BMCR 2009.07.69: O'Brien on Harris, Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition

William V. Harris, Brooke Holmes (ed.), Aelius Aristides between
Greece, Rome, and the Gods. Columbia Studies in the Classical
Tradition.  Leiden/Boston:  Brill, 2008.  Pp. xiii, 322.  ISBN
9789004172043.  $169.00; EUR 114.00.

Reviewed by Carl O'Brien, University College, Cork (C.O'[email protected])
Word count:  2199 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-07-69.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/07/20090769.html
-------------------------------

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

This impressive collection of conference proceedings helps to reduce
the deficit of scholarship on Aristides since Charles Behr's 1968 study
Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales and as such it represents a major
landmark in the study of the Second Sophistic. The papers are
subdivided into four sections, dealing with Aristides' literary
predecessors, his self-presentation, the historical and political
context in which Aristides composed his orations and finally the
reception of Aristides' oeuvre, providing a comprehensive and
multi-faceted portrayal of the orator.

The collection opens with Ewen Bowie's meticulously researched
contribution, outlining Aristides' relationship to early Greek lyric,
elegiac and iambic poetry. Bowie demonstrates that, with the exception
of Pindar, Aristides' corpus actually contains relatively few
quotations from other poets of this group (for example, he only cites
two phrases of Alcaeus, p. 10). Bowie uses Dio of Prusa, Maximus of
Tyre and Philostratus of Athens to demonstrate that Aristides' low
citation rate from archaic poets, (when compared to Plutarch or
Athenaeus, for example), is less surprising, when the practice of other
second/third century orators is considered. The anomaly regarding the
high incidence of Pindaric quotations, it is suggested, might be
explained in terms of Pindar's stress on 'outstanding natural
capacities', something which Aristides felt that he possessed (p. 17).
Bowie provides extensive citation tables, documenting Aristides'
citation of these early poets, usefully indicating the fragments for
which Aristides is our only source (p. 22 - 29).

Historiography forms the subject of the next chapter, as Estelle Oudot
explores Aristides rewriting of Thucydides in his Panathenaic
Discourse. This is all bound up with Aristides' claims that the real
Athenian empire is one of culture, which essentially transforms it from
a temporally and spatially limited dominion into a universal one. This
altered perception of the Athenian empire (conditioned by a new
political reality, as a city under Roman dominion) causes Aristides to
portray the Athenian national character in a different manner to
Thucydides. While Aristides does suggest that the Athenians are
courageous, he neutralizes this term by associating it with ideals such
as justice and clemency (p. 38). Aristides also reflects similar
attitudes to Plutarch in his Precepts of Statecraft by portraying
Athens as an ideal subject-city (in that she is capable of policing
herself internally). Oudot's treatment investigates Aristides' work
against the larger backdrop of the rhetorical use of history.

Aristides' use of myth is treated by Suzanne Sai+d. The myth most
prominently utilized by Aristides was that of Heracles. Aristides'
virtuosity in his use of this myth in different contexts is discussed,
from its metaphorical interpretation in the Hymn to Athena to its use
in criticizing Plato in To Plato: In Defense of the Four  and To Plato:
In Defense of Oratory (pp. 59-60). This is followed by an analysis of
Aristides' various attempts to rework the myth. Sometimes this is to
allow it to assume a moralizing character: so Zeus' long nocturnal
tryst with Alcmene is interpreted not in sexual terms, but rather as
the god's attempt to introduce as much of his divine nature into his
offspring as possible. The final section of the paper looks forward to
the discussion of Aristides' relationship with Rome in the later
chapters of the volume by considering how Aristides' applied similar
techniques in his treatment of the Prometheus myth and made it relevant
to contemporary events by transforming it from a legend associated with
democratic Athens to a justification of imperial Rome (p. 65).

G.W. Bowersock analyses Aristides' literary tastes in moralizing terms
by considering Aristides' stance against pantomimes through the lens of
Libanius's polemic against Aristides' position. Bowersock exposes
Libanius's sophistic disingenuity; he defends pantomimes; an artistic
form which he took steps to suppress in his native Antioch (p. 70).
Aristides' statements also result from sophistic grounds: bitterness at
the thought that pantomime dancers were receiving undue prestige at the
expense of orators. A particularly useful feature of this chapter is
Bowersock's consideration of epigraphic evidence in order to evaluate
the role of pantomimes in international contests in Graeco-Roman
antiquity.

Brooke Holmes investigates the manner in which Aristides' body becomes
the focal point of his literary aspirations. Aristides' sees his Sacred
Tales as epic in the manner of the Odyssey; both works contain a
long-suffering hero. Holmes interprets the work in literary terms,
rather than the perhaps now outdated technique of Freudian
psychoanalysis. The interpretation in Freudian terms of Aristides'
dream that he should sacrifice a finger as an attempt to appease a
Father-figure through an act which represents castration springs to
mind as an example. Since Aristides' inscribed the ring which he
substituted instead of a finger, Holmes links this with the story of
his foster-daughter, Philumene and her inscribed entrails (at Or. LI.
23), to suggest Aristides' desire to protect the body from writing (p.
100). This is because Aristides seems to link inscription with death,
and, in support of this claim and to demonstrate the significance of
written commemoration for the Asclepius cult, Holmes provides an
extensive analysis of votives to the god.

One of the most enduring memories retained by any reader of the Sacred
Talesis the spectacular ablutions performed by Aristides, the subject
of Janet Downie's paper.  Downie considers the role of alousia in
ancient medical theory, where it was perceived as a legitimate
recommendation within the context of 'drying' the moist humors, then
thought to be the cause of abdominal complaints. However, for Aristides
the issue of to bathe or not to bathe is something of an interpretative
strategy. Downie illustrates how Aristides can construe bathing as a
luxury, and how his abstention can, at least in part, be seen to result
from a deliberate self-presentation as an ascetic, and a means of
underlining his commitment to the intellectual rigors of oratory.

Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis' chapter 'The Body in the Landscape' can be
seen as a microcosm of the themes of the entire collection. Bodily
conception is again revisited, but Aristides' attitude to Rome, his
literary aspirations, his role in public life and the interrelation of
his corpus are also discussed. After surveying Aristides' description
of Cyzicus (Oration 27) in terms of the human body, Petsalis-Diomidis
considers a second account which Aristides gives of his visit to the
city in the Sacred Tales. Petsalis-Diomidis used this example to
illustrate the interrelation of Aristides' other orations with the
Sacred Tales, as well as the manner in which the themes of travel, the
body and the landscape can be connected in Aristides' corpus. The
interconnection of these themes is also mentioned in the context of the
benefits of Roman rule: safe travel at Oration 36 or the end of
diseased cities, split by stasis at Oration 19. Petsalis-Diomidis then
uses Aristides' bodily conception as a frame in which to interpret the
Sacred Tales as an apologetic text in defense of his limited
declaiming.

Dana Fields contrasts Plutarch's On Inoffensive Self-Praise with
Aristides On an Incidental Remark, in which Aristides responds to ex
tempore praise of himself which he inserted into an oration supposed to
be in praise of Athena. Both writers consider self-praise in civic
terms; Plutarch regards self-praise as detrimental to social harmony by
enflaming the less privileged (p. 157). Aristides also sees it as
philanthropic, as it explains to the audience the manner in which they
should interpret the speech. Fields then contrasts both these remarks
in the light of Plutarch's active public service and Aristides' more
limited efforts.

Laurent Pernot examines Aristides' relationship with Rome, suggesting
that along with the typical conviction of Hellenic supremacy, Aristides
may have been sceptical towards Rome because his trip there was so
closely associated with oratorical failure. An interesting framework
which Pernot adopts for his discussion is a survey of Aristides' dream
narratives.  In a dream recounted in the Sacred Tales, Aristides
refuses to kiss the Emperor Antonius Pius (in accordance with court
etiquette) on the grounds that he is forbidden by Asclepius to do so.
Pernot discusses two other dreams from this period of Aristides' life,
in which he envisages himself meeting with Marcus Aurelius. The main
thrust of these texts creates an impression that Aristides was not
overly concerned with public obligations in comparison to his devotion
to Asclepius (p. 182). This renders the second section of Pernot's
argument particularly elegant; Aristides' refusal of the priesthood of
Asclepius when offered it by the Smyrnan Assembly, after he had
rejected the high priesthood of Asia, on the grounds that he had not
received an order directly from the god to accept it. (Pernot mentions
the expenses that the priesthood of Asclepius would have entailed at
this time as an additional reason for Aristides' resistance).

Further detail on Aristides' attitude to the Empire is furnished by
Francesca Fontanella's analysis of The Encomium on Rome. The
interpretation she sets forth there of the Roman system as a mixed
constitution, and the notion that there are natural rulers and natural
slaves is placed in its context as part of an intellectual tradition
that goes back to Aristotle's Politics. Aristides' involvement in
Rhodes is dealt with by Carlo Franco, drawing upon the evidence of
Oration 24, To the Rhodians on Concord and the chronologically earlier
speech Oration 25, the Rhodiakos. Oration 25 is an address to the
Rhodians after the earthquake which destroyed their city in 142 AD to
console them and rouse their spirits. Oration 24 was composed in
response to a request by certain Rhodians to intervene during a period
of stasis, with Aristides avoiding mention of his earlier involvement
in Rhodes; no doubt because his predictions of future prosperity there
had remained unfulfilled.

Christopher Jones opens the section concerned with Reception by
considering Phrynichos' response to Aristides, preserved in Photios'
summary of the Sophistic Preparation. Phrynichos' life is considered by
a brief treatment of the evidence supplied by the Suda and Photios,
before Jones locates him in his social and intellectual milieu, as a
means of explaining his admiration for Aristides. Raffaella Cribiore
analyses Libanius' admiration for and oratorical rivalry with
Aristides. Cribiore details Libanius' careful reworking of passages
from his predecessor. Libanius' claim of returning to Antioch in
triumph at Or. I.86-89 is clearly modeled on Sacred Tales 5.30-34.
However, C. goes beyond documenting Libanius' emulation to evaluating
the development of this literary relationship, observing Libanius'
shift from competitive rivalry to later seeking comfort in Aristides'
work when he was faced with various problems in later life, such as
student apathy (p. 273 ff.).

Aristides' reception at Byzantium forms the topic for Luana
Quattrocelli's paper. Quattrocelli astutely raises the question of
whether Aristides' was really forced to abstain from rhetorical
performances due to poor health or simply used it to mask fickle
success (p. 279)., before analyzing a manuscript of the Sacred Tales
once in the possession of Arethas, the Archbishop of Caesarea. The good
bishop annotated the edition (Quattrocelli provides a graphological
analysis, as well as two facsimiles of the manuscript, to demonstrate
this claim). Arethas seems intent on portraying Aristides as an
alcoholic and gives vent to other less than Christian opinions. It is
Aristides' devoted monotheism and presentation of Asclepius as his
personal saviour which arouses the hostility of the archbishop, as it
parallels aspects of Christianity too closely.

Aristides' most famous texts are treated in detail. The selection of
articles allows a comprehensive picture of the orator to emerge: his
arrogance, involvement (or at times failure to be engaged) in political
life, as well as his hypochondria and devotion to Asclepius are all
dealt with. This volume fills a gap that has been allowed to develop in
the scholarly literature and provides a detailed portrait of one of
antiquity's most entertaining figures. Though the core market is
undoubtedly those with an interest in the Second Sophistic, the range
of the papers ensure that this volume will appeal to classicists with a
more general curiosity concerning Aristides.

Table of Contents:

Abbreviations, vii
Preface, ix
Contributors, xi
W.V. Harris, Introduction, 1

Part One: Aristides and the Literature of the Past
I. Ewen Bowie, Aristides and Early Greek Lyric, Elegiac and Iambic
Poetry, 9
II. Estelle Oudot, Aelius Aristides and Thucydides: Some Remarks about
the Panathenaic Oration, 31
III. Suzanne Sai+d, Aristides' Uses of Myths, 51
IV. G. W. Bowersock, Aristides and the Pantomimes, 69

Part Two: Aristides' Self-Presentation
V. Brooke Holmes, Aelius Aristides' Illegible Body, 81
VI. Janet Downie, Proper Pleasures: Bathing and Oratory in Aelius
Aristides' Hieros Logos I and Oration 33, 115
VII. Alexia Petsalis-Diomidis, The Body in the Landscape: Aristides'
Corpus in the Light of The Sacred Tales, 131
VIII. Dana Fields, Aristides and Plutarch on Self-Praise, 151

Part Three: Aristides and the Roman Empire of His Times
IX. Laurent Pernot, Aelius Aristides and Rome, 175
X. Francesca Fontanella, The Encomium on Rome as a Response to
Polybius' Doubts About the Roman Empire, 203
XI. Carlo Franco, Aelius Aristides and Rhodes: Concord and Consolation,
217

Part Four: Reception
XII. Christopher Jones, Aristides' First Admirer, 253
XIII. Raffaella Cribiore, Vying with Aristides in the Fourth Century:
Libanius and His Friends, 263
XIV. Luana Quattrocelli, Aelius Aristides' Reception at Byzantium: The
Case of Arethas, 279

Bibliography, 295
Index, 319