5 THE SURVIVAL OF THE SOPHISTS CHRISTOPHER JONES T of public speakers. The first spoke without written texts, that of Themistocles, Pericles, and the orators contemporary with them. The second spoke with texts, that of Demosthenes, Aeschines, Isocrates, and with them the established group of ten rhetors. These crops came about in Athens. But a third crop of these is a gift of fortune to Asia, that of Polemo, Herodes, Aristides, and the orators who existed in those times. The third crop, by which I mean that which came from Asia, produced that wise and wonderful man, Aristides. He was among the most famous, and much more, and very sober and superior to money, as he himself has said in his speech In Defense of the Four. HERE HAVE BEEN THREE CROPS This summary history of Greek rhetoric comes from Sopater, the fourth century writer on Aristides.1 It is immediately obvious how different Sopater’s emphases are from those of Philostratus in his Lives of the Sophists: there is no Second Sophistic, but a “third crop”; this third crop, even Herodes Atticus, comes from Asia; and its representative at the center of Sopater’s interest is Aristides, who is praised in terms that might surprise: “wise,” “wonderful,” “sober” (sōphrōn) and above material considerations. Sopater may serve as the starting-point for studying the after-life or the survival of the sophists of the Second Sophistic down to the fifth 1 PLRE 2.1020, Sopater 2; M. Winterbottom, Neue Pauly 11.720, Sopatros 1. 114 Christopher Jones century, with some glimpses beyond. By such a study, I hope in the first place to connect two of Glen Bowersock’s interests, his seminal work on Greek sophists in the Roman empire, and his many studies of Late Antiquity, of which in this context it is appropriate to mention that most sophistic of Roman emperors, Julian. I will argue that Philostratus’ concept of a Second Sophistic did not find much echo in antiquity, however much it pinpoints a real phenomenon in Roman imperial history and however useful it is as an analytical tool. His Lives of the Sophists survived not as a critical essay on rhetoric, but as a quarry for biographical information; in other words, it became a kind of technical treatise. By the same token, his relative valuation of those he called “sophists” did not establish itself as canonical. When a canon of the Second Ten Orators was finally formed, it did not follow Philostratus, and conversely orators greatly admired by Philostratus, such as Herodes Atticus, soon lost ground to others whom he admired less, such as Aristides. I shall try to follow this process of re-evaluation, so far as it can now be followed, and then try to account for it, and in particular for the predominance of Aristides. If Philostratus did not impose his views on posterity, that is in part because he was a snob. For him two cities counted above all, Athens and Smyrna; the two others of the “big three” of Asia, Ephesus, and Pergamum, come in tied for a distant third. Athens and Smyrna had many links in common, among others the belief that Smyrna was a colony of Athens, and institutions such as the hoplite general. For Philostratus, Smyrna excels all cities of Ionia as a shrine of the Muses, “like the bridge of a musical instrument.”2 His king of sophists is Herodes Atticus, educated in Smyrna and the dominant figure of second-century Athens. Philostratus addresses his preface to a Gordian whom he calls a descendant of Herodes, and his account of Herodes occupies a central position in the work, besides being the longest of the Lives. The next longest is Polemo, the leading sophist of Smyrna, who spoke at the dedication of the Olympieion in Athens. Leaving aside his sophists with the reputation of philosophers, almost all Philostratus’ 2 Hoplite general: Jones 1990:70–71. “Bridge:” VS 1.21, p29.26 K. The Survival of the Sophists 115 subjects are in some way tied to one of these two cities. Of the few exceptions, most come in for more or less harsh criticism: Varus of Perge, Hermogenes of Tarsus, Heliodorus the “Arab.” His two Italian sophists, Aelian and Apsines, were both pupils of Pausanias, who in turn studied with Herodes. Even Ephesus fares comparatively poorly. Philostratus seems to identify it with what he calls the “Ionian” style, as when Isaeus rebukes Dionysius of Miletus with the words, “Young man from Ionia, I did not teach you to sing.” Similarly Onomarchus of Andros “caught the Ionian manner as one might ophthalmia” because of his island’s proximity to Ephesus.3 Among a group of sophists whom Philostratus passes over as unworthy of mention is a certain Soteros. It took an inscription, now in the British Museum, to reveal that Soteros taught in Ephesus and attracted pupils from as far away as Ancyra and Pisidian Antioch. The verse inscription that these pupils composed in his honor states that he had twice received and twice obeyed a call, an academic Ruf, from Athens to Ephesus. One wonders if this slight to Athens might have added to Philostratus’ irritation. Ephesus might also have seemed too Roman, too commercial, when compared to what Philostratus approvingly calls the “quiet” (hēsuchia) of Athens.4 Even Pergamum gets remarkably little attention. The inscriptions of Pergamum, notably those of the Asclepieum edited by Christian Habicht, show that Aristides was by no means the only sophist who contributed to the city’s intellectual life. For Philostratus, Pergamum is mainly interesting as a city where sophists such as Polemo and Aristides went for medical cures. The only native Pergamene whom he records is the consular Aristocles, who was a friend of Herodes and also taught a sophist of Smyrna, Euhodianus.5 Bernadette Puech’s recent collection of inscriptions relating to rhetors and sophists shows how much of what might be called “retail sophistry” remains unknown to us, the little masters who taught in 3 Isaeus: VS 1.20, p26.30 K. Onomarchus: VS 2.18, p101.21 K. Soteros: VS 2.23, p107.2 K. Inscription: SEG 13.506; Merkelbach-Stauber 1998– 2004:1.317, 03/02/31 Ephesos; Puech 2002:455–458. “Quiet:” VS 2.21, p104.31 K. 5 Asclepieium: Habicht 1969. Aristocles: VS 2.3, p74.7 K. Euhodianus: VS 2.16, p100.18 K. 4 116 Christopher Jones Chaeronea or Mylasa.6 But no epigraphical evidence was needed to recall that there were some sophists who enjoyed high reputations in their own day and later, and yet never found admission to Philostratus’ catalog. For example, it almost entirely omits two islands, Lesbos and Rhodes. Of Lesbos he only says vaguely that Dionysius of Miletus had once taught there. Lucian by contrast mentions a certain Lesbonax of Mitylene, a “true gentleman” (kalos kai agathos), who called pantomimes or “dancers” cheirisophoi, “hand-wise.” Arethas of Caesarea, writing about the year 900, comments on this reference: “He means that Lesbonax of whom several wonderful declamations (meletai) survive, rivaling those of Nicostratus and Philostratus who were conspicuous among the more recent sophists, and especially his love letters, which drip with great verbal charm.” Some of these declamations were also available to Photius in the ninth century, and three of them still exist, of a remarkably pure Attic style. This Lesbonax may belong to a wellknown family of Mytilene that included Potamo, the famous rhetor of the age of Augustus, and another Lesbonax known to Strabo.7 Something similar is true of Rhodes, which Philostratus mentions only in connection with the last years of Aeschines. A Rhodian sophist from Lindos is honored in a long and detailed inscription of about 100 CE, which says that he was outstanding among the Greeks for his culture. Rhodes also provides two of the students who honored the sophist Soteros of Ephesus, whom Philostratus dismisses as a “toy of the Greeks” (athurma tōn Hellēnōn). Several inscriptions of the island mention an Aurelianus Nicostratus, probably of the early third century. He received a chair (presumably in Rome) from “the greatest emperor,” and was in charge of the Guild of Artists of Dionysus at Rome, as was one of Philostratus’ minor sophists from Smyrna, Euhodianus.8 6 Puech 2002. Dionysios: VS 1.22, p38.28 K. Lucian: Salt. 69. Arethas: schol. Lucian p189.11 Rabe. Possible relatives of Lesbonax: PIR2 L 159, 160. His works: Kiehr 1907. 8 Antipater of Rhodes: Jones forthcoming. Students of Soteros: above, n4. Soteros in Philostratus: VS 2.23, p2.107 K. Nicostratus: PIR2 A 1427 (identifying him with a homonym from Macedonia, on whom see below); Puech 2002:367–369 (rightly disjoining the two). Euhodianus: VS 2.16, p100.5 K. 7 The Survival of the Sophists 117 A Nicostratus mentioned by Philostratus appears to be a different person from the Rhodian one. He too is from an area slighted by the author, Macedonia, and similarly is a much more conspicuous figure than Philostratus’ account might suggest. The Suda says of him that he was “numbered among the select second Ten Rhetors, a contemporary of Dio Chrysostom and Aristides,” and that he composed an encomium of Marcus Aurelius. The reference to the “Second Ten” shows that this Nicostratus belonged to a very select group whom later generations singled out in distinction to the famous Ten of the classical era. The names of the others are not known for certain, but must surely have included Aristides. We might guess that this new canon was drawn up in the fourth or fifth century, the age of what is sometimes called the “third sophistic” of Libanius, Himerius, and others.9 Philostratus’ critical judgments on the sophists of the Second Sophistic therefore seem not to have been accepted by later generations, however much they turned to him for biographical information. The reason is perhaps that he belonged to a tradition of public declamation, especially of the improvised kind. Through informants such as Damianus of Ephesus, he was in touch with the birth of this tradition in the mid-first century; and as his closing paragraph shows, he had no idea that the tradition was coming to an end, or at least was to suffer an eclipse as the Greek city began to be transformed in the later third century. Even before Philostratus wrote his Lives, a different set of criteria can be seen forming, and these were to place the conscious art of a practitioner such as Aristides above the improvisatory skills so admired by Philostratus. An example of this preference for the written over the spoken is that opinionated curmudgeon, Phrynichus. His only fully extant work, the Selection of Attic Words, can dated to the 160s or 170s.10 This amusing little treatise contains a random selection of words and forms over which contemporaries, and sometimes the ancients too, 9 Macedonian Nicostratus: Suda N 404 and other references in PIR2 A 1427 (see n8 above). Pisidian inscription: SEG 32.1302; Merkelbach-Stauber 1998–2004:2.406, 16/61/04 Antiochia; Puech 2002:178–180. “Second Ten:” Jones 1982:266. 10 PIR2 P 398. The Eclogae: Fischer 1974. 118 Christopher Jones commonly fell into error, for example the accusative plural νῆας instead of ναῦς. The contemporary who receives the most criticism is Favorinus of Arelate, one of Philostratus’ “sophists who were thought to be philosophers.”11 He is accused of “sweeping up expressions from the streetcorner”; one of his choices made Phrynichus “hide his face” in shame. True, he is a “man of importance” (anēr logou axios) and “[someone] thought to be the first of the Greeks,” though these compliments sound heavily ironic. Phrynichus’ other favorite target is Polemo, whom Philostratus places second in importance only to Herodes, though he also criticizes other of the biographer’s heroes, such as Lollianus, Antiochus of Aegae, and Alexander the Clay Plato. Phrynichus has two overriding criteria: is a word Attic, that is, do the Athenians use it? And: is it truly ancient? Here he sets the bar high, deploring those who think that a precedent in Menander is enough to prove a word Attic, whereas one in Aristophanes is. (It might be wondered whether “Phrynichus” is a professional name, taken in tribute to the several homonymous Attic poets.) It is striking that practically all the sophists who fail Phrynichus’ test of correct Atticism are also ones whose sophistic works have not survived to us. Of Favorinus’ speeches, as opposed to his scientific works, one survives in a thirdcentury century papyrus, and two as stowaways in the corpus of Dio Chrysostom. Two rather overheated declamations of Polemo survive, while his technical treatise on physiognomy is extant entire in Arabic and abbreviated in a late antique summary. “Lollianus” is name of the author of a Greek novel known from papyrus, but the novelist is usually thought different from the sophist. The case is the same with Heliodorus, the author of the Aithiopika, who is usually differentiated from Philostratus’ “Arab,” though the identification has its attractions.12 Of the others criticized by Phrynichus, such as Alexander the 11 Philostr. VS 1.8, pp8.23–11.16 K. On his life and career, PIR2 F 123 and now Amato 2005:1–37. “Street corner:” Phryn. Ecl. 161. “I hid my face” (enekalupsamēn): Ecl. 213. “Man of importance” (anēr logou axios): Ecl. 216. “First of the Greeks:” Ecl. 228. 12 Favorinus: see n11 above. Polemo (M. Antonius P.): PIR2 A 862; Puech 2002:396–406. Declamations: ref. Lollianus (Publius Hordeonius L.): PIR2 H 203; Puech 2002:327–330; on the identification of the author, Henrichs 1969. Heliodorus: Philostr. VS 2.32, pp124.4– 125.16 K: the ongoing debate about the date of Heliodorus (third or fourth century) The Survival of the Sophists 119 Clay Plato, nothing survives at all. This sample of sophists is very limited, but it already suggests that Phrynichus is a more accurate barometer of later preferences than Philostratus. Once the majority of sophists were reduced merely to writing, to what a later age would call “cold print,” then the magic that they exercised as performers was lost, and it was their value as examples of correct Greek that counted most. This is also true of Philostratus’ hero, Herodes Atticus: he survives, if at all, only in the speech entitled in the sole manuscript On Policy (περὶ πολιτείας), a rather arid declamation drawing on an imaginary political situation in fifth-century Thessaly.13 By contrast with their declamations, the technical treatises written by some of Philostratus’ sophists did survive. Apart from Polemo on physiognomy, there survive full or abbreviated versions of the works of Hermogenes, whom Philostratus regards almost as a figure of fun, a child prodigy who lost his talent in adulthood; “he died at a great age, when he was thought no better than the average (heis tōn pollōn), for he was despised when his art deserted him.”14 So also with Pollux of Naucratis: Philostratus admits that he was an excellent “critic,” that is, an expert in linguistic usage, but his actual declamations were mediocre, so that it was difficult to say whether he was “educated” or “uneducated.”15 Apsines of Gadara, whom Philostratus praises for his memory and precision, again lives on only in his technical works.16 The writings of Favorinus that lasted for several centuries, though these too are now lost, are a non-rhetorical collection of anecdotes, the Jottings (Apomnēmoneumata), and the similar collection called the Miscellaneous History (Pantodapē Historia).17 Aelian’s survival is very similar. Philostratus observes that he did not trust his ability to declaim, and so “devoted himself to writing and won admiration for that” (τῷ usually ignores the old identification (going back to the sixteenth century) with Philostratus’ sophist. 13 Albini 1968. 14 VS 2.7, p83.21 K. 15 VS 2.12, 96.3–9 K. 16 VS 2.33, p127.4 K. 17 Mensching 1963. On the survival of Favorinus see now Amato 2005:211–214. 120 Christopher Jones ξυγγράφειν ἐπέθετο καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ἐκ τούτου).18 What has come down is not declamatory at all, his two collections of curiosities and natural wonders, together with what seems to modern taste a rather insipid collection of “rustic letters.” The first presumably appealed to a taste common in all ages for tid-bits and tattle about famous men, as did the similar collections of Favorinus: the second provided later readers for models in the writing of letters, an essential activity in societies where verbal persuasion had to be effected at a distance and not only face to face. By contrast, the great survivors among Philostratus’ sophists are Dio Chrysostom, if Philostratus’ classification of him is accepted, and Aelius Aristides. There is also Philostratus’ own family, though scholars in later antiquity as well as in modern times have had difficulty in attributing the various works that have come down under the name. Dio clearly survives in the first place because of his perceived excellence of style, which by the fourth century had brought him the nickname of “Golden Mouth” (Chrysostomos); in addition, the high moral tone of his philosophical works no doubt commended him to Christian readers. The author of the Sophists and the Life of Apollonius presumably survives because of his subject matter, since for Byzantine readers his Sophists were a continuing source of information about the history of rhetoric, and his Apollonius was a mixture of travel, miracle, and rhetoric, besides commemorating a sage who never ceased to fascinate later ages. Aristides is a special case, and his afterlife would require a separate study, for which only the outlines can be given here. Philostratus’ notice of him is slightly dismissive. On his view, Aristides’ Sacred Tales are a good exercise in how to talk even on the most everyday subjects; his Monody on Smyrna led Marcus to rebuild the city after the earthquake of 178 (again, Philostratus’ obsession with Smyrna shows through); the biographer quotes at length criticisms of certain declamations (as it happens, none of these particular ones have survived), while praising others as models of their kind. Philostratus’ final verdict on Aristides is that “he was the most skilled of the sophists and excellent in devising 18 VS 2.31, p123.10 K. The Survival of the Sophists 121 ideas, but as a result averse to improvisation, since the wish to produce everything only after thinking it out takes away spontaneity.”19 There is no mention of the works that dominated later criticism of this author, notably the gigantic anti-Platonic treatises In Defense of the Four and In Defense of Rhetoric. Nor does Philostratus notice the prose-hymns that Aristides counted as among his major contributions to the sophistic genre, or the speeches to cities such as Rome, Rhodes, and Smyrna that so interest modern historians of Asia Minor. In fact, Aristides’ pre-eminence had begun to emerge well before Philostratus. Phrynichus’ surviving Selection of Attic Words has already been mentioned, but another, much larger work of his survives only in an epitome and the summary of Photius. This is his Sophistic Preparation in 36 books, the whole collection being dedicated to Commodus, though each book had a separate and non-imperial addressee, with some addressees getting more than one book. The Suda may be right in making him a Bithynian, since the names of the addressees point to a context in western Asia Minor, perhaps Pergamum. Thus the first book had an Aristocles as the addressee, probably the Pergamene sophist and Roman consular Claudius Aristocles, and another book had a Rufinus, who could be the celebrated builder of the temple of Zeus Asclepius or a later member of his family. In one of the books, dedicated to a certain Menodorus, Phrynichus said that he had just been reading the works of Aristides, and he praised them highly. Some critics, it appears, thought Aristides less great than his reputation, but (I quote) “envy issuing from certain people attacked Aristides too, as it did many others conspicuous for their paideia.” (We are reminded of the criticisms reported by Philostratus).20 The comparison of Aristides with Demosthenes was one that Aristides himself did nothing to discourage, and a first cautious hint of it comes from his contemporary, Hermogenes of Tarsus, who after comparing a passage in Aristides with 19 VS 2.9, pp86.22–89.31 K. For Aristides and Smyrna see now Franco 2005. The Sophistic Preparation: Phot. Bibl. cod. 158, 2 pp115–119 Henry; on Aristides, 101a16, p117 Henry; cf. PIR2 P 398. Suda: Φ 764. Aristocles: PIR2 C 789. Rufinus: PIR2 C 1637; note his son or grandson, ibid., 1638. On his role in the building of this temple, Habicht 1969:11–14. 20 122 Christopher Jones a similar one in Demosthenes adds: “I do not say this as if [the example in Aristides] is better than what Demosthenes said (for I would be out of my mind to say that), but that the latter has more verisimilitude than the former.”21 This tendency was to culminate in the fourteenth century with Theodoros Metochites’ formal syncrisis of the two masters.22 Late Antiquity shows two streams of critical opinion about Aristides, sometimes joining in the same person. The prevalent one is of admiration; thus for Eunapius he is the “divine (theios) Aristides,” and Libanius, on receiving a portrait of him from a friend, sat down beside it, so he tells us, reading one of the author’s works. At the same time, he asked the portrait whether it really resembled the author of the writings. He concluded that the answer was positive, (I quote) “so heavenly (theoeidē), beautiful, and superior to the common run they all are.” For Sopater of Athens, the author of the extant Prolegomena, Aristides is a “wise and wonderful man,” and the only other sophists that he names are Herodes and Polemo. There are now four identified papyri of Aristides, all of the fifth or sixth century: significantly, one is of the Sacred Tales, one of the treatise On the Four, and two of the Panathenaicus.23 At the same time, Aristides provoked opposition in late antiquity, not for his style but for his ideas. Though modern readers are perhaps not used to thinking of Aristides as having ideas, Philostratus noticed them as one of his conspicuous features, and they certainly stirred much debate later, especially among devotees of Plato. Porphyry wrote a work in no less than seven books against Aristides. The sixthcentury Platonist Olympiodorus either used this work, or drew on his own reading of Aristides when answering him in his commentary on the Gorgias.24 Libanius, despite his admiration for his “divine” predecessor, wrote his Defense of the Pantomimes in direct answer to Aristides’ lost work against them.25 At least one professional advocate entered the 21 Hermogenes p353.26 Rabe. Gigante 1969. 23 Eunapius: VS 14.2, p81.11 Giangrande. Libanius: Ep. 1534, 11.553.20 Förster. Papyri: P Bingen no. 24, pp128–130. 24 Porphyry: Suda Π 2098. Olympiodorus: Behr 1968; PLRE 2.800, Olympiodorus 5. 25 Molloy 1996. 22 The Survival of the Sophists 123 lists: this is Sergius of Zeugma, sophist, rhetor, and praetorian prefect under Anastasius, who wrote a work In Defense of the Advocates (dikologoi) against Aristides. This title seems mysterious, since Aristides commonly attacks rival sophists, but nowhere in the extant corpus attacks forensic speakers. 26 The reasons for this eventual triumph of Aristides are various, and no doubt not all applied all the time. An obvious one is his style, Attic but not hyper-Attic. The beauty of this was much more evident to those for whom Greek was a living language than it is to us, and of course it is totally lost in translation. Thus in Photius’ Library, Aristides fills three whole codices, amounting to about 120 Budé pages.27 The first codex is a long extract from the Panathenaicus, which Photius prefaces by observing that the speech contains “a selection of nouns, verbs and periods, but also of ideas artfully and beautifully arranged” (νοημάτων εἰς δεινότητα καὶ κάλλος διεσκευασμένων). Thus for Photius Aristides’ mastery was both stylistic and logical, and in fact a later scholiast has adorned the subsequent extracts with annotations that comment not on the language but on the logic.28 That leads to another of Aristides’ attractions for later generations: his vigorous and closely sustained defense of rhetoric. It is no accident that, apart from the Panathenaicus, the other works extracted by Photius are what he regards as a corpus of four treatises concerned with Plato’s Gorgias, in modern texts the two books In Defense of Rhetoric, the treatise To Capito, and the Defense of the Four. Rhetoric continued to be a concern of Byzantium throughout its history,29 and Aristides’ defense not only gave it new models, but also defended it against its most influential critic. A final reason is more elusive, but not less powerful, and that is Aristides’ perceived moral character. Sopater spoke of him as “wise (sophos), wonderful (thaumasios), sober (sōphrōn), and superior to money (kreittōn tōn chrēmatōn).” This austere character, celibate and childless, 26 27 28 29 Suda Σ 246; PLRE 2.994, Sergius 7. Cod. 246–248, 7 pp8–126 Henry. Thus pp43, 48, 53 Henry. See for example Kennedy 1983. 124 Christopher Jones lived for his art, or what he calls logoi, a term of which “literature” is only a pale translation. In a moving passage of his work On those who Blamed him because he Did Not Declaim, he says:30 “Alone of the Greeks that I know of, not for the sake of wealth, of reputation, of honor, of marriage, of influence, not of any advantage all did I turn my mind to literature, and as a disinterested lover of that, literature has honored me. Others have found pleasure in the company of boys, others in visiting the baths as much as possible, others in drinking to excess; some have been dazzled by horses and dogs, and indeed some in their pursuit of leisure have deserted literature. But for me literature has every name and every power. I have made this my children, my parents, my actions, and my relaxations, everything.” This puritanical side of Aristides also emerges from the sustained attack on Cynics that closes the Defense of Rhetoric, and in the speech attacking satirical comedy. Such a personality might well have made him sympathetic to Christian readers, just as they could have found what he says about his rivals confirmed in the pages of Philostratus. The last word may go to a Byzantine epigrammatist, usually dated to the sixth century, Thomas Scholasticus:31 Ῥητορικῆς φιλέω τρεῖς ἀστέρας, οὕνεκα μοῦνοι πάντων ῥητήρων εἰσὶν ἀρειότεροι: σεῖο πόνους φιλέω, Δημόσθενες: εἰμὶ δὲ λίην καὶ φιλαριστείδης καὶ φιλοθουκυδίδης. I love three stars of speaking, who alone For every other speaker set the tone. As much as I love you, Demosthenes, I love Aristides and Thucydides. HARVARD UNIVERSITY Bibliography Albini, U., ed. 1968. [Erode Attico:] ΠΕΡΙ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΑΣ. Florence. 30 31 Or. 33.19–20, p232.15–24 K. Anth. Gr. 16.315; PLRE 3B.1320–21, Thomas 23. The Survival of the Sophists 125 Amato, E., ed. 2005. Favorinos d’Arles: Œuvres. Paris. Behr, C. A. 1968. “Citations of Porphyry’s Against Aristides preserved in Olympiodorus.” AJPh 89:186–199. Fischer, E., ed. 1974. Die Ekloge des Phrynichos. Berlin and New York. Franco, C. 2005. Elio Aristide e Smirne. Rome. Gigante, M., ed. 1969. Teodoro Metochites: Saggio critico su Demostene e Aristide. Milan. Habicht, C. 1969. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Berlin. Jones, C. P. 1982. “A Family of Pisidian Antioch.” Phoenix 36:264–271. ———. 1990. “Heracles at Smyrna.” AJN, 2nd series, 2:65–76. ———. Forthcoming. “A Forgotten Sophist.” CQ. Kennedy, G. A. 1983. Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors. Princeton. Kiehr, F. 1907. Lesbonactis Sophistae quae supersunt. Leipzig. Merkelbach, R., and J. Stauber, eds. 1998–2004. Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten. 5 vols. Stuttgart. Mensching, E., ed. 1963. Favorin von Arelate: Der erste Teil der Fragmente, Memorabilia und Omnigena Historia. Berlin. Molloy, M. E., ed. 1996. Libanius and the Dancers. Hildesheim, Zürich and New York. Puech, B. 2002. Orateurs et sophistes grecs dans les inscriptions d’époque impériale. Paris.