The eighth oration of Dio of Prusa (ca. A.D. 40-112) focuses on the sophistic movement in Corinth. Together with the sixth (which also mentions the Corinthian sophists) it belongs to the corpus known as his 'Diogenes speeches', a cluster purporting to be verbatim speeches by the founder of the Cynic sect, Diogenes of Sinope, who lived ca. 400-ca. 325 B.C. Using Diogenes allows Dio to hide behind a great person of the past 'because exile made it unwise to speak freely'. Dio chose well, for Diogenes, like Dio under Domitian, had manifested his disdain for power and suffered exile as a result.2 The informa-
For the discussion by A. D. Litfin of the rhetorical movement in Corinth see St Paul's Theology of Proclamation: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric, SNTS Monograph Series 79 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 140-46. He argues that no specific corroboration is required because of the prevalence of public speaking in the mid-first century, rightly supposing 'that Corinth generally mirrored the broad values of the Greco-Roman culture of which it was clearly a part', p. 143. He notes, however, that such corroboration does exist. In addition to obvious evidence of the βῆμα in the South Stoa of Corinth, there is the witness of Favorinus ca. A.D. 80-150. He alludes to Herodes Atticus and his benefaction of the theatre in Corinth.
tion garnered from these orations can thus be regarded as Dio's assessment of the sophistic movement in Corinth during his exile, which extended from ca. A.D. 89 to 96, although the recording of these orations was a little later and is usually dated ca. A.D. 100.3 His description of Corinth is surely firsthand, for he notes the summer breezes, the Acrocorinth, the harbour and the aristocratic suburb of Craneion.4 The sophistic activity during the Isthmian games held at Corinth is described in Or. 8. The speech is set in the large temenos of the temple of Poseidon in whose honour the games were held and were now in progress.5
was apt because of the latter's apparent conversation with Alexander of Macedon, and he was the chief hero of Trajan. LCL, vol. I, p. 249 likewise feels the speeches 'fit better the experience of Dio himself. P. Desideri, Dione di Prusa: un intellettuale greco nell' Impero Romano, Biblioteca di Cultura Contemporanea, 135 (Messina: Casa Editrice G. d'Anna, 1978) p. 201, also argues that Diogenes was a 'cover' contra Litfin, St Paul's Theology of Proclamation, p. 146, n. 39, who comments, 'Cf. the interesting picture of the Corinth of Diogenes' day in Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 8'. Diogenes was widely admired by the Cynics and Stoics of Dio's day. Cf. also the Cynic Epistles of the Augustan Age, especially 'the Epistles of Diogenes', as well as those by Socrates and the Socratics, A. J. Malherbe (ed.), The Cynic Epistles (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977).
Dio's evidence, though brief, offers significant insights into the sophists' activities. He mocks the rivalries that existed among the many 'wretched' sophists,7 observing that they are antagonistic towards each other. Such quarrels were common, and some are well documented. G. W. Bowersock, who devotes a chapter of Greek Sophists to 'Professional Quarrels', notes that they can be classified as either factional and political divisions, or inter-city rivalries.8 An example of the former is Herodes Atticus' quarrel with Polemo.9 The latter is well demonstrated in the quarrel between Ephesus and Smyrna, which were championed by the sophists Favorinus and Polemo respectively, neither of whom was native born.10 Such strife could sometimes lead to official or even to imperial intervention because of 'the very eminence of the sophists'.11
Dio also denounces the conduct of the sophists' pupils. He describes
His discussion of disciples elsewhere further illuminates relationships between students and mentors, especially among the sophists. He communicates the degree of commitment involved in being a disciple by the use of an accompanying term, namely ζηλωτής. In Or. 55.3 it is asked: of which wise man was Socrates a μαθητής? Dio answers, 'Homer', and is asked, 'How would it be possible to be a 'zealous follower' (ζηλωτής) of a person long since dead?' Dio responds, 'If a ζηλωτής, then he would also be a μαθητής.'
In the first discourse on kingship, Dio speaks of the ideal ruler as one who is μαθητής τε καὶ ζηλωτής τοῦ θεοῦ τούτου, that is, Zeus. His success is certain because he is 'Zeus nurtured' and 'like Zeus in counsel' (cf. 'the admirer and henchman', ζηλωτής τε καὶ ὑπηρέτης).17 Here Dio combines μαθητής and ζηλωτής to claim that commitment to Zeus and zealousness for him characterise the ideal king.
This form of 'discipleship' means great personal δόξα for sophists who, like 'gorgeous peacocks', are 'lifted aloft on the wings of their fame (δόξα) and
their disciples'.18 Dio, however, is different, for he refuses to recruit any disciples, a point he reiterates in Socratic fashion. To do so would imply that he had something to teach, which he denies. He suggests ironically that he could instead help by gathering a crowd so that the sophists can 'dispose of the catch just as they wish', that is, to gain further disciples or perhaps declaim for money, but for 'some reason or other' they never accept his offer, Or. 12.13. Thus, while crowds and disciples adhere to sophists, Diogenes and Dio have neither, which is proof of their shortcomings as sophists, orators and flatterers. Diogenes has only 'long hair', notes Dio ironically. Recruiting disciples is one of the prime objectives of sophists, who love to be among 'the would-be great' in the theatre, in the camps in order to deliver an oration, or among their pupils in various communities.19
Having described the sophists and their disciples, Dio discusses six other groups who congregate in the temple precincts. Of these, three are directly connected with the sophistic movement.20 First, he speaks of the forensic orators who by argument pervert justice.21 Their presence in the temple precincts during the games, Dio explains, owes not to their soliciting business by advising the wronged of the merits of their case but to their desire to present controversial such as are extant in 'Quintilian' and in the papyri.22 A second group of orators engage in suasoria or epideictic oratory, although this fact is not clear from LCL's translation of the term as 'jugglers'.23 They too declaim24 and engage in θαῦμα, that is, 'rhetorical tricks'.25 Dio's description conjures up a picture of virtuoso orators who declaim to capture the at-
tention of the crowd.26 The third group are poets who read their works in the temple precincts.27
A further reference to sophists appears in #33-36. Dio makes use of the myth of Prometheus, whose liver was consumed every day by an eagle but grew again at night until Heracles slew the bird and released him. Prometheus represents the sophists who are destroyed by the very fame they crave,28 for their liver swells and grows when they are praised but shrivels again when censured. He attests elsewhere the response of listeners to sophists: they could applaud with great enthusiasm or shout the speaker down; they could pelt him with stones, being incensed by what was said, or listen with rapt attention; and they could jeer and hiss.29 It was not only in Alexandria that the audience's response could make or break the performance of an orator. In Corinth, too, those who sought the acclaim of the crowd could be devastated by a negative response.30 Diogenes himself at the end of his oration drew the disapproval of the crowd and, as Dio notes, 'again the crowd of sophists raised their din, like frogs in a pond when they do not see the water snake', #36.31
Dio, like Diogenes before him, derides the sophists of Corinth who crave the esteem of the crowd, and despises their arrogance, which is born of the conviction that they are intellectually superior — they 'wanted to be looked up to and thought they knew more than other men'.32
Thus from Dio's brief comments a helpful description of the sophistic movement in Corinth emerges. Corinth was flush with sophists, orators and poets, and the intense rivalry which seemed to arise wherever two or three
were gathered together. We have seen that these quarrels did not depend only on the sophists, for the 'disciples' were also quite adept at giving and taking offence, especially when the master was not shown the deference deemed appropriate. The sophists, because of their educational prowess, believed that they knew more than others. While their activities are seen most clearly in connection with the Isthmian games, Or. 8.9, Dio also provides information showing that they were part of the fabric of normal activity in Corinth, Or. 6.21.
Favorinus, the sophist, in Corinth33
Favorinus of Aries (ca. A.D. 80-150), a Roman of the equestrian order and an eminent pupil of Dio Chrysostom, visited Corinth three times.34 His Corinthian oration (Or. 37), the text of which we will explore in an effort to supplement our understanding of sophists in Corinth, is not his first address to its citizens but was in fact delivered on his final visit. He had, on his first visit ten years earlier, impressed the δῆμος and the magistrates with his eloquence (λόγος), and established a friendly and intimate relationship with them, #1,9.
On his second visit they were so glad to see him again that the Corinthians did everything in their power to encourage him to stay, but to no avail. However, they did erect a statue of him in the most prominent place in their library35 in order to inspire the youth of the city to persevere in the pursuits which won such fame for Favorinus. He was greatly honoured by this gesture and took it as a token of true friendship, #8. The statue, of much-prized Co-
33For literature see A. Barigazzi, Favorino di Arelate: Opera (Florence: Lelice Le Monnier, 1966), pp. 298-302 and discussion of his authorship of Or. 37 and Or. 64. See also my 'Favorinus', in B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke (eds.), The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting (Grand Rapids and Carlisle: Eerdmans and Paternoster, 1993), pp. 196-205; and M. W. Gleason, 'Favorinus and His Statue', in Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), ch. 1. For details of his life see Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 489-92, and Anderson, Philostratus, pp. 102-4. On his friendship with Plutarch see C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 35.
34Jones, Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, pp. 48, 78. On his status see Or. 37.25-6, and his visits Or. 37.1, 8, 9.
35He says, 'it was given a front-row seat as it were', i.e., a place of permanent and conspicuous honour. For a discussion of the seat of honour, προεδρία, and statues see A. S. Henry, 'Seats in Theatre and Stadium, Statues and Painted Portraits', in Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees (Hildesheim and New York: G. Olms, 1983), ch. X.
129
rinthian bronze, spoke volumes even apart from the title which appears to have been bestowed upon him in the inscription, #10. He says he was 'set up'
as 'the noblest among the Greeks' (ἄριστος Ἑλλήνων), high praise indeed for
a Roman, #22.36 He proudly accepted the title, for, as he himself reminded
them, he was 'of the equestrian order' and had become a complete Hellenophile
who adopted the language, thought, manner and dress of the Greeks
with such mastery that no Roman past or present, or indeed any Greek, had achieved all that he had, #25.37
While 'the best of the Greeks' had been inclining to Rome, Favorinus favoured the rich heritage and glories of Greece at enormous political and economic cost to himself. In fact, to his mind it had cost him everything, for he did not want merely to appear a Greek, but actually to be one. He had devoted himself to oratory in Athens and athletics in Sparta. Because he had pursued the study of wisdom in all the cities he visited, he had been instrumental in encouraging many Greeks to follow this pursuit. Indeed, he persuaded many barbarians to do the same, #26. He thus felt that the gods had equipped him to be a paradigm
for the Greeks, so that the natives of that land may have an example (παράδειγμα) before them to show that culture is no whit inferior to birth with respect to renown; for the Romans, so that not even those who are wrapped up in their own self-esteem may disregard culture with respect to
36On Corinthian bronzes see the comments from antiquity cited in Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth, pp. 103-4. It is possible that 'the benefit of the city and all Greece' or equivalent phrases were also part of the inscription. On the title on the inscription see the importance of 'primary' and the use of superlatives, R. Ansoul, 'The Self-Estimate of the Apostle Paul Contained in II Corinthians 10 and 11', Ph.D. dissertation, Macquarie University (1978), pp. 100-108, 123-30.
37His emphasis is clear, 'not … ἀλλά of the equestrian order'. Philostratus says of him, 'though he was a Gaul he led the life of a Hellene', Lives of the Sophists, 489. Cf. the Greek-educated Palestinian Jew of the third century B.C. of whom it was said, 'he was a Greek not only in his language but also in his soul', M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter during the Early Hellenistic Period, English translation (London: SCM Press, 1974), p. 59. For the disdain by early conservative Romans of things Greek during Cicero's time see E. S. Gruen, 'Philosophy, Rhetoric and Roman Anxieties', in Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), ch. V; and also J. Goldstein, 'Jewish Acceptance and Rejection of Hellenism', in E. P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (London: SCM Press, 1981), pp. 69-70 where he contrasts the Jewish and Roman responses. For the wide acceptance of Hellenism in Rome during the first century A.D. and the encouragement of Greek scholars to come to Rome see D. A. Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 8-9, and G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 336-77.
130
real esteem; for the Celts, so that no one even of the barbarians may despair of attaining the culture of Greece when he looks upon this man. #27
But despite such accomplishments, some had thrown his statue down! With such achievements to his credit he had thought it only right that Corinth should honour him. Now he wished to know who, in the light of all that he had done for Hellenism, could have perpetrated such a deed, #20. The reason for the action escaped him, and any charges against him, he suggests, were unspecified.38
The value of this Corinthian oration is manifold. Firstly, it provides evidence for the degree to which an orator could be admired, and the reasons for the people's praise. The citizens honour this foreigner for mastering Greek rhetoric to the point where he inspires them and their offspring to pursue it too. All Corinthian youth should emulate him, #26.39 Favorinus believes that his case demonstrates to the Greeks that in terms of public 'renown', he is in no way inferior to those native-born Greeks.40
Secondly, Favorinus refers to his serving as a model for the Romans. He says that even though they are taken up with their own self-esteem (τὸ ἴδιον ἀξίωμα they cannot disregard the traditional Greek education when it comes to real acclaim.41 Philostratus records that Favorinus took Rome by storm when he delivered his discourses there in Greek, and it was said that even those who could not understand were captivated by 'the tone of his voice, by his expressive glances and the rhythm of his speech'. They called the peroratio of his oration 'The Ode', a reference to his 'singing' style.42 So we need not
38According to Philostratus, the Athenians likewise threw down a statue because of his conflict with the emperor, Hadrian, Lives of the Sophists, 490. On the throwing down of statues
see Jones, Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, p. 169, n. 27. On the claiming of exemption from the liturgy which is said to have caused the Athenian incident and for a discussion of his possible exile as the grounds for the removal of his statue see Bowersock, Greek Sophists, pp. 35-36, 41-42, 51-52.
39It provides an interesting parallel to the Corinthian Christians' response to the Alexandrian Jew, Apollos, see pp. 176-78.
40'Renown' (τὸ δοκεῖν) refers to the decision of the Corinthians, both the Council and the People, to erect a statue of him because of his distinguished ability, τὸ παιδευθῆναι must refer to Greek paideia in this context, #27.
41Paideia refers to Roman rhetorical education which was indebted to that of the Greeks. In #27c with regard to the education of the barbarians, Favorinus uses the term ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ παιδεία, thereby specifying the nature of paideia open to them. This would distinguish this education
from Roman paideia.
42Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 491. For the discussion of this particular trend noted by Dio in the Alexandrian orations see pp. 51-53. Philostratus also refers to another sophist, Hadrian, whose reputation was such that when it was announced he would declaim in the
131
discount Favorinus' self-aggrandising words as he attempts, with his comments on Roman interest in Greek paideia, to persuade his audience to restore his statue to its place: Roman enchantment with his delivery was well attested.
Thirdly, he says that he is also a paradigm for the Celts and the barbarians in general, who need never despair of attaining Greek paideia. The aspiration for and the availability of Greek paideia is within the grasp of the barbarians according to Favorinus, #27.43
Fourthly, Favorinus bears witness to the Corinthians' enthusiastic response to the sophistic movement. He 'gave [samples] of speeches' (τῶν λόγων μετέδωκα), that is, delivered an encomium and declaimed to the δῆμος and the magistrates which, he reminds them, elicited a response more indicative of 'true friendship' than that accorded by their Corinthian forebears to Arion, who composed and taught them the dithyramb, a choral song in honour of Dionysus. He speaks of his 'friendly, yes intimate terms' with them, and these he attributes directly to his speeches given on his first visit, #1.44 He recalls the enthusiasm of the populace on his second visit and their attempts to persuade him to stay. Their affection for him and appreciation of his rhetorical gifts were such that his full-length statue was given 'pride of place' in the library as an incentive to young men to follow in Favorinus' footsteps, #8-9.45 The 'charm of his eloquence' captivated not only the men in his audience, but also 'women and children', all of whom, it is expressly stated, approved of the gift of eloquence, #33.46
However, the Corinthians were as fickle as they were enthusiastic. Favorinus saw the removal of his statue as an affront to 'the Greeks' and their sense of right, which was something he could not bear from a city renowned for justice. While other cities sought his services for embassies and were honouring him 'by actually erecting statues of him', the Corinthians had now in effect banished him by the removal of his statue, #16, 37. This turn of events left him baffled, for he knew of no charge against him: if he had led 'a decent life in Greece, in the midst of greater licence and indulgence', he would hardly
Athenaeum in Rome, even the members of the senate would rise from their sitting to hear him, Lives of the Sophists, 589.
43This is also attested by Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 553.
44For the procedures involved in 'entry' by the sophists see pp. 144-47.
45He calls the statue 'a mute semblance of my eloquence', #46.
46Litfin, St Paul's Theology of Proclamation, pp. 144-45, commenting on this evidence, argues that the Corinthians 'loved eloquence, lionised its practitioners, and were concerned that their own youth excel in it. Moreover, this attitude was broadly based among the Corinthian populace.'
132
misbehave in Rome in the presence of the emperor and 'the laws'.47 Favorinus grudgingly suggests that all who 'lived distinguished lives' were unable to escape some censure, #33. A. D. Litfin concludes that the Corinthians 'had not the slightest compunction about standing in judgement on the orators who came before them'.48
Philostratus illuminates another matter related to Favorinus, namely his prolonged professional quarrels with the sophist, Polemo of Laodicea. They appear to have arisen out of inter-city rivalry between Ephesus, who favoured the former, and Smyrna, who idolised the latter, a contest Bowersock calls 'cultural'.49 The strife continued when both men went to Rome, where it intensified. Their speeches were so saturated with invective that, according to Philostratus, even the truth of their statements could not diminish the guilt incurred by those who engaged in such disgraceful behaviour.
But Philostratus does not censure the spirit of rivalry per se, for, he argues, it can be forgiven 'since human nature holds that the love of glory never grows old'. It is interesting that Philostratus should epitomise the sophists by the spirit of rivalry, for he contended that 'when people called Favorinus a sophist, the mere fact that he had quarrelled with a sophist was evidence enough'.50 He expounds further on this with an observation from Hesiod that one always competes with others engaged in the same craft.51 Philostratus does not oppose rivalry itself, but the invective which in this case it has engendered.
Not only does Philostratus throw light on the quarrel, but he also shows how the followers of rival sophists fan the controversy. He notes that in Rome 'consulars and sons of consulars' applauded either one or the other. The status of the audience who took sides was significant. As Blowersock notes, 'Neither side could have the slightest doubt that the quarrel increased the reputations of both', and, it might be added, the importance of their followers. The result was that there started between Favorinus and
47LCL, vol. IV, p. 1, 33, n. 7 suggests, on the basis of his reference to Aphrodite, that the charge made by the Corinthians related to immorality. Philostratus notes that he was charged with adultery with the wife of a consul. He also quarrelled with Hadrian, but the latter event is
said to have been over his liturgy, Lives of the Sophists, 489-90.
48Litfin, St Paul's Theology of Proclamation, p. 146. However, their action was not based on Favorinus' rhetorical performance as a sophist but rather on his personal conduct and his relationship with the emperor, Hadrian.
49These two cities were rivals for pre-eminence in Asia Minor, Bowersock, Greek Sophists, p. 90 and Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 490-91.
50Lives of the Sophists, 491.
51Hesiod, Works and Days, 25.
133
Polemo, 'a rivalry such as kindles the keenest envy and malice in the hearts of wise men'.52
Our discussion demonstrates that Favorinus confirms and supplements Dio's picture of the sophistic movement in Corinth. The former, moreover, does it not as a critic, but as a participant, and therefore is on the opposite side to Dio. Philostratus says of him that 'he is as different from Dio as any who never were his pupils', Lives of the Sophists, 492.
Herodes Atticus, the sophist and benefactor of Corinth53
The most eminent of Favorinus' pupils was Herodes Atticus of Athens (ca. A.D. 101-77), a sophist who, like his mentor, spent time in Corinth. His reputation was such that 'For Philostratus, the Second Sophistic revolves around Herodes Atticus.'54
Plutarch records an evening dinner spent with the intimate friends of Sospis, the president (ἀγωνοθέτης) of the Isthmian games, which Herodes Atticus, whom Plutarch described as ὁ ῥήτωρ, attended.55 As Herodes Atticus' career unfolded he proved to be a power-wielding sophist and a great benefactor of Corinth. In March 1935 a statue base was found in the western area of Corinth near the foundations of what may have been the temple of Tyche. It contains a second-century inscription erected by the βουλή in honour of Regilla, Herodes Atticus' wife. The value of this inscription lies apart from the information it provides on Regilla, for though the statue honoured her during her lifetime, the inscription was certainly what is called an 'accolade profile' on her famous sophist husband by the Corinthian council.56
52Bowersock, Greek Sophists, p. 91.
53Herodes Atticus, an Athenian, was a sophist and a great benefactor in Athens, Corinth and other Greek cities. He dedicated the theatre in Athens to the memory of his wife, Regilla, and gave the roofed theatre at Corinth, Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 551. Apart from the inscription to his wife, two other inscriptions exist, G. Kaibel, Epigmmmata Graeca ex lapidibus collecta (Berlin, 1878), nos. 1046-47. On his visits and activities in Corinth see P. Graindor, Un milliardaire antique: Herodes Atticus et sa famille (Cairo: MISR, 1930), pp. 52-54, 66, 88, 121, 131-2; and J. R. Marten, 'Inscriptions at Corinth', Hesperia 46 (1977), 178-98. On his career see Bowersock, Greek Sophists, esp. pp. 22-23, 78-91, 92-100, and Anderson, Philostratus, pp. 108-15.
54Anderson, Philostratus, p. 108. It is certainly the longest discussion by Philostratus of any sophist, Lives of the Sophists, 545-66.
55Plutarch, Moralia, 723.
56Ansoul, 'Self-Estimate of the Apostle Paul', p. 117.
134
| [Ρηγίλλας τ]όδ' ἄγαλμα, φυὴν δ' ἐχάραξε τεχνείτης |
|
|
[πᾶσαν σ]ωφροσύνην ἐς λίθον ἀραμένην. |
|
|
[Ἀττικ]ός Ἡρώδης μέγας ὤπασεν, ἔξοχος ἄλλων, |
|
|
[παντ]οίης ἀρετῆς εἰς ἄκρον εἱκόμενος |
|
|
[ὃν π]όσιν Ἑλλήνων ἔλαχεν περίβωτον ἁπάντων |
5 |
|
[κρέσ]σονα δ' αὑτεπ<ά>ϊν ἄνθος Ἀχαιϊάδος |
|
|
[Ῥηγίλ]λα, ἡ βουλή Τύχην ὡς εἰλάσκουσα, |
|
|
[εἰκόνα π]ρ<ὸς> τεμένι στήσατο λαϊνέην. |
|
This is the statue of Regilla. An artist carved the figure which has translated all her prudent moderation into stone. It was given by great Herodes Atticus, pre-eminent above others, who had attained the peak of every kind of virtue, whom she took as her husband, Herodes famous among the Hellenes and furthermore a son [of Greece] greater than them all, the flower of Achaia. Ο Regilla, the City Council, as if hailing you, 'Tyche', has set up the marble statue before Tyche's sanctuary.57
We are told that this statue of Regilla, which captured all her prudent moderation (σωφροσύνη), was given by her husband who himself is described there as 'great' (μέγας) and 'pre-eminent above others, who had attained the peak of every kind of virtue'. He is 'pre-eminent above the Hellenes', literally 'he was destined for fame among all the Hellenes', 'greater (than them all)', 'and furthermore a son [of Greece]…the flower of Achaia'.58 Such accolades were prompted by Herodes' numerous benefactions to the city of Corinth and his achievements as a sophist.59 No other extant Corinthian inscriptions of the first half or middle of the second century surpass the superlatives heaped upon Herodes.60 Although it is not explicitly mentioned, his rhetorical ability can be inferred from the statements concerning his fame among the Hellenes. In ad-
57J. H. Kent, Corinth: Inscriptions 1926-1960 (Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1966), no. 128.
58Kent's translation reads 'pre-eminent above others', which does not quite convey the city council's view that he 'was destined' (ἔλαχεν) 'to be noised abroad', i.e., famous, above all the Greeks, παῖν = παίδα = υἱόν, translated 'son (of Greece)', Regilla had one traditional virtue, Herodes excelled at them all. For a discussion of the traditional virtues, see pp. 83-85.
59Bowersock, Greek Sophists, p. 27, comments, 'no sophist could match the lavish expenditure of Herodes'. For his building achievements, which included the theatre at Corinth, see Graindor, Un milliardaire antique, pp. 179-230.
60See Kent, Corinth, no. 226: Publius Aelius Sospinus, grandson of the host of Plutarch who was honoured as 'rhetor'; no. 264: (Lucius?) Maecius Faustinus, strategos, member of the panhellenion and a good orator erected in 'honour of his upright character'; no. 268: Marcus Valerius Taurinus, who is described as 'a good orator erected because of his fine virtues', and no. 269: Peducaeus Cestianus, the Apollian orator for whom Corinth erected a monument.
135
dition, Philostratus notes, 'And youths from all parts of the world hung on his lips, and they flocked to Athens in their desire to hear his eloquence.'61 The inscription also demonstrates the influence and status of this famous sophist.62
The very existence of such testimonials to orators and sophists indicates their status in the minds of the Corinthians. Herodes Atticus' inscription belongs to a genre which is well attested especially from agonistic inscriptions.63
This reflects the fame of this sophist upon whom the Corinthian council showered such honours.
Philostratus portrays Herodes as unabashed by the long applause of 'all Greece'; certainly he enjoyed being called 'one of the Ten', that is, Attic Orators of the canon. Rather than being embarrassed by the compliment, he replied that he was at any rate better than Andocides, the Attic orator whom Greek and Roman critics accused of stylistic faults.64 He may have considered the praise inscribed by the Council and People inadequate.65 The synkrisis of himself with Andocides was done with the greatest skill and refinement, and Philostratus describes it with the superlative, ἀστειότατος.66
Herodes' life was characterised by rivalries at least as much as Favorinus': his battles with a number of sophists make their way into Philostratus' account, Bowersock noting that his life was 'full of quarrels'.67 His students, ever loyal, followed in his steps, as is demonstrated in an incident related by Philostratus concerning Herodes' most distinguished pupil, Amphicles. Philagrus of Cilicia, a sophist, was walking 'with four men of the sort that at Athens chase after the sophists', when Amphicles with other youths made a jest at his expense. In the heated exchange which followed, a barbarism fell from the lips of Philagrus and was pounced upon by Herodes' pupils, who exploited the sophistic abhorrence of such terms.68 Philagrus
61Lives of the Sophists, 562. On the style of his oratory see # 564-65.
62On his imperial influence see Bowie, 'The Importance of Sophists', 52; on his famous family, see Bowersock, Greek Sophists, p. 27 and Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 545; and on his wife's family, #555.
63For a collection of such inscriptions and their relevance to 2 Corinthians 10-13 see Ansoul, 'Self-Estimate of the Apostle Paul', ch. 3, esp. p. 232, n. 78.
64OCD, p. 63 on the Ten Attic Orators; Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, 564-65. Philostratus describes Herodes' style of eloquence as being 'like gold dust shining beneath the
waters of a silvery eddying river', Lives of the Sophists, 564.
65He may have wished for an explication of the inscription on his tombstone which read 'Here lies all that remains of Herodes … but his glory is world wide', ibid., 552, 566.
66Ibid., 564. For 'refinement', 'town-bred', cf. with the use of'countrified', see p. 37, n. 70.
67Bowersock, Greek Sophists, pp. 93-100, for a full discussion of his quarrels.
68Lives of the Sophists, 208, n. 1. See Anderson, Philostratus, 44 on barbarisms as the chief enemy.
136
shortly thereafter wrote to Herodes and accused him of failing to teach manners to his pupils, to which Herodes retorted: 'It seems to me you are not very successful with your proemium.' Philostratus understood this as a rebuke of Philagrus' failure 'to win the good-will of his hearers…a true proemium of a declamation'.69
The pupils of Herodes further humiliated Philagrus when he fell into their trap and declaimed on a subject which they themselves proposed. He accepted the topic, shouted to him by members of an audience at a public gathering, because he thought them unaware that he had elsewhere declaimed, and then published, on it. What he thought was advantage soon turned to embarrassment, however, for when he 'pretended to be improvising, they retaliated by reading the declamation aloud', exposing his use of 'stale arguments'. The uproar and laughter that ensued threw him into a rage, though he must have known that this recycling represented a breach of the rules governing declamation in Athens, and that the audience's responseonly reflected the attitude towards those who declaimed from a manuscript.70 These incidents involving the pupils of Herodes aimed to humiliate
and drive out other sophists. They show how strife and jealousy were fanned among sophists and illustrate the lengths to which followers would go to gain victory through the permanent humiliation of rival sophists. Philostratus notes that Philagrus, although promoted to the chair of rhetoric in Rome, was nevertheless deprived of the recognition that was his due in Athens because of these incidents.71
In conclusion, Herodes Atticus epitomises all that a virtuoso rhetorician should be, and was deemed worthy of the longest treatment in Philostratus' Lives.72 Of his success as a declaimer there is no doubt. Furthermore he was well born and had vast financial resources,73 which he used to erect fine buildings in a city not his own, namely Corinth. The accolades bestowed upon him were meant to secure further benefactions for this city.74 E. L.
69Lives of the Sophists, 578-79. For further attempts to 'set up' a sophist see #579.
70Lives of the Sophists, 580; Anderson, Philostratus, p. 45. Bowersock, Greek Sophists, p. 93, notes in his discussion of this passage the bad relations between these two sophists, and the rank of Amphicles, the most eminent pupil, who was of the consular class.
71Lives of the Sophists, 580, Anderson, Philostratus, p. 45. On written vs. extempore speeches see pp. 205-6.
72In fact, he was the one around whom Philostratus wrote his Lives of the Sophists; see Lives of the Sophists, 545b-66.
73Bowersock, Greek Sophists, p. 27: 'No sophist could match the lavish expenditures of Herodes', and on his family, ibid., pp. 22-23.
74Ibid., p. 27.
137
Bowie's discussion of the status of sophists surely finds its focus in this man
who may rightly be called wise, powerful, and well born.75
Plutarch among the Corinthian sophists76
Corroborating evidence for Dio's observations about the presence of orators and sophists at the Isthmian games is found in Plutarch of Chaeronea, Greece (ca. A.D. 50-120) in Quaestiones Conviviales, a work dated between A.D. 99 and 116, Moralia 676c, 723-24f.77
Plutarch appears to have visited Corinth often, especially during the games. He counted among his friends Antonius Sospis, thrice president of the games during Trajan's reign,78 who, in fulfilment of official duties, entertained 'a great many foreign visitors at once' and all the citizens several times. In addition to these 'official' commitments, Sospis gathered his closest friends, all of whom were 'scholars' (φιλόλογοι).79 Plutarch's social interaction is also seen in his dedication of De capienda ex inimicis utilitate to a notable and wealthy magistrate who served Corinth for many years during Trajan's reign,80 and in his introducing the wealthy clique with whom he mixed in Corinth during the games, which included Herodes Atticus.81 Certainly he impresses the reader with the social status of his acquaintances in Corinth. He also informs us that on both visits orators dined at the tables of leading officials of Corinth and moved in the company of men of rank and status.82
75Bowie, 'The Importance of the Sophists', 50.
76For the most recent treatment of Plutarch see Jones, Plutarch and Rome, and D. A. Russell, Plutarch (London: Duckworth, 1972), and for a careful assessment of his place in the literary world of the sophists along with Dio of Prusa, see Bowersock, Greek Sophists, pp. 110-17, and G. R. Stanton, "Sophists and Philosophers: Problems of Classification', AJP 94 (1973), 351-54.
77See C. P. Jones, 'Towards a Chronology of Plutarch', JRS 65 (1966), 72-73, for a justification of the dating.
78Kent, Corinth, no. 97. No. 226 is an inscription to his grandson, who was an orator, in which mention is made of the status of Sospis as agonothete three times. See also no. 170 for an earlier inscription mentioning the holding of the office on two occasions.
79For a discussion of 'table talk' and the list of professions recorded see R. H. Barrow, Plutarch and His Times (London: Chatto & Windus, 1967), p. 20.
80Wiseman, 'Corinth and Rome I’, 507 and epigraphic evidence, n. 272.
81This raises the question of the date of birth of Herodes Atticus, which is usually given as ca. A.D. 101. However, as Plutarch mentions his presence at a dinner and also one of Herodes' pupils having won a contest with an encomiastic oration, it would seem his date of birth should be brought forward; see Moralia, 723b.
82In both instances when recording his visit he mentions a dinner given by officials of the
138
In addition to evidence concerning the leading men of Corinth, Plutarch offers a glimpse of a lively circle of literary men, one of whom is said to 'have a wider acquaintance with polite literature than anyone else'. That this unnamed rhetorician was a teacher is clear from his wide knowledge of literature and, more importantly, his accompanying reputation. Designating him a 'rhetor' does not imply an inferiority to sophists, for Plutarch appears not to distinguish readily between the two.83 Here the term 'rhetor' has a non-pejorative sense, as elsewhere in his corpus. Plutarch does refer to orators and sophists elsewhere who are motivated by 'repute' and 'ambition' (δόξα and φιλοτιμία), others by money (μισθός) and others still by political rivalries, but the terms are not used pejoratively of other groups.84
Plutarch also briefly mentions the presentation of a palm frond and plaited wreath by a pupil to his teacher, Herodes Atticus, as 'a special honour' at the dinner. It was won at a competition in an encomiastic oration at the games.85 The 'special honour' may not refer to the winning of the prize by the pupil, but rather to its presentation to his teacher as a sign of recognition that the teacher was responsible for the prize. Having accepted the compliment, Herodes returned it to its proud owner. Dio's comment that the sophists are 'like gorgeous peacocks…lifted aloft on the wings of their fame and their disciples' is perhaps illustrated in this incident. The passage also reflects something of the relationship between the sophist and his disciple, for, as Anderson notes, 'The prestige of a sophist began with his pupils.'86
Plutarch often criticises the sophists.87 Like Dio and Philo he notes that
some orators and sophists are led by 'repute and ambition' (δόξα καὶ φιλοτιμία), others by 'pecuniary interests' (μισθός), and still others engage in rivalries for political supremacy.88 In contrast with philosophers, sophists are shown to be motivated by selfish ambition and to care little for their audience or their disciples' welfare.89
Bowersock notes that Dio and Plutarch flourished 'on the eve of the most colourful period of the Second Sophistic; and although not a part of it, their
games. In Moralia, 675d he mentions Lucanius, 'the chief priest' who gives the dinner, and Praxiteles, 'the official guide', Moralia, 723. See Bowie, 'The Importance of the Sophists', 30.
83Plutarch, Moralia, e.g., 59f, 235e, 447e, 788d, 1000d, 1087b.
84E.g., Moralia, 131a.
85Moralia, 723a. For this form of oratory see D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), pp. xiii-xv.
86Dio, Or. 12.5. Anderson, Philostratus, p. 48.
87See Stanton, 'Sophists and Philosophers', 351-53, for a survey of the term.
88Moralia, 131a.
89See Stanton, 'Sophists and Philosophers', 351-53, and Jones, Plutarch and Rome, p. 14.
139
lives adumbrated many of its pronounced characteristics'.90 He refers to their imperial service, which included a procuratorship in Achaia for Plutarch.91 In addition, both men addressed the magistrates and citizens of the cities, and the elite of the East and emperors of Rome.
