THE SECOND SOPHISTIC THE SECOND SOPHISTIC A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire Graham Anderson London and New York First published 1993 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 © 1993 Graham Anderson All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Anderson, Graham. The second sophistic: a cultural phenomenon in the Roman empire/Graham Anderson p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Rome–History–Empire, 30 B.B.–284 A.D. 2. Rome–Civilization-Greek influences. 3. Sophists (Greek philosophy) 4. Rhetoric, Ancient. I. Title DG78.A63 1993 937′07–dc20 92–47085 ISBN 0-203-97405-0 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-415-09988-9 (Print Edition) For Ewen Bowie Contents Preface vi List of abbreviations ix INTRODUCTION: ROMAN EMPIRE AND GREEK 1 RENAISSANCE 1 SOPHISTS IN SOCIETY 13 2 PREPARATION, PRELUDE, PERFORMANCE 47 3 COMMUNING WITH THE CLASSICS 69 4 ATTICISM AND ANTAGONISM 85 5 HELLENIC PAST, GRAECO-ROMAN PRESENT 101 6 COOKERY AND CONFECTION: SOPHISTIC 133 PHILOSOPHY, PHILOSOPHIC SOPHISTRY 7 SOME SOPHISTIC SCENE-PAINTING 143 8 LOGOS ERŌ TIKOS: THE SOPHIST AS STORYTELLER 155 9 ADOXA PARADOXA: THE PEPAIDEUMENOS AT PLAY 169 10 PIETY AND PAIDEIA: THE SOPHIST AND HIS GODS 197 11 SOPHISTIC SELF-PRESENTATION: FOUR STUDIES 213 12 CONCLUSION: VALUES AND VALUATIONS 231 Notes and references 243 Select bibliography 289 Index 299 Preface This book is an attempt to characterise a cultural phenomenon, or rather a complex of phenomena, that has come to be known as The Second Sophistic’. In part it has come about in response to textbook statements so often encountered in studies of individual writers of the Early Empire, that Plutarch or Dio or Marcus Aurelius or any other writer ‘belonged to the period known as the Second Sophistic’. Such statements may often be unexceptionable in themselves, but they can also give the impression that the Second Sophistic can be characterised much more specifically than is really the case. The student or scholar who wishes to enquire further will soon find out that it can be very difficult to find out what the Second Sophistic amounts to or implies. The term itself has long been used in standard histories of Greek literature, and is now accepted in dealing with early Imperial history as well. But sophists can be elusive, ambiguous and apparently diffuse both in their interests and patterns of behaviour. Yet there is really no ‘book about’ the Second Sophistic as such, or the wide variety of perspectives from which it may be seen. While most angles of vision will produce a perspective that will be defensible, it may not always be easy to harmonise with other perspectives to obtain a view of the whole. For several decades there has been a sustained scholarly interest in the cultural history of the first three centuries AD. The political prominence of sophists has been stressed, and the literary range of the period thoroughly characterised; the archaising outlook of sophists and their associates has also been noticed. But literary and historical activities of sophists have tended to be treated as though they belong to separable domains of ‘Greek Literature’ and ‘Roman History’; sophists’ careers have been examined with little reference to their aspirations as sophists; while many-sided figures such as Dio of Prusa or Herodes vii Atticus can still be accorded biographical treatments that take little account of the cultural attitudes and reflexes which they inherited and transmitted in turn. In writing I have tried to keep asking how Graeco-Roman aristocrats were conditioned to view their environment through a series of sophistic perspectives. I have attempted to look at sophists first against the general background of the Imperial Greek cities, the working environment in which they so often practised. I have attempted to glance at the long continuity in their activities; and to note some aspects of rhetorical practice and its background in literature and language. I then touch on the sophist’s ability to invade the fringes of history, philosophy, the visual arts, fictional literature and religion, and incidentally the capacity of those concerned in these fields to draw on sophistic techniques. I have also tried to remind students of ‘Sophistic’ how readily it could be conducted with lightness as well as virtuosity, and to look at some texts in which sophists appear in a typical way. Not everything that sophists said or did will excite approval, but we must at least acknowledge that they were there and that they made the most of it; and that sophistic techniques did not stifle literary or cultural creativity, even if they seemed at times to put a premium on an excess of which sophists themselves could be wryly aware. The scope of ancient evidence and modern scholarship have imposed limitations on the scale of treatment. I have not tried to write a history, still less a textbook of ‘Sophistic’; nor have I attempted to do more than remind the reader that sophistic practice does not stop with Philostratus. I have tried instead to create some impression of an ethos or aura through which sophistic habits, tendencies and reflexes can be recognised. This has involved a good deal of primary quotation: sophistic writers are not slow to talk about their world or reveal themselves at least indirectly, and they should be heard. I have included a purely introductory chapter for the benefit of any coming to the Second Sophistic from contexts other than that of the Roman Empire. I have also had to practise a great deal of arbitrary selection among so much, as well as trying to avoid repetition of material from my own previous studies in or around the field, in particular on Philostratus and The Pepaideumenos in Action, as well as a number of forthcoming studies in ANRW. I am grateful to the many colleagues and friends who have contributed to the making of this book by discussing sophists with me. viii In particular Donald Russell, Bryan Reardon, Geoffrey Arnott, Christopher Jones, Simon Swain and Michael Trapp have all imparted something of value, often unwittingly, at some time or other. I am also grateful to Suzanne Rothe and Maria Szarmach for making their own work available to me at the earliest possible moment. I am grateful to Routledge’s anonymous referee for many sensible suggestions, to Geraldine Beare who compiled the index, and to Richard Stoneman and his staff for their unfailing courtesy and encouragement; I alone am responsible for what remains. My wife Margaret has been a constant support to over twenty years’ work on sophists, even when I seemed in danger of becoming all too like them; while the dedicatee, Ewen Bowie, has generously supported younger scholars in Second Sophistic studies over many years, and I am greatly indebted to him. Graham Anderson University of Kent at Canterbury Abbreviations AC L’Antiquité classique AJPh American Journal of Philology ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt BCH Bulletin de correspondance Héllénique BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies CA Classical Antiquity CAH Cambridge Ancient History CHCL Cambridge History of Classical Literature CJ Classical Journal CMG Corpus medicorum graecorum CPh Classical Philology CQ Classical Quarterly CR Classical Review CSCPh California Studies in Classical Philology EM Epigraphical Museum in Athens FGrH Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker GR Greece and Rome GRBS Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies HE Historia Ecclesiastica HSCPh Harvard Studies in Classical Philology IE Die Inschriften von Ephesos IG Inscriptiones graecae JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JÖAL Jahrehefte der Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts x JRH Journal of Religious History JRS Journal of Roman Studies JThS Journal of Theological Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones MC II Mondo Classico MH Museum Helveticum NA Noctes Atticae NJklAlt Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum PCPhS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society PG Patrologia graeca PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani PL Patrologia latina RE Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft REG Revue des études grecques RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie SEG Supplementum epigraphicum graecum SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae TAPhA Transactions of the American Philological Association VA Vita Apollonii Tyanensis VPS Vitae Philosophorum Sophistarumque VS Vitae Sophistarum WS Wiener Studien YCS Yale Classical Studies Introduction: Roman Empire and Greek Renaissance In the year 26 AD, in the reign of the second Roman Emperor Tiberius, a debate took place in the Roman Senate about which Greek city should have the honour of erecting a statue of the Emperor. Among various candidates rejected was Ilium, the traditional site of Troy; the successful candidate was Smyrna, on the basis of past services to Rome itself. Over a century later, there was an outcry when the Greek millionaire Herodes Atticus was allowed by Hadrian to provide a public water-supply for ‘Troy’: Roman officials in Asia protested at the questionable priority of spending so much on a project of merely sentimental value. But Herodes had his way, and the water-supply was provided with the aid of substantial funds donated by his father.1 These two cases offer an interesting contrast: the first takes place at a time when we hear little of the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean in terms of cultural self-consciousness.