THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF
THE SECOND
SOPHISTIC
THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF
SECOND
SOPHISTIC
Edited by
DANIEL S. RICHTER
and
WILLIAM A. JOHNSON
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2017
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress
ISBN 978–0–19–983747–2
eISBN 978–0–19–085519–2
CONTENTS
List of Contributors
Abbreviations
PART I INTRODUCTION
1.Periodicity and Scope
WILLIAM A. JOHNSON AND DANIEL S. RICHTER
2.Greece: Hellenistic and Early Imperial Continuities
TIM WHITMARSH
3.Was There a Latin Second Sophistic?
THOMAS HABINEK
PART II LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY
4.Atticism and Asianism
LAWRENCE KIM
5.Latinitas
W. MARTIN BLOOMER
6.Cosmopolitanism
DANIEL S. RICHTER
7.Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity
EMMA DENCH
8.Retrosexuality: Sex in the Second Sophistic
AMY RICHLIN
PART III Paideia and Performance
9.Schools and Paideia
RUTH WEBB
10.Athletes and Trainers
JASON KÖNIG
11.Professionals of Paideia?: The Sophists as Performers
THOMAS A. SCHMITZ
12.Performance Space
EDMUND THOMAS
PART IV RHETORIC AND RHETORICIANS
13.Greek and Latin Rhetorical Culture
LAURENT PERNOT
14.Dio Chrysostom
CLAIRE RACHEL JACKSON
LEOFRANC HOLFORD-STREVENS
16.Fronto and His Circle
PASCALE FLEURY
17.Aelius Aristides
ESTELLE OUDOT
PART V LITERATURE AND CULTURE
18.Philostratus
GRAEME MILES
19.Plutarch: Philosophy, Religion, and Ethics
FREDERICK E. BRENK
20.Plutarch’s Lives
PAOLO DESIDERI
21.Lucian of Samosata
DANIEL S. RICHTER
22.Apuleius
STEPHEN J. HARRISON
23.Pausanias
WILLIAM HUTTON
24.Galen
SUSAN P. MATTERN
25.Chariton and Xenophon of Ephesus
J. R. MORGAN
26.Longus and Achilles Tatius
FROMA ZEITLIN
27.The Anti-Sophistic Novel
DANIEL L. SELDEN
28.Miscellanies
KATERINA OIKONOMOPOULOU
29.Mythography
STEPHEN M. TRZASKOMA
30.Historiography
SULOCHANA R. ASIRVATHAM
31.Poets and Poetry
MANUEL BAUMBACH
32.Epistolography
OWEN HODKINSON
PART VI PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOSOPHERS
33.The Stoics
GRETCHEN REYDAMS-SCHILS
34.Epicureanism Writ Large: Diogenes of Oenoanda
PAMELA GORDON
35.Skepticism
RICHARD BETT
36.Platonism
RYAN C. FOWLER
37.The Aristotelian Tradition
HAN BALTUSSEN
PART VII RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS LITERATURE
38.Cult
MARIETTA HORSTER
39.Pilgrimage
IAN C. RUTHERFORD
40.Early Christianity and the Classical Tradition
AARON P. JOHNSON
41.Jewish Literature
ERIC S. GRUEN
42.The Creation of Christian Elite Culture in Roman Syria and the Near East
WILLIAM ADLER
43.Christian Apocrypha
SCOTT FITZGERALD JOHNSON
Notes
Index
CONTRIBUTORS
William Adler (North Carolina State University)
Sulochana R. Asirvatham (Montclair State University)
Han Baltussen (University of Adelaide)
Manuel Baumbach (Ruhr-Universität Bochum)
Richard Bett (Johns Hopkins University)
W. Martin Bloomer (University of Notre Dame)
Frederick E. Brenk (Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome)
Emma Dench (Harvard University)
Paolo Desideri (Università degli Studi di Firenze)
Pascale Fleury (Université Laval)
Ryan C. Fowler (Franklin & Marshall College)
Pamela Gordon (University of Kansas)
Erich S. Gruen (University of California, Berkeley)
Thomas Habinek (University of Southern California)
Stephen J. Harrison (Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford)
Owen Hodkinson (University of Leeds)
Leofranc Holford-Strevens (independent scholar)
Marietta Horster (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz)
William Hutton (College of William and Mary)
Claire Rachel Jackson (University of Cambridge)
Aaron P. Johnson (Lee University)
Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (University of Oklahoma)
William A. Johnson (Duke University)
Lawrence Kim (Trinity University)
Jason König (University of St. Andrews)
Susan P. Mattern (University of Georgia)
Graeme Miles (University of Tasmania, Australia)
J. R. Morgan (Swansea University)
Katerina Oikonomopoulou (University of Patras)
Estelle Oudot (University of Burgundy Franche-Comté.)
Laurent Pernot (University of Strasbourg)
Gretchen Reydams-Schils (University of Notre Dame)
Amy Richlin (University of California, Los Angeles)
Daniel S. Richter (University of Southern California)
Ian C. Rutherford (University of Reading)
Thomas A. Schmitz (Universität Bonn)
Daniel L. Selden (University of California, Santa Cruz)
Edmund Thomas (Durham University)
Stephen M. Trzaskoma (University of New Hampshire)
Ruth Webb (Université de Lille)
Tim Whitmarsh (University of Cambridge)
Froma Zeitlin (Princeton University)
ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS follow those in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th ed., edited by S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth, and E. Eidinow (Ox
ford, 2012). Further abbreviations are as follows:
Alex. Aphr. De Mixt. Alexander of Aphrodisias, De mixtione
Athenaeus Deipn. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae
CID Corpus des inscriptions des Delphes, Paris 1977- .
Epictetus Diss Epictetus, Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae
FavorinusOr. Favorinus of Arelate, Orationes
Fronto
Addit. Additamentum Epistularum Variarum Acephalum
M. Caes. Epistulae ad M. Caesarem
Galen
De alim. facult. de alimentorum facultatibus libri III
In Hipp. Artic. comment. in Hippocratis de articulis librum commentarii IV
De meth. med. de methodo medendi libri XIV
De san. tuenda de sanitate tuenda libri VI
De praecogn. de praecognitione ad Epigenem
De libr. propr. de libris propriis
De an. aff. dign. et cur. de propriorum animi cuiuslibet affectuum dignotione et curatione
De puls. differ. de pulsuum differentiis libri IV
De ord. libr. suor. de ordine librorum suorum ad Eugenianum
De simpl. medicament. temp. de simplicium medicamentorum facultatibus libri XI
IGLSyr Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie
I. Ephesos Die Inschriften von Ephesos (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, Bonn 1972- )
I. Kyme Die Inschriften von Kyme (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, Bonn 1972- )
I. Smyrna Die Inschriften von Smyrna (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien, Bonn 1972- )
IvPergamon Die Inschriften von Pergamon, Berlin 1890-95
Jos. As. Joseph and Aseneth
Lucian
Eikones Eikones (=Imagines)Icarom. Icaromenippus
Philo
Congr. De congressu quaerendae eruditionis gratia
Hyp. Hypothetica
Leg. All. Legum allegoriae
Mut. De mutatione nominum
Q Genesis Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim
Somn. De somniis
Spec. Leg. De specialibus legibus
Philoponus,in Cat. Philoponus, In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium
Plut.De Stoic. Repug. Plutarch, De Stoicorum repugnantiis
Res Gestae Res Gestae Divi Augusti
SenecaVit. Beat. Seneca, De Vita Beata
Str. Strabo, Geographica
P A R TI
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
PERIODICITY AND SCOPE
WILLIAM A. JOHNSON AND DANIEL S. RICHTER
1.1 PERIODICITY
PERIODIZATION has come under sharp scrutiny in recent years. There are good reasons for that. The stipulated boundaries of a period can lead to a blinkered approach, by which continuities are missed or minimized; similarly, disruptions and disconnections within the period can be facilely smoothed over. Descriptions of the movement from one period to the next too readily take on a devolutionary character, such that the transition from classical to Hellenistic or Augustan to imperial becomes a narrative not simply of change but of change and decline, with substantial ideological implications (further, Whitmarsh, chapter 2). Implicit in the marking of boundaries with dates like 480 BCE or 323 BCE or 31 BCE is an undertheorized hypothesis that cataclysmic military-political events and changes in art and literary culture can or even should align. Most critical, however, are the ways that examining literature, art, or culture as artifacts of a period affect analysis and understanding. The preconceived idea of a period becomes normative, leading to sometimes bizarre results. Distortions can be not just deep-seated but determinative. Herodotus’s style is “archaic” in opposition to Thucydides, though he is writing in the 440s and 430s at the height of the Classical Period; Sophocles (497/6–406/5 BCE) is “classical,” Euripides (480s–406 BCE) not so much; Ovid is a transitional figure to the Silver Age, not entirely “Augustan,” though Ovid lived from 43 BCE to 17 CE and Augustus ruled from 31/27 BCE to 14 CE; Callimachus is somehow “more Hellenistic” than his contemporary Apollonius.
Within the constellation of ancient periods, as commonly defined, none is quite so vexed as the Second Sophistic. As is well known, Philostratus introduces the term to denote a species of epideictic oratory rather than an historical period (VS 1 pref. 481; see Whitmarsh, chapter 2). As well, the idea of a second sophistic allows Philostratus to establish a classical pedigree for the oratory of his time. In Philostratus’s account, the late classical orator Aeschines is the founding figure, though his biographical history, Lives of the Sophists, skips most of the early period to focus on orators from the Neronian era up to his own (ca. 230 CE). In modern times, scholars have taken over the term to designate the period of the late first to early third centuries, as it is seen from a Greek view and with focus on the sophistical oratory of the time. Quite a few, however, as we do in this Handbook, turn the screw further, appropriating the term for a more general designation, to signal an era centered on the second century with defining characteristics (see below) that go well beyond Greek sophists or even Greek literature.
The term itself thus brings with it some considerable fogginess. The extent to which this era, grounded firmly in the second century, projects into the first or third centuries is inconsistently determined (we are hardly consistent here). How much, or even whether, writers in Latin can be said to be part of the Second Sophistic is variously answered (again, that ambivalence is in evidence in this volume as well). How properly or, better, how usefully the idea of “sophism” can be extended metaphorically to capture phenomena that are far afield from oratorical display also receives a range of answers. Some therefore would like to avoid the designation altogether.1 Indeed both of the authors of this chapter chose to avoid the term in their books on the era (Johnson: Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities; Richter, Cosmopolis: Imagining Community in Late Classical Athens and the Early Roman Empire).
Part of the challenge of this volume is, then, the exploration of whether the broader notion of an era known, for better or worse, as the Second Sophistic is good to “think with.” Is the assumption of an “era” simply distorting, as it must be, cramming all sorts of apples and oranges into the same fruit basket willy-nilly, or does it also help bring into view certain shared characteristics and viewpoints that might develop our understanding?
A typical laundry list of Second Sophistic characteristics includes various points of focus: nostalgia for an idealized (Athenian) classical past; archaism and purity of language; sophistic performance and contest and display; paideia and erudition; anxieties over (Hellenic) self-definition and identity. Used in the manner of checking off boxes, such lists would be crude instruments for analysis; but recent scholarship, including the essays here, have deployed and explored these points of focus in ways far more interesting.
So, for example, the distinctive way that many of the texts from the period seem to look past contemporary affairs toward an idealized past has typically been part of a triumphalist narrative of Hellenic revivalism or seen as a strategy of resistance to Roman domination, variously spun. Here, such tendencies are treated differently. Kim (chapter 4) locates in the era not a simple celebration of the past but a deep ambivalence about old and new: “it is this combination of both a deep appreciation for the language and culture of the classical past and an enthusiasm for more flamboyant, artificial, and anticlassical literary and oratorical styles that makes the period so interesting.” Writing in a similar vein about Antonine Latin literature, Bloomer observes. “The Roman author must search the ancient literature rather like a cook looking for a sparkling ingredient, but only the old cookbooks will do and one must not follow a recipe. The composition must be new and tasty—the Antonine author wants to read Cato, select from Cato, and have his reader know that his diction is the result of long scholarship and selective taste, but he does not want to ape Cato.” There could also be a collision of idealized past with present, with complex and varying
results. Mattern (chapter 24) describes Galen as a doctor who lived long in Rome but who “in some ways avoided engagement with Roman culture. He did not use his Roman name. Although he is interested in Latin words, he does not cite Latin authors. His Rome is, in the anecdotes to which it forms a shadowy background, indistinguishable from a Greek city. In its tense and awkward combination of aloofness and superiority with dependency and even servility, Galen’s attitude is typical of the cultural environment.” Oudot (chapter 17), by contrast, shows how for Aelius Aristides, the “real empire” created by Athens was cultural, “presenting the city as an incarnation of refinement and civilization, untouched by the vagaries of history”; for that reason, she writes, in Aristides’s view, “Rome simply took up where Greece left off,” destined to use Greek values and concepts so as “to historicize the perfection of Greece.” Quite differently, Aaron Johnson (chapter 40) sees “culture wars” of “imperial Hellenism” in Plutarch and Lucian that empowered early Christian intellectuals to have the confidence to “speak to power” in their writings. These are but a few of many examples, but the pluralism with which the subject is approached does suggest that this core characteristic of the Second Sophistic can indeed be good to “think with.”
A central association with the Second Sophistic is performance and contest and self-conscious display, in the first instance with reference to the educational training and public performances of the sophists (Webb, chapter 9; Schmitz, chapter 11; Thomas, chapter 12; cf. Koenig, chapter 10), but by metaphorical extension to many other realms. Our authors speak in a wide variety of contexts to the acute awareness of persona that comes from institutionalized role-playing and self-fashioning, an awareness that shows up on stage but also in society and in the act of writing. Jackson, for example, finds in Dio (chapter 14) that contrasting categories like past/present, Greek/Roman, philosophical sincerity/sophistic flippancy, far from being fixed allegiances, can be used as “fluid models for self-posturing” and serve well his “manipulation of rhetorical personas,” showing thereby his “awareness of the constructed, complex, and multifaceted nature of Second Sophistic identity positioning.” A playful seriousness (or just plain playfulness: see Holford-Strevens, chapter 15, on Favorinus) is found in many authors, as varied as Philostratus (Miles, chapter 18), Alciphron (Hodkinson, chapter 32), and Lucian (Richter, chapter 21), and often linked, as Miles puts it, to “the consistent avoidance of allowing a final authority.” Several of our contributors take this a step further, seeing in writers of the era a sophisticated self-awareness of their works as fiction (e.g., Zeitlin, chapter 26) and a similarly self-conscious experimentation with matters of genre (Hodkinson, chapter 32; Oikonomopoulou, chapter 28). Not all writers of the period display such tendencies, but where they do not they still seem aware of this sort of “sophistication” as a norm to set themselves against (see especially Selden on the antisophistic novel, chapter 27; also Hutton on Pausanias, chapter 23). The serious playfulness of the sophists had a didactic element as well, and this aspect is put in productive dialogue with Christian texts of the era by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (chapter 43), who points out that, like the sophists, the storytelling in Christian apocrypha is “never merely entertainment.”