seven Sages. Both these texts make a considerable use of Plato’s Phaidon. I examine literary techniques by means of which Dio and Plutarch evoke Platonic text and ask the question about the function and significance of the Platonic background. In the second chapter I focus on Platonic allusions in two non-dialogic works by these two same authors: Plutarch’s On listening, a work focused on philosophical education, and Dio’s Euboïkos. The affinity of these two works lies in their choice of the Republic as a subtext; in my examination I argue that recurrent references to the Republic are a sign of an intense interaction with Plato’s views on education and politics as expressed in this particular dialogue. In the third chapter I move to a slightly younger author and examine Ailios Aristeides’ To Plato: in Defence of Oratory, to show an author actively engaged in the discussion over the Platonic legacy and the values and perils that it involved. iii Acknowledgments My greatest debt is owed to my advisor Anthony Kaldellis. I would like to thank him for encouragement and guidance as well as for generous feedback and constructive criticism. His research, his comments and questions inspired me over the years of my graduate studies and during the process of dissertation writing. I am immensely grateful for his support and feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with him. I would like to thank Richard Fletcher and Tom Hawkins for their encouragement and guidance. They generously offered their time and expertise at the time when my ideas were being shaped. I thank them for the discussions we had, which helped me to clarify and articulate my ideas, for their comments, and their questions. I owe special thanks to Christopher Brown and Jaroslaw Jakielaszek for their interest in my project and their assistance. I thank my husband Krystian, who read the first drafts of many sections of my dissertation. I thank him for being a patient listener and attentive reader, for his enthusiasm for Classics, and for his unceasing emotional support. iv Vita July 2002…………………………………. ...M.A. summa cum laude in Greek and Latin, University of Warsaw, Poland September 2005-2009……………………………………...Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Greek and Latin, The Ohio State University Publications “Not an ‘innocent spectacle’: Hunting and venationes in Plutarch’s De sollertia animalium”, Ploutarchos 7 (2009/2010) 35-46. „Hagiographic Invention and Imitation: The Case of Niketas’ Life of Theoktiste and its Literary Models”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 49 (2009) 257-279. Plutarch, Powiedzenia królów i wodzów. Powiedzenia spartańskie, translated from Greek into Polish by K. Jazdzewska, Warsaw 2006. „Plutarch: Powiedzenia nieznanych z imienia Spartan”, Meander 1 (2005) 36-47. Fizjolog, translated from Greek into Polish by K. Jazdzewska, Warsaw 2003. „O pochodzeniu Fizjologa”, Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 15 (2002) 85-100. Fields of Study Major Field: Greek and Latin v Table of Contents Abstract ...............................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv Vita...................................................................................................................................... v Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 1. The Divine Plato. The Reception of Plato before and during the Second Sophistic... 1 2. The project................................................................................................................. 11 3. The “Platonic genre”? Writing dialogues in the Second Sophistic. .......................... 12 4. Literary allusiveness and the Second Sophistic. ....................................................... 17 5. The other side of the coin: opposition to Plato in the Second Sophistic................... 23 Chapter 1: Playing with the dialogue format ............................................................... 29 1.1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................... 29 1.2. Beyond pessimism and optimism. Dio Chrysostom’s Charidemos....................... 31 1.3. A skeleton at a banquet. Plutarch’s Symposion of the Seven Sages. ...................... 57 1.4. Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 86 Chapter 2: Interacting with Plato’s Republic .............................................................. 88 vi 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 88 2.2. Between φιληκοΐα and φιλοσοφία. Plutarch’s On listening.............................. 88 2.3. Hunters and philosophers. Dio Chrysostom’s Euboïkos...................................... 112 2.4. Conclusions. ......................................................................................................... 139 Chapter 3: Ailios Aristeides, rhetoric, and anti-platonic tradition .......................... 143 3.1. Introduction. ......................................................................................................... 143 3.2. Ailios Aristeides’ To Plato: In Defence of Oratory............................................. 144 3.3. Conclusions. ......................................................................................................... 172 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 173 Works cited.................................................................................................................... 176 vii Introduction 1. The Divine Plato. The Reception of Plato before and during the Second Sophistic The presence of Plato is ubiquitous in Greek literature of the first three centuries CE, usually referred to as the Second Sophistic.1 It would be difficult to find a Greek author of this period who does not quote Plato, imitate Plato, or somehow refer to Plato. Platonic allusions may be found in a host of literary genres, such as dialogues, educational treatises, consolations, political rhetoric, sophistic performances, biographies, satire, and medical writings.2 The immense popularity of Plato among the Second Sophistic authors was a result of several factors including the literary qualities of his dialogues, their preoccupation with the most fundamental issues of human existence, as well as the stylistic and linguistic features of Plato’s diction, increasingly more important for the authors of the imperial period, who subscribed to the form of linguistic purism 1 I use the term Second Sophistic in a loose sense to designate Greek literary culture between the middle of the 1st c. CE and the beginning of the 3rd c. CE. For a recent discussion of the term and its history, see Whitmarsh 2001, 41-45. 2 For general popularity of Plato in the Second Sophistic, see De Lacy 1974, Trapp 1990. Plato’s authority in the literary circles in the first centuries CE seems to be paralleled by a growth in Plato’s auctoritas among