The Civilizing Power: A Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides against the Background of Literature and Cultural Conflict, with Text, Translation, and Commentary (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 58.1 1968 : 1-223

TRANSACTIONS OFTHE

AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

SOCIETY

HELD AT PHILADELPHIA FOR PROMOTING

USEFUL KNOWLEDGE

NEW SERIES-VOLUME 58, PART 1 1968

THE CIVILIZING POWER A Study of the PanathenaicDiscourse of Aelius Aristides Against the Background of Literatureand Cultural Conflict, with Text, Translation,and Commentary

JAMES H. OLIVER Professorof Classics, The Johns Hopkins University

THE AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL

INDEPENDENCE

SQUARE PHILADELPHIA January, 1968

SOCIETY

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

by THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICALSOCIETY

homini maxime homini T. R. S. BROUGHTON

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-I5919 PRINTED IN GERMANY

at J. J. AUGUSTIN, GLUCKSTADT

PREFACE The translation was made and some of the commentary was composed in 1955-1956

when the

writer enjoyed a year's leave of absence from the Johns Hopkins University and the assistance of a grant from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. It is a pleasure to acknowledge these great debts, likewise the assistance from Dean G. Heberton Evans, Jr., of the Johns Hopkins University, who drew on a special fund to buy photostatic copies of the four manuscripts here collated. To his wife, who among other things criticized the translation and compiled the English index, the writer is particularly indebted. She has encouraged him at every stage. Dr. Iginio Crisciof Florence (see

Introduction, notes 2 and 3) and Professor Bayly Turlington of Sewanee have generously aided him in regard to special problems. Professors Harry Bober and Paul A. Underwood kindly provided photographs. To all these we express our gratitude. Most of the research was carried out with the resources of the Johns Hopkins UniversityLibrary, but the writer has worked also in three Florentine libraries, namely the Laurentian, the Nazionale and the Istituto di Papirologia, where he was received with the most exquisite courtesy. The essay of ChapterI contains an address delivered by the writer on 6 April, I964, at the University of Coimbra. J. H. O.

ABBREVIATIONS (See also list of manuscripts in Introduction) GIBM. The Collectionof Ancient GreekInscriptions AHR. AmericanHistorical Review. in the British Museum, 4 v. London, I874-I916. AJP. AmericanJournal of Philology. Annee ep. Annee epigraphique,published annually GRBS. Greek,Roman, and Byzantine Studies, published at Duke University, Chapel Hill, North as part of the Revue archeologique. Carolina. AP. AnthologiaPalatina. Coniectaneacritica in Aelii Aristidis PanaHolleck. BCH. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique. Aristides in Aelius Die historischen Beecke. thenaicum,Diss. Vratislaviae, I874. Angaben Panathenaikosauf ihre Quellenuntersucht,Diss. HSCIP. HarvardStudies in Classical Philology. IG. InscriptionesGraecaeconsilio et auctoritateAcaStraBburg, I905. demiae Litterarum Borussicae editae. Berlin, Bull. ep. Bulletin epigraphique,published annually des Revue as of the and L. Robert I873-. part by J. IG II2, etc. Inscriptiones Graecae,volumen II-III, etudesgrecques. Carie. Robert, L. La Carie: histoire et geographie etc., editio minor. antirecueil des avec le Journal of Hellenic Studies. inscriptions JHS. historique Helv. Museum Helveticum. Mus. Adrien-Maisonneuve, Paris, I954-. ques, PG. Patrologiae cursus completus,ed. J. P. Migne. Cl. Phil. Classical Philology. Series Graeca. Didyma. Wiegand, Th., et alii. Didyma, Berlin, PL. Patrologiae cursus completus,ed. J. P. Migne. Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, I94I-. Series Latina. FGrHist. Jacoby, F. Die Fragmenteder giechischen PSI. Papiri della Societa Italiana, Florence. Historiker, Berlin, Weidmann, I923-. FHG. Muller, C. and Th. Fragmenta historicorum R.-E. Realencyklopiidieder klassischen AltertumsGraecorum, 5 v. Paris, Firmin Didot, I84I-I870. wissenschaft. GEL. A Greek-EnglishLexicon compiled by H. G. REG. Revue des etudesgrecques. Liddell and R. Scott. A new edition revised and Rev. phil. Revuede philologie. augmented by H. Stuart Jones, Oxford, Claren- Rhet. gr. RhetoresGraeci,ed. L. Spengel. Rh. Mus. RheinischesMuseumfiir Philologie. don Press, I925-I940. GHI. Tod, M. N. A Selection of Greek Historical Roscher. AusfiihrlichesLexikon der griechischenund romischen Mythologie. 6 v. Leipzig, Teubner, Inscriptions, 2 v. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1933 and I948.

1*

I884-I937.

3

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

4

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

Wissenschaften,Philosophisch-historischeKlasse, Sitzungsberichte. Hirzel, Sitzungsb. Wien. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Leipzig, I923. SEG. SupplementumEpigraphicum Graecum.LeyWien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitden, Sijthoff, I923-. zungsberichte. SIG.3Dittenberger,W., et alii. Syllogeinscriptionum SVF. Stoicorum veterumfragmenta, collected by Hans von Arnim. 4 v. in 3. Leipzig, Teubner, Graecarum,third edition, 4 v. Leipzig, Hirzel, Schwyzer, Dial. Gr. ex. Schwyzer, Eduard. Dialectorum Graecarumexempla epigraphica potiora.

I915-I924.

Sitzungsb. Berlin. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Klasse fur Philosophie, Geschichte..., Sitzungsberichte.

Sitzungsb. Heidelberg.Heidelberger Akademie der

I903-I924.

TAPA. Transactions of the American Philological Association. Zeitschr. neutest. Wiss. Zeitschriftfir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ...

THE CIVILIZING POWER A Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides against the Background

of Literature and Cultural Conflict, with Text, Translation, and Commentary JAMESH. OLIVER

that Thucydides and Plato are the best Attic authors it does not deny the charm of Demosthenes and Aristides.1 As late as I76I the names of Demosthenes and Aristides were still coupled. In paying tribute to Willem Canter's Latin translation of the works of Aristides J. J. Reiske, who knew the Attic orators better than any other scholar of his day, wrote as follows:

CONTENTS Introduction

................................... 5 I: General discussion ..................... 9 I: From funeral oration to Panathenaic 9 II: Traditional culture and ancestral constitution .......................... i7 III: AlWtheiaand Akribeia .............. 25 IV: Date of composition and reaction to eastern influence ................. 32 V: Cosmic themes .................... 38 Part II: Translation ........................... 45 Part III: Commentary on individual passages ...... 91 Part IV: Text and apparatus .................... I5I I95 Bibliography ................................... Index to the Greek text.......................... 196 List of passages cited ............................ 214 General index .................................. 219

Part

Obscurusfit interpres interdum, dum brevis esse laborat. Quod aliter fieri non poterat. Scriptorum graecorumquotquotlegi, neque tamen perpaucoslegi, qui quidemliberodicendigenereusi sunt, post oratorem ThucydidemunusAristides,mea sententia,est omnium intellectudifficillimus,cum propterincredibilemargumentationum et crebritatem et subtilitatem, tum proptergraecitatisexquisitamelegantiam.Ita enim est DemosthenemAristidesad verumet dexterrimeimitatus, ut minutusDemosthenesappellarimereatur.Cedit in plerisqueHadrianensissophista Paeaniensioratori; sunttamenrursusnonpauca,in quibushuncillesuperat. While to Photius and later to the Byzantines of the fourteenth century the Panathenaic and the Oration on the Four in refutation of Plato were the most interesting, Bruni and the Florentines of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries esteemed the Panathenaic and the Roman Oration particularly. One of the links between Byzantium and Florence is an interest in Aristides among the educational leaders. The first printing of Aristides and the first Latin translation of a work of Aristides occurredat Florence, and at Venice under the cultural influence of the Florentines the first and second Aldine editions of Isocrates carried also the Panathenaic and the Roman Oration of Aristides. Byzantium and Florence still admired him as an artist, and he has perhaps contributed a little to the canons of Italian style. The modern student needs to be reminded of the long period in which Aristides was one of the great models of artistic prose, but this essay of ours, which

INTRODUCTION

In the eleventh century after Christ, Michael Psellos made a remarkable effort to revive the elegance of Greekstyle, and in so doing he chose as the best models Demosthenes, Lysias, Isocrates, and Aristides. For him as for celebrated teachers of the Late Roman Empire Demosthenes and Aristides formed a glorious pair. At the beginning of the fourteenth century after Christ, when Theodore Metochites and Nicephorus Choumnosdominated the literary life of Byzantium, Aelius Aristides still counted as one of the three or four great ancients who could be used as rhetorical models. Gregory of Cyprus, who became patriarch of Constantinople,and whose favorite authors were Plato, Demosthenes, and Aristides, had attacked the moderns and suffered attack himself. In defending Gregory, who was his teacher, Nicephorus Choumnos proposed organizing a contest between the works of these three great ancients, whom he easily understood, and the works of the moderns, whom he pretended to find quite unintelligible. For Metochites (Logos 14, ch. 17) the great models were Aristides, Demosthenes, and Plato. An anonymous discourse of the early fourteenth century protests 1 Ihor Sevcenko, Etudes sur la polemique entre Theodore against a tendency to consider Demosthenes and Aristides the only stylistic models, but in asserting Metochite et Nicephore Choumnos (Brussels, I962). 5

6

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

began as a chapter in a projected history of Roman Athens, aims at an understanding of Aristides as a phenomenon in his own day. That means we treat him not only as an artist but as reflecting the thought of the period. We have here a work which he and his contemporariesprobably considered his masterpiece. To us it seems worthy of attention primarily because it expresses a pride in cultural and religious superiority and contains the proclamation of a panhellenic (or oecumenical) cultural and religious orthodoxy founded on traditional education and a historical myth. Thus the Panathenaic of Aristides constitutes a pagan forerunnerof Byzantine attitudes and has the interest of an important link between Classical Hellenism and the Byzantine Renaissance. The Panathenaic of Aristides seems to us worthy of attention secondarily because it throws a light on the Menexenus of Plato and on the Panathenaic and De Pace of Isocrates and on specific passages of other ancient authors. It will inevitably be consulted by historians of ancient Greecefor negative reasons. Despite some passages of extraordinarybad taste -there are also passages of some beauty-this ambitious work won acclaim. In the next century it served the rhetorician Menanderas the chief model for the encomium of a city. Therefore,historians of Early Christianity and Greco-Roman culture will find that it throws a light, whether damning or not, upon the generation of MarcusAurelius. They will find in it the indirect answer of a more famous professor than Celsus ever was to the promise of salvation through the law of the Jews and the philosophy of the Hellenes united by the Logos which is Christ. Here the Logos is representedby a divinely fostered, consistently behaved city of men bearing the significant name of Athena and offering all mankind an image of the highest human values and a standard of the greatest human potentialities. The history of Athens is retold in a tone to answer both the deeds of Augustus and the miracles of Christ, though Christ and the Christians are never mentioned, nor Augustus either. Students of western civilization have conceded that it was the artistic model also for one of the most interesting and even seminal works of the Early Italian Renaissance, the LaudatioFlorentinae Urbis of Leonardo Bruni around I403.2 Bruni not 2 Hans Baron, The Crisis the of Early Italian Renaissance

(Princeton Univ. Press, 1955), chapters 3, 9, o0 and I8. The complete text of the Laudatio has never been published. I owe my acquaintance with it to the great kindness of my friend, Dr. Iginio Crisci, the helpful conservator of the hospitable Istituto di Papirologia at the University of Florence, who transcribed Cod. Laur. LII and LXV and sent me a copy.

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

only imitated the rhetoricalform but achieved some of his best effects by reapplying figures and phrases of the Panathenaic.3 The Panathenaic of Aristides, in which the cardinal virtues of Athens are related to the virtues of a Roman emperor, should not of course be read as a work of history in its review of great deeds but as one reads the Column of Trajan, the Arch of Beneventum or the Panel Reliefs of MarcusAurelius. As on those monuments the best known scenes are selected for easy recognition,so here the best known stories are selected and rendered artistically with various levels of meaning (cf. sections 170 and e.g. 70). It was the masterpiece by which four hundred years later the Neo-Platonist Olympiodorus could indentify which Aristides he meant, "the one who composed the Panathenaic." We have tried to produce a better understanding of it. Apart from Canter and Reiske, both of whom illuminated the meaning of many a passage, and apart from Bruno Keil's pupil Eugen Beecke, who published a good dissertation on the historical sources of Aristides,4no one has really studied the 3

Take for example the passage which Hans Baron, The

Crisis,

pp. I69-I70,

praises

for its lucid symmetry

and

translates somewhat as follows: "The city herself stands in the center.... A poet might well speak of the moon surrounded by the stars.... Just as on a round shield, where one ring is laid around the other, the innermost ring loses itself into the central knob, which is the middle of the entire shield: just so we see the regions like rings surrounding and enclosing one another. Among them the city is the first, like the central knob, the center of the whole orbit. The city herself is ringed by walls and suburbs"

...,

etc.

With the whole passage compare Aristides, sections io, 15, 20 and 244. The adaptation of Aristides, sections 51-52 is so admirable that it must be reproduced in Bruni's own Latin (as transcribed by Iginio Crisci). It reads: "Itaque omnes qui aut seditionibus pulsi aut invidia deturbati patriis sedibus extorres aguntur ii se Florentiam universi recipiunt quasi in unicum refugium tutamenque cunctorum. Nec ullus est iam in universa Italia qui non duplicem patriam se habere arbitretur, privatim propriam unusquisque suam, publice autem Florentiam urbem. Ex quo quidem fit ut haec communis quidem sit patria et totius Italiae certissimum asylum, ad quod omnes undique, cum sit opus, fugiunt recipiunturque cum summo incolentium favore summaque benignitate. Tantum enim studium beneficentiae et humanitatis in hac re publica est ut clara voce clamare videatur et palam omnibus obtestari nec quisquam patria se carere putet donec Florentinorum supersit urbs." 4 Two dissertations, one by J. Haury, Quibus fontibus Aristides usus sit in declamatione quae inscribitur HravoerivaiK6S(Augsburg, I888), who erroneously inferred that Aristides drew his information chiefly from Ephorus, and the much better dissertation by Eugen Beecke, Die historischen Angaben in Aelius Aristides Panathenaikos auf ihre Quellen untersucht (StraBburg, I905), who recognized the multiplicity of his sources, were consulted after the writer worked through the material by himself. The writer would

VOL. 58, PT. I, I968]

7

INTRODUCTION

Panathenaic Discourse. The section dedicated to this oration by A. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d'Asie aut IIe siecle de notre ere (Paris, I923), pp. 362-372, is the weakest

part of this valuable work, for it reveals no serious commitment to the problems behind the Panathenaic.

In the first place we have tried to bring out the content and structure of the Panathenaic Discourse. That Aristides cast it in the form of a two-day speech may seem strange, but in a period when rhetorical education prevailed, the conventions of real speeches precluded ten-hour harangues. The wealth of arguments could not be accommodated in the shorter span, and brevity was not stylistically desirable here, however much in an epigram. Rather, the ancients, at least those whom Aristides regarded as models, considered size important in a work of art. Aristotle expressed this conception in the Poetics I450 b35 with the words, "Beauty lies in

size and arrangement." Up to the point where the listener still sees the work clearly as a whole, the larger the work the better it is. Just as a trilogy may be more successful than the best single play (from an ancient standpoint), so a two-part discourse, if skillfully contrived, may be more successful than a single speech. It is not fair to impose upon Aristides the modern preference for the short sermon; he challenges the listener to find a field of praise he has neglected, whereas the American orator who means to talk interminably often begins with the dishonest promise, "I will be brief." In a world of cultural conflict could either the Hellenic or the Christian ideal be adequately presented and defended in what may be called the philosophical rhetoric, by a short exposition ? In the second place we have tried to prepare a study which will serve both classicists and nonclassicists by a translation which should be useful in its completeness. The difficulty and subtlety of which Reiske spoke in the passage cited have made Aristides less intelligible to most and partly account for his recent unpopularity. Willem Canter's admirable translation into Latin was published in express his admiration for the discriminating task performed by Beecke. The sources are rhetorical rather than historical, and the relation of Aristides to his sources needs to be more precisely formulated. We have tried to do this in Chapter I. The reflections of passages from historians are largely reflections of speeches and digressions with rhetorical interest. Perhaps the dissertation by Henricus Holleck, Coniectanea critica in Aelii Aristidis Panathenaicum (Vratislaviae, I874), should be mentioned because the author undoubtedly studied the discourse, but he had little restraint in rewriting sections 35, 39, 74, Io3 and 122 and his conjectures often seem unworthy of mention.

1566, and since then no other translation has appeared. Even the Latin translation fails to serve its original purpose, partly because Latin no longer is a medium for popularization, partly because much that was obscure is rendered more obscurely in Canter'sLatin. Here, accordingly, we present the first translation into a modern tongue. It aims at clarity primarily but also at retaining something in the way of the characteristically Aristidean word links and sentence structure. The rendering"philanthropy" for philanthr6pia,which sometimes means "love of mankind or civilized man" (hominesmaxine homines,as Pliny called the Hellenes of Hellas) and sometimes means the "selfless conduct which the love of one's less brutal fellowman produces," may not be perfectly accurate in individual passages but often seems imposed by the necessity of using the same renderingat each occurrenceof this key word. Each recurrenceof a link word or a double meaning presents a problem. In the third place we have provided a commentary that should explain much of the background and many of the allusions and should indicate how Aristides turns arguments to advantage. It is satisfying to know the source of an argument or a phrase, and it is fascinating to observe how he changes it. Sometimes the reworkingof an old phrase cannot be explained without Greek, which the non-classicist, we hope, will excuse. The classicist has to have a text. Since Aristides is found neither in the Oxford series nor in the Bude or Loeb collection nor even in a Teubner text, we must provide one. We could not undertakethe lifelong labor of a real palaeographicalstudy, and yet we did not wish merely to reprint the old text of W. Dindorf. Bruno Keil has not given us the Panathenaic Oration in his incomplete edition of Aristides. A new recension of the manuscripts with special attention to the scholia would be desirable, but in the meantime we have made a compromise by examining for ourselves the text of Aristides in four manuscripts only. They are: A = Parisinus

Graecus

295I,

tenth

century

(Arethas);

R = Vaticanus Graecus I298, eleventh century;

T = LaurentianusPluteus LX, codex 8, eleventh century; U - Urbinas Graecus 123, fourteenth century. Occasional references to other manuscripts are taken fromDindorfand do not representindependent examination. These manuscripts are L = Baroccianus 136, thirteenth century; N = Oxoniensis Collegii Novi 259.

8

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

In the Greek text the writer has accepted some emendations of Reiske and others and has introduced a few of his own. The latter will be found in sections 23, 58, 67, 8o, 83, 88, I22, I29, 141, I72, I9I and 270. Incidental discussions of special interest are to be

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

found in the commentary to section 23, which suggests an emendation in Herodotus V 82, and to section 261, which provides a thought for historians of the pre-Cleisthenean republic of the Athenians. Why historia is less philosophical than poetry may be examined in the essay of Chapter III.

PART I GENERAL

DISCUSSION All of these elements reappear in the Periclean and Socratean orations, but alongside the arete which is courage the Periclean oration exalts a different arete, that of talent, the constructive talent of the statesman (II 37) and the talents which the peculiar environment of Athens accepted and encouraged. The free environment of Athens where men can develop all kinds of talents beyond what is produced anywhere else is strongly praised in the climactic passage II 4I which reads as follows:

I. FROM FUNERAL ORATION TO PANATHENAIC The Athenian institution of the funeral oration over those who died in war developed a tradition of praising the excellence not only of those who were being buried but of the ancestors. From Pausanias I 29 and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiq. Rom. V 17 it can be argued whether the epoch-making institution of this custom went back to 479, 476/5, or 465/41 B.C., but by the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War it was already an old institution. Superior examples of the type of funeral oration have been preserved in Lysias II, Demosthenes LX, and Hyperides, Ep., among which that by Lysias is particularly important for the influence it exerted upon the Panegyric of Isocrates.2 Most of them were probably banal and could be criticized for the mere flattery they purveyed to Athenians. Even these three are below the quality we expect from the authors. It is ceremonial oratory conforming to an inherited pattern and bound by the conventions of the religious occasion. In sharp contrast to the turgidity or banality of the usual funeral oration are two short specimens of what the funeral oration could be, two beautiful examples. The one is the funeral oration of Pericles in Thucydides, Book II; the other is the funeral oration of Socrates in Plato's Menexenus. They both reveal a respect for the conventions of the religious occasion so that they appear entirely suitable for the ceremony but they bring something new which aims at more than the purpose of the moment. And in beauty of style they achieve an eloquence that ranks them among the great literary masterpieces of classical Athens. The purposes of the ordinary oration were honor for the dead, comfort for the survivors, and the exaltation of the military virtues through constant memory of those who died long ago in the city's wars.

In brief I claim that the city as a whole is an educational force for Hellas and that individually, as it seems to me, a man from our midst would have the selfsufficient personality to turn to more forms of activity and to succeed more easily than the same man would if he came from any other environment. And the power itself of the city (i] uivapcisTrS -rr6AEcos) shows that this is not a boast of fine words which should please for the moment rather than an unconcealed truth of reality, the power which we have acquired from these habits of life (-rp6OTO).For she alone of today's cities turns out on trial to be greater than a reputation, and she alone causes the foe who comes against her no indignation at the kind of men by whom he is roughly treated and causes her follower no complaint of incapable leadership. There are great signs of our power, and it is well attested indeed. Since we have presented it thus to the men of today and to posterity, we shall be admired, and without any need whatsoever of a Homer to praise us or of anyone who with fine words expects that he will delight for the moment until the unconcealed truth of the real achievements spoils the implication.3 But without deception we shall be admired because we have forced every land and sea to become accessible to our boldness and have everywhere established eternal monuments of both punishments and benefactions. For the Pericles of Thucydides, accordingly, the proof of the greatness of Athens was the dynamis of the city, the power represented by her trophies, her triremes, and her empire, the dynamis which came from the tropoi of her citizens. The dynamis of the Athenians is mentioned again by speakers in Thucydides V 87-III, in the course of the Melian Debate, where the word occurs seven times and where it

1 For 465/4 or 464/3 argues F. Jacoby, "Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athens and the Public Cemetery in the Kerameikos,"

JHS 64 (1944): pp. 37-66.

3 He alludes to the dTrwrrl of the poet or prose artist who glamorizes the subject. With all due respect to A. W. Gomme, the latter quite misunderstood the passage, which he suspected to be in need of emendation.

For the genuineness of this funeral oration see J. Walz, Der lysianische Epitaphios (== Philologus Suppl. Bd. XXIX, Heft 4), I936; E. Buchner, Der Panegyrikos des Isokrates (= Historia Einzelschriften, Heft 2) I958. 2

9

10

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

takes on something of an antithesis to arete, an antithesis absent from the Funeral Oration of Pericles. In the Melian Debate the dynamis of the Athenians was based on sea power rather than on the mores (tropoi) of her men. The emphasis has shifted from the tropoiwhich created the sea power to the sea power itself. In the Funeral Oration (II 36) Pericles divides the history of Athens into three periods. First that of the ancestors who handed on the city in freedom by arete. This would be, I think, until 478 B.C. Secondly that of the Fathers who did still more by creating the empire. This would be, I think, until 448 B.C.Third, and most highly praised, are those of his own generation who strengthened the empire and made the city most self-sufficient for peace and for war. These achievements are attributed to the city's constitution and tropoi, which for that reason receive their praise. There is no lament (threnos);instead there is an exhortation. The other short specimen, the Socratean funeral oration of Plato's Menexenus,begins with the same play on words with which the Periclean oration began. Pericles had criticized the nomos ("law" or "custom") which called for words, and then he had developed a double antithesis of words and deeds, logoi-erga.The same double antithesis reappears in the oration of Socrates who, however, defends the nomos.Those who claim in this striking similarity a deliberate reminder of the famous Periclean oration of Thucydides II seem to me absolutely right. The Socrates of Plato takes his start from the oration delivered by the Thucydidean Pericles and corrects him. For Plato's Socrates too the city of the Athenians has provided an educational force for all Hellas. Socrates follows Pericles in declaring that the constitution allows for an arete wich is not just that of birth, and calls it, in a certain sense, an aristokratia.For Socrates, also, arete, which means couragebut also other virtues, makes the Athenians superior. The Socratean oration too ends in an exhortation of the living without a threnos.There are many points of agreement but more interesting are the differences. Socrates ignores completely the Athenian Empire and silently repudiates the dynamis of the city which for Pericles proved the greatness of Athens. Of course we know from other dialogues that Plato disapproved of the empire and refused to recognize Miltiades, Themistocles, Cimon, and Pericles as real statesmen. Socrates gives to the word arete a wide moral significance; above all, it is justice. For Socrates the third period, that of Pericles' generation, would not deserve the highest praise; he ignores

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

the division into three periods, but significantly he gives his greatest praise to men of an earlier period, the men who fought at Marathon and who thus educated Hellas (240d-e): If one were presentat this battle he could see what kind of men in respectto aretewerethose who at Marathon receivedthe dynamisof the barbariansand who chastisedthe arroganceof the whole of Asia and who, as first to do so, erectedtrophies over the barbarians, thereby becomingleaders and teachers to the others, that the dynamisof the Persianswas not invincible, rather that all number and all wealth yield to arete (rrav TrAfieoS Kai TrasirTXOUTOS

&pETri

I then wrrEiKEI).

claim that those men were the fathers not only of our bodies but of our freedom and of that of all on this continent. In daring to run risks for their salvation in the later battles, the Hellenes looked at that engagementand becamepupils of the men at Marathon.4 Socrates, who takes no pride in the former dynamis of the Athenians, expresses contempt for the dynamis of the Persians. One other striking differenceremains to be mentioned. Thucydides had Pericles ignore the ancient legends of the mythical period. Plato has Socrates refer to these old stories of Eumolpus, the Amazons, Adrastus, and so forth, though he does not dwell on them. Surely Plato felt that Thucydides or Pericles had sacrificed something very valuable in the heritage of Athens, ancient logoi of paradeigmatic value. Whereas Thucydides sought to escape from myths, Plato sought to reinterpret them. For him and for many Greeks thereafter the myths were not literally true but represented the accumulated wisdom of an ancient people. Where no suitable myths existed, Plato in other dialogues invented them. In the Menexenus, moreover, Plato actually derived the areteof the Athenians from their mythical autochthony. He dwells with special emphasis on their birth from Attica, a good mother. The proof of the good beginning (arche)lies in the quality of Attica itself. The Athenians, who being born of the same stock and reared in the same way, are closely bound together and related, constitute the true and ideal Hellenes, who therefore always fight for freedom and resist slavery whether from Barbarians or from Hellenes who imitate Barbarians. 4 A contrast of Hellenic arete and barbarian dynamis occurs in the speech of the Plataeans in Thucydides III 56, 5 but not at all like this. However, Phalinus in Xenophon's Anabasis II I, 13 says to the young Hellene, "You are mad if you think the arete of you men could prevail over the dynamis of the King."

GENERAL DISCUSSION

VOL. 58, PT. i, I968]

The stock of the city is so noble and free, so sound and healthyand by naturea haterof barbarismbecause we aregenuinelyHellenesandunmixedwith barbarians. For no men live with us like Pelops or Cadmusor Aegyptus or Danaus or many others who are by origin barbariansbut Hellenesby convention.No, we who live here together are very Hellenes (ac'roil'E?A-rlv), not

mixobarbarians.Hence the hatred of the alien nature has sunk deeplyinto the city as a purehatred(246c-d). This passage brings to mind Plato's Critias, where the corruption of the men of Atlantis comes from an admixture while those ancient Athenians of nine thousand years ago were autochthonous and uncorrupted. The Athenians of the Menexenus are a timeless Idea of an ideal state as Ilse von Loewenclau rightly interprets the speech.5 Plato does not praise this or that historical manifestation of Athens but the eternal Athens, and the only truth he seeks is the insight into the true, philosophically true, Athens, the ideal state that began in a good land with a good upbringing and which from time to time produces remarkable deeds worthy of that mother and upbringing. The deeds are not just strung together but chosen to illustrate the virtue that goes back to the arche, so that as Ilse von Loewenclau rightly says, the archebecomes a telos, a beginning becomes an end. The speech culminates in an appeal to the sons and brothers, an appeal in the direct words of the dead themselves who have entrusted it as their testament to be delivered by Socrates. In these direct words they take up an agon motif from the Periclean address, the contest of the living with the dead. Whereas Pericles said that the living could not expect to equal the dead, in the Menexenus the living are obliged to surpass the dead, who would then welcome them beyond the tomb. The speech of Socrates belongs not to dialectic but to a rhetoric aimed at the largergroup who were not ready for dialectic, but it taught the basic doctrine of the Good and can be describedas rhetoric imbued with philosophy. It did not flatter the living like ordinary rhetoric any more than the Periclean address. 5 I. von Loewenclau, Der platonische Menexenos (= Tiibinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft, 41, I96I). This is a remarkably good study presented as a Berlin dissertation in 1949 and revised in I95I. It was consulted but not entirely appreciated by N. Scholl, Der platonische Menexenos (= Temi e Testi 5, Rome, I959). Scholl's dissertation has some very valuable comments too, but it does not have the same fundamental importance. See also George Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, I963), pp. I58-I64. On the other hand, C. H. Kahn, "Plato's

Funeral

Oration,"

234, has not persuaded me.

Cl. Phil. 58 (I963):

pp. 220-

11

Before we leave the Menexenus temporarily it is necessary to say a word about the modern theory according to which the oration of the Menexenus was intended as a parody. The ancient Athenians, who according to Cicero, Orat. 151 had it read out

publicly every year, cannot have felt so, neither did Isocrates, Cicero himself, and Aelius Aristides. At least those who claim the Menexenus as a serious work of Plato seem to me very right. The problem of the Menexenus is really the problem of the dialogue which frames it. Why did Plato use Socrates for an occasion which took place twelve or thirteen years after the death of Socrates, and why did Plato have Socrates pretend that the oration was by Aspasia, an anachronism even cruder? The framing dialogue shows a certain indignation against the kind of funeral orations which have recently been delivered and against the false criteria by which the speakers have been chosen. The indignation is directed against the professional rhetoricians; Menexenus says as much. There is no expression of indignation against the foreign policy of Athens, and it seems far-fetched to read any such thing into the dialogue. To criticize the living rhetoricians Plato used Socrates because Socrates was the mask which he customarily used. The irony is perfect. The anachronismdid not worry him. The references to Aspasia of course remind the reader of the Oration of Pericles in Thucydides, Book II, the most famous of the funeral orations. Pericles had not gone to a professional rhetorician, and yet he had done well. Plato disapproved of Pericles as a stateman but he undoubtedly recognized the high literary quality and superior reputation of the oration which Thucydides attributed to him. Aspasia was, in a way, the Muse who had inspired Pericles. Socrates facetiously draws on the same inspiration. As Pohlenz6noted, the dialogueAspasia, in which Aeschines of Sphettos overrated the mistress of Pericles, had recently been published. In this work of art, which Lucian, Imagines 17 extolled

as a masterpiece, Aspasia's wisdom and understanding were most attractively represented, and when Plato's Socrates referredto Aspasia,.the reader did not look for something absurd. The Menexenus, though it presents a discourse which corrects the funeral oration of Thucydides II, is not directed against Thucydides and Pericles primarily, but against the more recent orations and the false criteria of the recent choice of speaker. The funeral oration of the Menexenusis neither a parody nor a paignion. 6 Max Pohlenz, A us Platos Werdezeit (Berlin, 1913), pp. 256-307 "Kritik der auswartigen Politik Athens." Pohlenz was not the first but he was impressive.

12

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

Isocrates IV, the Panegyric of Isocrates, constitutes the next major step in the development which we wish to trace. Isocrates in this oration sought to persuade the Greeks to establish, first, concord among themselves and, secondly, a joint hegemony of Athens and Sparta for a war against the Great King. In order to persuade the Lacedaemoniansto accept a partnership with Athens, Isocrates argued that Athens actually deserved the sole hegemony by its many benefactions to Hellas but would be content to share it. In the elaborate demonstration of the merit of Athens, Isocrates incorporated and worked out with artistic perfection the well-known themes of the funeral orations, particularly those of Lysias II, but also those of other orations with important reflectionsof Thucydides. The vast material of a long funeral oration and of a symbuleutic address to the Hellenes at a festival were woven together with great skill into a single clearly arranged discourse directed at a reading public of all Hellenes. The real importance of the Panegyric lies partly in the importance of its subject but above all in its rhetorical perfection, the art with which he covers the abundant material in the most elegant language and without ever losing his way. He accepts the Athenian Empire of the fifth century and justifies it. Whereas the Pericles of Thucydides was proud of the empire but admitted that the acquisition of it was perhapsnot just, Isocrates argues that everything about it was justified by the good it did the Hellenes, and he excuses the treatment of Melos and Scione as necessary. Unlike Thucydides he also exploits the ancient legends. Of particular interest is the following passage (IV, 50): Ourcity in respectto thoughtand speechhas left the rest of men so far behindthat her pupils have become teachersof all the others,and she has made the name of Hellenesseem no longerthat of the race but of the mind,andit is morethosewho shareoureducationthan those who share the common origin who are called

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

to a third interpretation (E. Buchner7), Isocrates claims neither an extension nor a restriction of the name Hellenes but a redefinition of the name in the light of their most outstanding characteristic. Isocrates XII, the Panathenaic, which Isocrates began in 342 and finished in 339 B.c. at the age of ninety-seven, constitutes the fourth important step in the development which we wish to trace. This last discourse of Isocrates, slightly repulsive in its vanity, and still unsuccessful in its philosophy, was not published as a symbuleutic oration like his much earlierand greater Panegyric, but it seems, as Wendland argued, to be a symbuleutic oration disguised as an encomium of the Athenians.8 The Panegyric included much praise of the Athenians and some disparagement of the Lacedaemonians, but the Panathenaic praises the Athenians without interference from the claim of the Spartans to recognition. The Spartans are denounced. The most striking thing about the discourse, i.e. about sections 35-I98, is the reinterpretation of ancient legends in a way to give them a special significance for a current situation, either a prefigurationof an idealized union around a king as in the case of Agamemnon who produced concord among the Greeks and protected them from barbarian encroachments (sections 74-87), or an assertion of moral leadership and courage as in the telling of the Adrastus story, where Isocrates seeks the universal behind the particularand shows the Athenians as an ancient people deeply conscious of a divine law binding on all men or at least on all Greeks. By this time Plato was dead. Isocrates no longer regarded him as a competitor and he was more susceptible to the influence of Plato; the Panathenaic itself is almost a dialogue with the critic reminiscent of the Callicles of the Gorgiasand with a considerableframe around the oration proper.9 7

Edmund

Der

von Isokrates: Eine

Buchner, Panegyrikos Hellenes (KacijnaAov "EArlvas KaXdstal T'roi;sTrfj historisch-philologische Untersuchung (= Historia Einzel-rraiEOaEcos T'fS 'rrpEripaS TrOiS rfiS KOIVS4paCEcos schriften, Heft 2, Wiesbaden, I958), pp. 45-65. M. A. rETrXo wras).

According to one interpretation (Werner Jaeger, etc.), this means an extension of the term Hellenes

to include barbarianseducated in the Athenian way. According to a second interpretation (J. Jiittner, etc.), this means a restriction of the term Hellenes to those who have both the common origin and the training which came from Athens.The second interpretation assumes that here as occasionally elsewhere Isocrates means "the rest of the Hellenes" when he says "the rest of men" and the implication would be that another criterion (culture)is added to an older criterion,that of common origin. According

Levi, Isocrate, Saggio critico (Milan-Varese, I959), pp. 6265, comes by a different way to much the same view. 8 Paul Wendland, "Beitrage zu athenischer Politik und Publicistik des vierten Jahrhunderts," Nachrichten von der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Phil.-hist. KI., 1910: pp. I23-I82

and 289-323,

especially

pp. I37-I82.

This is a very important discussion but one should consult, especially for the meaning of amphibolia, the article by F. Zucker, "Isokrates' Panathenaikos," Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der Sdchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. K1., 101, Heft 7 (I957). 9 Wendland does not say this. Still he may have shared this opinion to a slight degree when op. cit., p. I7I, he wrote "Der SchluBteil mit seiner feinen sokratischen Selbstironie geh6rt zu dem Anziehendsten, was Isokrates je geschrieben hat."

VOL. 58, PT. i, i968]

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is true that the oration of Socrates in Plato's Menexenus may have suggested many ideas to Isocrates and that the ideas of the Panathenaic are already present in the Panegyric in an earlier form. Nevertheless, the Panathenaic goes further than the Panegyric. For instance, in the Panegyric 55 Isocrates tells the story of Adrastus as follows: This Adrastus,who was son of Talaos and king of Argos,having met with misfortunefromthe expedition against Thebes,was himselfunableto bury those who had died below the Cadmea,but he asked the city to help in a case of the accidentswhich can happento all and not to allow those who die in wars to go unburied and an ancientcustomandancestrallaw to be dissolved. In the Panathenaic 168-174 Isocrates tells the

story with a wealth of detail and interpretation, of which the following is a sample: (Adrastus)askedthat the city not permitsuch heroes to go unburiedand an ancientcustomand ancestrallaw to be dissolved,which all men continuouslyuse not as having been establishedby a human society (o0X cos but as having been Trr' WpOCuEcoS) avepcorrivS KEitVEC

13

days and to give it two prooemia. The more important first prooemium (sections I-6) begins, as

do the funeral orations of the Thucydidean Pericles and the Socrates of Plato's Menexenus, with a reference to a nomos ("law" or "custom") which obliged him to speak. This is the first indication that he was resuming the dispute concerning the dynamis of the city and the arete of the Athenians which differentiated those two orations more than anything else except perhaps the presence or absence of the ancient myths. Whereas, however, Pericles and Socrates went on to a double antithesis of word and deed (logos-ergon),Aristides advances with an extraordinary play upon the word logos, wherein there is no contrast with the deeds (erga). Whereas Aristides himself combined the nomos and logos themes because he had the aforesaid orations of Pericles and Socrates in mind, the average reader was probably not expected to understand the connection at once but to feel an immediate curiosity. Aristides had something new to offer on the old subject, but he, like Isocrates in the prooemium of the Panegyric, prides himself also on the care with which the old subject is now worked out to perfection. The transition or second prooemium (sections

ordainedby a divine power.On hearingthese pleas the Demos without waiting a moment dispatchedan embassy to Thebesin orderto advisethem to consultmore conscientiouslyand to make a more traditionalreply than that madepreviously,and in orderto let them see I39-I4I) begins with emphasis on the Truth as that the city would not allow them a violation of the opposed to the pleasure at which poets and prose universallaw of all the Hellenes(r TroiS aOrroTs o'nK artists aimed. This is a theme found in many authors O TOVoV V T6VKOiv6voraT&wtcov ET1rTpEEI Trwapapaivouai including Plato but noticeably in Thucydides II 37 TCOV'EEAXivcov). and especially in the Panathenaic of Isocrates (XII When Isocrates XII 174 at the end of the story

of Adrastus says "Our city would not have been able to arrange any of these things properly, if she had not far surpassed the others in her reputation and power" (XriSuvaulE), the dynamis of the Athenians becomes a moral force. It would be easy to lose one's way in the many other works which are reflected in the Panathenaic Orationof Aelius Aristides, many speechesin Thucydides, many passages in other dialogues of Plato many periodic sentences of Demosthenes, the usual paraphernaliaof schools of rhetoric and philosophy; in fact all the literature of archaic and classical Greece was familiar to Aristides. Some of this influence will be noted in the commentary,but to have a clear view of what particularlyaffected the choice of subject and of structure it is necessary not to lose our way in the rest but to concentrate on those four works, the funeral oration of Pericles in Thucydides II, that of Socrates in Plato's Menexenus,the Panegyric of Isocrates and the Platonizing Panathenaic of Isocrates. The Panathenaic of Aelius Aristides is of such length that he had to pretend that it lasted for two

271). Then apologizing for the length of the oration,

Aristides justifies the logoi of an orator against the erga of athletes at a festival. This recalls the prooemium of the Panegyric of Isocrates but in a way to suggest another antithesis of word and deed. In the discourse itself Aristides follows the lead which Socrates gave in Plato's Menexenus and praises Attica as the mother of her men. This part he expands in his own way with considerable felicity, as he finds in mother Attica the philanthropia and grace which are later striking characteristics of the men. The ancient legends are of course received and then developed in the manner adumbrated by Isocrates XII to yield a deeper meaning; the Adrastus story of section 67 is particularly close to the philosophical version of Isocrates XII and the story of the Amazons (70) provides an even better example of what Isocrates XII was trying to do. However, even when Aristides reuses old words of Isocrates, he frequently gives to them a very differentmeaning, or he deliberatelysubstitutes new ideas. In the historical period the Persian Wars are seen from the point of view of the Menexenus and

14

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

the educational value of the Battle of Marathonis emphasized accordingly. The significance of Athenian attitudes commands the chief attention. The Athenian Empire which Thucydides admired but recognized as oppressive is defended in the manner of Isocrates IV. It too receives the philosophical treatment, and many a phrase of Thucydides or another is turned to the credit of Athens. It is praised with formal thoroughness,but the objection of Plato to a Periclean admiration of the dynamis of the city is not forgotten. The city is shown as public-spirited and philanthropic; the virtue of an outgoing philanthrr6piawhich Plato, Menexenus 244e rather disapproves, takes the place of the stricter justice which Plato idealized. In general Aristides sides with Plato against Thucydides but with many deviations. For Aristides the Athenian Empire of the fifth century was not the dynamis of the city; rather it prefiguredthe dynamis. In a climacticpassage whichhad no parallelin the public orations Aristides reveals to the Greekworld the dynamis of the Athenians. It is not a dynamis representedby 200 or more triremes and supported by garrisons; it is not limited to the islands, Ionia, and the Thraceward region; it extends over the whole world. It is the language, literature, and philosophy of Athens, a cultural empire which attracts all men. Sections 225-232 should be read as the key passage of the whole oration. Here then Aristides accepts Plato's rejection of Thucydidean and Periclean admiration for the dynamis of the Athenians when interpreted in a Thucydideanand Pericleansense, but he too admires the dynamis when he reinterpretsit from the point of view of logosand logoi. As you hear this climactic passage of the Panathenaic Discourse, the notes struck by the elaborate play with the words logos and logoi in the prooemium become thoroughly intelligible for the first time as something more than mere word play. They are the essence of his message, and they are the words with which the epilogue closes the discourse and brings the audience back to Athena. The discourse for all its length is tightly bound together and constructed with beautiful clarity. But in reinterpreting the dynamis of the Athenians Aristides had before him the condemnation of an empire based on sea power (fj 68vapltSaOTrr) by Isocrates, De Pace (=

VIII), 74-105, where

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

works it out carefully along an entirely different line. Isocrates too emphasized his message with a repetition of the words dynamis, dynamai, and archein contrasting meanings but with rhetorically effective concentration. The Thucydidean Funeral Oration of Pericles has given Aristides not only the idea of exalting the dynamis of the Athenians, which he redefines, but that of treating the history of Athens in three periods. Here again Isocrates, De Pace (= VIII) 74-105 preceded.

In the Funeral Oration (Thucyd. II 36) there is a division into three generations: the progonoi (ancestors) who established freedom, the pateres who created the empire and the generation of Pericles himselfl0 which preserved it. There is a

similar division in Isocrates VIII (356 B.C.): the

progonoiwho fought the Persians," the patereswho came after them and had the empire based on sea power, and finally the long generation of Isocrates himself which yearned to reconstitute that empire. For Isocrates the progonoi were much superior to the pateres, while for Pericles the progonoi were good but the patereseven better. This division, created by the Thucydidean Pericles and slightly altered by Isocrates VIII, is both imitated and transformed by Aristides. The progonoi, as he calls them in section 74, are no longer the generation(s) that fought the Persian (and earlier) Wars for freedom and survival, but the Athenians of the mythical period who created the great traditions of fostering the common interests of mankind. In the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods ancient legends came to be treated more and more as allegories to be interpreted, and they were important possessions. Celsus hurled against the Christians the charge that they were without ancient traditions.l2 Athens, on the other hand, has the greatest traditions (logoi) of any community (sections 235-239).

Separate from the progonoiare the Athenians of the Classical Period, i.e. from the expulsion of the Pisistratids to the triumph of Philip. What corresponds to the generation of the pateres who (for Pericles) created or (for Isocrates VIII) exercised the so-calledAthenian Empireis in the Panathenaic of Aelius Aristides an age in which ideals of excellence were fully revealed in action, an age in

10 J. Th. Kakridis, Der Isocrates rejects the so-called dynamis of the thukydideische Epitaphios (= Athenians and implies, particularly in I02, that the Zetemata 26, I96I), p. 36. 11Isocrates VIII 94 calls them the progonoi and in VIII real dynamis was something else. Isocrates does so, he calls them ot Tepi -r 90 TnE palK yEv6pevot. not in the manner of Plato, but with arguments 12 Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des clearly derived from Plato. Aristides, however, goes Kelsos wider das Christentum (= Arbeiten zur Kirchengemuch further in redefining the true dynamis and schichte 30, Berlin, I955), pp. 137 und I89-238.

VOL. 58, PT. I, I968] -

GENERAL DISCUSSION

which the Hellenic spirit was brought into full view, by the Athenians. But what about the Age of Aristides himself? Pericles could point with pride to the empire which his own generation preserved despite its unpopularity. Aristides discovers, as we have noted, that the so-called Athenian Empire was a mere prefiguration, not the true domain of Athens. The true domain of Athens is one for which men yearn; it is the world-wide domain of the civilization which classical Athens created and which the contemporary fifth world empire protected and encouraged. The third generation, which was that of Pericles (or Isocrates) himself, finds its counterpart in the Aristidean third age,13 that of the true Athenian arche,under the humanistic empire of Hadrian and the Antonines (sections 225-234).

Of Platonic inspiration are particularly (I) the treatment of Athenian arete and the physis of the Athenians as derived from the good beginning and (2) the development of the oration from the physis of Attica to the physis and training of her men and to the deeds which men so trained naturally produce, except that Athena and the other gods rather than the constitution do the training. Characteristically Aristidean are the notes, casually worked in, which keep the audience alert to implications. In the treatment of the beginning the simile of the circle and references to an arche recur. In section 24 he says, "One beginning of my speech has returned to another beginning" (arche),and in section 32, "Oncemore the argument returns to a startingpoint" (arche).These are not signs of mere prolixity but have a purpose. Furthermore,the training here extends to all the Hellenes and even to mankind. The agon motif which Plato took over from Thucydides but recast in the form of a prosopopoeia, where persons more authoritative than the speaker are portrayed as speaking directly, reap-

15

saying. On the other hand, without the prosopopoeia Aristides remains closer to the kind of contest for which Plato called, the contest of the living to surpass the dead, when he says that after the expulsion of Xerxes Athens entered into competition with herself (Panathenaic 145) and when in section I87 he says that the men of Phyle surpassed almost those heroes of Marathonwho were their ancestors. The many statements which reflect specific passages of the Menexenus need not be listed since they are usually noted in the Commentary,but one interesting example of silence may be here compared. Plato, Menexenus 239b-c does not dwell on certain legendary struggles because the poets have already done so; Aristides section 174 does not dwell on certain battles of the PeloponnesianWar because Thucydides has narrated them. Unmistakably Platonic is the idealization of Athens as image and standard of the good human Kai opos society, -rfs pvo'EcosT'rS &vpcowrriaSEiKc&V

(section 274). The words individually have Platonic overtones, but the phrase itself is not Platonic. Nevertheless, the concept of Athens as an eternal ideal of a good city goes back to the Menexenus. So does the attempt to prove with selected examples the moral purpose behind Athenian deeds and to recognizein the purer Hellenism of the ideal Athens a sacred guide for all Hellenes and for all good men. Right out of the Menexenus 237d-e is the thought that the territory of Athens is a first home of man (section 25).

From Isocrates, on the other hand, he has drawn the inspiration for a rhetorically thorough coverage of the subject, a subject so great and so vast as to be of the utmost difficulty. Aristides has organized his Panathenaic as lucidly as Isocrates had organized his own masterpiece, the Panegyric. Architecturally they stand together as the two great masterpieces

of ceremonialGreekRhetoric, at least in the opinion of the Byzantines. form. The Athenians who fought at Salamis deFrom the Panathenaic of Isocrates he has drawn clined to contend for the nominal command and so the subject for his own Panathenaic, the encomium saved Hellas with their greatness of spirit. The pro- of Athens as the unique city without a peer. The sopopoeia may be described as inverted because name Panathenaic would surely remind the reader Aristides reports in direct address what those of the earlier Panathenaic which was a deliberative ancient Athenians might justly have said to the oration disguised as an encomium and which Isoother Hellenes but magnanimously refrained from crates himself contrasted with mere display orations. The Panathenaic of Aristides, accordingly, may well be a deliberative oration disguised as an encomium 13 While Aristides, section 234, divides universal history of the Athenians. of into the periods five world empires, he surveys the The Panathenaic of Isocrates begins with a history of Athens itself throughout in three broad divisions, the early Athens of the progonoi, the Athens of the time of justification of the master's own educational ideals, the Persian Empire, and the Athens of his own day. He the training of men to be self-restrained and undoes not describe the inglorious history of Athens in the corrupted by success, not to be crushed by mistime of the Imperium Macedonicum or of Athens in the fortune but to bear disasters courageously in a early days of Roman Domination.

pears in the Panathenaic I09-II5 but in an inverted

16

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

manner worthy of the nature in which we happen to &(ScosiSPEi?T'XOvrEs share, TriSIpcE?coS ruyXavoEv. In the Panathenaic of Isocrates the section on his educational ideals is irrelevant to the praise of Athens. In the Panathenaic of Aristides, on the other hand, the educational ideals are those of Athens in support of the KOilvlqaucS, the Common Nature of the All, and the subject is successfully combined with the praise of Athens itself. The Panathenaic Discourse of Isocrates ends in a very interesting discussion of the encomium which has just been read to a group of disciples. One of the latter was from an oligarchic state and felt that Isocrates had not been fair to Sparta. He attributes useful institutions to Sparta but Isocrates refutes this claim. Then Isocrates, too, felt uneasy about the denunciation. The disciples are called together again and the encomiumis read once more. The same critic now suggests that Isocrates was merely testing them and he interprets the encomium. Isocrates himself need not have intended to do what the critic, sections 239ff., claims he did, namely appear to simple people to be denouncing the Spartans but actually to be praising them. The critic (240) found the most remarkableambiguities in the speech, ambiguities which in a court trial allegedly would have been reprehensiblebut which it was fine and philosophic to employ when discussing the affairs and physis of men in the abstract. The Spartan physis had been portrayed as that of haughty, warlike encroachers,while the Athenians in their physis were peaceful, phil-Hellenic champions of political equality. According to the critic some would dare to say that the Spartans cut a better figure because haughtiness partook of dignity and all such looked more great-spirited (oEpvo6lms) than the representatives of equality, and that the warlike are superiorto the peaceful, since the latter, while not liable to go after the property of others, are poor guardians of their own, whereas the warlike are able to take whatever they want and to save

[TRANS. AMER.PHIL. SOC.

being so few in number, they nevertheless never obeyed any of the populous cities but continued to be independent, and they became leaders of all the Hellenes against the Barbarians, and in all battles they gave evidence of courage, endurance and mutual concord. There was never civil strife among Spartans and the horrors of civil war and tyranny never occurred there. These were all good things, the critic points out, which Isocrates himself had said about the Spartans on earlier occasions. In section 26I the critic once more insists on the two levels of the address, one for the many, and one for KaT-r TOrv Xoyiic6bv T-rV 1Trlpcovcvov aToxaZEoiat TqiSarleEiaS, "those trying to get at the

superior people

deeper truth." The critic finishes by advising Isocrates not to burn the oration but to revise it. Isocrates (265) leaves the speech just as it is and declines to commit himself as to whether or not the speech had the hidden thoughts which the critic discovered. Personally I do not think it had. Probably Isocrates began indeed to compose his eulogy of the Athenians in the hope of disseminating it at the Panathenaic Festival of 342, and probably he had written in the hope of collaborationbetween Philip and Athens as well as to justify the standards that he had taught for so long. Three years later, when he recovered from his illness, the eulogy was no longer as valuable for his publicistic aims, yet he could not bear to waste the effort. He revised, perhaps and wrote more, but he was nervous about the effect of his denunciation of the Spartans. He probably had not changed his mind about the current attitude of the Spartans, but he did not wish to lose his influence with them or with any Hellenes. The denunciationnow seemed too harsh, the periodic sentences just as beautiful. He consulted his students and something like the criticism and advice he reports did occur. He hoped to soothe the Spartans by emphasizing his former kind words and by drawing attention to the possibility of a deeper what they once acquire (242). The critic goes on to meaning as suggested by the critic. In doing so he say the speech is so deep that it needs exegesis of ruined the encomium, and Aristides recognized the the sort that he would give it but without his fact. What kind of an encomium of Athens was one exegesis it would surely offendthe Spartans.Then he that could be skillfully interpreted as a concealed lists some of the things the Spartans had achieved: encomium of her rival Sparta? Surely not one that The Dorians had come from obscure beginnings did justice to Athens! and had conquered the most famous cities of the So Aristides composed his own Panathenaic in Peloponnese; this was the most wonderful deed of the fine and philosophic style. It was to be no mere that period, a deed performed by Spartans in a display oration but a discourse with a message, joint campaign with others. Then, though being no such as Isocrates himself had always recommended. more than 2,000, they would rather die than not Aristides vindicated the glory of Athens against the subdue all the cities of the Peloponnese and did exegesis of the critic. He shows the nobility of a subdue them except for Argos. The Spartans alone great spirit residing not in the Spartans but in the among the Hellenes had a fine boast that, though Athenians (sections 23, 59, 122, I34). Aristides

VOL. 58, PT. I, I968]

shows that the Athenians, though peaceful, were good guardians of their own land but generous to others, and in section 200 he turns the ability of the Spartans to retain what they once acquire into something less than admirable. The quality of aEpv6OTrS (- dignity or stateliness) he vindicates for the Athenians in sections 227 and 228, the climactic passage. The Athenians, being autochthonous, were superiorto men who had come from darkness and driven out the lawful owners (section 26), The Spartans, who though being no more than 2,000, would rather die than not to dominate the Peloponnese, were less impressive than the Athenians, who being in numbernot much more than fifty, would rather die than live in slavery (sections I86 and I87). Thus Aristides goes through various claims of the critic and reverses them. The most important influence that the critic has had on the Panathenaic of Aelius Aristides is this. Aristides does not permit the art of exegesis to be applied in such a way as to reach the very opposite conclusion to what the speaker seems to be saying. Aristides takes the utmost care to explain truly the deeper meaning of the stories he tells. From the Funeral Oration of Pericles to the Panathenaic of Aristides there is more than one line of descent. The aletheia (truth) which both Pericles and Aristides sought to uncover can be defined as the arete and the dynamis of the Athenians. In regard to the arete the genealogy of the Aristidean Panathenaic runs through the Menexenus and Isocrates XII; in regard to the dynamis the genealogy of the Aristidean Panathenaic runs through the Menexenus and Isocrates VIII. The excellence and the potential of humanity were revealed by the Athenians, who thus in the Aristidean Panathenaic 274 emerge as eikon and horosof our kind, that is to say, as a visible image of the virtue and a marker of the potential in human nature. Unfortunately, the Greek word horos suggests also a "limit," and in fact the Hellenes, while invited to assimilate themselves to the Athenians, are not exhorted to surpass them. The history of the Panathenaic Discourse as a form takes its start, not perhaps from any early tradition or from the reorganization of the festival by Pisistratus, but from the dream of Pericles to make Athens the mother city of all Greece and to make Athena of Athens the patron goddess of all Hellenes. Pisistratus had created the opportunity, but it was Pericles who more truly changed the festival into a panhellenic festival and developed its propagandisticimportance. As a panhellenicfestival in the full sense, it dates from the plan of Pericles for a reorganization of the alliance against Persia 2

17

GENERAL DISCUSSION

into an alliance for peace and cooperation and security.14It was in 455/4 B.C.that an oration at the Greater Panathenaea achieved the potentiality of becoming a means to strengthen and unify the Hellenic world by an indirect appeal to those at least who saw in Athens the brain, heart or center of Hellas. It is, however, possible that the oration did not become a part of the festival until the time of Herodes Atticus.l5 To judge from the two extant examples, a Panathenaic Discourse was an edifying and subtly propagandistic oration, delivered or circulated at the Greater Panathenaea, in praise of the benefits conferred by Athenians upon Hellas as a whole and so proving the prior claim of Athens to the respect of all Hellenes and even of all those who, like Philip of Macedonor educated Romans, claimed to belong in some way to the Hellenes. II. TRADITIONAL CULTURE AND ANCESTRAL CONSTITUTION I. THE POSTCLASSICAL AUDIENCE AND THE PLAN

After 338 B.C.non-Athenians were more willing to admit the cultural primacy and philanthropiaof the 14 A. E. Raubitschek, "The Peace Policy of Pericles," AJA 70 (I966): pp. 37-4I. See also B. D. Meritt and H. T. Wade-Gery, JHS 82 (I962): p. 71, and J. P. Barron, JHS

84 (I964): p. 48.

15 The most likely time for the oration to have been added to the festival was in A.D. I 18, when, as L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Rome, I953): pp. 202f. has shown, the festival was reorganized and the Panathenaid Era began. The Panathenaid Era is mentioned in the following inscriptions: a. Moretti, no. 7I, at Magnesia, in honor of P. Aelius Aristomachus who competed as a child in the 224th Olympiad and who, still a child, won nfavaOivaia Trk iTrpcoTao0vrTa EIvOae(crTIK'(a0Tr

TOTO eEOV'ASpiavou ...

b. Moretti, no. 72, at Aphrodisias in Caria, in honor of P. Aelius Aurelius Menander, who early in his long career won &,8661,u lTavacirvao6iTTavao&ivataa&vSpv rravKpariv "rrpcTrov'AppoSEIo'tcov ... c. Hesperia 10 (I94I): p. 251, no. 53 (Athens), which dates from A. D. I98/9 (or 202/3 or 206/7) and should be reedited

as follows:

Ao[v]Ki[cpE7-rrTtiCp] Eovuip[cplspTrivaKl] YepaCo-r [KaCM&pKcP] Aup 7dicp YEOvipcp]

5 ['Avrcovivcp lEpao-rrp] [To]i[v] 0.Eo[]vn ATl,[os] 'Av[a] [K]iE6IoS6copos [Ka]E.0r,Tnavaerlva[c] d. IG II2 2241 = III II94, -rri pXovTroS Kacravou 'klpoKlpvKOS [T-rE]plicos, flavao0r[vatci] K. .., A.D. 230/I. e. IG II2 2245 = III I202, [TTa]vaer1Vaot6[1] i ... [f]Tri&pXOVTOSA.

>(Aa. lAoorpd[Tr]ov ZTElpItOS.

. . , A. D. 254/5.

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

18

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

audience he addressed had been educated not only by the fourth-century philosophers and orators but by the Peripatetics and Stoics, among whom Cleanthes and Chrysippus had actually composed studies of the Art of Rhetoric with emphasis on man's place as part of the universe. The Academy eventually absorbed much of Stoicism, and education everywhere reflected Stoic views. The Stoics, especially Panaetius and Posidonius, placed an emphasis on the common interests of mankind, and it is partly due to this that the conit from the gods for their exclusive use, they made tributions of Athens toward mankind as a whole available to all. They it was who discovered laws, by the receive a corresponding emphasis in Hellenistic application of which the manner of men's living has ad- encomia of Athens. vanced from the savage and unjust existence to a From about I25 B.C., from the time of the Stoic civilized and just society. It was they who first, by there exists at Delphi a remarkable sparing the lives of any who sought refuge with them, Panaetius, which contains a decree of the Delphic contrived to cause the laws on suppliants to prevail inscription in of the Athenians, who are honor these of the authors were and since all Amphictyony they among men, of their them not we should laws, protection. enthusiastically praised as the people who created deprive (Diodorus XIII 26 in the Loeb translation of C. H. civilized life and paideia. The work of Athens is Oldfather). likened to a religious mission. The implications are a if he were as wrote Aristides potentially so important for our subject that part usually Though of the text2 needs to be presented here: the and Plato of Isocrates, younger contemporary Athenians. Gommel thinks that the speech of Nicolaus the Syracusanin DiodorusXIII 2I-27 goes back to Timaeus of Tauromenium. In any case Diodorus made this encomium (whether composed by Ephorus or Timaeus or someone else) famous once again. If it can be said of any other people, the prestige of the city of the Athenians deserves our reverence, and we may well return to them our gratitude for the benefactions they have bestowed upon man. For it is they who first gave to the Hellenes a share in a food gained by cultivation of the soil, which, though they had received

v v Oirei[[Sh] 11 [98otE-ro-t 'ApqwiKv]6ac 'AervaioiSauvpi.yEyovi[vai K]ai [(avvEi]XOat 'rExvtrrv ao,voSov-Trap' PfKT-rpc oTOv, C1v 6 Up%oS'-

'r&$vb avep]c6rots d&ycyecov [-rr&(v-rcov ky iv Tooi Oi1pic8ovs pifou PETfnyayEVTOCS &(pxri[y6s araraatQoeE]1s 1 hpep6Th&av&pc,b-rovfr1l 8' iye]v3ijr -r[']s 'Tpr6&AWQW[ovs KolvcovfIasvv F-IaayayeovT1v -rTCov [Tra,TrrapaTItoS p"rrlpifcov Trap&Boalv,

KalSi' -ro*cov 'rra[pa]y6T1 ipyi]arov 14 [yWAas-roi1&rTraaivj -r,fv Soevrczv

lj Trp6s gaUtrocisXp'ais'-rEKalTrrIcm,ITl-r cyao6[v la-riv tv] e&vOpcb'rrois

v6p.ov[Kalii's [chlT 0eE$viTEpi 97i.avepcb]-TcAcv p1v I8E'taTO [T6

vv 6bokoicBi Kai-ri-sTOo xaipiro~I 18faa Trr]al8Eias 1Tapa86aF.coS

TrE Trr&vTcovavvayay&wv &Scpov,Kolv1vv5] ri'v&ti[a]v-[oO] EiXP[llarirav'r]oT-0EM?oaiv&7rr&l)KE6v1rpcoT6~ -rtXvvrr(vai,vobov

17 [Kal&ycovtcrGr6v, piV TrO*I TrWia&ToilaTEv, o1sKa'IOVlpaivfeI paLpTvWpeKailc)]lv1K[o1']syd&y$vcvts O]Upe?wK[oC' ToJS-TrCV i-T[1'v &7W8siav iq(pav Z SeIKVtSwE Kal]irrotiiyr'4v, a-rr~v] 8i xKal [aTopioypaqxqwv iavC opwipvfiouaCav,6T1IXflTp6-.

ov &TraTcov -r]pa[ycotSflavx]al Kcotoi[8]iav eipoiia&Te KYcal [Spaps6crc aiiaaaac Restorations: I-I-4

G. Colin, BCH 24 (9goo): p. 96.

2

, KwrX.

"Zu

einem SIG' 704 E, improved by Adolf Wilhelm, v6.ic, [xKalT'ij 15 [lflO ee-ov 'TrEp,i TCOVdvepCb]T-rrcav Beschlusse der Amphiktionen," Wiener Studien 61-62 TraIjaEIfas Colin; iTepi (p9lavepC6]rtrcv Wilhelm. i6 [T-r6 pp. 167-189. There was from the beginning (1943-I947):

8U]Trv i g[a]u-[6STv] 8CApov K0lv1"Pv

-rT]0is a religious color to the glory of Athens, and certain speakers Pi0Xp[rjaTirav

such as Callias the Daduchus at the Peace Conferenceof

I'A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentaryon Thucydides 2 (Oxford, I956): p. 326. T. S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauronenium (= University of California Publications in History 55, 1958), p. 75 (contra).

376 B. C. probably made much of it (Xenophon, Hell. VI 3, 3-6), but the Athenians never appear as chosen instruments of the gods in effecting a divine plan, even though a belief in divine pronoia may have prepared the way.

VOL. 58, PT. i, r968]

GENERAL DISCUSSION

19

Colin; ?[a]v\r[o0] Homolle. 17 Colin. i8 i[Sicov fjs Tr6- ad ordinandum statum liberarum civitatum, id est 6v KalT[f]v Colin; i[crropioypa- ad homines maxime homines, ad liberos maxime XEco5] acrfiv] -rroirlTcj[v (pcov Kai] TrotrlrTc[vWilhelm. I9 Colin. Letters under- liberos. Plutarch, Cimon Io, 7 compliments the

linedarerestoredwith certaintyfroman Atheniancopy, Athenians on having given seeds of grain to the IG II2 II34. Hellenes and having taught needy mankind (to Blank spaces occur in lines I3 and I5. Such blanks channel) spring water and to light fire. Florus I 40, are usually left as punctuation. On what does the phrase -riv ...

v6ocov in lines I4-I5 depend? Not on

IO calls the city frugum parentem.

Ciceroand Pliny would be no models for Aristides. in line I6 but on rrapaSoolvin line 13 according 6G6pov in line 15. The true models were Demosthenes, Isocrates and to Colinbecauseof the blanksafter arrai6Eias OnScopovaccordingto Wilhelm.The writer,who agrees Plato, or more broadly the great names of classical here with Colin, interprets the phrase Trov ... v6ucov Greek literature. But Cicero and Pliny reflect the KaiTrfiSratisiaS as a kind of hendiadys,and for the myths on which Aristides and his audience or readlaws as trainingmen one may referto Plato'sCrito.The ers were reared. Delphic MANTEIA,accordingto Aristides section 35, Not only had Isocrates and Plato developed said that Athenswas the mothercity of the crops;the ways of reinterpretingold legends and myths AAHOEIAof line i8, accordingto the DelphicAmphic- special a but whole school of exegetes in the Classical, tyons, says that Athens is the mother city of all the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods explained the drama. Homeric poetry or the logoi of the old mystery cults in a way to rediscover philosophicalprinciples The Amphictyons decreed. In view of the fact that the formation and or ideas.3 By the time of Aristides the educated collection of a society of Artists has first occurred public no longer expected a literal interpretation. The praise of Athens consisted of old themes that among the Athenians, whose Demos, Lucian ridiculed, but the old themes must have i) appointed founder of the good things among better in some speeches than in others and sounded existence into men, led mankind out of an animal taken on special tones when, for example, have may civilization, Artists expressed their appreciation. the Dionysiac of the of our cause community ways by 2) became of The recognition and the comparative and pleasure the the tradition of by Mysteries introducing made the encomium of Athens of its themes richness all a to that latter the very announcing through of a city for a public most encomium the popular habit of the was men meeting great blessing among There were opportuniof often and trusting one another, furthermore the that liked that sort thing. and for surprise. For imaginative developments tradition of those laws concerning friendly human ties after in the second Christ, Alexcentury intercourse which were given by gods and constitute example, his brilliance ander the by an Clay-Plato displayed our training, from the themes doubtless which treated encomium 3) likewise made into a common benefit for the view of a Platonic point (Philostratus, positively Hellenes the gift of agriculture, though privately VS, p. 78 Kayser). It might be interesting to comreceived, and with that of Aristides, if we only 4) as first of all to do so, assembled a society of pare his oration could. artists and actors and put on musical and theatrical The Panathenaic Oration of Aristides was soon contests, to which the majority of historians and and unsurpassableexample as poets consequently testify, while Truth herself, recognized the perfect of the type. Boulanger, no great admirer of the showing clearly a city which both discovered and which he calls totally devoid of Panathenaic, developed tragedy and comedy, reminds us that the without interest from any other and drama. all of the originality city which did so is a mother city out that it is the principal model points standpoint, Etc. which the third-century rhetorician Menander In the Roman Period three passages deserve followed in drafting a theory of the proper way to special mention because of the eminence and in- praise a city.4 Bad taste is not the only possible fluence of the authors. Cicero, Pro Flacco 26: adsunt explanation. 3 F. Buffiere, Les mythes d'Homere et la pensee grecque Athenienses, unde humanitas, doctrinae, religio, fruges, iura, leges ortae atque in omnes terras distri- (Paris, I956), and in the Bud6 series F. Buffi6re's H6raclite, butae putantur. Pliny in the famous Epistle VIII Alligories d'Homere (Paris, I962). See infra, Ch. III. 24,

2 substitutes Greece for Athens when he says:

cogitate missum in provinciamAchaiam,illam veram et meram Graeciam, in qua primum humanitas, litterae,etiam fruges inventae esse creduntur,missum 2*

4 A. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d'Asie au IIe sigcle de notre ere (Paris, 1923), p. 369, n. 2. This generally admirable book does somewhat less than justice to the Panathenaic. And yet the excellent last chapter on the influence of Aristides should be a corrective.

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

20

In the Discourse on the Four, Aristides has engaged in the old Hellenic sport of arguing against a famous author, there Plato for his disparagement of the four Athenian leaders, Miltiades, Themistocles, Cimon,and Pericles. These four leadershad been responsible for the success of Hellenism against the Barbarians, and had helped effectively to create the traditions of freedom and thoughtful courage on which Hellenes prided themselves. Within the circle of Greek paideia this was a mere family quarrel.Before, however, he published the Discourse on the Four, Aristides for some reason became painfully aware of a breakdown within Hellenism, a threat to its survival, the threat from a barbarism advancing on many paths. He dissociated himself and was worried enough to introduce an artistically inappropriate but by itself very interesting attack on those Hellenes who apostasized from the traditional eusebeiaof the Hellenes while they pretended to the paideia of the Hellenes. It is significant of the TiiSBvcaapEiaS)of the Palaestiimpiety (oiv[3poAov nians, he argues, that they do not respect the superior beings (i.e. the gods); the impious Hellenes are no better, for they too in a sense apostasize, he says. However much Aristides disagreed with some pronouncementsof Plato on the place of rhetoric in the educational system, he stood firmly with Plato the theologian, and he shared Plato's belief in the value of education. The Hellenes whom Aristides attacks in the passionate digressionat the end of the Discourse on the Four need not constitute one group, but Norden5 has shown that Aristides had popular philosophers in mind, that is, Cynics but not only Cynics. The Christians are not attacked here, but the faults which Aristides finds in the popular philosophers would be even greater in Judaizing Hellenes and Greeks who became Christians. The apostates include those disrespectful of the Hellenic gods and those disrespectfulof Hellenic paideia and traditional values. While the defense of traditional eusebeia (piety) and paideia is a mere adjunct to, or afterthought in, the Discourse on the Four, the praise of traditional eusebeiaand paideia constitutes the very backbone of the Panathenaic Discourse. In praising Athens, the Hellas of Hellas, Aristides praises it particularly for creating Hellenism and Hellenic religion, and he reminds the audience in section 222 that in the dark days of Philip II it was Athens which preservedthe symbolonof Hellas. 5 Ed. Norden, "Beitrage zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie," Jahrbuch fur classische Philologie Suppl. Bd. 19 (I893): pp. 365-460

at pp. 4o4-410.

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

The form of a ceremonial oration in praise of Athens imposed conventions which Aristides accepted and followed, but the rules,6 while strict, were free enough for certain variations of emphasis. The readerwill not expect originality of themes, but he may expect some originality in the variations or presentation of conventional themes, though the modern obsession with originality should not lead us to false expectations. Aristides develops the old form to its highest perfection of disposition, smoothness of transitions, invention of verbal bridges and variety of graces. He strives to touch all the themes that are traditionally imposed but to do so without repetition and without obscuring the outline. He has composed a ceremonialoration which gives him a chance to present in artistic form (I) a model for students which was soon a classic and (2) an appeal, not only to an audience at a particular festival, but also to the whole Hellenic world.7 It is my feeling that the Panathenaic Discourse followed the Discourse on the Four chronologically and that the rise of Christianity had something to do with it, perhaps a great deal. Aristides does not combat Christianity; he does not even notice it. But he adopts attitudes determined by new challenges, among which was that of Christianity.8 It is only fair to point out, however, that while the Christians are nowhere mentioned, the Cynics are denounced in section 267. The essential fact seems to be that Aristides wanted to preserve and 6 For the praise of Athens see Casimir Morawski, "De gloria Athenarum et gloriositate Atheniensium," Akademija umiejqtnosci, Krakow, Wydz. filolog., Rozprawy 26 (1905):

pp. I-42;

0. Schr6der,

De laudibus

Athenarum

a

poetis tragicis et ab oratoribus epidicticis excultis, Diss. Gottingen, 1914; Karl Jost, Das Beispiel und Vorbild der Vorfahren bei den attischen Rednern und Geschichtsschreibern bis Demosthenes (= Rhetorische Studien XIX, Paderborn, I936); H. R. Butts, The Glorification of Athens in Greek Drama (= Iowa Studies in Classical Philology 11, I947); Hans Herter, "Athen im Bilde der R6merzeit: Zu einem Epigramm Senecas," Serta philologica Aenipontana, Innsbrucker Beitrdge zur Kulturwissenschaft 7-8 (I96I): pp. 347-358. 7 In the Prolegomena, Treatise B I0-12

Lenz (Mnemosyne,

Suppl. 5, 1959), occurs a story about the delivery of a Panathenaic Discourse by Aristides at Athens. It is not impossible that Aristides did deliver one there, but certainly not the long oration which is still extant. Rather the anecdote arose after the Panathenaic Discourse of Aristides achieved its fame. Treatise B, which goes back to Sopater, may be dated in the fourth century. See Chapter IV. 8 The tendency to react against Christianity without mentioning Christianity is even more marked in the Hymn to Athena, where F. W. Lenz, "Der Athenahymnos des Aristeides," Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 5 (I963,

published

in 1964):

pp. 329-347

rightly

notes

it.

In the Hymn to Athena Aristides shows the old gods as functions of the one god and so undercuts the novelty of Christianity.

VOL. 58, PT. I, 1968]

GENERAL DISCUSSION

21

CpyEoSS): The Logos fully deepen the cultural and religious union, now D. Maturity (KixAooKail visible ?? 142-271 threatened. To do so he imitated Isocrates who tried to effect a military and political union of all I. Hellenic religion after Athenian victories over Persian invaders bursts into full bloom ?? Hellenes by publishing a Panathenaic. The Panathenaic Oration of Aristides is epideictic 142-144 2. The so-called Athenian Domination ?? I45-I75 in that it is praise of the Athenian empire of speech a. Exploits accomplishedbetween 478 and 404 and reason. It is judicial in that it defends the record B.C. ?? I49-I75 of Athenian history. It is deliberative in that it b. Rebuttals and additional considerations ?? urges all Hellenes, indeed all civilized men, to unite around the pure Hellenism of Athens, which means 176-224 the purest form of human culture and religion, the I. Comparison with acts and reactions of form furthest removed from barbarians and from Sparta ?? 176-205 2. Exploits in defense of Hellenic freedom those who assail the nature of the community of after 404 B.C. ?? 207-212 mankind. Defense From different, almost equally valid, points of 3. against charges of tyranny ?? view different outlines of the discourse could be 213-224 made. We here present a pattern which seems to 3. The true Athenian Domination = Hellenic Civilization ??225-261 have a strong justification.9 a. Established by the bloodless victory of her First Half ?? I-I38: language, literature and philosophy over all mankind ?? 225-230 A. Prooemium: Athens is properly praised as the b. Reasonable deference gladly accorded ?? source of civilization and education, the city of the logoi ?? I-6 231-234 c. Comparisonwith the claims of other cities B. Early Athens (&pxl'): I. Origin,nurture,and honorfromthe gods ??7-44 ??235-261 a. The land, sea and air ?? 7-24 4. Constitution ?? 262-270 E. Conclusionthat the Athenians are the true interb. The pure stock of men ?? 25-29 mediaries between gods and men (EKcbvKcalxpos) c. The seeds of civilization ?? 30-44 2. Civilizing Efforts of Athens against the sur?? 271-274 F. Epilogue with advice to Hellenes and prayer to rounding alogia ?? 45-138 Athena ?? 275-276 a. General Benefactions ?? 46-62 in trouble of those I. The consoling reception

??46-54

2. THE ANCESTRAL CONSTITUTION

2. Colonization ?? 55-58 One of the most striking passages of the Pana3. Consistency ?? 59-62 b. Exploits accomplished in danger before the thenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides runs through sections 261-267, where he praises the Athenians for so-called Athenian Domination ?? 63-138 of traditions excellence I. Significant early having supplied models of government, both of the three simple constitutions and of the famous mixed ?? 66-73 (Trrpoyovot) 2. Historical Period brings a revelation of constitution. He speaks first of the divinely inspired excellence ?? 74-138 ancestral constitution (section 261), which he ata. Athens against the barbarian, despotic tributes indirectly to Apollo of Delphi, although in section 40 he implies that Athena showed it to empire of Darius ?? 77-93 b. Athens against the barbarian, despotic them. He means that the goddess of Reason inspired the idea of the ancestral constitution and that the empire of Xerxes ?? 94-138 approval of the Delphic Oracle for the sacrifices Second Half ?? I39-276 implied the approval of Apollo for the constitution. C. Transition excusing length of the oration by Then in sections 262 and 263 Aristides claims for emphasizing its occasion and "symbolism" ?? Athens the best examples first of monarchy, then of pure democracy, and finally of aristocracy (repI39-14I resented by the Areopagus), all produced of course 9 For a very different pattern see the outline presented to aid mankind. In sections 264 and 265 he views by Bruno Keil's student, Eugen Beecke, Die historischen the Athenian constitution as a mixed constitution Angaben in Aelius Aristides Panathenaikos auf ihre Quellen and he expatiates on the advantages for cities untersucht (Diss. StraBburg, 1905), pp. 6-IO. For another see the end of Chapter III. everywhere.

22

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

We have already noticed the close connection between the Panathenaic of Isocrates and that of Aristides. In the Panathenaic Isocrates attributes the establishment of the democracy to Theseus,l1 whom he dates a thousand years before his time. Not Solon or Cleisthenes but Theseus. Then he discusses the three simple forms of constitution with their defects and praises the constitution of the ancestors as an ideal, mixed constitution, from which the later polity degenerated. The starting point is of course the claim of Sparta to the best constitution, a claim not valid in the opinion of Isocrates XII II4, if you go back to the Athenian ancestral constitution. Aristides differs from Isocrates XII in two important ways. He praises the ancestral constitution not only because it gave mankind an ideal of a mixed constitution but also because it supplied perfect examples of the three simple forms, monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy (the offensive word oligarchy is of course avoided but the phrase "the few" appears). Secondly he differs from Isocrates XII in describing the city as consisting of tribes and clans (yivq). Isocrates XII I45 still spoke in terms of tribes and demes. On a first reading of Aristides, section 261 the writer was astonished at the seeming anachronism of the clans, but on reflection he rememberedthat Philostratus, V.S. II I, 5 (p. 144 Wright) spoke of the city as consisting of tribes and clans when he related that the father of Herodes Atticus often sacrificed a hundred oxen to Athena and feasted the Athenian people "by tribes and clans." The two passages support each other. In the time of Herodes Atticus and later the Athenian constitution could be described as based on tribes and clans. Were the tribes the ten Cleisthenean and three post-Cleisthenean" tribes or the four old Ionian tribes which at the time of the recodificationof the laws at the end of the fifth century B.C. still survived for certain religious ceremonies? Even in the classical periodthe Panathenaic Procession was organized on the basis of the ten Cleistheneantribes. Hence it is difficult to see how the father of Herodes Atticus could have ignored the Cleisthenean and postCleistheneantribes. Isocrates XII I45 clearly meant the Cleisthenean tribes; hence it is natural to infer that also Aristides section 26I meant the Cleisthenean and post-Cleisthenean tribes of the actual 10 Isocrates was published

Ruschenbusch

constitution. In fact, there is no trace of the four Ionian tribes or of their trittyes and phratriesin the abundant inscriptions of Roman Athens, whereas the Cleisthenean and post-Cleisthenean tribes are found everywhere. How then are we to explain the clans, if the clans are not here associated with the four old Ionian tribes of the constitution before Cleisthenes? It must at once be noted that in the first century B.C. the old Attic clans took on a new lease of life. The patria of the Eumolpidae and those of the other eupatrid families12seem to have been collected at this time. Cicero (Ad Atticum I 9) requested a copy of the patria of the Eumolpidae in 67 B.C., and at some time near 23 B.C. the genos of the Ceryces praised one of their members who had worked hard for the genos in investigations connected with the and with the discovery of the patria, rTroypcxpal i.e. the ancestral rites and customs, especially for the patria which had fallen into desuetude. The patria of the eupatridae (no one disputes the emendation <E>(crrpi6v by O. Miller for the incom-

are mentioned by AthenaeprehensibleOuyaTrptcov) us IX 4Ioa. About 37/6 B.C. the Attic genos of the Gephyraioi entrusted two Athenian worthies with a commission to consult the oracle of Delphi concerning ancient priesthoods in the ancestral way. An inscription13 recordsthe epistle of the genos to the city of Delphi and the epistle of Delphi in reply. Unfortunately the response of the oracle, which the city of Delphi dispatched sealed with the state seal, has been lost, but the publicity given to the incident speaks for itself. Priesthoodsbased on Athenian clans are mentioned in Delian inscriptions of the first century.l4 This constituted an assertion of the clans, probably more significant than referencesto the genos of the priest on seats in the Theatre of Dionysus. Likewise from the first century we have the catalogue of the clan of the Amynandridae, IG II2 2338, erected around 23 B.C. by the archon of the

genos and arranged according to the Cleisthenean and post-Cleisthenean tribes. The distribution is strikingly even: Erechtheis ten names, Aegeis at least three, Acamantis seven names, Oeneis nine names, Cecropis at least six names, Antiochis at 12

I950),

XII I29. The Atthis of Androtion, around 343 B.c. is here reflected,

which as E.

has shown in his remarkable article,

"Tl&rpios nToXT-ria,"Historia 7 (I958): pp. 398-424.

11W. K. Pritchett, The Five Attic Tribes after Kleisthenes

(Diss., Johns Hopkins Univ.,

I943).

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

J. H. Oliver, The Athenian Expounders (Baltimore, pp. 50-52.

But

the gene of the Eumolpidae

and

Ceryces were not in the same category with the other clans. 13 The texts in IG II2 I096 and SEG III Io8 are outdated by the discovery of new fragments. See now B. D. Meritt, Hesperia 9 (I940): pp. 86-96, No. 17. 14 Inscriptions de D6los 2516-2518 and 1624 bis.

VOL. 58, PT. I, i968]

GENERAL DISCUSSION

least four names, Attalis at least nine names, Leontis at least four names, Ptolemais at least seven names. When one allows for the loss of some names from five tribes and of all the names from three tribes, it looks as if there were between seven and ten from each tribe. From a differentyear but very close in date, there is a decree of the genos of the Amynandridae in honor of a personage with a family tradition of helping Athens.15

23

century B.C. (and in the fourth century too) those moderates (and oligarchs who were seeking a better government and not just a dynasteia) aimed at limiting effective citizenship to the upper and middle classes. Large numbers of citizens were to be "disenfranchised." Surely this did not mean that they were to be declared xenoi (foreigners); they

would still be astoi even if they could not participate in the making of decisions, but the real politai (full citizens) would be the property owners (and people Ferguson16 has shown that around IO3 B.C. "a with talent). The aim remained constant, but the change of serious import took place." The cosmete means to achieve the aim varied from age to age no longer stood his audit in the dicastery but in the and group to group. The writer submits that Council of the Six Hundred. "Because of the Aristides section 261 makes it likely that the means defective character of our sources," says Ferguson, adopted in the first century B.C. to exclude the many "the alteration of the law is demonstrable only for from effective citizenship was the establishment of this one magistrate; but it is clearly inferable for clan membership as a prerequisite to public office. It is likely that the old criterion of eligibility for the other magistrates as well."The MithradaticWar an the constitution archonship, namely participation in the cults of oligarchic (or moderate) interrupted with a democratic revolt and the tyranny of Athe- Zeus Herkeiosand Apollo Patroos,l8was now applied nion, but when Sulla captured Athens in 86, he with a new severity even to councillors. The imrestored the constitution virtually as it had been portance of the clans probably lies in the homage before the war. IG II2 I039 of about 8I B.C. and II2 with which they assured this participation, so that all clansmen could now describe themselves in the I046 of 51 B.C. attest a shift of power from the Demos to the Council of the Six Hundred. There words of Demosthenes LVII 67 as 'AWrrocovos-rawas also a shift of power to the Areopagus, but that -Tppov Kai Ati6S:pKeiou yEvviraci, and all clansmen is not so important for my argument.l7 Accame is could point to the relevant sanctuaries and their probably right in seeing a "democratic" reaction own burial lots. Around 25-20 B.C. in the decree of the Ceryces in in 44 B.C. with the arrival of M. Junius Brutus, but later a less "democratic"constitution was reestab- honor of Themistocles (Roussel, Melanges Bidez -rTv EUyevEavVKia lished. 819-834) the phrase TrapEltlrpo6-ra On the surface the change is hardly noticeable, TTrVanrr auTrr iEpcoo0uvrlv Ey 6la6boXfis irapa TOU although we have seen that the Demos no longer 7ratrp6s EEopaoarou, "having inherited his eligibilcounts for much. There are still nine archons, but ity and the priesthoodbased thereon from his father the circle from which they are chosen is smaller, and Theophrastus in succession," the word ECuyEvEia the incumbent of the expensive eponymate is often means "eligibility for office." The use of the word a foreigner. There are still six hundred members of Ety~veia with an extension of meaning readily the Council, but the circle from which they are intelligible to contemporaries reflects, I think, the drawn is smaller. The dicasteries have disappeared. post-Sullan reform whereby eligibility for office was There were riots and perhaps a revolt in the time of reserved for the well-to-do and justifies the assumpAugustus but these were unsuccessful. The con- tion that the reform was not couched in crude stitution still looked like the old constitution, but economic terms but in terms of descent, real or the Demos had lost its power. fictitious, with a basis in the ancestral constitution. A reform of this type has to win acceptance in The evidence of Aristides, section 261, supported, as we have seen, by that of Philostratus, indicates orderto succeed. The writer suspects that the genos that the clans had become the second pillar of the of the Amynandridaeand other still surviving clans constitution at the side of the Cleisthenean and were reorganizedin such a way that they would be post-Cleisthenean tribes. At the end of the fifth representative of all twelve tribes. The mutilated catalogue of the Amynandridae shows an even 15 Published distribution of members which could not possibly BCH P. 51 Graindor, by (I927): p. 246. 16W. S. Ferguson, Athenian Tribal Cycles in the Helle- reflect direct descent from the Amynandridaeof the nistic Age (Harvard Univ. Press, 1932), pp. I47-155. time of the Cleisthenes, though Amynandridae of 17 On these reforms see Kirchner's comment to IG II2 Io39, Ferguson, op. cit., and S. Accame, II dominio romano in Grecia dalla Guerra Acaica ad Augusto (Rome, 1946), pp. I63-I87.

18 On these cults see W. S. Ferguson,

Hesperia 7 (I938):

pp. 3-33; M.P. Nilsson, AJP 59 (I938): pp. 39of. (= Opuscula selecta 2, pp. 737f.).

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

24

the time of Cleisthenestoo may have been scattered throughout the ten tribes. In the first century an attempt was made to adapt the clans as an element in a conservative city based on the reforms of Cleisthenes. To be a member of a clan one had to be a landowner and one had to be of some respectable background. Not every rich man could buy his way into a clan. A council (povuA)based on the clans as well as on the Cleistheneanand post-Cleistheneantribes would constitute a barrierfor disreputableelements. In the so-called boule papyrus19was the speaker not urging upon Octavian a council for Alexandria like the Councilof the Six Hundredat Athens, when he arguedthat it would keep impureand uneducated elements out of the pure politeumaof the Alexandrians? The Council of the Six Hundred not only conducted much more business on its own responsibility without consulting the Demos but determined what should go before the Demos, such as honorary decrees or consolations, where a wider expression of sentiment would carry more weight. According to our theory the Councillike the archons was supposed to be recruitedsolely fromthe clans,whichwere idealized as going back to the beginning of the democracy, namely to the time of the legendary Theseus. Thus the constitution still appeared to be that of a democracy,a restricted democracy with a judicious mixture of the early clans, the laws of Solon and the tribes of Cleisthenes. It apparently did not fool the disenfranchised,but it put a decent veil over what was almost an oligarchy and made the restriction less offensive. A fragmentary epistle of Marcus Aurelius and calls for the recruitmentof the Gerusia Commodus20 at Athens "fromthe astoi always." The specification "from those who are eligible for the ekklMsia"also occurs. In commenting,the writer21pointed out that the wording implied for Athens a distinction not unlike that between hereditary curiales and other citizens, and he cited the division of the first gerusia at Sidyma into 51 bouleutaiand 50 dgmotai(TAM II 176). According to our theory the full citizens of RomanAthens, except for a few brief moments of democratic reaction,were in theory those who belonged to the clans;and the astoiwere all the Athenians,both those in the clans and those who were eligible merely for the ekklesia. In public documents reference to action by the Demos meant action by the ekklesia in which all adult male astoi were eligible 19 PSI II6o = H. A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs (Oxford, I954) I. 20 B. D. Meritt, Hesperia 30 (1961): pp. 23I-236, No.3I. 21

J. H. Oliver, Hesperia 30 (I96I): pp. 402f.

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

to sit, whether or not they bothered to attend. For, quite possibly, first-classcitizens from the clans made up most of the attendance at any one meeting of the ekklesia. In the following inscription, IG II2 3605, the word polis probably means the city and not something like the totality of the clans, even though all the clans may have met together at an old festival: Srls T 6lgipicapVijv KailTOU81Siou sEcos

KA.'HpcbitSris &avelKEv (). Acop6pidiaS ?vEKEV 5 eov aTpaoTycricavtra Kal Scyovoe?Trcaav-

'EEvoulTraTrov pey&dAcov vfcov

The curious phrase of lines I-2 means "the city, especially the Demos, decreed." It emphasizes the enthusiasm of the popular assembly, without contrasting the polis and the Demos. This may seem obvious to the reader, but it is worth stating because Herodes Atticus was son of the man who entertained the entire city by tribes and clans and because Herodes Atticus harbored a special admiration for Critias, the oligarch of 403 B.C.,and was depicted by his enemies as trying to overthrow the "democracy." However that may be, Plutarch, Theseus 24-25, reflectedthe view of his Athenian contemporariesin attributing the first republic to Theseus himself. Undoubtedly the clans were represented as a pillar of that first constitution. In fact Plutarch depicts Theseus as persuadingthe men of Attica "by demes and clans" to unite in a republic. The writer's hypothesis that the Council during the Early Roman Empire was recruited from members of the clans after a reorganizationof the clans in the first century B.C. must be tested against evidence of change in later periods. In the time of Hadrian the Council was reduced from six hundred to five hundred. This is understandable; it was now more difficult to choose as many as six hundred and the number five hundred had more antiquity, as it were. Membershipin the clans was still essential. But the rule could be circumvented by adlections. Old families sponsored their own friends, even foreignersand freedmen.The creation of the Gerusia in A.D. 176, however, was a sign that the financial burdens were now too heavy for the clansmen alone; it was also a break with Athenian tradition, unless the number four hundred was supposed to

be Solonian and a return to a plebeian corporation as a second anchor. By A.D. 269/70 the Council had

become one of seven hundred and fifty members

VOL. 58, PT. i, I968]

GENERAL DISCUSSION

(IG II2 3669). Surely the number of eligible clansmen had declined; so this criterion was now probably abandoned, even in theory. The writer thinks that the Gerusia was already defunct and that the more plebeian families of the Gerusia had joined the clansmen as a reservoir of manpower for an enlarged Council.22The clansmen, theoretically five hundred, and the perhaps four hundred gerontes merged, the writer thinks, into this new corporation. The economic decline, however, continued and by the fourth century the Council was one of merely three hundred members, with eligibility doubtless based on their economic status alone. Foreigners as archons were unknown at Athens before27 B.C.Foreignerswho later served as archons may have accepted membershipin a qualifying genos without breaking a rule that Roman citizens could not accept citizenship in another state.23 In summary, the phrase "the tribes and clans" which suggested the ancestral constitution as it was before it became an extreme democracy really meant the city of the Cleisthenean and postCleistheneantribes, combined since the first century B.C. with an old but modernized institution, the clans, in such a way that the control of political affairs remained firmly in the hands of property owners, because the clans consisted of landholding families and because the Council and the archons and certain other officials too were probably drawn exclusively from members of the clans. Therefore, there was nothing anachronistic in the reference to the clans by Aristides, and the view of history which Aristides presents may be expressed in terms of the five world empires and of the ancestral constitution supposedly established at Athens by Theseus a thousand years before the Panathenaic of Isocrates XII. In section 234 Aristides coordinates the five world empires with the history of Athens. 22 For the Gerusia see J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia

(= Hesperia Suppl. VI, I94I), and Hesperia 30 (I96I): pp. 402f., where new evidence suggests a membership of four hundred. For the Council see D. J. Geagan, The Athenian Constitution after Sulla (= Hesperia Suppl. XII, I967), ch. V. 23 The examples collected by E. W. Bodnar, S. J., "Marcus Porcius Cato," Hesperia 31 (I962): pp. 393-395 are revealing. Two slight corrections may be worth while. In his new text of IG II2 o1063 Tusculas is not a "misspelling of Tusculanus" but a variant ethnic. Inhabitants of Italian towns were often identified by more than one form of the ethnic, e.g. Ardeates or Ardeatini. In CIL III, Suppl. I, 7242 Lanuine is not a "misspelling" of Lanuuine but either a common type of variant spelling (see Dessau, ILS III, p. 835) or the usual spelling (cf. ILS 6194, senatus p. q. Lanuinus). The most important of Father Bodnar's texts are IG II2 4190, 3542 (=

3561) and 4219. See Hesperia

Suppl. VIII (I949): opposite p. 248 for a list of foreign Eumolpidae.

25

III. ALETHEIA AND AKRIBEIA The word aletheia has two meanings. In the earliest Greekit meant something like a true report in which nothing was forgotten.1The emphasis here was partly on completeness of information, partly on first-handknowledge. In classical Greekthe word meant truth as opposed either to falsehood, in which we are here less interested, or to mere appearances. Part of the older sense can still be found in Aristides who, in section I39 of the Panathenaic, says: "I undertook these logoi (words, stories, arguments) less to entertain than to show the city's worth with algtheia" (i.e. "in all its aspects," as comparison with section 170 will reveal, where he claims to show all the city's blessings, not by recording all particulars but by omitting no subject of praise). Second-handinformation was from the beginning contrasted with alStheia, but even first-hand observations might be inadequate, so that a deeper understanding could be contrasted with a mere grasp of information.

In order to know the truth one must have information, sometimes called historia.For example,when Speusippus criticizes Isocrates for getting a simple fact wrong, he criticizes the historia of Isocrates.2 Aristides does not use this word, but in section 75 he says that no one even in a haple diegesis (simple narrative)has ever yet gone through all the incidents of the story of Athens. It is desirable to visualize what he considers the opposite of that adjective haplous, feminine haple, "simple" (Latin simplex) and its noun haplotes (Latin simplicitas). One opposite of haplous is the adjective akribes with its noun akribeia. For example, Aristotle, Metaph. E I, I055b7 distinguishes between &pxaf and &pxal d6pitPEorrpat,3 and Ariso&rroroa-rTpa Z totle, Metaph. 4, Io3oaI6 distinguishes between a A6yos airXoiSand a o6yos6cKplpEtrropos. The word akribes,usually translated as "precise" or "exact," will be here rendered as "subtle." A subtle account is superior to a "simple" narrative in that it comes closer to the truth partly by the use 1 T. Krischer, "E-rvuos und &daxefs," Philologus 109 (I965): pp. I6I-I74. 2

Letter to Philip 11, KarTaaOoiS 8' av Iv Speusippus, PpaXcr-rThv 'aloKp&roUSlaropiav KoalTrv wratEiav ^ c5v ... edd.

E. Bickermann et J. Sykutris, Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der Sdchsischen Akademie zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. K1. 80 (I928), Heft 3.

3 H. Bonitz, Aristotelis Metaphysica II, Commentarius (Bonn, I849), p. 280: "doctrinarum principia dicit vel subtilius vel simplicius constitui." For akribeia see especially H. Herter, "Die Treffkunst des Arztes in hippokratischer und platonischer Sicht," Sudhoffs Archiv fur Geschichteder Medizin und derNaturwissenschaften 47 ( 963): pp. 249-290.

26

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

of intellectual power to grasp more than appears on the surface. As early as the cyclic epic Iliupersis the word akribesimplied the more accurate and subtle diagnosis of one who could go back from the seen to the unseen with intellectual power. In the Iliupersis the divine father of Machaon and Podalirius gave them different gifts, to Machaonsurgery and to Podalirius the power to diagnose. In frag. V (Allen)it is said of the gift to Podalirius: -TC)8' ap' &KpIpEawravTravi a'rrTEColv EOrTKEv T' yvCovat Kai &vaAOea iqCjaaOa aOKOWTa 6s (a KtaiAiavros wrrpcoTOld6&eXCcooUvoi10

6lopaTa Tr'&doTprrrrTTra papuv6ev6OvrE vo6ra.

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

calls fire (Hephaestus) lame "symbolically" because it cannot go without wood (26, IO), and by a tree Homer meant air "symbolically" (66, 5), and Homer explains also Hades with his philosophy in symbols ES s tXAoac6qr 74,I). (KialTra v "AiSov aouppolIKo

In the Hellenistic and Roman Periods the use of the word symbolonmay have been more common, but Aristides would not have used it without an elegant precedent. In fact, Isocrates, Panegyric 49 applied the word to the logoi which those who partook of education were able to produce; the logoi were a symbolonof this education, a sign. And now for Aristides. In section 9 Aristides says of Attica: "Then she produces,as it were, a symbol too of her love of man

In section II9 Aristides calls attention to the Co'aepEio0ClpoXov&KpipEt.) importance of demonstrations. No wonder! There (EITaKalTrisipi7aveOpCoriaS is a close connection between akribeiaand "demon- She advances to a very great distance into the stration" as we may see from Pseudo-Heraclitus Aegean, calming the waters." HomericQuestions(ed. Buffiere) 7, I: "Apollodorus, In section 42 Aristides, speaking of the case of a brilliant interpreter of any historia (= surface Poseidon vs. Ares, says: "The site receivedtherefrom story), has given, with subtlety and precision, the its present name, which itself was a symbol both of demonstrationconcerningthese matters" (ilKpipcoTat the event that had occurred and of justice, some Ep 8' 1 TOETCOV &Troiitv i'S Kal 'ATroAXoSbpcp, IrEpi general attestation and guarantee, as it were, to rrraav iaropiav &vSpi6Elv4). The connection be- mankind" (roi -rEoallupavros oxauvpoXovKai StKatotween akribeia and the hidden sense which is the OrVrls oaorrEp &?Aoo Kai TrioTrvEIS&vepcbTrl apapTriplov real truth may be illustrated with another quotation TrouS). from Pseudo-Heraclitus (ed. Buffiere) 6, 5: "HavIn section 89 Aristides says of the Battle of into the alatheia which has Marathon: been "So great did the glory of those men of ing penetrated hidden in the epic, having looked carefully beneath Athens become and so great the prestige of their the surface, I for my part think that this is not a case victory, that they made even the locality a kind of of Apollo's anger but a visitation of plague" (EycoyE symbol of excellence" (Coa-reKal 'TOrXcpiov Co"rEp ?vTrolsErCov d&prri KraT-rcrrarav). aXriSelav &Kpip5s rt oaiuppoXov T'rtivoTroA?XT(Jvrlv4 In section 122 Aristides says of the Athenians who OUK'ATr6OXWCvos SlaeOpias Trac-ra, 0ol6pyv olpat S6 V6aOUKaKOV). plIKqS passed the decreeof Themistoclesthat they produced For the close connection of the hidden sense with "on one day tokens (a*OipoXa) of all that one

philosophiaand these symbolawhich are externally might call greatest in man, tokens of piety, endurperceptibleimages of aletheiawe may cite "Heracli- ance, prudence, philanthropy, greatness of spirit." In section I39 Aristides explains that the speech tus," Homeric Questions 24, I: "Homer obscures the philosophiawith 'symbolic' words" (oauppoAXKoTs is not too long because he has to show the city's r 9piAoaopiav Also "Heraclitus" worth in all its aspects. In section I40 he goes on to 6v6opaaiTv &caupoT). "Thus Heraclitus the Obscure 24, 3: exposes the say: "Secondly, quite apart from the very symbolon divine secrets of nature without clarity and as of the words (Kai rTTr aIrou TOjU mrpO6Xou T-rVAo6yov capable merely of being represented through i.e., quite apart from what the words and stories symbolawhen he says 'Gods mortal, men immortal symbolically reveal), one must remember that we living the death of the former, dying their life"' (6 are not at all obliged to limit the Panathenaic youv OKOTEIVOS 'Hp6&KAXITOS &oaCpi Kal Sti& auLpo6cov Festival itself to one day." Tra In section 144 Aristides, discussing the abundance sIvvaeva EIKa&LEOCai OEO7ooyEi 9pVuKa Si' CV piri, Kr?T).Arguing that Homer believed in the and grace of Athenian dedications and thank-offersphericityof the cosmos,"Heraclitus"48, I-2 says: ings, explains: "These manifestations of her piety "theclearestsymbolon(= implication)is that of the attest her full beauty and growth" (-rayap aoi1lpoXa Kal IAeyovUS making of the shield of Achilles.For Hephaestus TrfiSEuOaeEaSaOrfiSTraUCaToUKXaAoU5 forgeda shield circularin its shape as an image of E-ri T6EKillpia). the contourof the cosmos."Heraclitussays Homer In section 164 Aristides says of the Battle of 4 This is Buffi6re's palmary emendation for the manuscript readings xTroAEAlliEvriv,UTro?EXriiJivrlviv, rroAXEXEypvriv.

Tanagra, "What this engagement alone has had as a token (a*iI.poWov) of victory is the flight."

In section I66 Aristides says that Athens, making peace, "producedin one and the same token an indication (crv'upoov) of two things, both of her superiority in the war and of her innate goodness." In section 167 Aristides speaks of the Athenian demos leading the Greeks "with its rule a manifestation (o,ipoXov) of justice and not injustice." In section 222 Aristides says that in the time of Philip the city of the Athenians "alone maintained the posture of the true Hellas (,6vrl 6' TO oCVpoXov and overshadowed the then TrijS 'EAXMos8iE-rTlproaE) disasters." prevailing Having contrasted haplous with akribes and having shown the meaning of akribeia,we shall now point to a relation between haplotesand historia. The adjective haplous ("simple") is, as we demonstrate in the commentary to section 75, a synonym for historikos.The words historia,historein, hist6r have been traced in their development.5The word historia often retained in Greek its connection with visual knowledge gained through autopsy and usually had an emphasis on particulars, and historia acquired a connotation contrasting with a deeper understandingof a whole. The deeper understanding is an understanding of aletheia (the true nature of things6) and is reached through akribeia. Aristides actually avoids the words historia and historiographoswhere we might expect them. In Oration XLIX on the Incidental Remark, p. 513 Dindorf, he refers to historians including both Herodotus and Thucydides as "those between poets and rhetors." In our Panathenaic section 136 Aristides insists that no one has a right to criticize him in his account of the Battle of Plataea for leaving out particulars and concentrating on what it all shows. For, he seems to say, the narration of particulars is "a time-consuming operation not arriving at the spoude." Akribeia is not the listing of particulars. Spoude and akribeiaoverlap in meaning. After mentioning that the Athenians gave up the titular leadership before the Battle of Salamis, Aristides makes a digression extending through 5 Bruno Snell, Die Ausdriicke fur den Begrif des Wissens in der vorplatonischen Philosophie (= Philologische Unter-

suchungen 29, 1924), pp. 59-71; F. Muller, "De 'historiae' vocabulo et notione," Mnemosyne 54 (I926): pp. 234-257;

P. Louis, "Le mot ocrropiachez Aristote," Rev. phil. 29 (I955): PP. 39-44;

als mathematiArpad Szab6, "AEiKWvvt

scher Terminus fur 'beweisen,'" Maia, N.S., 10 (I958): pp. Io6-13I; Aram M. Frenkian, "Die Historia des Pythagoras,"

Maia,

27

GENERAL DISCUSSION

VOL. 58, PT. I, I968]

N. S., 11 (1959): pp. 243-245,

who claims

for historia the root Fi6. 6 So W. J. Verdenius, "Parmenides B 2, 3," Mnemosyne,

Ser. IV, 15 (I962): p. 237. See also E. Heitsch, "Die nicht philosophische &AiOeita,"Hermes 90 (1962): pp. 24-33.

sections IO9-II8 "so that one may see their character (ethos)and all I mean more clearly." He had a digression also on the Battle of Marathon as a revelation of the ethosof the Athenians, and in section I66 he refers to the ethosof what they did, but the digression in sections IO9-II8 is a long one with formal proofs of Athenian excellence. When he at last returns to his narrative in section II9,

he

apologizes for the digression, saying the spoude in connection with the demonstrations has led him away. The spoude7then is here an intellectual effort to find the cause of the many actions. The interest is not in everything that happened but in the unseen character which perceptible actions reflect in the mirror which the interpreter presents. In section 136 where Aristides seems to say that the narration of particulars is "a time-consuming operation not arriving at the spoude,"he may mean "not arriving at what we seek to uncover, namely, the unseen cause or universal truth which underlay these actions." The participle is from the same verb which Plato, Timaeus 5Ib3 uses, "to arrive at its nature" (physis). Diogenes Laertius V 39 in the Life of Theophrastus says: "In his case and that of Callisthenes Aristotle is reported to have said just what Plato said about Xenocrates and Aristotle himself; for he said that since Theophrastus in the exceeding sharpness of his wit explained every shade of meaning, while the other was naturally sluggish, the one needed a rein the other a goad." The same anecdote is told about Ephorus and Theopompus in two versions (FGrHist 2 A 70 T 28) that of the Suda being of particular interest: "Ephorus was simple in character (Tr ?ieos&rroiUS)and in respect to interpretation of the particulars ('rqv 86EprllivEiav Tlls ia-ropiaS)he was lazy, sluggish, and lacking in energy, while Theopompus,being in characterbitter and malicious, and in speech facile, coherent, and forceful, liked to uncover the underlying reality when he wrote ((piXaXeqrS Ev ols 'ypapev means literally "he was aletheia-lovingin what he wrote"). Therefore, Isocrates said the latter needed a rein, but Ephorus a goad.8 7 The spoude which Isocrates, Philippus 26 recognized as an essential quality of good speech and which Eino Mikkola, Isokrates, seine Anschauungen im Lichte seiner Schriften (= Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. B, 89,

Helsinki,

1954),

I92

interprets

as "der heilige

Eifer des

Redners in der von ihm als richtig angesehenen Sache" refers to something else, namely delivery. The Aristidean usage is suggested rather by Demosthenes VI 4 and VIII 2. 8 As a parallel for the charge of "simplicity" and (perhaps) deliberate superficiality in the case of Ephorus we may cite a quotation in the Suda, s.v. iTrr6Xroaio:o6 5 IeV lv Kal TrS&aXiep6, &TrAouorpoS XiA3pavos1TT1EK1iS d&vriTOVoU paOei TOV qen KaciITirrrrrOCaos. T'p6TroV.

5i Ta-

28

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

The differentiation on the basis of the author's own character recalls what Aristotle, Poetics I448b 24-28 said about the development of poetry after Homer: But poetry divided on the lines of the characterof the poets themselves.9Thosewho weremoreseriousrepresentedgood actions and the actions of good people, while the simpler sortT"representedthe actions of peoplewithout particularmoralworth. Sieorr&CT 68

KaTa ra OiKETa firerl i rroflrlcn.ol pEv yap aEvov6Tpol TOOVTO1tTCOV, &asKaACoS tIIIOjUVTO 'Tpa?EISKal TCXS

ol 86 ECIOTEAErEpoi Tar TrSVcyaxocov. Since Aristotle thought that tragedy was the culmination of the more serious style which dealt with universals and moral values, it is significant that the tragic poets were often called the spoudaioi, as Plato, Laws, VII 817, specifically attests: 'Trv 65 aTrovSalcov, cos paac, TCOVTrp TpaycpSiav TrWOliTo6V.

filxiv

Marcus Aurelius VI 13 contrasts the spoudaia when he says, "lay things bare and look upon their paltriness and strip off the superficiality (Io-ropiav) on which they pride themselves." For Plutarch, Pericles I3, 3 the opposite of superficial beauty in art was K6AOUSd&KpipE3a.

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

So we cannotaffordto leave any areaunworkedand unexamined,since spoudein the petty subjects is no less reprehensiblethan not to preservethroughoutfor the great subjectslike this the importancethat is their due. Nouns and verbal adjectives from the verb "to such as occur in sections II9 examine" (^rET&i[ev), and 120 just quoted, are illuminated by the above quotation from Dionysius of Halicarnassus.Furthermore, in section 92 Aristides distinguishes between the subject of the Battle of Marathon and subsequent events which had been "examined in a way to produce a more exact understanding" than the Battle of Marathon had. Herodotus gave a haple digegsis (simple account), so did Ephorus. But later events underwent the treatment Aristides has in mind from Thucydides and Theopompus. This treatment is the akribeia of Thucydides, I 22, 2, "an exact understanding" of facts and "a subtle, i.e. discerning interpretation" of what the facts proved. It is not to be confused with the atrekeia of Herodotus, which meant straight reporting with a minimumof subjectiveinterpretation. Herodotus reacted against the fantasies of poets on the one hand and Hecataeus on the other. Thucydides reacted not only against the poets but like a fifth-century Athenian educated by Attic tragedy, or like a pre-Socraticphilosopher,against the superficiality of historia. "Concerninghis whole composition there were some who dared to assert that it was not a product of the art of rhetoric but of the art of poetry," wrote the badly confused Marcellinus,l Life of Thucydides 41. Thucydides seemed, at least to some, almost an opposite of the historicus, and more akin to a poet or a philosopher. His account of what happened in the world of sense per-

We have noted the contrast between the simple Ephorus who was allegedly sluggish in interpreting particularsand the aletheia-lovingTheopompuswho allegedly needed a rein. Theopompus was particularly famous for his zeal in uncoveringhidden causes. Thus Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his Letter to Pompeius 7 (FGrHist II5 T 20) praises in Theopompus the ability not only to see and describein every deed the things whichwereclearto the many,but to examine(ErZ[Etiv) of the deeds the unseen causes which motivated the doers as well as the passionsof the inner man, things ception could be called 6 Si' dSKpipeias&rAfis X76yos, which are not easy for the many to know, and to un- to borrow a phrase from Plato, Timaeus 52c6, i.e. coverall the mysteriesof the man'sseemingvirtue and the true account achieved by reasoning back unrecognized vice. rigorously from the seen to the unseen. Thucydides In section I20 Aristides again uses spoude to maintained the honesty and impartiality of Herodmean "zealous intellectual effort to find hidden otus as a reporter,but he combined this spirit with causes" when he emphasizes the importance of his the intellectual approach of a pre-Socratic philossubject. "If we were making this examination and opher passionately interested in unseen causes and spoude concerning things of no value or concerning eternal truth. things of which the examples are everywhere," that 11 Perhaps in the.fifth century after Christ according would be different. But all the poets and writers to E. Bux, R.-E. 14 (I928): coll. I450-I487, s.v. "Marhave failed to do Athens justice. B. cellinus Essai sur l'histoire du 9 The passage just quoted from the Suda on Theopompus and Ephorus supports the traditional interpretation of the phrase KCa-XT-roilKta^eOiagainst that of G. Else, Aristotle's Poetics (Harvard University Press, I957), p. I36. 10The phrase -r6TOos a&-rro0s used in the Suda to describe Ephorus supports this interpretation of eTrrEMaorrpo against that of G. Else, Aristotle's Poetics, p. I35.

(49)." Hemmerdinger, texte de Thucydide (Paris, 1955), pp. 61-63 argues persuasively that the "Marcellinus" of E and T was a certain Marcellus dated before A.D. 912, but to avoid confusion

I

shall continue to say Marcellinus. His stylistic opinions go back to Caecilius of Calacte according to F. Zucker, Semantica, Rhetorica, Ethica (= Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Schriften Sektion Altertumsw. 38, I963), p. 36.

VOL. 58, PT. I, I968]

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In his discussion of Alcibiades in the Philippus

29

By poetry Aristotle meant epic and particularly

58-6I Isocrates says: Kae' EcaorTov p?Vov Tr&v-rTOTEtragedy. By historiaAristotle meant Herodotus and

probably the Xenophon of the Hellenica and Ephorus. He could not use Thucydides in a disIsocrates describes as a relation of particulars cussion of historia. The latter word was for him too EocKaorov)in the case of Alcibiades and the closely connected with the evidence of the senses, (Kae' deeper meaning which the akribeia of a true diag- seeing and hearing. The word, particularly after nostician might reveal.12 Aristotle, was frequently extended. No one will deny that Xenophon and Ephorus It was always obvious that in many ways the were historici, though, coming after Thucydides, historia of Herodotus and the search which Thucythey were influenced by him. Theopompus, on the dides made for the universal were two examples of other hand, sought to uncover hidden causes with one genre. In fact, Theophrastus seems to have something like the spoudeof tragic poets. And in the applied the term historia to both, but it is psychoAgesilaus, which greatly influencedAristides, Xeno- logically interesting that Cicero, in citing Theophon did too. Agesilaus IV and VI attest to the phrastus, uses the word canit in referenceto Thucyinterest which Xenophon, though he did not use the dides.14 In the second, third and fourth centuries after word symbola, had in the outward signs of human virtue. Christ, practitioners of mere historia sometimes felt a called had those who it Thucydides Answering necessary to compose in the obsolete Ionic dialect. art the of most striking case of all is that of Praxagoras of The practitioner poetry, Marcellinus,Life the is Arrian'sIndica too was in Ionic. from "Now it clear the Athenian.15 of Thucydides41, argued: I and fact that it does not fall into any kind of verse that Polybius 4 57 uses language not unlike that a art." he claims for his kind of history a is of the of Aristides when not poetic product (the work) Others such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus (De deeper truth based on a broader view and contrasts Thucydide24) had noted the poetikonof the vocab- it with a mere enumerationof particulars.The same ulary, but the errorin the foolish argument adopted would be true of Sallust, who modeled himself on by Marcellinushad already been rejected by Aris- Thucydides (and Cato). Thus far we have concentrated on the antithesis totle, Poetics I45Ia36-bI2: of historia on the one hand and philosophia and It is clear too from what has been said that to say on the other in what we call historians. It is spoude what did happenis not a poet'stask but such things as now to return to the Panathenaic of Isocrates time in that that can is, the things happen might happen, accord with probabilityor necessity. In other words, XII. In section 246 the critic attributes to Isocrates the the historicusand the poet differnot by writingeither to it would intention of composing a discourse unlike his other in meter or without meter-for be possible be a and it would still of Herodotus the versify writings discourses, one that would seem simple (&crrAoiS, historiaof sorts with or without verse-but the differ- i.e. on one level of meaning, straightforward) and ence lies in this: the one reportswhat did happen,the other such things as might happen. Therefore,poetry Kurt von Fritz, "Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles fur die is a thing philosophoteron and spoudaioteron (concerned Geschichtsschreibung," Histoire et historiens dans l'antiwith a deeperand moreimportanttruth) than historia. quitd (= Entretiens Hardt IV, Geneva, 1956), pp. 82-I45; Poetry tends to discuss the subject in relationto the G. Else, Aristotle's Poetics (Harvard Univ. Press, I957), universal,while historiatends to discussthe subject in commentary on I45Ia36-bI2; F. W. Walbank, "History In relationto and Tragedy," Historia 9 (I960): pp. 216-234. My approach, relationto the particular(Kac'EKao-rov). the universal:to what sort of manit occursto do or say being from the direction of Aristidean spoude, is not the what sort of things in accordwith the probabilityor same. 14 Cicero, Orator 39: Quo magis sunt Herodotus Thucynecessityat whichthe poetry aims as it assignsspecific didesque mirabiles; quorum aetas cum in eorum tempora names. In relationto the particular:what Alcibiades quos nominavi incidisset, longissime tamen ipsi a talibus did or experienced.l8 deliciis vel potius ineptiis afuerunt. Alter enim sine ullis

OUT' &v stie?EiV yEvoPEvcov El TIS ?E yEtV ETrTXEiPTiaE1EV,

dKpipcoS5uvaiTro.The contrast here lies between what

salebris quasi sedatus amnis fluit, alter incitatior fertur et

Note also that Isocratesin the Philippus describeshis de bellicis rebus canit etiam quodam modo bellicum; subject as -rIv &aAritav-rTvlrTpaoryIarov (4) and as OOK primisque ab his, ut ait Theophrastus, historia commota 12

^ri6EtIiv (I7).

Among the many modern scholars who have discussed the Aristotelian passage on poetry and history mention should certainly be made of B. L. Ullman, "History and TAPA 73 (I942): Tragedy," pp. 25-57; A. W. Gomme, The Greek Attitude to Poetry and History (Sather Classical Lectures XXVII, Univ. of Calif. Press, I954), ch. III; 13

est, ut auderet uberius quam superiores et ornatius dicere. See Ed. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa i (Leipzig, I898); pp. 9I-I26, "Die Beziehungen der Geschichtsschreibung zur Poesie," who cites among others Quintilian X, I, 3I: Historia est proxima poetis et quodam modo carmen solutum. 15 Photius,

Bibliotheca No. 62.

30

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

easy to understand but that, to those who studied it with close attention and tried to see what others had missed, would appear both hard to understand and full of much philosophial6as well as historia, yes, would appear full of variety and fantasy, not the malicious kind which inflicts injury but the kind rai could improve which with urbanity (pErawat&) or delight the audience. In section 263 the critic says that the discourse will gratify those who truly

[TRANS. AMER.PHIL. SOC.

mends the morally and spiritually more meaningful 0 discourses "as aiming at Truth," TOr

S Ar1eaS fis

aTroxal[ovous, again a phrase very like that of

Aristotle, Poetics I45Ib 9-IO.

This then is the "philosophical" background of the style of Aristides except that for Aristides the Truth is an Aristidean blending of two main streams which flow, the one from Isocrates, the other from Plato. What Plato meant by philosophy is clear enough. philosophize (roTis cs&Xo0c6SplXoooapouiv). We have about the was to on the other hand, had no use for what that critic Isocrates, already suggested attribute to Isocrates a deeper meaning which had seemed to him idle and inactive speculation about not been his at all, but since Isocrates chose not to reality in the abstract but he was much interested repudiate the criticism, it remained for Aristides to in the real ways in which ideals are realized and the correct the exegesis and to reconsider the hidden world improved.l8He too may have consideredhimself a Socratic.19The infinitives that corresponded universals. Perhaps the most interesting comment of all is to those adjectives philosophoteronand spoudaiothat by Isocrates himself in the Panathenaic 271, teronwere philosopheinand ponein ("to toil intellectwhere he commends, not display orations, but dis- ually") or philosopheinand meletan ("to study") or courses that are philosoph6teroiand spoudaioteroi, philosopheinand skopein ("to look carefully").20For i.e. concerned with a deeper and more important Isocrates philosophia is an orientation based on truth. These are exactly the adjectives which training, an orientation in the right direction.21 The Panathenaic Discourse of Aristides is rooted Aristotle, Poetics 1451 b6-7, uses of poetry as comhistoria. in with the eclectic Middle Platonism of Plutarch, Gaius, pared of the words and Albinus, an d it depends from the Timaeus as Malingrey's study17 philosophia, and does philosophein philosophos, unfortunately interpreted by the contemporariesof Aristides. For not deal either with Isocrates, Panath. 271 or with Plutarch the Demiurge was infinitely remote and Aristotle, Poetics I45I b6-7, but it shows that operated through the lesser gods and the daimones. philosophia and aletheia (truth) were closely con- In the Panathenaic Discourse the one greatest god nected from the fourth century B.C. On pp. 55-6I does not appear but the gods who assist him are the she attributes to Aristotle the use of philosophiain Artisans of section 20. The Platonic Ideas perhaps the sense of the discovery of the supreme being suggest the logoi and paradeigmata(models) of the through contemplation of the cosmos, but the word Panathenaic Discourse 40. Middle Platonists dein one of its several usages certainly carriedreligious bated the question where the Ideas were located; overtones even earlier. some inferred they were on the moon; others conIn his own opinion the differencebetween Isocra- sidered them the thoughts of God. Aristides distes and other orators was not just one of language covers that in Attica seeds and models of all sorts but of the attitude toward the subject. Whereas were deposited (section 42). Albinus interpreted a praxis as a uxviisXoytKfis others, if not actually trifling, were interested in the his and the Isocrates particular, pupils sought 9vkpyeia68&o(aboroS, action which a soul with reason universal and tried to rise from the particularto the (logos) accomplishes through a body. Let us say, universal. The distinction that Aristotle made be- right action inspired by reason. The pertinent subtween tragedy and historia turns out to be similar division of philosophy was the praktike. In fact to the distinction which Isocrates made between his Albinus divided philosophy into (I) the the6retike own oratory and that of his competitors. In the (yvcCai5 TCOvOvrTov), (2) the praktike (rrp&atiTCOV same section 27I of the PanathenaicIsocrates com- KaXcOv), and (3) the dialektike (OeopiaXoyou). Apuleius makes a division into philosophia naturalis, 16 K1. Ries, Isokrates und Platon im Ringen um die Phimoralis,rationalis.The whole Panathenaic Discourse

losophia (Diss., Munich, I959), p. I49 interprets the word in this context as meaning "dunkle Weisheit." See rather E. Mikkola, Isokrates ... (Helsinki, I954), pp. 73-76; M. A. Levi, Isocrate, Saggio critico (Milan-Varese, I959), Ch. III. 17 Anne-Marie Malingrey, Philosophia: Etude d'un groupe de mots dans la literature grecque, des Prdsocratiques au IVe sigcle apres J.-C. (= l:tudes et commentaires, 40,

M. A. Levi, Isocrate, Saggio critico (Milan-Varese, I959), Ch. III. For a different view see Hans Wersd6rfer, Die piXoaopfia des Isokrates im Spiegel ihrer Terminologie

I96I).

(= Klassisch-Philologische

18

19

E. Mikkola, Isokrates ...

(Helsinki,

1954), p. 73.

(Helsinki,

1954) p. 202.

George Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton Univ. Press, I963), p. 179. 20

E. Mikkola, Isokrates ...

21

Studien, Heft I3, 1949).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

VOL. 58, PT. I, 1968]

31

of Aelius Aristides falls into some such pattern: The pars naturalis,containing a descriptionof the terrain, climate, gifts of the gods, and first beginnings of the function of Athens, extends through section 62; the pars moralis (or ethica)with the praxeis runs through section 224; the pars rationalis, describable also as the dialectic, takes up the rest of the oration except for the brief epilogue. The three parts are not entirely separate; they shade into each other and are connected by many bridges.22Yet the division is there and emboldens one to assert that Aristides has accomplished the union which Isocrates envisaged in his own unsuccessful Panathenaic, a union of a rhetorical discourse with a philosophical discourse. Although it remains primarily an encomium, it supports the belief in Athens with formal irlTacrpvr of Origen.23 proofs not unlike the TrriaTo-r For Aristides the truth about the cosmos of human society meant a philosophical appreciation of the story and central role of Athens. We have seen that behind his thought lie traditions of exegesis invented for the study of Homer and of sacred logoi. Most of his style derives from classical antecedents. He admired the pathos of Demosthenes, but he also tried to give his oratory a frame of philosophy and poetry, the philosophy and disposition of Isocrates, the rhetoric and poetry of Plato. And yet the "philosophy" of this circular oration with its tripartite division into physis, gthos, and dialectic deserves to be viewed also as a step toward the Middle Ages, if one feels the continuity from the atmosphere of the Panathenaic to the Bible of St. Thierry of Rheims, in the circular schemaof Philosophia with insets framing Physica, Ethica and Logica24(Fig. I).

In the Roman Oration, where Aristides condemned Athens, Sparta and Thebes as inadequate leaders of a coalition of cities, he praised all the Hellenes as foster-parents of the Romans (section 96). In the Panathenaic i he calls the Athenians foster-parents of the Hellenes and of all who belong in any way to Hellenic civilization. In the Panathenaic, where he does not divide the world into Greeks and Romans but into the pupils of Athens on the one hand and the enemies of civilized man on the other, he seems to think of the pupils of Athens as of two types, the mathematikoiand the akousmatikoi.25Just as the Pythagoreans had sought to win over the men of influence everywhere and had ruled Southern Italy through their influential akousmatikoi, so the Hellenes govern the world culturally through educated Romans who were akousmatikoiof Athens. In section 40, moreover,he places all the mathemata in Athens, and in section 2 he claims that the mathemata everywhere have come from Athens.

22 One is reminded of what Cicero, De Finibus V 9, says about the Peripatetic philosophy: Sed est forma eius disciplinae, sicut fere ceterarum, triplex: una pars est naturae, disserendi altera, vivendi tertia. 23 Hal Koch, Pronoia und Paideusis: Studien iiber Origenes und sein Verhaltnis zum Platonismus (Berlin and Leipzig, I932), Part I, chapter V. Also Part II, "Origen and Greek Philosophy," is very interesting, especially Chapter III, "Origen and Contemporary School Philosophy," because Origen still had much the same background as Aristides. On Origen as the inventor of the division into three forms of non-literal interpretation see the great work of Henri de Lubac, S. J., Exdggse mddidvale: Les quatre sens de l'ccriture (= ltudes publiees sous la direction de la Facult6 de Theologie S. J. de Lyon-Fourviere 41, I959), Part I: pp. I7I-2I9. On historia (littera) as the basic literal interpretation see Exdgese mddievale, Part I: pp. 425-487. Does not the simplex locutio indicated by historia have a forerunner in the haplg diegesis of writers like Aelius Aristides ? Among the Christians, however, the implied antithesis historia-aletheia naturally disappears. On the contrary, the Christians emphasize the veritas historiae of Holy Writ.

tors were those who had heard only the warnings and counsels in which his writings were summarized without a more subtle discussion (&veu&KpiPE(T3-paS SrByry-

24 Bibliotheque

municipale

de Reims,

MS. 23, fol. 25

called to my attention by Professor Harry Bober.

Since the Panathenaic Discourse illustrates the meaning of akribeia and symbola we cite Porphyry,

Life of Pythagoras 36-37, a passage particularly interesting for its referencesto akribeiaand symbola: But whatever public addresses (Pythagoras) made to those who visited him as students, he made as exhortations either in the way of a straightforward list of precepts or by an interpretation of meaningful cases (q 8?1EOS1Kcos tl (VUpIPO\Kcos Trapirvei).For he had a double system in his teaching. In fact the one group of his students were called mathematikoi,the other group auditors (akousmatikoi). And mathematikoiwere those who had learned the philosophy's more complicated version worked through to subtlety and precision (ol rTOvTrplTTT-rEpovKail rpos dKpip3EtaV8taTrEwTTovTrvov while audiTfilSE'rrlaTrlPl Aoyov EKPEpOaOri,KoTSr),

aEcos).26

Cicero too brings together truth and akribeia (subtilitas)when in De Officiis II io he says, alia est illa, cum veritasipsa limatur in disputatione,subtilitas, alia cum ad opinionemcommunemomnis accom-

modatur oratio. Subtlety is the polishing down of truth in discussion, the filing off of whatever hides it. A discourse suitable for the ordinary man is simple and superficial. Cicero's word limare does not translate but does paraphrase expressions like the TTEAEOecbv of Thucydides27

or the wTovETV of Isocrates. Kurt von Fritz, "Mathematiker und Akusmatiker bei den alten Pythagoreern," Bayrische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., Sitzungsb. I960, Heft ii. 26 See further the commentary on the contrasting phrase at the beginning of section II9. 25

27 Thucydides ftE?sA6c)V.

I 22, 2: 6aov 8Uvctarv &KpipEfl rrEpi&KOrTOV

32

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

Phaedrus (ed. Herrmann) II 10, 48-49 talks of filing down a lie by means of akribeiaso that the lie would be clearly recognizableas such: si mendacium subtiliterlimasset.The word limareimplies subtilitas, and the Latin adverb limatius loosely correspondsto the Greek adverb &Kpipoa-Erpov. In Cicero, De Finibus V 12 Piso, speaking of

Aristotle and Theophrastus, says: De summo autem bono,quia duogeneralibrorumsunt, unumpopulariter scriptum, quod EcoTEplK6vapellabant,alterumlimatius, quod in commentariisreliquerunt,non semper idem dicerevidentur,etc. The Ciceronianadverb limatius passed to Ammianus Marcellinus,who uses the adverb at the significant beginning of Book XV, where he contrasts the account he supplied in Book XIV with the account he intends to give from this point on. He says: residuaquaesecuturusaperiettextus,pro virium captu limatius absolvemus,nihil obtrectatores longi (ut puTunc enim est laudanda tant) operis formidantes. brevitas, cum moras rumpens intempestivas, nihil subtrahitcognitionigestorum(V iustorum).Ammianus means that to the best of his ability he will set forth the rest with greater fullness, will take more pains to polish away the enveloping misconceptions, than he has permitted himself in Book XIV. The akribeia implied in the adverb limatius probably subsumed digressions of two sorts, the intellectual analysis such as the denunciation of the lawyers in XXX 4 and the fullness of enlightening details such as the long descriptionof Egypt in XXII I5 and the longer description of the Persian Empire in XXIII 6.28The aim of both was to make the truth more apparent. The two meanings of akribeia as Thucydides used the word lie behind the limatius absolvereof Ammianus and the akribeiaof Aristides. For example, the Thucydidean description of stasis at Corcyra was both a digressionwith many enlightening details but also an intellectual analysis. While Herodotus was the father of historia, Thucydides was the true father of historical akribeia, but in the Roman period every historian has had a rhetorical education. A discussion of Aristides in a chapter entitled "Aletheiaand Akribeia"should close with the boast of Aristides to MarcusAurelius: o0vyaptaev TCOV 28 The latter, after mention of reports in quibus aegre vera dixere paucissimi, begins as follows: Quod autem erit paulo prolixior textus, ad scientiam proficiet plenam. Quisquis enim afectat nimiam brevitatem ubi narrantur incognita, non quid signatius explicet, sed quid debeat praeteriri scrutatur. With the apology of Ammianus and the intention signatius explicare compare the similar apology and intention of Aristides in section o09 at the beginning of a digression.

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

oVTOrcov &AXaTCOV d&Kptiovrcov.9He prided himself

not on his memory for details as such but on akribeia, the subtilitas which Pythagoras supposedly introduced and the expounders of Homer and mythology practiced, and which he did not clearly distinguish from that of Thucydides. IV. DATE OF COMPOSITIONAND REACTION TO EASTERN INFLUENCE In sections 55-56 the Hellenic is contrasted with all that is piratical and barbarian. The core of the encomium of Athens is that she opposes barbarism as her natural enemy (section 14) and she acts as an emissary of the gods and serves as a visible image and standard for the anthropeiaphysis (section 274). She is the model and means through which the gods have educated mankind. She is the city of fixed moral principles (section 213) and traditions of Discourse; from this mother-city of law (sections 42 and 239) and of noble traditions the higher civilization has spread over most of the inhabitable world. She is in fact the savior of mankind (sections 53, 54, 89, ii6, 122, 218, 220 and 230) and akin, as it were, to the gods. She is the receiver of the seeds. Or, if you will, the Panathenaic (cf. Ch. I) exalts the dynamis of the Athenians when its place in the Greek world was disputed by another dynamis. A gnostic amulet with an oriental list of magic names ends in the prayer "Holy dynamis, be my aid," &yia &OvatS,po0ei .toi.1One could read several passages as a correction of claims for Isis. At the end of section 4 Aristides asserts that a special need for this oration has arisen. What is the need? To answer this question we must determine as precisely as possible the time and the environment in which the oration arose. 29 Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists, p. 88 Kayser: "For we are one of those who do not vomit words but work out a speech." The phrase ^etiv oU EyEiv was probably old (compare Cicero, Ad Fam. XII 2: omnibus est visus ... vomere suo more, non dicere). In his famous saying Aristides sub, stituted for AiyElvthe verb &Kpiptivwhich probably meant "to elaborate with akribeia," i.e. with care and with interpretation as to the deeper meaning. The wording and authorship are supported by Eunapius, p. 488. In the Prolegomena of Sopater, Treatise B 9 (ed. Lenz, Mnemosyne, Suppl. 5, I959) the saying is rendered "We are one of those who do not vomit words but work out a speech and win appreciation," but the last three words, Ktl -r5v &p6Eo6vrcov (for the meaning see AJP 83 (I962): p. 254), are hardly by Aristides. 1 Harvard Theological Review 33 (I940): p. 4. The divine dynamis may be seen in a cosmology of the second century published by W. C. Till, "Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502," Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichteder altchristlichen Literatur, Fiinfte Reihe, 5, col. 28, line I2.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

VOL. 58, PT. I, I968]

33

DATE OF COMPOSITION

and creates an impression that if the Hymn to

The birth of Aelius Aristides occurred in A.D. 117 according to some modern scholars or in A.D. 129 according to others. In 1953 the writer merely stated his position in favor of the year A.D. 117 and

must the Panathenaic to a large extent, even if Aristides worked and reworkedthe Panathenaic for many years. Unless the writer is much mistaken, we actually

Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (A.D. I6I-I69).

theme. The noun nike and the verb nikao occur with

Athena must be dated between A.D. I6I and 169, so

referred the reader to discussions by others.2 More have a terminus ante quem for the publication of the recently Lenz3 has argued persuasively that the Panathenaic Discourse in the raid of the Costoboci, birth of Aelius Aristides fell between A.D. 126 and for the tone in which Aristides discussesthe wars and festivals would have been irritatinglyfalse soon after 134, because Arethas' note at the end of the Hymn to Athena (XXXVII Keil) in the LaurentianusLX, 3 the shocking sack of Eleusis. The Panathenaic states that the Hymn was deliveredin the proconsul- was completed before the raid of the Costoboci in ship of Severus when Aristides was thirty-five years A.D. I70.6 and one month old. What makes this important is a A terminus post quem for the Panathenaic as a reference in the Hymn4 to the "emperors," which whole, whatever earlier compositions may have Lenz interprets as a referenceto joint rulers, namely been incorporated, can be found in the victory In this period it is hard to find room for a proconsul of Asia named Severus,5 but the precision is impressive and one must assume that Arethas had good authority for his statement. Lenz, furthermore, shows that the Hymn to Athena and the Panathenaic Discourse are close to each other in many themes or ideas. This of course suggests that they were close to each other also in date of composition. It would be possible to point out similarities between the Panathenaic and the address to Commodus, XXI Keil, composed considerably later, and to argue that Aristides retained his ideas and kept reusing his themes. Nevertheless, the Hymn to Athena seems extraordinarily close 2 A. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d'Asie au IIe siecle de notre ere (Bibliotheque des i-coles Frangaises d'Ath6nes et de Rome, 126, Paris, I923), pp. 461-495; W. Schmid, Philologische Wochenschrift1924:

pp. I-I4; pp. 33-34

Pius 2 (Prague, W. Hiittl, Antoninus with addendum in 1 (Prague, 1936):

I933): p. 36I,

astonishing frequency, the noun 21 times, the verb 86 times. This insistence in so great an artist as Aristides must be taken as significant. The word polemos itself occurs 69 times.

The nike theme probably reflects an atmosphere in the Greek East, following, not preceding the victory of Lucius Verus over the Parthians. The Parthian invasion of I6I caught the Roman army unprepared.Peace and prosperity had pervaded the Greek provinces of Asia, and the shock was considerable. There were no great expectations of victory in I6I, 162 or even 163. On the contrary, the interruption of prosperity must have aroused serious apprehensions among the Greeks. Then in 164 and I65 brilliant victories over the Parthians culminated in the capture of Seleuceia and Ctesiphon. The Great King, driven back ignominiously, was discredited and lost control over his vassals.7

where he accepts Groag's identification of Glabrio as the

6 The basic study of the raid is that of A. von Premerstein, "Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Mar-

homonymous legate of the proconsul of Asia in A.D. I50I5I, as do also V. Chapot, Mdlanges en hommage d la mdmoi-

origin I. I. Russu, "Les Costoboces," Dacia, N. S., 3 (I959):

re de Fr. Martroye (Paris, I94I), p. 84 and David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton Univ. Press, 1950) 2: p. I587. J.H. Oliver, "The Ruling Power," Trans.

cus,"

Klio

pp. 341-352

12 (I912):

pp. I45-I64.

may be consulted,

For their

Thracian

but the pertinent

inscrip-

tions from Greece are those cited by Premerstein, namely BCH 8 (I884):

p. 470, No. i and 19 (I895): p. II9, No. 2

Amer. Philos. Soc. 43 (I953): pp. 886-887 argues that the Roman Oration was delivered in A.D. I43 but agrees with

(both overlooked by Kirchner) and IG II2 3639 and 9898. The one important piece of new evidence was published by A. Plassart, "Une levee de volontaires Thespiens sous Marc Aurele," Mdlanges Gustave Glotz (Paris, 1932), pp. 731-738,

dam, 1939), pp. 1-2.

proposer probably consulted with the Roman commander, L. Iulius Vehilius Gratus Iulianus, and Kai in line Io. As Plassart indicated, the levy was raised to meet the Costoboci. There is also a new inscription from Moesia, Annee dp.

Boulanger that the tenth year of Aristides' illness began probably in December, I52. See also C. A. De Leeuw, Aelius Aristides als Bron voor de Kennis van zijn Tijd (Amster3 F. W. Lenz, "Der Athenahymnos des Aristeides," Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 5 (I963 published in I964): pp. 329-347. 4 XXXVII Keil 29.

5 R. Syme, "Proconsuls d'Afrique sous Antonin le

Pieux,"

REA 61 (I959):

pp. 3Io-319

on p. 3II identified

Severus with C. Julius Severus of Ancyra, suffect consul

in A.D. I38. At this period a man tended to become pro-

consul of Asia, if ever, fourteen years after his consulship. 3

where it is better to restore

in line 9, because the Tri-rpoTrov

I964, no. 252. W. Zwikker, Studien zur Markussdule argued convincingly 1941), pp. II6-173 (Amsterdam,

against Premerstein that the Costoboci did not come by sea. 7

W. Schur, R.-E. 18, 4 (1949): coll. 2024-2026;

K. H.

Ziegler, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich (Wiesbaden,

I964), pp. II3-II6.

34

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

Panathenaea and the actual appearance. There is nothing implausible in an invitation to the most brilliant student of Herodes Atticus to speak at the Panathenaea, nor in his submitting a text beforehand to the scrutiny of Herodes Atticus. The part concerning the envy and deception of Herodes, on the other hand, sounds like a twist given to the 21.-26. August 1939 (Berlin, I940), pp. 488-494, that the reliefsfoundat Ephesusand now in the Museumfur story by the Athenian enemies of Herodes Atticus. In fact, the long, extant Panathenaic could never V6lkerkunde at Vienna commemoratethe Parthian War of I6I-I65. The reliefs,over two meters high, fall have been delivered at one session. In his vanity into four incompleteseries:A, a battle againstbarbar- Aristides may well have hoped that the Athenians ians, "in einem gewaltigenSchlachtgemaldevon min- would redesign the Panathenaea to accommodate destens I m Ltnge ;" B, religious ceremonies including his masterpiece by allowing him two full sessions, adoption of Lucius Verus in I38; C, apotheosis of a just as they had done for recitations of the Iliad. ruleramong Olympicand cosmic deities; D, personifi- Sections I40-I4I are indeed a plea to be allowed to cations of (the rescued)cities and provinces. The size speak for more than one day and are incompatible of the monument probablyattests the initial import- with an assumption that the whole discourse was ance of the victory to people in Ionia. planned solely for a reading public. In summary, we conclude that Aelius Aristides ThevictoryoverXerxeshadbeen followedby a great expressionof faith in the old Hellenicreligion (section received an invitation to compose a Panathenaic I42) and by the blessings which Athenian leadership Discourse for delivery at the festival of 167, at a produced.The unexpressedcontrast of A.D. I65 lay in time when what seemed to certain others the some, for Aristides, offensive indifferenceto the old tyranny of Herodes Atticus was still intact. The Discourse was composed also at the time of the Hellenic religion and culture and in the plague. One need not credit Aristides with bold indepen- Great King's humiliation in an atmosphere of dence. The Antonine emperorsthemselves were con- victory over an ancestral enemy. Once he started cerned to support the old Greek religion. Immedi- writing in earnest, Aristides soon had enough to ately after the victory of A.D. I65 Lucius Verus fill two complete sessions. Whether or not Herodes went to Eleusis, was adlected into the Eumolpidae, offended Aristides by refusing to change the and had himself initiated, as IG II2 3592 records. A schedule, Aristides of course had to scrap his interdecade later Marcus Aurelius displayed a great minable Panathenaic so far as the actual speech was interest in supporting the Panathenaic Festival at concerned but he published the intricately conAthens by the establishment of the Sacred Gerusia.8 structed masterpiece. If, then, we are justified in arguing from the PLACE OF COMPOSITION victory psychology, revealed by insistence not only on nike and nikao but on tropaion, kreitton, and Having established the date of composition of the krateB,and from a scene yet unspoiled by Costoboci, Panathenaic Discourse, namely the one, two, or we may infer that the Panathenaic in the form we three years before the festival of I67, we know have it was completed and at least largely composed where it was composed. In this period Aristides was between A.D. I65 and I70. The tradition recorded professor of the art of rhetoric at Smyrna. In fact, (probably by Sopater) in the Prolegomena9 that the Panathenaic is very professorialin tone, because Aristides fooled Herodes Atticus and circumvented the speakerkeepspointingout the perfectionof his own his envy by showing him an inferior Panathenaic techniqueas if he wereshowingstudents how to do it. Aristides was writing for a panhellenic and ahead of time and then deliveringthe extant masterinvitation at the an to speak piece presupposes especially Athenian audience, but he worked in a particular locality, Smyrna. Was there anything 8 J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia (Hesperia, Supplement very special about the atmosphere of this city? VI, I94I). In the first place Smyrna since the reign of 9 Treatise B Io-I I Lenz (Mnemosyne Supplement 5, I959): had become one of the most important Trajan 68 T6TE etreTv 'r6v nravac0ivaIK6VbKoA*ero irap& POUXO6VEVOS centers of oOv Sia TOO ... Christianity in the Roman world. It was 906vov ph 8uv&pEvos T-rv 'Hpc)6ou aopiT-roO r6v 'Hpcbov, prlXavVicarrv pET-rqfev. &VacepEVOSy&p aO'rj here that Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote four &A0ov nravaO0lvalK6veTrrefi Kal pvXp6v, 8S Kalt(pETat, i8uvfiOri of the extant seven letters as he was on his way to ,acpEiv Thv &SE1av'TOiJ yelv Trap' aC'rou, vopnioavros 'HpcbSov, at Rome, but, above all, it was here TOVTOV martyrdom 6-r acT6v p?MEi AEyeiv Kal &daXngiOVETv. EloareodV 68 dEwreV that Polycarp, one of the most important fathers of 6 Tr6vKal dvaywIcorrKOEvov T1uOKdKatl aupial6ievov Kal &rr&vv the early Church, exercised his long authority as ITl<JEV.

The mood changed. The victories had once again justified Roman rule to the relieved and exhilerated Greeks of Asia. The writer agrees with Fritz Eichler, "Das sogenanntePartherdenkmalvon Ephesos,"Berichtiiberden VI. InternationalenKongref/fir ArchdologieBerlin

GENERAL DISCUSSION

VOL. 58, PT. I, 1968]

bishop. Polycarp, who was martyred at the age of 86, links the Christianity of St. Ignatius of Antioch with the Christianity of St. Irenaeus, who himself hailed from Asia Minor and became bishop rather of Lyons than in Pontus Galaticus'? after I77. From the standpoint of the old Greekworld Smyrna in the time of Polycarp was the most important center of Christianity, which thus challenged Hellenism on its home territory, an ancient Greek foundation. It is too early to discuss all the evidence,1 but the martyrdom of the Christianbishop Polycarp, whether it took place in A.D. 155/6 or in I7712 was merely the culmination of a rising

A.D.,

antagonism so clear that it must have impressed all men of Hellenic culture with the reality of the new challenge. In the second place, Smyrna was precisely a city in which the pagan Hellenic reaction to Christianity most easily manifested itself. We do not know where Gaius, one of the leading Platonists, established his seat,13but Albinus,14who succeeded Gaius, established himself at Smyrna whither Galenwent to find Albinus in A.D. 151/2 (Corpus medicorum graecorum V 4, I.I, p. 28). There were well-known expounders

of Platonism at Athens and elsewhere, but it is perhaps permissible to call Albinus the most distinguished commentator of his generation, and Aristides certainly knew Albinus. Asia in the time of Aristides had a large population of Jews, Christians, and Judaizing Hellenes, as we know from Christian sources and as inscriptions a generation later reveal more and more clearly.15 Hellenism itself takes on a polemically religious tone in opposition to Judaism and Christianity, while Judaism and Christianity undergo a remarkable Platonization, in which Philo of Alexandria played

35

a key role in the Julio-Claudian Period, Gnostics a hundred years later, and Clement of Alexandria (born perhaps at Athens around A.D. I50) at the

end of the second century. The Platonic theory of ideas goes through some very interesting developments by the time of Neoplatonism, which Wolfson calls a paganized version of a Christianizedversion of the Philonic Jewish version of Plato's theory of ideas.16 Aristides not only knew something of the Jewish-Christian attitudes in Asia, but he had visited Alexandria. The Panathenaic Discourse, accordingly, was composedin or just after the time of the great bishop Polycarp and of the celebrated Platonist Albinus. It was the period of a strong challenge to Hellenism and the period of a strong Hellenic reaction, and both the challenge and response occurred precisely in and around Smyrna where Aristides himself taught. You would not expect in a Panathenaic Discourse referencesto Polycarp and the Christians any more than to Albinus and contemporary Platonists, but contemporaryPlatonism positively and contemporaryChristianpropagandanegatively have left their mark. The Panathenaic Discourse, though never delivered at this length at Athens or anywhere else, was a serious work in support of Hellenic ideals and traditional values; dedicated to Athena, it was at the same time addressed to all Hellenes (sections 214, 227, and 275) and contained one great pecu-

liarity, a new interpretation of the story of man. THE MENACE OF BARBARISM

It is true that Pericles called Athens the School of Hellas and that Isocrates added participation in Athenian culture to the criteria of Hellenism, but Aristides does something else. In a style suggested by Plato's Menexenus he reinterprets the familiar 10Jean Colin, L'empire des Antonins et les martyrs gaulois military and political history of Greece as an de 177 (= Antiquitas, Reihe I, Band io, I964), Ch. V and educative process beginning with the historia VI. those 11 See L. Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (I960): p. 262, n. 9. legends which were regarded as fabularis, in a strict sense but expressing a untrue 12 So H. Gr6goire, Les persecutions dans l'empire romain perhaps (M6moires de l'Academie Royale de Belgique, Classe des deeper truth and reflecting the profound wisdom of Lettres ..., 2e s6rie, 46, I950), pp. 28 and Io6f. an ancient people. Likewise, when he reached the 13 J. H. Loenen, Mnemosyne, ser. IV, 10 (1957): pp. 35ff.; historical period, Aristides did not just retell the G. Moreschini, "La posizione di Apuleio e della scuola di Gaio nell'ambito del Medioplatonismo," Annali Scuola famous stories of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Normale Pisa, Lettere.., 33 (I964): pp. I7-56. Ephorus, but he retold these stories from a special 14 R. E. Witt, Albinus and the History of Middle Platopoint of view. The Christianswere claiming that all nism (Cambridge University Press, I937); J. H. Loenen, history was a preparation for the coming of Christ "Albinus' Metaphysics: an Attempt at Rehabilitation," and the spread of Christianity. Aristides shows that Mnemosyne, ser. IV, 9 (I956); pp. 219-319 and 10 (I957): all history was a preparation for the Athenian pp. 35-56; A. H. Armstrong," The Background of the Doctrine 'that the Intelligibles are not outside the In- Empire, not just for the noble and beneficial but tellect'," Entretiens Hardt 5 (I960): pp. 391-425. A new temporary hegemony of Athens which men call the in at P. Louis was edition of Albinus Paris. 16

XXI. 3*

by

published

See now L. Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (1960):

1945

Ch. XIX-

16 H. A. Wolfson, "Extradeical and Intradeical Interpretations of Platonic Ideas," Jour. Hist. of Ideas 22

(I96I):

pp. 3-32.

36

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

All history remains a struggle between the forces of the Logos and the forces of evil. Even the word daim6n (section 171 but comparesections 83 and 84) is reservedfor applicationto the forces of evil, whereas in Greek thought the daimones were usually beneficent intermediaries between gods and men. The big difference,however, is that the forces of the Logos are Athena's men, the Athenians, and the Athenians, though never called daimones,are kinsmen of the gods and beneficent intermediaries between gods and men. On the other hand, the forces of evil in the Panathenaic are the forces of disorder and barbarism, especially from the East. "Angels" in section 80 were messengersof the Barbarian. The Christians claimed to have the Logos incarnate in Christ, the eikon. Aristides finds in the Athenians the eikon and standard that men should one could point to sections 9I, II6, 122, and other follow (section 274). For him the eikon is not an passages to illustrate the active role of Athens in individual but a community.19In section 33 it is establishing models of right conduct. In fact the said that when the Athenians had received the gifts polis of the Athenians appears throughout as the from the gods, they so well imitated the donors that mediator between gods and men, at least fromabove. they themselves became representatives of the gods Now in Homily XII St. Cyril of Alexandria says to the rest of mankind. An eikonis both an image of there is only one mediator (luo-trils) between God the unseen perfectionand a visible model for others.20 and men, namely Christ the Logos.17 Among the charges brought against Jews and the and Christians were was that of setting themselves apart from Christians Furthermore, Jews reason for the rest of the or wherever mankind. They were apostates,21 and reigned, Logos, claiming their own. Plato allegedly had learned from Moses, they were notorious for their odium humani generis, and so they annexed the best in Greek civilization. as Tacitus Annals XV 44, 5 says of the Christians. It was not just among Jews that one found the Aristides, on the other hand, praises the Athenian prehistory of Christianity but in Heraclitus and koinotes(i.e. their solidarity with other cities, even Socrates, and in all who partook of the Logos.l8 It more the communitasof Cicero, De Off. I 43) and was time to reassert the claim of the Hellenes to the their philanthropy or love of man. The two virtues Logos, and Aristides did so in a remarkablediscourse are coupled in section 4 and are illustrated throughresembling a new peplos for the old Athena. The out the discourse,philanthropiaexpressly in sections note is struck right at the beginning of the oration. 7, 8, 9, 44, 45, 54, 60, 62, 63, 66, 68, 69, 74, 122, I33, He uses the word in various meanings nine times in 200, and 218, koinotes by implication in sections 25, the brief space of sections 2 and 3, and then again 45, 54, 6o, 70, 149, and 252. Gylippus in the speech at the beginning of section 4, and twice again in given by Diodorus XIII 30, 6 refers sarcastically to section 5. For Justin Martyr Christianitysaved man Athenian claims of philanthropia; of course the from the daimones and all history was a struggle virtue is not brought into prominencefirst by Aelius between the forces of the Logos and the daimones Aristides, but Aristides does emphasize this aspect led by Satan. Aristides reverses the interpretation. of Athens and illustrates it again and again. Plutarch, Pelopidas 6, 5 said that the love of man was 17 Though neither author is cited by M. P. Nilsson, the in Athenians. Any late encomiast would refer innate reader will find much that is pertinent in the latter's to the famous philanthropiaof Athens, but various "The God and the Harvard Theoarticle, Mediator," High encomiasts would differ widely in frequency of logical Review 56 (I963): pp. IOI-I20. 18 Bengt Seeberg, "Die Geschichtstheorie Justins des mention. If Aristides chose to return again and Martyrers," Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 3te Folge, 58 again to this by no means new theme, he probably (I939): pp. i-8I calls attention to Ap. I 2, I 46, II io and did so because the old theme had achieved a new For other the Christian obsession with passages. many Athenian Empire, but for the permanent and ubiquitous Athenian Empire (of the logoi) for which men yearn (section 226) and which arose when the military and political hegemony passed away. In section 25 Attica appears as a first home of man. In section 42 Aristides claims that the gods chose the Athenians to be models for mankind and deposited in their keeping the seeds, not only of wheat and barley, but also of justice and of civilized life in general. In section 67 the old legend of the burial of the Seven against Thebes is retold as a great chapter in the moral education of mankind, and section 68 reads courage and philanthropy into her early legends as a whole. Perhaps the religiously colored section go with its emphasis on what the Battle of Marathon contributed to the ideals and development of Hellenism is the best example, but

history see also R. A. Markus, "Pleroma and Fulfillment: the Significance of History in St. Irenaeus' Opposition to Gnosticism,"

Vigiliae

Christianae

8 (I954):

pp. I93-224

and Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos: die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (= Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 30, Berlin, 1955).

19For the theme see the words KoIv6oand IroA6land their derivatives in the index. 20 Hans Willms, ElKcbv:Eine begriflsgeschichtlicheUntersuchung zum Platonismus (Miinster in Westphalia, I935). 21 E.g. Tertullian, Apol. 38: secessi de populo.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

VOL. 58, PT. I, I968]

37

interest, which some may find in the rising odium ism demandsthe attitude of free men. In Christianity boasters and frauds play their damnable game; in humani generis. The Jews sought a place of their own where there Hellenismprevailsthe lofty ethos of the responsibility would be only Jews. But Attica is a place for men which the blessingsof the past impose. Christianityis merelya degenerateand oppositeformof Hellenism,the to have as their own (section I5). in contrastto the True(Alethes)Logos. St. Paul22writes that the Jews ask for a sign and deceptiveLogos All this except for the last sentence would probthe Hellenes seek wisdom, and to both he offers Christ crucified, calling Him dynamis of God and ably represent the thought of Aristides. In section wisdom of God. Aristides may never have read the i66 he stresses the lofty ethosin the deeds of Athens. he regarded Hellenism, of which the Epistle to the Corinthians, but as we saw in the Certainly Athenians were the pure representatives, in the preceding chapter, he refers frequently to signs same that Celsus did. On the other hand, he way (symbola). The wisdom of the Athenians is praised Christianity as one more maniprobably regarded implicitly whenever the cardinal virtues are menfestation of Barbarism rather than as a degenerate tioned and explicitly in sections io8, 122 and 239. form of He Hellenism. may have heard Christians Aristides finds the dynamis and sophia of the gods Graecos29f. and 35 openly like who Contra Tatian, as as far men residing in the city of the Athenians, a for the dogmata of the expressed preference can participate. In a chapter dealing with Hellenism in opposition Barbarians against the paideiaof the Hellenes. And to Christianitya word must be said about similarities is the contrast of the AlethesLogos, which Aristides in a contemporary of Aristides, namely Celsus who too seeks to unveil, anything more than alogia? The encounter with Christianity, says Andresen, attacked the Christians on philosophical and histo have awakened in Celsus a new question, seems torical grounds in a work called The True Logos.23 the religious meaning of history.25 The religious Celsus was another Platonist with affinities to Albinus. He too lived in the time of Marcus Aurelius interpretation of history may not have been new, and seems to have written his work in the 'seventies, but a new interest in the religious interpretation appears in prose first in St. Justin's work sometime perhaps between A.D. 177 and I80. between I50 and I6I. There is no verbal echo of To explain the thought of Celsus, Andresen says, either in the extant fragments of "Christianity is the world without Logos." This Justin's Apologia Andresen Celsus admits) or in the Panathenaic (as would probably explain the thought of Aristides Aelius Aristides Oration of (where you would not too. In fact there would be much in common behind but where I have it searched anyway). Yet the historical view of Aristides and that of Celsus. expect have it Christians well raised first though it the may Although the intellectual power of late Hellenism a natural for the was development theology of under a new challenge in the Age of the Antonines in was Middle which St. trained. Platonism, Justin in his might be quite as remarkable as Andresen in in the Panathenaic Oration It next appears prose of Celsus admirablestudy infers, the originality may be less than Andresen claims, because Aristides of Aelius Aristides sometime between A.D. 165 and Then it appears for a third time, in Celsus, preceded Celsus, and others, though no one who 167. between A.D. I70 and I80. as Aristides. it well, probably preceded expressed The danger of apostasy, by which we mean The passage from Andresen,24however, deserves to be cited in full both because of its own value as a heterodoxy (e.g. Cynicism) or conversion to an clarification of Celsus and because it brings out a oriental religion, was only one aspect of barbarization. The Persian menace still seemed to have different emphasis: actuality because the Parthians remained a great Christianity is the world without Logos; Hellenism power and because many Greek communities is the world of the True (Aldthes)Logos. Christianity is established in the days of the imperium Macedonithe trap of the stupid and uneducated; in Hellenism the high ideal of Paideia fulfills itself. Christianity cum remained "enslaved" to the Parthians in the reveals the base manner in which slaves think; Hellen- time of the imperiumRomanum.To a certain degree the Arsacids and later the Sassanians courted the 22 I Corinthians I: 22-24. Greeks. The Res Gestae Divi Saporis after the 23 For the problems see Origen, Contra Celsum, translated of 260 were published in Greek as well as in with an introduction and notes by Henry Chadwick, victory Aramaic and Middle Persian.26 (Cambridge University Press, 1953), a book remarkable for the high quality of the translation, the erudition and good judgment of the exegesis. 24 Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (= Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte

XXX,

Berlin, I955), p. I83.

25 Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos, pp. 292-372. 26 E. and A. Recherchessur les

Res Honigmann Maricq, Gestaedivi Saporis (= Memoiresde l'Acad6mieRoyale de Belgique [Lettres], 47/4, I953). See also A. Maricq, "Res Gestae divi Saporis," Syria 35 (I958): pp. 295-360.

38

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

There can be no doubt where the sympathies of men like Aristides lay at the time of a war between the Romans and the Parthians. He visualized the Romans as champions of freedom and order; the Parthians are of course not mentioned but present to his thought when he equates the Persians with the forces of evil, destruction and despotism. Aristides' attitude toward the Roman Empire remains in the Panathenaic (section 234) essentially what it was in the Roman Oration of his youth. The Roman Empire protects Hellenism and permits the spread of Hellenic civilization in all directions. Romanizationis not itself civilization but security.27 The center and ancient core of true civilization lies at Athens. The basically Attic idiom in which MarcusAurelius wrote his Meditationswas the common language of higher education everywhere except in the law schools. The third aspect was the increasing employment of barbarians in the army. As we look back on the third, fourth, and fifth centuries after Christ, we are appalled at the barbarization of the Roman army. One can say that Augustus himself took the first step; Hadrian advanced further; even Marcus Aurelius can be considered to have established a precedent for policies which in the third century proved disastrous. But certainly Aristides displays no awareness of this particular danger. In fact the system established by Hadrian never needed to lead to the barbarization and alienation of the Roman army into mercenariesseparate from the population. It is not that Aristides failed to realize the danger at the time of the Roman Oration when he praised the Hadrianic system, which he saw as resting on the enlistment of boys from civic communities, or in the Panathenaic when he approved the Roman protection. The danger did not yet exist despite a rare precedent or two for later developments. The danger did not exist because there were plenty of inhabitants who could be attracted by more than the pay. The danger arose with Caracalla'sgrant of citizenship to all inhabitants, because the system envisaged by Hadrian would no longer function as in the past, and more and more reliance had to be placed on barbarian mercenariesboth because of a manpower shortage and because better recruits from the empire were no longer attracted by an ambition to earn Roman citizenship. 27That is not unfair to Rome. See Erich Swoboda, "Zur Frage der Romanisierung: Aen. VI 851f.," Wiener Anzeiger 1963: pp. I53-173.

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

V. COSMICTHEMES i. ATHENS BETWEEN THE PHYSIS OF MAN AND THE COMMON PHYSIS OF THE ALL

Having shown that with references to symbola and aldtheiaAristides operatedin the tradition of Pythagorasand of those who explained the true meaning of Homer, we may now comparehis praise of Athens with the rehabilitation of Helen by Stesichorus and Pythagorean interpreters. The Helen story was explained as revolving around the aCTrr(the true Helen) and the ESco?Aov (the mere image of Helen).1 Aristides, whose referencesare not without purpose, refers to the two Helens in the important section I02. Just as Paris never obtained the true Helen, so Xerxes never obtained the true city of the Athenians. The Persians, as they first crossed the Aegean, are said (section 83) to have sung a kind of prooemium,but after Salamis Xerxes sang a palinode (section 127). According to the rhetor Menander, De encomiis414, I65 f. some said that Helen as well as the Dioscuri and Heracles lived in communion with the gods, oUrroKoairl v 'EAv, OUTOrc Kal TOaS Kai TOV 'HpacwIa 'youcnv o'uvnroXIAlooxKovpou 'TrV Ecov,where the key word "live in IETra TEIEeOOal

communionwith" is sympoliteuesthai.Aristides also refers to the Dioscuri and Heracles in section 258, and in section 48 Aristides explains that Athens knew enough to grant Heracles divine honors because she was living in communion (sympoliteuomene) with the gods. We need not overstress this coloring, but we should not overlook it either. In section 274 Aristides concludes his praise of Athens by calling the city of the Athenians strikingly "a visible image for, and standard of, the human physis,"

TfiS 90CEcoS TrfiSa vpcorriaS

FIK6va KaCi pov

It is a horosin several senses, primarily a standard which shows what human society can do and become. It is an eik6n,a visible image of the intelligible or of a different physis, so that it serves as a model for the physis of mankind. In section 70 Aristides notes the raids of the unnatural Amazons and that at last the Athenians stopped them: "So here too the city went to the aid of the common

physis,"

ipoir&nl

r KOti9-paEft. Trf

What is "the common physis ?" Does it mean "the Hellenes" as in the famous phrase of Isocrates IV 50, "she has made the name Hellenes seem no longer that of the race but of the mind and has caused those who partake of our training to be called Hellenes rather than those who partake of the 1

M. Detienne, "La 16gende pythagoricienne d'H61lne,"

Revue de l'histoire des religions

152 (I957):

pp. 129-152;

Furio Jesi, "Aspetti Isfaci di Elena nell'apologetica pitagorica," Aegyptus 41 (196I): pp. I41-I59.

VOL. 58, PT. I, 1968]

39

GENERAL DISCUSSION

common origin" (physis)? Reiske thought so, but we need not assume this meaning in view of the orator's date and independence. It can be the cosmic physis of the world order, the great physis of cooperatingNature. Or should we say, the orderly life of human society as part of the order of the universe ? It means to Stoics the common Nature of the All. Or is it what Cicero, De Of. I 50 calls a naturalissocietas,into whichthe Logosbinds all men ? Human society may constitute a second cosmos located in the Sensible World. A group of founders or archegetaideveloped human culture. While the Jews may have thought of their own patriarchs, many Greeksand Romans assigned the credit to the Athenians, and the success of Aristides in treating this theme lies in the skill with which he interweaves Eleusinian religious myths, Platonism, the words of Isocrates, and Stoic theories of the societashumana. Justinian's Digest I I, 3 states that cum inter nos cognationemquandam natura constituit, consequens est hominemhomini insidiari nefas est. The reference to nature is a referenceto the right order of things, the basic principles of human society. Which takes us back to Cicero, De Officiis I 50: quae naturae principia sint communitatis et societatis humanae, repetendumvideturaltius. That is to say, Cicerowill seek to uncover the basic principles which nature has established for the communitas et societas humana. Cicero often uses the words communitas, communishominumusus (utilitas), and in III 2I he says that the humani generis societas is that quae maxime est secundum naturam, while in I 50, he uses the phrase naturali quadam societate.Thus a connection exists between nature and the communitas et societashumana (hominum). Cicero, De Off. I 53, furthermore,divides human society into degrees. There is an undifferentiated (illa infinita) societashominum.Within this we have a closer circle, gentis, nationis, linguae. Within this we have a still closer circle, the civitas. A still narrowercircle is that of the societaspropinquorum. He does not actually use the word "circle," but he thinks in terms of cosmic zones when he says: Artior verocolligatioest societaspropinquorum;ab illa enim immensa societatehumani generis in exiguum angustumqueconcluditur. Philo thinks of God bringing archetypal ideas together in an archetypal cosmos which was the Logos. "These archetypal ideas were also seminal powers with creative energy and the Logos differentiated itself into the seminal logoi or creative principles in things."2 Between earthly men and

God, between the Sensible and the Intelligible World, there are human intermediaries, the Patriarchs, who are manifestations of the divine Logos, true sons of God. The Patriarchs, whom Philo calls archegetai,protect and save. They have conversed with God Himself and they carry in themselves patterns of the law. In De AbrahamoXI 54 Philo refers to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as "a royal priesthood and holy group" (paciXElovipaTrrEuaKal gevosayiov). He also says they are ostensibly men but in fact virtues-nature, learning, practicewhich men call by another name, Graces, because they also are three special gifts (xaprtaSioapieOouS). Aristides would have no part of this or any Jewish or Christian theology. It is the Athenians who are human intermediaries. Just as a certain kinship with the cosmic Nature, according to Pseudo-Longinus,3gives us our feeling for the great and the sublime in the nature around us and in the logoswhich is literature, so too we are drawn to the greatness of a world order. The Athenians who participate more directly are like the great writers and the logioi anthropoiin bringing forth the logoi and uniting the race of men with the cosmic order. The Athenians constitute the nodal point between the common nature of the All and the nature of all mankind. Being in communionwith the gods (section 48) the Athenians participate in both divine and human nature, to raise the nature of mankind toward the divine nature. In section I86 the nature of Athens is contrasted with the nature of all mankind. Discussing the dissension between the men of the Piraeus and the men of the Town, Aristides mentions the concord and amnesty which followed. He comments, "While the city fell ill by the nature of all mankind, she was cured by her own nature." The bodies of the Seven against Thebes were cast out. In section 67 Aristides refers to the Athenian action in burying the dead as "a work of this city which, as the story is told, the Athenians of that time performedin behalf of the Argives but which in a deeper sense and in the form of the benefaction was accomplished for the good of all the human T1ar SEc1pycoiaS 65 a'&iOdC Kai TCra oXq-aTir race," Tr

at 522.

of Charles P. Segal, HSCIPh 64, (I959): pp. I34-136.

UrrEpTris lpioE'coS&rraCS T'rS

avepco-TEaoIS KaTrETpaxer.

In section 220 Aristides asks:

When we do not denounce the sun and moon for the harm which they do, but admire them for the benefits they produce, shall we judge the city on the basis of her collisions with some few? Shall we not judge her rather on the basis of the cooperation she has given to all and from the standpoint of the world as a whole ? 2 W. Richardson, "The Philonic Patriarchs as N6(IoS 3 Studia Patristica 1 pp. 'EpivXoS," 515-525 "Longinus,"On the Sublime35 with the commentary (Berlin, I957):

40

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

[TRANS.AMER. PHIL. SOC.

The last phrase KxT'i 6SprsqpcaEcos means "from the standpoint of society as a whole" but retains cosmological echoes. The famous koinotes of the Athenians used to mean a feeling for the community or common culture of the Hellenes. Aristides still may use the word koinos in that sense as in section 90 where he argues that, if Athens had not given the glorious example of success in the Battle of Marathon, "all would have been lost, persons and deeds and traditions and the things which all of this race (or 'all of this kind of training')4naturally consider their own"

the arts. This last becomes all the more significant when the reader remembers that Aristotle, De gen. et corr. II 32ga criticized Plato for not making any use of the third factor.

(r& KOtV& TfjS (pOcsos). But again in section

pages 400-40I Armstrong says:

IIo

2. PRINCIPIA (ARCHAI)

A. H. Armstrong5 in an article on "The Background of the Doctrine 'That the Intelligibles are not Outside the Intellect"' points out that Plotinus' doctrine of the unity of the Intellect (Nous) and the Intelligibles (Noeta) is not really "demiurgic." On

Aristides says that the Athenians would have been Intellect in his (Plotinus) system is not directly justified if they had told the other Greeks before responsiblefor the formationof the visible world;the Salamis, "The things which all men in common powerswhich are, Soul or Logos,though they are and T-rfS naturally consider their own (Ta KOIVaO &cvpcoTrn?cas containlogoifromthe intelligibleworld,are other than (9eos) have been relinquished by us for your and dependenton their intelligiblemodelin very much sake." Aristides, however, gives a new dimension to the same way that the Demiurgeof the Timaeusas the koinotesof the Athenians when he ties it to the interpretedby Cornfordis other than and dependent Nature of the All. upon his intelligiblemodel. Intellect is certainlycalled In conclusion,there are three physeis:the common "the true demiurge and maker" ..., but it is so as providing Soul with the logoi which are the physis of the All, the emotional and yet in various only of sensible things, not as making the universe forms degrees educatable physis of all mankind, and bedirectly. tween them a physis of reasonable and consistent men in communionwith the gods. This intermediary Armstrongpresently goes on to note that in Albinus' physis (of the Athenians) makes their city the Epitome we meet for the first time with Aristotle's medium through which the seminal logoi reach all doctrine of divine nous introduced into Platonism mankind, for while the Logos or divine Nous mani- and furthermore with a critical rethinking of that fests itself in the common Nature of the All, the doctrine on Platonic lines. This argument generally logoi, which are humanly possible participations in satisfies unless one claims that the divine nous the undifferentiated Logos, manifest themselves in seems to appear even in Plato, Timaeus 5id-e. the nature and power, first of the Athenians, then At Athens, on the other hand, the leading Plaof those who study and imitate the Athenians. tonists, Taurus and Atticus, repudiated the AristoThe cosmos of human society, what Cicero calls telianization of Platonism and combatted Peripatethe humani generis societas quae maxime est secun- tic influence within Platonism. They attached great dum naturam,ought to be part of the universal cos- importance to pronoia (divine providence). Like mos. Plato, Cratylus 386e said that all praxeis Plutarch they assigned the creation of the cosmos should be carried out in accord with nature. directly to God. The differences,not always clear to In the coming to be or genesis of the cosmos of us, should not obscure the fact that both groups, human society there are for Aristides three factors being Platonist, argued in much the same terms, so as in the genesis of the universe accordingto Plato's that the logoi and the archai (principia) would be Timaeus. The Artisans (the gods) represent one familiar to anyone with any pretense to paideia, i.e. factor, and the raw human material of all mankind, Greek culture in general. From the earliest days of Middle Platonism, three the stuff they have to mold, is another. There is a the of third the again factor, omnirecipient city principia were recognized: namely, the Demiurge; Athenians which the gods have been using as the secondly, the Paradeigma or Ideal Model; and perfect model or definition to teach men justice and thirdly, Physis or Matter. Of course, in the Timaeus 41 the Demiurge, who gives an impulse with a 4 If we agree that Isocrates IV 50 was redefining Hellenplanting of seeds, assigns the actual creation to the ism in substituting the criterion of a sharing in Athenian lesser gods. Now in the second century after Christ, paideia for a sharing in the common origin, we may (but while the Athenian School, or Atticus at least, tendneed not) infer that while Isocrates contrasted physis and ed to reducethe importanceof the secondprincipium paideia, Aristides paradoxically identified them. Physis means either physical or spiritual growth from a starting point.

5 Entretiens Hardt 5 (I960): pp. 39I-425.

VOL. 58, PT. I, 1968]

GENERAL DISCUSSION

41

and 122 of the Panathenaic, upon the disappearance of the Athenians in section I02 and elsewhere, while in sections I49-I50 the Athenians are perpetually appearing and vanishing. For number 3 we may read Attica, the ch6raof section ii. Aristides has next in mind the comparison of and with its genesis with procreationin the Timaeus5oc-d: "that demiurgic power (2) (I) the paradeigma the ch6ra,for he probably had no dogmatic commit- which becomes" (= the offspring),"that in which it ments beyond a general or neutral Middle Platonism becomes" (= the mother), and "the model in whose likeness that which becomes is born" (= the father). in the direction of Albinus. From this point of view the city of the Athenians backbest to the would be it represent Perhaps a as follows. He his of may be visualized as offspring of the Logos from recognizes thought ground division into the Intelligible and Visible Worlds. He Mother Attica. Sections 25-30 dwell on Attica as starts with Plato, Timaeus 41, where the greatest mother and nurse. But the process of procreation is not limited to god assigns tasks of creation to the lesser gods, and one generation. The offspring in its turn becomes then 52a: We must agree that there is, first, the unchanging another father.9 Also the number 2 which was an Form, ungenerating and indestructible, which neither eikon of the original number i becomes in turn a receives anything else into itself from elsewhere nor model to be imitated further. Thus the city of the itself enters into anything else anywhere, invisible and Athenians becomes a new (but human) number I otherwise imperceptible; that in fact which noesis has and begets its own offspringfrom another chora,the for its object. Ionia of sections 57-58, which Aristides in the traSecond is that which bears the same name and is like dition of Theophrastus (vide infra) calls an underthat Form; is sensible; is brought into existence; is substrate. With further genesis the Ionians lying perpetually in motion, coming to be in a certain place imitate their parent and beget another generation, and againvanishingout of it; and is to be apprehended "the children of your children," in another ch6ra, by belief involving perception. TobB 6 pcbvupov6(poi6v the of the Mediterranean receptacle (8EX6oievov) 'TE KEiVcpSEvrEpov, clorr6v, yEvvarr6v, yTrEopri1pvov is Basin. The word 5EX6o1eVovthe very word with TrEgv TriVt I TOr Kai wr&aXvEKETI1e aEi, yiyv6opvv which Timaeus 5od paraphraseschora. Plato, 8?566S pTr' aciOq'aEcoS rrEpitXTirr-rv. TrrOXAXipevov, Third, there is that which in each case we must Furthermore, Aristides remembers that Plato, distinguish as ch6ra (= country or place), not admitting Timaeus 5oa described his chora as a "mother and destruction, and providing a situation for all things that receiver" (ilTropaKaiCrrro86oxv) but insisted that come into being, but itself apprehendedwithout the it was neither earth nor air nor fire nor water and senses by a sort of bastard reasoning, and hardy credible. added a description of it as invisible but omnire(Cornford'stranslation reworded.) Aristides finds his chora, on the contrary, cipient. For number I, as reflected in the Panathenaic very visible, but it too is omnirecipient and he can Discourse, we may read perhaps the Logos re- refer to its rroSoxhiKai rrapauevia (section 46). presented by Athena8; for number 2 we may read Above all, Plato's assertion that it is neither earth the city of the Athenians and of the logoi. At least nor air nor fire nor water causes Aristides to assert there is an emphasis upon the name in sections 40 of his ch6ra that it is neither north nor south nor east nor west (section I9), because he needs to 6 H. Dorrie, "Die Frage nach dem Transzendentenim claim land, sea, air, and gleaming aether to perMittelplatonismus," Entretiens Hardt 5 (I96o): pp. I98fection for Attica, and perhaps also because Ari241, especially p. 208. stotle, De gen. et corr. 329a criticized Plato's refer7 E. R. Dodds, "Numenius and Ammonius," Entretiens ence to the elements. Hardt 5 (I960): pp. I-6i. Particularly happy is his emendaIf the reader objects to the ambivalence of tion of Numenius, fr. 25 Leemans: 6 SErreposacroroETroiT Trfv -rE t8kaV oarroU Kia T6rv K6aClOV,?ird a' (lrreTa codd.) Athens as female but also male, he may find it in 6Acos. Oecop^lTrKO accord with syncretistic beliefs of the period. In 8 One should approach the cosmos visualized in the section 62 Aristides actually likens Athens to the Panathenaic from the cosmos visualized in the Hymn to ambivalent Dionysus whom in his Hymn to DionyAthena, recently studied in a good article by F. W. Lenz, "Der Athenahymnos des Aristeides," Rivista di Cultura sus he praises as male and female. In fact, he has Classica e Medioevale 5 (I963, published in I964): pp. 329also Aion in mind. by subordinating it, Albinus6 and Numenius7 increased the importance of the second principium by withdrawing demiurgic functions from the first and adding them in a sense to the second principium. Accordingly when Aristides contemplated the physical world of phenomena, he saw just two principia,

347. Zeus begets Athena out of his own head. Athena is the perfect image of her father. Both in and out of the head of Zeus she is the Logos. She causes the other gods to be functions of the one greatest god Zeus.

9 It is worth mentioning that Numenius refers to the first principium as the grandfather and to the third principium as the descendant.

42

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

To return to the archai, one might say that Aristides uses the three principia (&pxai)and makes the city of the Athenians the second principium, i.e. the Paradeigma or Ideal Model, to which he, like Albinus and Numenius, assigns demiurgic functions (in section 57 and passim). Theophrastus, according to a writer of the sixth century after Christ,l0said: Platoappliedhimselfalsoto the phenomena,engaging inthe investigationof nature(physis); herehe choosesto maketwoprincipia,the oneunderlyingas a materialsubstratewhich he calls omnirecipient,the otheras a cause andmoverwhich he invests with the powerof the god andof the good. Aristides was familiar with the language in which many students, beginning with Aristotle and Theophrastus, had tried to explain or reject Plato's views. So with this controversy in mind, he isolated two principia of a secondary cosmos, the one underlying as a material substrate, the other a cause in the persons of logioi anthropoi. In fact the phrase "image and standard" (eiK6vaKaIopov)11applied in section 274 to the city of the Athenians comes very close to the phrase "cause and mover" (alriov Kai KtvoUv)which Theophrastus used. We could representthe three primary factors and the generations of two secondary principia in the genesis of the cosmos of human society as follows: Logos - Ch6raAttica

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

Hymn to Mary as chlral3and mother of God, down to the mosaics in the church of the monastery of the Chora at Constantinople where the Holy Virgin is called ch6ra4and mother of God (representedas the Logos: see fig. 2).15

Or we may prefer to speak of physis inhabiting ch6rain the Timaeus, and we may certainly claim (see sections 26-28) that the inhabitants of the choraAttica in the Panathenaic Discourse of Aristides represent the anthropeia physis in its purest form.Sincethe PanathenaicDiscoursewas recognized as a model encomium by the rhetor Menanderin the third century, it is not unlikely that St. Cyril of Alexandria, who thought of the Virgin Mary as representing the anthropeia physis in its purest form, drew on a philosophical and rhetorical tradition which passed through Aristides himself, not just his Platonizing contemporaries,when Cyril composed his encomium and called her the little ch8ra and mother of God. In one case the Logos, in the other the logoi, are passed on.

Perhaps we may say that while in the Roman OrationAristides praised the eros of Rome (a desire to beget blessings in others), in the Panathenaic Discourse he praise the dynamis of the Athenians, who are the originallogioi anthropoi,and so an archei. The word arche, meaning, as it does, "empire," "starting-point,"etc. offersrhetoricalopportunities. The archai of which Aristides speaks gradually become the Athenian Empire of the fifth century and Logioianthr6poi -Chora Ionia at last in the climax of section 227 the second Basin arche, the true domain of Athens, the area of the Logioianthropoi-- ChoraMediterranean logoi in various meanings (speech, reason, literaLogioianthr6poithird generation ture, stories that produce noble traditions). But There is a line leading from Plato's description long before he reaches these heights, he draws of the third factor as chdraand mother, through the attention to the words logos and arche by using description of Attica as ch6ra and mother in the them with quite unnecessary and hence significant Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides, probably insistence in other senses. The word archeoccurs in through the Encomium of Mary as chdrion and 13 of Egon Wellesz, The Akathistos Hymn (= Monumother of the God Logos composed by Cyril of mentaText Musicae Byzantinae, Transcripta, IX, Copenhagen, Alexandria12(A.D. 376-444), through the Acathistus p. LXXV, XV, line 8: Xaipe, eEoo dXcopflTOU Xcbpa. 1957),

This line occurs in the oldest part of the hymn, and if Wellesz, "The Akathistos: A Study in Byzantine Hymnop. 26, 7-I2 (= Diels, Doxographi Graeci, pp. 484-5): TrriScoKEv graphy," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9-10 (1956): pp. 143-174, 6 piVTrot eE6qpaa-ros ... 9pioaiv ... lTTArcov ... evo TS rr pi (p9IEcS KaiT-rS aovarr6v ae-toropiaS' is right, the author may well have been, nay, must have o9axvopivoIS &6I.VOSi &TSUriv v Ai86o Tr&s&pX(s po*AETal been, Romanos himself in the early sixth century. These 'rroletv, Tr6ijv ITrOKEiEVOov 6 rrpoaayopel1t WaV85EXeS, TO 6 bs csTT-rov Kal KIVOiV6 TrEpl&1T- studies by Wellesz were called to my attention by Professor Paul A. Underwood. Very interesting are lines I6-17 rEtTO To OeouKal Tri Toi d&yaeo:8U6vvd.E.. 11 Among the reasons why Aristides calls Athens a horos in Stanza XVII: "Hail thou who dissolvest the word-webs Stiaxrrroaa. of the Athenians," xaIPE,-rTv 'AOrvaiov T&STrrOK&S may be the influence of Plato, Timaeus 5Id, where Plato 14 'H Xcbpa TOO &X(opfiTou, reflecting Cyril's phrase, r6 says, "If only some great horos were to appear clearly more than the Akathistos Hymn. defined in a few lines, that would best suit the occasion." XcopiovTOOdXopfiTOU, 15 For the mosaics see Paul A. Underwood, The Kariye 12 Homily XI, Patrol. Gr. LXXVII I032 D: Xaipols, i TbV iOV Voyevf ?E6v A6yov Djami 1 (New York, I966), pp. 40-41,who kindly gave me the Mapia, T6 Xcopiov ToO d&XcopprTOV, Xcopfiacao.Every educated man of the fourth century had at illustration. Harry Bober in a lecture delivered in Decemleast a second-hand acquaintance with Plato and Aelius ber, I964, at the Johns Hopkins University spoke on figures similar to that of the Christ Child in the mandorla as repAristides. St. Cyril may have deliberately substituted ch6rion for ch6ra in order to escape the pagan evocation. resenting the Logos. 10 Simplicius, In Aris. Phys. Libr. Quattuor Pr. Comm.,

FIG. I. Philosophy

and Its Three Parts.

Bibliotheque municipale de Reims, MS. 23, fol. 25.

FIG. 2. The Ch6ra and Mother of the Logos. Byzantine mosaic in the Kariye Djami at Constantinople. Courtesy of Professor Paul A. Underwood.

.i r A 6' Ev TroS OpEra boundary walls,"'rTv Trv petvoyaia TOIS 7TEptiXO1ucv corTTEpa\XoiS 6pfolS 8ietIrlPEvcov.

Reiske pointed out that &a7Xoiwas suspect. The

passage perhaps reflects Parmenides on the visible world, and a source of the account by Aetius of what Parmenides means (A 37): Kai TO TrrepiXov68 aoepEOV If UOTrapXEtv. Traaas (all zones) TEiXOUSSfiKqV there is a connection between v Tri pecoyaia (Arisc tides) and ?v ocp (Parmenides), between ?rEpi?-

Xouclv (Aristides) and 'rrEpixov(Aetius), then perhaps there is a connection between the suspect a7Xoti (Aristides) and ETraXXlXiouS (Parmenides), perhaps the corrupt a&Xoisshould be emended to or 6Ao (Mediterranean) basin," cEKTEvov-rES Ti pTrpov To oTrav TO ri S 'EAX68os ECOAS ETrf11ipoCoacv

Instead of cbaorrior cbaoTr'manuscripts 6EX6OPEvov.

read C;a)crep,which would have been a familiar combination. By itself it was a plausible reading, but in the context it makes no sense. The correct reading is suggested by the Middle Platonist Albinus, Epitome (ed. Louis) IV 8: p. I56 Hermann: avcaqppovTr Erri Tas spuaiKaSEVVOias dCS CE 'i"iETpa rtvva

It is significant that Albinus, cbpioauva,KpiVOpEV. Epitome IX, calls the Idea a metron. The word 8EX6oEvov suggests a receptacle like a basin, and the Greek expansion is presently defined by Gades and Lake Maeotis as the furthest limits. Aristides is thinking in terms which go back to the receptacle and cosmos of the Timaeus 49-50 and passim.

110

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

"At both ends of the earth there dwell children of your children, for some have moved all the way to Gades from Massalia." There is no reference to a Greekcommunity at Gades (= Cadiz)in the rest of our extant sources, but in the Roman Period many Greeks settled in all the coastal towns of Spain, so there is nothing surprisingin the presence of Greeks in Spain's foremost commercialcity. Aristides does not pretend that the community dates from the days of the Phocaean thalassocracy. It is a community which may date from any period after 206 B.C.when Gadesjoined the Romans. It is, however, interesting that the Greekcommunity of Gades is visualized as of Massaliote rather than Italiote, Sicilian or Eastern origin. The question arises whether this interesting comment goes back to an earlier literary source. Asclepiades of Myrlea or Posidonius or someone else may have inspired this comment. Did Aristides here with his sweep from Gades to the Tanais and Lake Maeotis reply to the proud statement of Augustus, Res Gestae 26, that he had pacified the provinces from Gades to the mouth of the Elbe? Or was Augustus replying to a Greek predecessor of Aristides? For the expression "childrenof your children"compare Herodotus VII ga where Mardoniussays of the Greeks "we hold their children after having subdued them, namely those who have settled in our continent and are called Ionians and Aeolians and Dorians." T. Pekary, Mitteilungendes DeutschenArchdologischen Instituts in Istanbul 15 (I965): p. I22, publishes an inscription of the time of Commodus, wherein Miletusis describedas mother of cities in many parts of the oikoumene. "Allotmentsalong the Tanais and Lake Maeotis." See M. Rostovtzeff, "South Russia in the Prehistoric and Classical Period," AHR 26 (I92I): pp. 203-224 and H. Bengtson, Gr. Geschichte2(Munich, I960), p. 95f. Strabo VII 4, 5 (= C. 3I0) mentions the emporium of Tanais. "I have to laugh." Herodotus IV 36, 2.

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

means a nobility in helping others to bear bad fortune. See R. A. Gauthier, Magnanimite:l'ideal de la grandeur dans la philosophie paienne et dans la theologiechretienne(Paris, I95I). 60. "Bestowed gifts of land and a share in laws and civic life," PE-raSoioaa XcbpasKalv6ocovKai-rro?lIn V Herodotus TEraS. 57, Thucydides I 26, and Solon a in civic life may imply share Plutarch, 24, lands and laws. The tricolon is rhetorical. "To use this surplus population in the interest of Hellas," rmepT-riS'EXA8aosXpfioial T-r Tr?EovrKTriIraTi.For XpfiaOatcompareHerodotus II Io8 where

Sesostris "used"the people whom he captured to construct canals, etc. "Of greater philanthropy and distinction," (ptiavepcOT-rrEpov ... Xaiprrpo6rpov. For the distinction of

Athenian policy see the third speech of Pericles in Thucydides II 64, 5. "She ... never failed to do what was proper in the crises of both situations," Kai -r&rrprrovra&caTEpoiSTrot KatpoTSiTfiprlaEv. Her actions were guided

not by passion but by reason (logos). Contrast the specious arguments (prophaseis alogous) of those whose behavior was guided not by reason but by passions, whom Polybius III 15, 9 calls "those who disregard that which is proper because they are prepossessed by passion" (oi Sia TraSrrpoEyKaOlmivaS acOTOIS6ptUas 6Xtycopo0ivTrsTO Ka6c1KovroS). See

also Gorgias, Epitaph, fr. 6 Diels-Kranz, TOCrOV a KOI6TaTOVV6pov, rO8ov iv Kai EIOTaTOV volUilovTrrEs

TC tovrn Kai AEyEI Kal aIYCaV.

"Then and then only she mustered them and sent them forth, appointing leaders for them individually, inasmuch as she herself had become a common leader and protector of them all, and she joined with them people of her own," oOrrcosfi8r 61eK6O(7atKal WTpoT7rWI.Trev, 'a&orois qptorraTE? lyEp?6vaS

aa, CSrorEp acrrh oaunrrcvTrcov fiyecva Kal9OXaalyFy6VEI KOtVi,Kai Etbuv OiKoOEV Twapal[Eyvaca. Isocrates

Panegyricus 35 said that the Athenians sent out to the cities leaders (fiyeovaS) who took those most "The many other much larger cities of today." in need of a livelihood and who, having become their Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage come im- military commanders and having conquered with them the barbarians, founded many cities on each mediately to mind. 59. "Consistency" (ouvvXeia)suggests fi0os which continent. Whereas Isocrates uses the story of the the ancients derived from e0oS(see commentary on colonization of Ionia for a propagandistic purpose, the consistently behaved city of the Athenians in i.e., he praises the Panhellenism of the Athenians section 213), but also the sameness of the soul (cf. to encourage the Hellenes to unite around Athens Ph. Merlan, From Platonism to Neoplatonism [The for the invasion of Asia Minor,Aristides praises the Hague, 1953], ch. II). On consistency see also foresight, the philanthropiaand brilliant success of section 6I. the Athenians in order to show at the end that the here Athenians are, as it were, an image of the gods. "Nobility of her great spirit," peuyaAoyuXia, seems to mean something different from Pseudo- Aristides may reflect also the version of Thucydides Aristotle's definition of megalopsychiaas the ability I 2, 6 on the colonization of Ionia as having two to bear good fortune and bad fortune well. It stages (migration to Attica and emigration) and as

VOL. 58, PT. I, I968]

COMMENTARY

having a double origin, partly non-Athenian and partly Athenian. Isocrates says nothing about Athenian emigrants. Nor does Isocrates explain the leaders (iyEP6oves),which E. Buchner in his com-

111

Cyrene (IX) says &AX'aO'rS &yilpaos | Ai&v 6 TraXalyevril, I vo cov a&ia Kal y?pcov. Herodotus II I45

points out that Dionysus was the youngest of the gods, in saying that among the Hellenes Heracles, Einzelschrift 2 Dionysus and Pan were consideredyoungest, where[I958]: p. 49) mentary (Historia, thinks are a transference to Athens of what Thucy- as among the Egyptians Dionysus alone of these dides I 4 says about the thalassocracy of Minos. It three was thought to belong to a youngest generis true that Isocrates goes on to say they colonized ation. The influence of Plato's Symposium on the all the islands, and that Thucydides attributes to Hymn to Dionysus has been noted also by Wilfried the sons of Minos the colonization of some of the Uerschels, Der Dionysoshymnos des Ailios Aristeides Cyclades. It might be more exact to say that Iso- (Diss. Bonn, I962), pp. 8if. and 113f., n. 246, who crates exaggerated the historia fabularis of the says that in Symposium I78c Phaedrus calls Dionycolonization of the Ionian islands in the West and sus "oldest," and that Agathon "in Entgegnung auf of Ionia in the East by adding the Thucydidean die Phaidrosrede" calls him "youngest of gods." account of the colonization of the Cyclades by Uerschelsleaves the question open whetherAristides Minosand his sons, or rather that Isocrates selected called Dionysus "oldest" on purely hymnodic the most suitable legends with or without borrowing grounds or because of Plato's Symposium.Uerschels from Thucydides' account of an hits the nail on the head by saying that the age of the word 'yEo6ovEs unsuitable legend. Dionysus is part of the androgynousgod's ambivaThe of lence accordingto Aristides. Smyrna too became old 61. "Consistent," ouvvxfV. consistency and young (Aristides XX Keil I9). See also Fr. Athenian policy is extolled by Isocrates XII I96r the Achaean toward of The Matz, "AtovuaiaKi TeAXE'," Abhandlungen Mainz, policy consistency I98. Hellenes is extolled by Polybius II 42. The con- I963, Nr. 5, pp. I420-I427, with references to sistency (cauvEXela)of Athenian policy appears in Nilsson and others. section 59, also in section 60 on their unfailing habit "Maintainingalso here the proper course as these KaV of doing the right thing. See the commentary on situations arose one after the other," acjblovrEs section 213, where Athens will be called fa KTr' 'OoS TOiTOISTO 'rpoafiKov ?EEfTS.The comment reflects a desire to show that the Athenians are truly Athena's Trr67As.

"The city's concernforthe Hellenes," i rf'roescoS TS

irrrp -rCv 'EAXivcov irp6voia. Those interested in

the deliberate coloring with philosophical terms may compare the pronoia or providentia of God, the second god, of OE6S, particularly the E'rroupavios Albinus. 62. "Oldbut also young as men describeDionysus." TOv Al6vuvov ypaThe manuscripts read KacOrrEp

men. According to one etymology (see Democritus of Abdera, 68 B 2 Diels-Kranz) Athena was called Tritogeneiabecause the name impliedgoodplanning, perfect speech, and ability to do just the right thing in every situation. Other reflections of the last occur in sections 60 and 253. In Thucydides I 43, 4 the Corinthians appeal to the Athenians to do -Ta rrpooiKKovra. Demosthenes VI 8 says the Athen-

ahead of time. and the scholiast too had this text. Further- ians recognize TrravO' & TrpoOriKEi pouonlv, For is "Old but also it the oldest whose the to end of at the more, young. Dionysus (XLI Hymn "oldest of the descendants are to be most calls the orator numerous," Kai likely gods Dionysus Keil) and youngest." F. W. Lenz, "Der Dionysoshymnos yTp TCOVTrpEoaprTaT-rV iTriwT-rovTElval TOvS arroThis is the kind of argument used by des Aristeides," Rivista di culturaclassica e medioe- yovous EiKOS. vale 3 (I96I): pp. 153-166 (= Aristidesstudien 8) Thucydides VI 55 to prove that Hippias was the shows that in Aristides' Hymn to Dionysus there oldest of the sons of Pisistratus: TraTESs yap auctr ... are echoes of Agathon's speech in Plato's Symposium pO6vvwpaivovTai TCOVv yEvopEvot yvrlaicov ?a6s8EApv iv TOY The des Redners und Werke Leben also A. ElKos TrrpEopUcTaTov TTpcoTovyqifai. Hug, yap (so Aristeides [Diss. Freiburg in Switzerland, I912], particles Kaiyap indicate that Aristides is adding a p. 55), and he argues that Aristides has transferred second explanation of the phrase "old but also to Dionysus what Agathon said of Eros. It could, young. "Andthe receptionof those who ask for protection however, be the other way around: Agathon has transferred to Eros what another has said about devolves upon the stronger rather than any others," roS 60oDionysus, while Aristides in the Hymn to Dionysus Kai p&AXov rTIVCOVOXAAovKai rTO5XE?aea TO gives the patronage of paideia back to Dionysus, pEvoug T-rV KpEITTrvooVE?CT. In R, above the word with, of course, allusions to the Symposium, where KpEtrTTOvovthe scholiast has written iaXuporEpcov, Agathon called Eros the youngest but not the which catches the surface meaning perfectly as a oldest of the gods. It is Aion of whom Synesius of synonym for "younger." The orator varies the

112

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

terms: "oldest" is a rather precise superlative;

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

GEL. s.v. TrEpietil III 2b. The hybris of Eurystheus

KpElTTrr6oov,which suggests superiority of several

is mentioned by Isocrates, Philippus 34.

(section 202).

70 Ti, KOIVilq(pcE and commentary).

nes XXI 17, TOCrOUTOV as cited by the aorco TTEplfiv,

sections 44 and I33).

"This man himself," TrorroV... aro6v. Holleck, sorts (including the divine), is an ambiguous comparative and leaves the audience with the surprise ConiectaneaI3f. was right in shifting the comma to of two meanings. Dindorf and other editors have so a position before -roUrrovand in identifying TroUrov punctuated as to assign the phrase Kai IaiNov 1 with Eurystheus. ItvCOv &XXcov "Relied on his wealth,"Trosy)ap rrrtpxouvaiapprlwrongly to the preceding clause, while Canter omitted the phrase in his translation. Com- craS.Not power, but the wealth or resources on pare Sallust Bel. Jug. XIV I6, vos implorarem,patres which tyrannical power rested and by which venal conscripti, quibus pro magnitudine imperi ius et jurors could be corrupted. For wealth as a basis of the tyrant's power, see Aeschylus, Ag. 1638 and iniurias omnis curaeesse decet. 63. "Herdeeds in the dangers of war," al peraTrcov Fraenkel's commentary. KIV8uvcovrrpalEts. That this was indeed a favorite The background is the Heracleidaeof Euripides, theme at Athens is attested by the sarcasm of but the story is also one of those selected by Procles Tacitus, Annals II 53 on the visit of Germanicus of Phlius (speech in Xenophon, Hell. VI 5, 47), and to Athens in A.D. i8: excepereGraeciquaesitissimis it occurs in the funeral orations and Isocrates, honoribus,veterasuorumfacta dictaquepraeferentes, Paneg. 54-60, Panath. I94 ('rraeev &trpoaiKEv quo plus dignitatis adulatio haberet.For the role of aOTcT),also Herodotus IX 27. praxeis see W. Siegfried, Studien zur geschichtlichen 67. This exploit, mentioned by Herodotus IX 27, Anschauungdes Polybios (Diss. Leipzig, I928), pp. Procles of Phlius (in Xenophon, Hell. VI 5, 46), and Diodorus IV 65, 9 ("the Athenians who excelled all 33-57, and of course Xenophon's Agesilaus. 65. "Clearsamples of the excellence and greatness others in goodness"), was the proud theme of the of spirit which mark her dealings with all," TriSEIS Suppliants of Euripides and of the lost Eleusinians IrrTlasTapETriSK}alvEycaXovuxia5:vapyi 8EiyCIaTa. of Aeschylus. It constituted a traditional theme of Diodorus XV 63, 2 (doubtless from Ephorus) men- funeral orations among which Lysias II 7-10 offers tions the demos of the Athenians as great-spirited a good example. Isocrates, Panegyric 54-60 menand generousto all, pieycNA6yuXos covKal(piX&vpcorros.tions it and says that Adrastus asked the city to aid 66. "A little while ago we began an examination rTaTK but from not surviving today even as a concept ?" -ri i v 'v v'acp EiTros eEoisE1XciiScd ciavawpoaotu7hEtv comes from a display of excellence but also that xcii auv1rrc eEpCIa'ia edSov Kx6?MJaO-rov Kcii ipllCiaiv Tr6v which comes from a display of fine installations," aVVaIICbTQTa-rOV Fciua&ovai KaCIi piov iTrpS apiapTrov ' Kay BT% KaIi StaIPEPOVTCOS cii T~1Toi5h'E oiI T6v &pETiS .6vov &J Kai -rTv &i Kci%CI -TrTV ~q6 p, xTov~, -r, Sci OKC orw TroCTCov Tril KacaaviOl( x6iopov wrapi;Pkaov.In his Letter to r&vcivrica TrrEpu_v. "It is the gods whom we all requite as, of course, Nicocles ig Isocrates tells him to rule as a true king, ai-rhov o1xKEt 'rilv -rr6?7.v OtoicoS C1o-Ep Trov TriTrp,ov olKov authors of our blessings," Toros reyaPpeom,s c&S 6' xcai PaCi?Xtmco&, TQT15 XI.atl-pC'OS -rcTiSjAV KcTaiOKEIEcds Siyrjnrou,rv &ycyoaev &arEivs &ia5PpI.6pa. Plato, -rr -rTOTV cKplpaos 'iv' E0oxKipfs &pIu xcii 8lCapi(i- Laws II 653c-d says: Oeoi &S olwTipavrE wrpa&SEcnv Athens had, as it were, led the cities with the ex- a'vepcb1Tcov9TriITFOVOVTrrEpvxS y)vos5, avca'rrA\ciO"rE cellence of genuine kingship, and Aristides next aiCrroiS TGCv TC)v 'rr6vcov'TadcavroT-r&s AOPTrGAV &.olpa&s Te pova1nyfTrtp mentions the distinction gained by Athens bv avCrrciis (TOTS 0E015}, xaii Moi*aaS'A-rr6AAcova' tv' works and in of her the arcTi-Trpa'EEiv xciiAiovvaov avvEopTaaras e'aoaav, 9-ravopecSvTaii, beauty Ev TcCii5 xe$v. The of art. See also the commentary above on secgOpTciiSI.isre 6s -rerpoq"as yEvopEvcvs editors of Plato have rightly deleted T01s eEoiSabsent tion 40. "The wealth ... to those who had bested them." from the passage as cited by Clement of Alexandria. Herodotus IX 8i. While Plato speaks of the gods requiting men by 143. In the Funeral Oration, Pericles argues that giving them festivals, Aristides makes men requite Athens is superior in all respects. This argument in the gods with festivals. "Both gods and men were responsible for the defense of Athenian hegemony is adopted by Aristides. results, and as far as it was up to men at that time The two clauses (C and D) introduced by the this city appears chiefly so." Contrast the speech of words "for one thing" and "for another" are parallel Themistocles in Herodotus VIII 109, 3: "It is not to the two clauses (A and B) so introduced in section we who achieved these things, but the gods and 142. The arrangement, however, is chiastic: B heroes." Correcting Themistocles, Aristides repversus C, and A versus D. resents the Athenians as the real heroes, like the The daimones whom Diotima in Plato, Symposium "As an object of worship," &vr' &yd6cqacrroS. phrase seems to reflect Aeschylus, Eumenides 920, 202d-203a describes as intermediaries between gods who called Athens an agalma, meaning a place and men. However, it is also true that Herodotus where the gods loved to dwell. It may reflect also himself (VII I39, 5) said that after the gods the Plato, PhaedriLs 252d, olov &yaAica. The word Athenians were chiefly responsible. For a penetratagalma, which occurs also in section 223, engages the ing discussion of how Herodotus viewed the relation attention of F. M. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology between divine and human efforts see A. Maddalena, Interpretazioni erodotee (= Univ. di Padova, Pub(London I937) 99-IO2. della Facolt'a di Lettere e Filosofia, 21 more desertblicazioni than the sites "Occupied previously ed." Thucyd. 1, 93, 2. In general consult J. Travlos, 1942), ch. IV. 145. "Entered into competition with herself." See I.u Tlo7Eo5opt 'EAiNigisr'v 'Aeriv&jV,(Athens, 1960), Menexenus 247a, Cicero, Ad Qu. fr. I I, 3; Plato, PP. 47-74. 144. "But I have fallen into these observations... Pliny, Ep. VI 33, i and VIII 24, 8. second task." Compare it p'ev "Second period ... as M&K\ vTarcxiaci were," unwillingly, y&ap CbaTrp aI&v EvknrEFaov. Compare Demosthenes XVIII 256 Mother Attica in section 30. where an apology is offered, E5 'osoi:orovu %i6yovs "To start a counter-offensive." The encomium , and XVIII 211, where De- which an Athenian historian, Xenophon, Agesilaos i, EllrriTTEiLvavciyv&loai.ci mosthenes breaks off a digression with the apology, 8, gave to a Spartan king is here transferred to the civaTOisTrrpoy6'voi Athenians. irpaiy 5Ma?& E'VTrFacbv FISTr& y&ap v:jc)V Eao-rva Tcov JrjqpOia6rrowv vrrpciX- 146. "There are two different kinds of war." This 7rapkprjgvitTCO an assurance that he will now re- was stated by Dio Chrysostom XXXVIII 27 (von 8NvrcOv,and with to turn the subject. Amim) who says that the first kind is for freedom when others try to enslave you and the "Association with gods in processions and religious (AEVOEEpici) as you try to enslave is an kind for both second for rule (&px1) excellent experience men, gatherings most profitable in itself and supreme as a pleasure," others. Aristides in section I47 will reverse the Ts 7%vcaT-Er?aTaTOP YCAaT-rov (VepCbTrotsxKai To acXJTo position of freedom as he plays with this famous is a This xCiiVixG$V Kcii 6Vidcai. ?j8ovij, eE passage of Dio Chrysostom and speaks of the Vv wTp6ao8ot reference to Plato, Laws IV 7i6d: &irmvrcovK6uMI- ,,freedom" of the aggressor and the absence of in the victim. olIica 7M6ycav a-rov cia deArkouLcTarov cds -r'4 vv &ycaiO initiative (&pxit)

VOL. 58, PT. i, I968]

COMMENTARY

129

147. The theme of the three kinds of war is quiet." In Thucydides I I24, 2 the Corinthians say directly inspired, I suspect, by Plato, Phaedrus something like this in denouncing Athens: EKwroXiov 244-245a on the three kinds of madness. Plato, ... Elpinvrnlx&Qhov3E3atoirral. And in I 120, 3-4 Phaedrus 245c-e goes on to discuss the soul as the Corinthians comment, "he who hesitates to go with the statement that an apxil to war because of the pleasureof peace wouldsoonest apXi1KivfiaEcos (principuum) is ay?vlrTov and does not have an be deprived of the delight for which precisely he external cause (irl' q iv6o). This suggests to hesitates." Dio Chrysostom, De regno I 27 says: Aristides a description of the Athenian apxi, which "They who are best preparedfor war have the best means leadership in war or, if you will, empire, as chance of living in peace." 149. "Took into view all that one could call finest the moving spirit of the whole and a spirit that moves with justice. The first kind of war, says in human society," &cTavTra EXcoV6oca av TIS Eiwrol Aristides, is a war that you yourself begin (Tr gpv, in the second you have justice av apxrlT-SEt PXfils);

on your side but you are not the moving spirit of the whole (oui uIlv aTrou ysErT TravcbSEtriiV yiyvETat). He has in mind not only Dio Chrysostom (see commentary on section 146) but Plato's assertion E &PXfiwyap avayKrl rwavTOytyv6oevov yiyvEoaai. in a sense Aristides here twice uses the word &vayKri different from Plato's use but in a verbal echo perhaps. Compare also section 77, OVKalKov

r7v

and commentary.Again it was apxlv TrapacXoEuvrl, Dio Chrysostom XXXVIII 17 who called war madness. Croesusin Herodotus I 87, 4 insists that war is folly. In Thucydides II 6I Pericles calls a certain type of war folly. Readers dissatisfied with my interpretation may investigate other avenues with the help of D. Loenen, Polemos: Een studie over oorlogin de Griekseoudheid(Amsterdam,I953). "Exercising the freedom of first movers, but the IEV 'Tr TcOV&pX(6vjustice of defenders," ?AeuOepiaq TrOV,s8Kaotoo0v 8E Tr v a&iuvogvcovxpwcovous. "The

freedom of first movers" is a more felicitous phrase than "the free choice of aggressors" would have been. Several ideas meet here, namely that the rise was another war for of the Athenian empire (@pXTi) were natural rulers of Athenians that the freedom, free Hellenes, and that in a new and third type of war the Athenians combined justice and the role of a principuum (&apX). Contrast section I98: the

Lacedaemonianscould not originate. "To show the Barbarians that it was not in their power to come at any time and make the Hellenes Margood fighters" (Trolev &TyaeovSTO0ST"EAXrvas).

donius in Herodotus VII 9 y tells Xerxes that if the Hellenes actually did do battle with the Persians, "they would soon learn that we are the best of men in respect to the works of war." "You will soon know well what kind of men you have stirred." Artabanus tells Mardonius that he will die in Greece "after having learned against what kind of men you are persuading the King to march" (Herodotus VII Io0 ).

148. "Only those enjoy unimpaired tranquility who prove that they are not at all obliged to lie

9

KiA?ao-raIv da&vpc'Trou 9ip?ci. It is the nature of man

to form a community. The social goals are security and tranquility. The finest things in men as individuals are defined as the cardinal virtues in section 122. In section 274 Aristides says that the city de-

serves the acclamation "visible image of the virtue and standard of the potential in human nature" (Tfis if any city does. p0eaecosTis &vepcowrria5) at "Victory Mycale": Herodotus IX 96-IOI;

Thucyd. I 89, 2. "They drove (fiAacav) some from the Strymon, others from Sestos, others from Byzantium; they visited every corner as in a ritual cleansing" (co-rrEpayoS Kacaipovr7s).

Plato, Menexenus 24Id

says that they cleaned and drove out of the sea all the barbarian infestation (&vaiKcarpaij?evoi Kai EX&caavres5Trav-rTO StryP3apapov EKTri OeaAcrrrrT).

mon, Sestos, and Byzantium are all mentioned by Thucydides (I 98, 89, and 94) but not in the same order. They are all mentioned by Diodorus (XI 60, 37, and 44), but again not in the same order. "No less frequently than those who sail as traders, they came to anchor." In any discussion of human society on a larger basis the theme of commercehas a prominent place. Since Aristides is trying to interpret the Athenian activity from the standpoint of the growth of civilization, he alludes to this theme. "Triptolemus" in the winged chariot may symbolize the daimon that is Athens, carrying out a beneficent mission in accord with divine will. See commentary on section 55. "He went around doing good to all in common." The words EsiT' KOIVOV &arovras put the emphasis

on human society as a whole and make Triptolemus Kai(pqiavepcorrica. the prototype of Athenian KoltvoTrr "Chastising."The Athenians are here represented more or less as punitive angels, carrying out the divine will. On Philo's punitive angels who give men "secondary boons" see H. A. Wolfson, Philo I 381384. TOV "The human race as a whole," TCyKotvC? yEVetl

dvpcbTrcov.The "concern for humanity and love of man" (section 4) is an outstanding characteristic of Athens as Aristides frequently suggests.

130

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

150. "They sprang forth so frequently and eagerly in their conduct of affairs that the Lacedaemonians, though they went along in the first actions, later departed, unable to keep up, as it were, with wingborne leaders" (coo-rrEprrTnvois 3Koxouteivo, 8uvareference to wings the pEvot).If I am not mistaken, the Homeric dereflects It has a double origin. "swift as a the Phaeacians of the of ships scription reflects also VII but it a or 36), thought" (Od. wing the Platonic myth of the ascent of the souls in the form of winged chariots (Phaedrus248a), a thought for which the suggestive reference to the winged chariot of Triptolemus in section I49 prepares our minds. In the Phaedrus 246e-247a the gods lead the host in eleven companies of those who wish to 6 &E i ~eAcov-rEKal8uvvdefollow and can (rrE-rai l 8 a speaks of "the in Herodotus Xerxes VII vos). to victories. Sails "us and following" leading" god are compared with wings by Maximus of Tyre, Or. ioria. VI 3b, -revaoal -r s rrripuyascoa-rrEp "The Athenians, having the Hellenes from Asia whom the King had come leading against Hellas and against those other Hellenes, used them and they were enough." In the speech at Camarina Hermocrates in Thucydides VI 77 had referred to the Hellenes of the Athenian Empire as Ionians and Hellespontines and islanders who changed but always were enslaved to some master, either the Mede or someone else. Euphemus then justified the Athenian "enslavement" of the Ionians on the grounds that they had come with the Mede against Athens, their mother city (Thucydides VI 82, 4). If as referring, I am right in understanding xKEIVOUS not to the Athenians themselves, but to the Dorians who became dizzy and departed. Aristides chooses what seems to him a more effective argument than the damning admission by Euphemus. 151. "Havens and walls and camps," 6poit Kcai KalXapaKdcjara,a tricolon reflecting DemosT-reXr Kai ra&ppoi. KaiT-rX)(T thenes VI 23, XapaKboiaraa "Phoenicians, Cilicians and Cyprians." Diodorus XI 60, 5: "Fleet from Phoenicia, Cyprus and Cilicia." "Two trophies arose for one day, when a naval battle was matched (rraptaccbl)by a land battle." This comment is, I think, inspired not by Plutarch's source,Callisthenes,but by Plutarch himself, Cimon I2, 3: "Cimon, like a skilled athlete at the games, having in one day carried off two victories wherein he surpassed that of Salamis by sea and that of

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

best to consult W. Peek, "Die Kampfe am Eurymedon," HSCIP, Suppl. 1 (I940): pp. 97-II6.

152. "To cross the ferry crossings on a pontoon

For the bridge" (IAvoSEicp aoXESiarOUS-rropOpoius).

pontoon bridge bound with flaxen cables see Herodotus VII 36 and Aeschylus, Persae 69, Xivo8cracp caXESia -rropepov a&pelas I AOapavriSos 'EMas.

Aristides cites the first two words of Aeschylus directly and the third word with a variation. "To contend with the highest mountains." For the canal at Mount Athos see Herodotus VII I44. "When men excel in courage and intelligence, they prevail everywhere with the noblest means of all ...

and with means that are purely their own

because these alone belong permanently to those who have them (6ova yap -rOV XO6vrcov68&a Trous

o-ri). The other means are not private; they are there, you might almost say, for anyone to use, gifts Traaivco of fortune" (r&a8' &XXaKOtva-rrp6KeiTal

eIrrEv XrOxlsGScpa).Gifts of fortune are mentioned also in section 87. Isocrates, Helen 44: ilTicararTo J acXXaseOruvXiaTaXa(COS aas, IUET-roarrrrL pv yap T&aS T-rv 6'

EyvEiav

&Ei 'roIs aovrols

rrapapevouvaav.

Courage, intelligence, and wealth form a tricolon of distinction. The comment on wealth may reflect 86 Triuov Plutarch, De liberiseducandis5 D: TrXoU-ros ,OVpXv iTC)rc pUv, &XXax KTflUa, reiSl TCrV T1r(XTrS

'roI5 AcKISdqEXe"rTO, VEYKE,Kal 6

TTOX-

Ti oOUK 'rrfo'ao'a1 pouva rrpoaj--

, TOlS OTOX1TXOrTO5SoKoTOs &VvVOpoi. OpO. TrepieoTrv c)oo-eKal TaS TrohAiS 'rr&oris yfls e^1)pT~eV0s, c?crp 01 ols ye TOCOOUiTOV KOCvIOU 'rracnrls yiS ig;l,prl?VOS,coaTFEP o yap EiKOSEXetivTVV Xopav, Epyov 861 86 Kaci wrr&raKpcaToTous Kaci Tfs yiyvopvris 26 acira S6f KOCa1eT-' S9cov oOiaav, oirpcppia Tfr XapI'TOS Tfi5 irpos TOiS &p6TrS?r1i Tr1eiT0roVIKOVTraS TVwyK6V,TrEOiKEiaS Ov yap Kai TrpoEevei aUTriiTrS popas ouarls, Kai OVK ETrEIaaCKTOU. 162 D $9eou, TOUTO8eiKVUalv ?v rotS TrrpcbTOtS, r 6it T-rs uercoS Triv XOapiv. oT-r6U ?t'rr8TeioTaT-r TrAalvrlv KaTaAUcavTarESo0i6S coTrep E'Trl o6KOrTOu Kai aaycapi'rcov, Coare 6iS fyec'Abv TraTpi6 TiabyrovTES 'TraTiaS yflS Kaci SaAa'TTiS, TrposKd?bArIvECAv wTavTa fpcaro OU6e JUOIV UgcTUXiaiv iyrTlaa(c vacv, KaTE?oXOVThTV av EilT.Kai yap vv 6evSE TOiTCOV TauT'rra T-r vO6cpKai TT'VXop)yiCavoiKoSev rr6oS is oxqIKev XcApav, pl3iacrapvo T1lV E-Tcvrowviav,etoavTerSpEv Tois 22 eiS aO'Ta. aX&?yap OUKEX T-riXplaco"pati, E-rrpxETat KpeiTTroav, Kp[3aX6vres8E TOiS rirous, &XS Cao-rrep TO EK TCOVTrrrlyCv v0cop EK TCOVKOA6rrcov -rTS yiS arropaiveiv yap .ioIKai Kac-ra ppri TrfveTriTrr6eE6TlOTTIa TO elvat Sita olov OwrTrcov eiOOSU &vfXASeTO ybvos, a0Tor6 aiuToJ Xapv T-rV a&pxlv IXTE t'rriaS TTrS XcopaS, &A' E'X.pacTicrSaCtTrpos TV-r Kai g?voi Kaci 'rroITaTi 1p6v Tri yi TraciTrrirp'TrouC PnITI6peiov TraCVTEX?OS, cAoTre 'rSTTS 6pi9p.cSai. ol pEv yap aiotl KaoSaTrrep EKaTcpou XpEiaV ?v pEpEIKaciTWET''OKiKxat, S.Eav KaTa- 27 OUK &v 6pScos eiTr01 TIS elvat TeAtas XapOvreS oTrco TraOTaKPIvouaiv, ov T"rOpxiSov cau- 164D Kai TrlaS' ST iS oiKOULEvrSoiovei i[|illrja acoLoaolrs; TCOV TOTS7Trpo'K?EIV XcopiCoVTOVS&aXousS&popilovweS, 23 sti TOV Xtivcov Kail Evous 6voiat[ouvl ETi 6Te TE Kai aCx KraTacaX6VTES, sai6TTl?s 9sfival Tjs5 yfjs TCo, OTI TrrVTeS T-rv 6' Tre8icv Kai TOVS caO TCOv XS96VTaS, Kali ovu(pcovia, ayvooUVrrS euTppouS ovluuyia " TIS av O6oico'SeiGi ?VOI, pCuAXOv C a iItS KatiXaptS oi Torv OTTOU 6opcvrl CT0 S6 aClTOi VOi TTpcoTl, Kai copV OUSaiTroi 1TOlOUVTal, oUjpeP3rlK6Tcov olpat, EoeCTt6 6pav Kai a&S TroaoUTovTCOvrlporrTOl'-rTCOV, ElTTro0t

&aitOTirSTroATTeCas, T-rS apyupiTil6as crairep voTriSaSSiat rraxo' Sia9cpovaiv, OCOVoU KPI$EVrEs 9pM3paS TrnS6peiou iiTrKouo'aS,oTrTCOS &pca pir6Ev &pyov e1ir &WA' Eiapiaao&J.eVOl TrpOlpa?Xovro TiTVTraTpiSa, &cCprT' etir Tarcts rrpoCo'6OS 8uaXcopia irep OT6rACoV TTs 'ATA'rtKfis a&ropia TCR (pavEVTI XpilCa&EvoI' p6voiS 5' viv vTpra TroA0iTeiCIa KCaSi EvyVEI6&vre 1r6aCfipn,XAAaT'IV T-rpov eVyecoV n T-iM6e PXeI Ka,Scapav iaOwiopos 8' &pa KaCiTOUTOEAeu3epiacS acivjacat. Kai SUOTvOvrOiv 6VOliaTOiV&aT?EpovV VtKCjT). KUpl6v 28 g966tov ETrrpTrrE TrE rroei. Sia KaLi IeyaXoyvAXias TrapeoKeua'aCIt Trnj T6O ?TEpoV EiKOT6r)S.01 Y&Pp VOI TtI aorTTi XCp9 Evovrai Ci5Aous TroMiTas yvriaious ovTrcas Toivuv &evacov rroTacicovpeuJpaTaauwTraKai Trrly&as6ia TroUS ' cv Kai 6 o0 Tr T'?V ETrrcoWTrrvrcov TCRiTpocaprlaTI, ro?iTaci E(3PaCoUC &d6Svous KaprTov rrxavTcov popav, piav rTc KaSCapoijVcoV elval TO ? c&pXijs. oOVKOUv flepcoTaTTOS:VTaiCi' T-rV Travrcaxou K&x:a-roS elTreiv, o0S' av eoivArlsye ,O6voiSUi11, el oTlv Tr'oaCTiv Trreptgavcos. 24 'AMa TrauTraievEcrriv cafirep TrroTCrvTpayrlpaAX6)OI 11 p&X?X6v e?S TirsYS, OV ye TrisIpTrp6sTlVI.Kai 29 v Kai TCO)VTl V eUcoX)iaovaieviOveiv TOV 6E oiKeiTiTaT6ro

Kai os pEylrAov Tris XcbpaSKap'w6v re. Kai KOCaIOV

25 '1TrroiKai KOveSARTU. vieTripav Aldinae et editores, cpe-rEpavARTUIunt. 26 raXvTa(TrraVrcov 20 'rroTOUTrixous ART; TOUiomisit U. x?Kaorrl T) KpaTforroUSARU. Kai oUVK T. i a&xNoTi pETpOVTO TTiS vvcra. -rTarra rpa'Ealv EUvpo T-rSav 61 y?fv, ?KT?-VOVTES Kai TCi p3ouilraT. a Trav TO6EXO61EVOV. Kai ouvExfi, AAax yap TOvS acraTrEp 'EXXAaos, E?co E 1TrAXipcoVav ) vOv ETr' c(ai9OT-Epols T01S rTEpaCo T y)SYS TOiS 'HpaKXEiSaS ETEpTCov TWpOT-rpovs 68EapjVrl KaT-iyayE, TraiScov TTraTESoiKOUC-i, ol pv &Xpt raSEipcov arr6 ElTTOV,OUTCOKai TO'S pET' EKEVOUS5Eaap1vrl TTpcoTOV, Maoaaoaia TrrapijKovTEs, oi 8' E'ri TCT TavaiSt Kai Tri: EiT' EwETrE yayE, siTrAXv &av' aTrXfi TfiV VEEpyEaarv Xip,vnI pIEEpipoi'VOt. COT' Epol pv yEXcos e'TErpXE?Ta ETr' ayqOTEpcov TIStEIEVBr. Kai TrpotovCoa a'ro TOU TO6ECO)V aKOUOVTl TCAV VV OTrEp EITrOV, T-01 o0'p?T?pOls KOC'pOIS pTrCOTOVU wrpo TO -rEXErTaov adi OUT-COS, TroXrTEia UjTp TOrV 'EAlTwpOaEOiKEV rl TfiS Tr6OAECo5 TlAOT.IpOUpEvcOvKai ippovouovcv cbs ?rri XaarrpopS, vcov Trpovola Kai Sia TroXAXf Kai cuvEXouS -TriS aKOoTrav EpilovEvois Reiske, pouAoARTU. SErjuevoti T. KTVOi T, BEETieOv'ras ARU, ?1iViliKEV VEYKEv Suiev Tro8covU sed correxit wTroTvU2. eOTrV 68 CK A. KEVOI evTraS F1?KExVOi RU, E6?r1nVTCIa5 66 fpaeXepEa&pTfirCT. aojv EUpvuoeEAU, iv A. oiX oaov ARTU; ov acUroIS AUR2, a&XrleoS R. OVT-COEV?xoyoSU. Kai KivSUvoV avaTcracTrou5 ARU, avaoaTaTrouST. EKEiVCp post OVTlomisit U sed addidit

U2'

va omisit U, erasum in N.

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

168

pIKpOVTrpoc8iaTpicpcojiev TCRAycp

Kai TO ijSos a0-

-rTOKCal rav o AMycoCaCprTpov KaTIr8I TIS, ei TrV "'EXTvacS i'TTrlavc,X{yovTre fiyEpovtv al-TOirT-rETroCI bst, &v E?VKpaTclSCori Tci vavuIlaXi, OUK o'ovTra Vrrip rTCO KvpiOl crpiciv alipeto-Sa TroIS yEpO6vaSoV85 C Ev EacTroISIyrCaOIEiVcoV6 3&app3apos acOiroIS vat aitaXpC~S&<Eivco ?rrolo'aeiTOVW6yov, &A' &aKoXouvSev 6eincreiKai 8SouAouSKai &vaoTrcrrovS yevoca9ai, itacoS 8i o0So' &KoAov$SEiV,6A' a&cpaviat9SeraS Tp6Orov vriva 866EIEV&TrrE7XSVS &vSpCbrrcoVaClTOiS iEpoiS KESaA&ciTTr piXav- TrplpE1t5 ETrETXOV, TCr ' l TaravTaX Kai t TaUTOV OpC)VTES 6AAcov OTTOtI OTI TaVra p3AXeav, KUIpaCI SpcotriaS rrrp T-rSTCrOV To'orrpias Kai Kai yE TiS avSpcpTwCOV TroAXEious, oi6iv rwapcto'av ETEpOlS,&AX"awTpoToI iriTrEVOV. pIV IJEyaCAoUy)(Vi PIV arrToi KaTqipCaVTfis valvJiaxioas, oCaTrp Ev E0vpoia iKEiVOIS oJpOIOS,o0 TCOVOVTrcV 7Trrp TTrS Xeu&pias TrO p6vot 6 Trav EgipyaaavTo, vat TO TO .XNAov TrrTVTCov y povov aA&a pilv &arrerrlcaav; yE yv r &aTroKvo"VTcov, ocra piv crpaTcrrlyovTtpovoia KaKoa)ca TOV pacnaia Siaacleitv a'arrvra Tr&rrpaypaTa, rTTVaopiav AEyco, 1' F V KaCiT'I Uv'TrO c)OTE Ev TOIS TrroXEe6et Trp6oTEpov Trapaacn<ecavTErs, 'TavrTcoV EV TOIS X6Oyois T7IEvrov lS Kai TOrVo'VVEVuOPIEVC.V TCO I.OlS 4pXiAcov EviK1rCaav TOiS apXouvcv EUTrEiSEiasTOVS5TrTCoTOT' E'uropficPat -- Ayco 123 86oypaTi. Kaoioi p,V OVTCOS rrECKEvaaCotVOI & 6E XEIPCoV 6e T Trptaiv TrEpi T-rV TOS 'Icovas VO6CpC Tri rrpoS a 6E Kai 6 E6Et Ka7khocTa iErTa acAaprvt KaTEIXOV TEXArnvaS, T1i KOIVfiS TfiS EuYUX)(as &aptqoTEp TpacXSfivai, T'OoS Kal XE?pi rrapiv, aycov TroiSPe)XpiTrS 'ATrrtiKs"EAA?rvOa6Ti TCOVU9' rjAfcp iap-vTpi Kai TO7Ai1WaOaVTES 8- irawlv EiS T-rV T-rEXEaC&1voI,Ta&avTrEspEv EaUTOUS VavTria EKEiVOtS, 227D 61cooj Kai j3app&apous, KaciTruTE1rel 'TOOVavUTiKOTCOIV 'TrOXEPICOV, capaiitva, KEXEUcov& wTpOTOi, yfv Kai 06cop Xap3eiv, oiTrEp ojlav KEq)&aalOV 6eiVoV vouiEcov, El TTapoVTCOVKai 6pco)IvwCv TrpEpYaevoI6t rrppoTot Kai 6iap9SepavTrs &XAas rTOV Kai 6AXaXOU'TCOVVECIvev'TawVro6aTrroi TCOVEpyov E16EoCi, oi Aoyol, puoAAv Tr KaSioaeosc$ai yiyvov-ro Trapa6cboetv TCacra aUTOvs' EVTarci9a6'l Ka'i TrrETaTOV wrapao)(X6vTr 6SeTOIS AotrrWOSSCKEIV a&VTiTOi vav60- 125 Eaa'Ari. OUTO-r y&p Tr6ppco6Eou f TOVI. ETra- paXEiV. CoCTr'Epoi pEV TrapaTrAr[aicoSolt EAXArive ATrroi6oS &V T1V ei Kai KOtJcr V EcPXfS eYVCooCIsevcovEyEVOVTOCoaTr Trr TOv VlKiTOa C)OrTEp vavC1axiav ULN. Post TravI26 TrrTFrAClo-ro Aa6trr Reiske; Ev omiserunt ARTU. TOV pacoltNa ART, ipTrerrArlo-ro rTCO KaKCo 6S omisit oi Post L. U. omiserunt TrOV TEr A2R2T2U2, TCV pamOClAc ARTU, TroS paoaAXcos ARTL. CoCoriv ARTU. AXyco86i U. pETarKOIVS Trivrljvoeival ART, pvrllo8fvat 1 TiCSEi'yvuXiaS yevopEvcov UN. KaTEAapov 'TOART, Ka-rEXapovroU. Post SOKEI 6q UT2; Tf'S omiserunt ART. rrpaXOfivaiK&XAlorTa Els TpoiLjva crrapaKaTaSo'cx.,at, CauTOi8E yUVvcosEVTES TCOVTrplTTrCOV TrpoppaaEo'Sa T V sXarTrav, 'rravrcov oo' a TIS E'iTO IPiylIcTa KaT' &vspCOTrUOSEV ?p Epa pla TrrapacoX6IpEvol oaLpj3oXa EVaEpEicas,KapTEpias,

omiserunt AR, correxit R2. %auTroVs ARU, acrovs T. ES8EaWv A.

omisit yap A, addidit A2. vTraipEIv ATU, &wr&apai R. TrpEap'urasARTU, TrpEopv-pu'rouv R2.

VOL. 58, PT. I, i968]

TEXT AND APPARATUS

$ftvac. TO yap 5i TrrdrpEpyoVv V Epycov oiK OnTIOTi O0V TlV TOUTO; TpEs TOTEpov 1TpooE[Eipyaco-ai.

Ka ol O1 OK U ETTOirlcE pO6vrl (pEpETai TTIv TOU TraVTOS KpiaolV ETITtpOS TOUTOISTi) TOU O`TpaTTyOU O-UVTEIEaEl,

TrA TVT_YTpqpcv, KaTapo CO ppC TrOUSoi p3ppapol KcaTrEapovTO KOT' &pXas, TTrV TC)O fiwTrEpov, TTiV SXarrTTav, TrlV wrpO TiS EaXaiTvoS XiC)V, TCO TOUS TOTTOUS EUpEiv, vfClOV, OTCA)SaKplpOcTEpOV 8tlKTJCp avyKAXEioVTOoi "EXXrIvEs. 86KEi yap Elval JxeyaXrl o-uPivopa Kai rrapa TOVvo6ov TOVMrl6IK6v, El TISTCOV aVTraipEVTC) Paci-

171

at TCOVvaupaTC)

TOUSj "EXrcvaS

aTTV pEyicOTrV TOU KaTaCoXEIV, TC' TTPCA)TTVVlKfCial K1ai TCAOTrAEiOTOV5lapSEipaO, ToIS &Tw' vautvrKOii popav,

'EAEuivo5 9(pacclaoa, TO015V YUTv-aria rrEpiTTOIS, Tr AITTO?XirloavTrcovlSa)vqoa<e>ai aTpaTias atriT AR. VIKCotIV A. EPpaLov RTUA2, E'rPalov A scripsi, p6vrnS Kai ARTU. 3 c ots Ol K UN. U. U. 5? friTEpa ART, TwoirOIcEV rCOOTE Jv PIET appapcov I30 oyyuS caTcOv transposuit 8' p-rETpaU. i5iav RU, bia A, 5il T. yivErTa U. A. TC)tI TrAElCTov ARU, TCOVTrAEioTcov sed litteris deletis rTOCTTAEiOTCT. y(palciCaol AR. supplevit Beecke, acTroui U2, TrpoSaurrov A, TrpoSa0rTov RTU. TrpOC0Ev 8' U. 6 U. Kai eKEiVCOV Kai TUR2, rrpoaOEAR. 6oa Ev "EATcnaiT; Ev omiserunt TaCOTa TravTa ART, p. 38. AR. ARU ARTU. rrapa avepc'rrcov KaTETrpacEv

172

OLIVER: THE CIVILIZING POWER

[TRANS. AMER.PHIL. SOC.

i auvvyvcocYav Pa&XNov fil -rrTESaVTO,rTC 6rrXoAEoS aTrl cv frTEITrpOTEpovy?f !i.v 9p63c XpricTrouS vopiiovrEs, oT5 6' wTrlTyyTEXovro Trp6oCSv AEyoVras. yap Kai U6aTos, TaUTa 86i8ou T6TE, OUK&dro lrou TOY arrtipoUS ETI TCOV'ASr vaicov' Kai T-rV PEyaXouyvXiav pv T-rV rroiv Kai T-rv Xcbpav IT-rpou, aXAa rTO-rTO o0X irTTOV ESE1;av TCZ TT'V Opyhv KarTaaoXEV Ti Trp E0Uyap TrolETv,OUxK Trv TOUTO 6E 'EAE aTrrES6iou TarS Traoaav, XAoirriv aT-ro0T ErayyEiactS SicbyaaSal' Aa'Sa 6copEav wTpocaETi'SE. X(Cpis s TroVTCOVETTfV TradXEIV'n'TEpuKOTEs5 Kali aOpiuo'v 6Opi'iElv G8CEoav XpcpaTra VTrrpTrravS' o'a ev "EXAlAii Kai piAou5 Kai TO:S TOS Ei TOTroIoOU'TO 'EMArlvK6v, &A' o'OX avTrovs EO v OTIKai p6VOUS ESiEI 8ETvTrap' r?T?pcVptiicr6v Elvati pEpaiO[S' ap?TrfS AaIpaVEIV, C08' Tfs' o'vUpMpjaXU Kai p6vois eSappEIl pIaAov ' Traralvols EIXEV, Ei 'TE- EiriKepSEIt 9lIiV TO5Ss6vTra acTroUS,oUS6v yE paiAov Kai yovas ?ETriKepSEi piAE?iv,&XXa Kai Og WTralCS6a COEIEV, EIapTUpEi. Kai TO pEVKEaXalIOVTfS'1TpEcpEias i o$ 132 TOIOUTOrv'v. ?KrlTpIKUEE 6? 'A~CavSpos TCOV avaAcohCTcov paClnEis pIJrTa ac.lEiV, Coc)wrEpEiKoS TO'rS cS Sai TrIS rT6oEcos'Kali1TErp'rEi86 KnppUKKa T&vavTia roTs

MaKESOViaS. oi 6

TOCOOUTOV ToXrr(aOVr

TOU saupao'ac

TaTS yvcbpCaiS SiaKE?I?VOus. Kai TOUTO p?V 135 UTrrp OIKEiCOV TrooUTOV Kai Tl|AIKOUTOVEpyov Fi ap?TrIS Aoyov Ev a&ita pco -v ETvat vopicaal, CWowTE pEaOV T"iS EV EoCoE' TOV wrpPEoCpUT'nV Troi TOU 'ToAeiov KalpOiS E;EAaji4E, 'TO oa)( a o'i aX). EStEIav 236D X T'5S TrpoEvias. ou p.rv oUS6 OUTCrOS SEa EaXapiTvivaupax(iaS Kai TTiS liAaTCaiacl 8' c Kai rTOU-rTCo) KaSaTcra aTrrEocrtEAcav, &a?' El pI' TrpO ilAiou sUvovros XcopiS 6v Kai rrp6aO9SvSie81rl'

Ta ETTrayyEAiaS, ix Kai otiuTravTa a KEKTTrIrat 686vra 234D

a7Oo T-r OPCoVEi1, Kai TOV XorlroU rTpOElT6vTES EKTOS TroS 'AS9rvaiol pxuaAov rrpoEEvEiv,cbS oUK &vEuSava&TOU TOiaUTraTrpEaPEOCOVrTaC Kai &aa aycoyoi Sta Tfis aUrTOv TCO i'rTETIS a&rTal pI-rT?E XcopaS fyov, OTrwTC5 v IaXa6tia,erTal. TaTrrlTvEycb TT-rV adTrrKpltv TTr1S ' &aiav iivI VaCupaXiaSKai TCOVTPOTraicOVovX IrTOV /fyoUopa SuavCIuaat oUS6 EaTTxrrcolo0TiXoLiavTrapEXEtv OUT?r TroiSSoUov oiT-rET TTE{iaavTi.Els5pV yap K?Eiva OTXrAoiKai T-pl rpEca Kai opyavoiS ?ESE'wTpoaxplcaarS6 rTOIS aeTEpoiS aUTCrv KaSapoS EXP'Sat, EvrTaUJa aavTro, yvobl,u Kai Aoycp. 133 TivEs o0v &pErTfSaycoviacTai KaXXioUv, r TIVESTC)V TrrCTrrOTE -r apKE?TEpOV TTfV ETri6?tEiV aUTqS

KaCiPacaiEXu Kai oi "EAAIVEs?

&aTraVTcoV TOIS 'ASQIvaioiS TtiEpEVOI6 piv 5ia MapBoviou Ka?ocovETriTOUTolS, oi 6 i T1roET1v TaTra 8ia AaKAe6aiovicov 6E6TO avS9AKEiV Kai KOaXsv os aucToujsEKaTEpEVOI yap Kai T'riTatisEvapylS Trrap'&apous y)iToS qiv pcavEpa 9oiv OTI'Kal opcov aUTci)V Kai TCOV EVaVTicoV oUvvicaoc E KpEiTTOUS6vras o0 IptKpC)TIVI. OVTA) 8S' EArTo'iavTrES ETI aTrfXSov TCrOv paAAov S.auvpaoavrT? pEV apXiS wroAou TOUKpEiTTOTiv0oXovTO,TOUSS6 a&rro yap OUlK vo5 7TpooaECavro. doorT Kai TO EIKOSTwpooyEVE-9sai,

rT Kai aUTroUs5 cUrrEpoa9cv auTcov TTrV a&iav Trpo'Kai TpEI5 Elvat TOUS IapTvpap S ?8E'S, 9ov S9o.at yfi

?'TTrroIT- TOS

TroXaEIiious, TO0S oaXvo&XouS,

aUTroUS

auTroTi

oi Kai Xpucco Kai apyupcp Kaciai6ipco KaciTOTS Epycp 86ia 1TavTc)v o6oifouS yEyEvrlpvouv. avvayayov136 Trraolv &iTrrI-rTOI s1EyEvovTro Kai 'rrravTa o TEs 8E TroU "EAXArvasf8 rrErlvav ir paaov avurosi56KoouSoTv &v El ?Kp1TrTETO 8UvapEvoUS nXaTata&'t yiyvovTra. Kai TO P,v acicopa 6ooicos a&prlTraa TC paaClET C' crTrp VirTOyfiS -TI, TrEviav ,Ev aVT-riTrOUTOUT'rtCiocaaT?S, TCOVTrpaTOTr68cov,i' T-rv TrrapTa'aiv T-rV pappi&pcov, KIVvoOVUS E &VTr' &da(paEiaS Xo6pEvol, iKaltooavllv S' cos Ta&XSr18ia TTISBolcOTias, i Ta Trpo T1riSpaXlS 134 aTvi TfS Pacrto7o Kal oO TT r-S 'rrouvS5sOUK?piKVouSitlyearSai icaTrpip EOrTI T-ooaarrS i1tav9pcoTria5. 6' 1TrpOs,iv rTa5 appapiKas 1TrocrOX&'EI or TCoS ?EX9pco ai$tl yiyv-Tra TrirrolT.EiSavpaOaTi 237 D pivrl. papTupia Kai TrapaTETaypivco ElXOV,Trp6SSe TarS'E?MrVIKaS,El rrap' apqo-rTpcov wrr1T-rs cSpaXnS. AaKE8aiip6ovio p&v 235D TrpooEii oafil Pa XpEiaS, uT'rrOTrTTroKOTCo, 1i cos5 Tri yap 'ASrlvaiots EoErcraav T'rf E?Tri Epaas Ta'Eco5, :1aEi CoyKEKXr1pcoiJPvOV TiVi Kai TrrAEov&, TriS Tt6TTV-r OTrcv wro7AhC v &pXiiv Reiske. TrEt 266 'AeOviTlv A. Plr6' Eyy?u TO-r UNR2, plr68 El TieETat transposuit U. pEvye TU, pVTrotAR. i Trap' p7tivUN, sed i Trap'scriptum in rasura in U TroTART et Photius. et Trrap'deletum in N. TlVig 'Apeiou Tr6ayou 267 -rrap'aucris ARTU. nFrrmplvoiS ARTU, -rrTrcoTip'rt UN, Tilv Eg 'Apeiou p(ouXhv R. ravTr' &v U. prl8' ilTIS pEvo1t Henricus Stephanus. TrrcTroTeU. oTlat ART, elval U. OTTropcoTCTrouv ART et Photius, ET'rropcoU, pil 8' ei TtS ARTN. 263 Trp6o ToUS avcTcov Tp6Trovs T, aOcTov ARU. Trpous U. pX-rTi-rouSART et Photius, peArTiousU. Tr A. aCrjTivye PEP0ouAupievrlvUN. EgEUpeV

vopilCeoiat U, Kai adscripacrrcov EKac7roSU. -TOOUTOOV

ARTU. &nro leyiorCov TrlrlTais yvcbnais transposuit U. rroX- sit U2. OUi ETrroiToae 264 KaTarrav-rCares Acov ART, &XXAcov U. ei TOv piv 6Xcov RUN, piv tlaTCov U.

TEXT AND APPARATUS

VOL. 58, PT. i, 1968]

193

pflT'iEcScalraoa

&O9A0VaycovIl6pEVOI, Ka(i o0X ErTpoiS pEiv TOU Tqvp irlE $Saup(ceiv. o0're T &OV o0talo'S Tras o08ETrCbirOrTE K1vS8UVE1Ev, yap ITrEpEXOVTaS iE'potS 6e TOU 86?o-Tr6e1V,av Kp(aTO'co0'i, 6'aov 8ti E Sv o6p6voia Cpv KxalwTiolTS&afAXcoov rTOcOOTrOV Toro, i'X 5iltKECTCai pil iTrfjpEv, -rrpOK61(iVOv. a0croTi fiiou irap' aCirrfs6pqiCMaSai,oUrrEroTs&pEri fiV9E1 KaCITTTiV Tr6ox, El 6E T'rO Kali Sitacrra7v, oO pEv WTEppipovuc, Xp'pacl 86' rrrTTpvois,ov5apoi ijov5s &avSpeias S' E Tr1OV XcarTrrco d&7XA gyvcbpltovrTCbTOT' a-mTTOV EVaIEV, aio'Xp6v olcai vopILouva 6Ealtoa, ifjpos -TrravraT&AXa -rrpoS KEivoOU5jv, ?poi 318D TCOVpiV OIKTC)V OU TO S EroopcOTTTrous, XAAa pEv o08i 'eTIvaraSol sOKOUCTVoi viTara VIK)VT7S ETovS ' a TIS Kal- 271 T-roSTrac'1KpcpaTiv.EVTrOioi 5& p icTro1us vopIEIV, rTCV8' WE.vSipcov -TOCOTOTv llrriorTo-TuOTOV5 Elval Tiv &aiav cbpi'aSa XpCpaainv, Ad.X& po5I o0Xi PsA2TicoV ECrl Tfis oTrMooSpIepvrp?Vos; TroTEpa paO'KV6wrcov v apo KCaXcOowrapa8eiypi 6Tro6i TIS av aUTOS ?KaCTO ifi, TOIOUTOV Kal Wrri oCrpaTEialS; Kai Tr6SV X&V voiilEoSat. KQi yap TO7Iion6l wTrocov oO I ETiSrlKE paTa,; i TrrooloScav Aoyots Xprlo'ap?vos pXTrloV &v &W TOVSEa6ov, o08E ' oiro'e Ta Tfi ip1ati TpiTa TCp v6picP TrapacKEEtcraClT; &?iX' Iv -raT TravrMypEaiv; Ev Kai TCOV 9aox6Vrcov -TaTS KKI1acr'iaiS Tri o08s cbairEp (Pi?oaoPElv a0rrji Tou0Trovly?eicbv. 'X7' wrpcTa' Kai TiS 6jplcov avTO'r eocriv i8Sev EViouS XAyovrras pv o0rrco 'rpi Tro:rcov, TC)VKCaTX 'rlv wrroXtv SIOIKiO'aI; i' &l TrivS Kal T-oO86E pjia&ov vTrorr'Trovras irlpaycoyoi ovyuycopouvrras 60'irrpos KCairpa6Tepos, Epycp v Ti) TOWVAoyov a&KilcraEKcal WS1aa Kcai ei5 atiol Sauvparat; &a7X' TOIS o0S av aloSwcovral SUVaTCO)Tpovu, Kcal Traacov d&toucaa Trs5 XotnrS r coq)ia; dtXA' ETI K1ai VUV EiraOTUa 'rravTre5 apx6s/ ayouvaa KCaiTrrTEr0Jovuca K0 K(al T& TCOVTitpJV EcopaTO o0 TO0S dmr6 TCOV TVp-rn oU pIEyiorcov yvri TO)V tpiXoa6COQ TpTilacuvipXovTrac aXAa w pOcaEas' cS Tas TO/S ?-TrElK?EOTaTOS orrTCOV, Ti7 TriS&ToAsos TOX(, Xc0pls ToO oal TO1 S OTrOV dya69i TE Xoycov Kai TOV 6oaT eiS apeTiS Xoyov ViKcbq, TOUTOVTOTSiram't 8i yfiS avayKai(oog X?tV &ao TOcOV v KuOvra. EeitE 5' O0jX vKCTCra, pIiV{iKa iT)Xua T& 'ASrlvaicov pJEvf0i,cat, Kail pnJrl OT EKpa31Eitvg&v OVTCOV KaTra ETrripaxp6vous Tros TriS aOuToJS YUX'iS TO E18006V, O)pTrEp -VKaT6OTpc) TOis5 6yap yltToa. vcov &v6Sp6v Trrap' acrri TCOV IpJ V Twouvioov vrrp T&a yoi EpjM3ATrrovrTa.Kali yap TOt Trraclpiv &vS9pcrrots 272 s Ti5S w6rr6oES ToOV8apoKai Tpo-rTa TCOV'EA?ArviKoovoltKov, T&OV8' cb5 otOv TE OrTCOSaISlCoipov TO7VOpa TrEV?EorTccov, irTi TInV rpoo-acaiav TcOV'EXXArviKov cbS otI8v &Ax-oEv Kai TO a0or6 Kai OOT' [iStTat 0OTE Crro Tro1Tcv tiAETO'Koaiyap TOI 6 EV ols 'va TCOOV paaiieTs pltKpa aTr7a &TiJrlacav,(72' OT0oS cboTr' aO8' TroO wroAXXCv raiSr TrpeppoXai5S TOrVTI7'OV a15 ErrES cayaX'ESa ErTaOV E?vOKiprCoEV, l w'6TXS8' oTl [EKpIVE. 6vrcov a TIS &cv'rEpi TiS5 TWoXIiTeiac EI8TIEVEXOI,Ta piV 8eiKVUvro. pavepa U6 Kai i' Trap' aOToAv T70V .EZ0V 273 Tr0oXa Kai WrpOKaTei.riTTTait Kali Kacxp65dcpatpe?Tat, Evvoia Kal 4fi90po Kai Sta TOU KOIVOUpav-lrrEg Kat Tr 6X71A, $SEIV TE vTrp TOV i wpoOaSe KaTCa- Eirlyr1TOU TO KOaOV Tracaa av&ryK? TroaTpc ou yEtiv' ev 8 TT Ka1i piTlTp6- 319D TO XAaco Kai TOVTEpi To-roov XAoyov.TO yap ETvat r6 'EXAfivov Ti'v Trporipocriav KfXu6vO'rcov ETI SE TOOV roXiv Koaprov aOT)lv irrovollalovtrov, pETliorov KCaiTO KaT' eouCaiaV aCvrrrETrTCoK5'EvrTavvilKoCoV. 5ia V 8E &TO6V KOIVOTTho &aTCTl', Tas Sot, Kai TT-V I^V SiarTa Piov orTepavrip9opiTva&itovrCov, cdS T7E V Ve Reiske. ouS' av ARTU, oOS' 273 Kali6ia ARTU; Kal delet Reiske. eV1Eiv-r TU, a Canter.

KaTa TTIV buvvaCivL.

ART, Earr6oZeiv

O1a1VTO A, evEiv Tra R. 1Tt6 Kai1 orTEcavI'rlopEiv U.

cnrouvSaElvU. advSpicaR correctus et ULN. 8' et 274 K&axitr' N, K6AXlt-raARTU. 'qTi ARTU, Er 'rrov E A. et R correctus wrou 8eqfaat T-r N. iAac6aovcovL. &atov 8' a01ris ART. TravTra ULN, AR. iv -rTauraARTU, TaCrrar'TrarrEN. q6' &v pot SOKEIAR, R. &aMa Sefaav epoi Tla A, 8Eicaai TU, oiv L. 13

SoKOT T, sOKi U.

194

T TT

t7YY

OLIVER: THE C:1V ILIZIN Tsr

hT

T7T%

f-'UWilK

[TRANS.AMER.PHIL. SOC.

320D 'Tr 66rljs lS O'rrapXovf1 6 OTra oTrpaTriyOS wpoEX1), iEi?TX?EI ?rritrrtv. X' s 'rTv Xpivapi rr6Xa vsv r& 'TIcoOUTOo fi TrSip9aECOS T-rfis&vSpcoTicia Tro6AS, TrqSfyoupevriS TroXecos auyyEVi WrpoonErreTv EIK6OTa 275

EiK6va Kai opov, i8S' &v liol SOKle 81Kaicos KXrlSfijvai. pvrlS &clraol E"TEo1-rl oia S E o ' TTS (plh.o-rTioas. 'AvS' cv, av O0rT? EIKOS C TIS arrols aOJTOiS 'ASrlvaiois &v8pe "EXAlvE5, 9S6vov 9ppEtv aiaXuvriv, Kal T-rv Troivv dXa& c'cTep 0paS, Tri'Tr6XEtovi' 0SoxcopoUvras aiaoxOveaSai, .X?EIV TrpEacpju'r aKpotoXoiv. XPfi TrV ?v6vTcov Tro)V rTlVa TriI i i