Rhetorical strategies in late antique literature: images, metatexts and interpretation

235 Pages·2017·1.16 MB·English

by  Quiroga Puertas

RhetoricalStrategiesinLateAntiqueLiterature
Mnemosyne
Supplements
late antique literature
Editors
DavidBright(Emory)
ScottMcGill(Rice)
JosephPucci(Brown)
EditorialBoard
LauraMiguélez-Cavero(Oxford)
StratisPapaioannou(Brown)
AglaePizzone(Geneva)
KarlaPollmann(Kent)
volume406
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrill.com/mns-lal
Rhetorical Strategies
in Late Antique Literature
Images,MetatextsandInterpretation
Editedby
AlbertoJ.QuirogaPuertas
leiden | boston
Coverillustration:CopyofLysippos’Kairosrelief,fourthcenturybc
Imagecc-by-sa,source:http://es.wikia.com
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Names:QuirogaPuertas,AlbertoJ.,1978-editor.
Title:Rhetoricalstrategiesinlateantiqueliterature:images,metatextsand
interpretation/editedbyAlbertoJ.QuirogaPuertas.
Description:Leiden;Boston:Brill,2017.|Series:Mnemosyne.Supplements;
volume406|Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
Identifiers:lccn2017012880(print)|lccn2017020863(ebook)|
isbn9789004340114(e-book)|isbn9789004340091(hardback:alk.paper)
Subjects:lcsh:Rhetoric,Ancient.|Classicalliterature–Historyandcriticism.
Classification:lcc pa3038(ebook)|lcc pa3038 .r472017(print)|
ddc880.09–dc23
lcrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2017012880
TypefacefortheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscripts:“Brill”.Seeanddownload:brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn2214-5621
isbn978-90-04-34009-1(hardback)
isbn978-90-04-34011-4(e-book)
Copyright2017byKoninklijkeBrillnv,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillnvincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillHes&DeGraaf,BrillNijhoff,BrillRodopiand
HoteiPublishing.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedinaretrievalsystem,
ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,
withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
AuthorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninklijkeBrillnvprovided
thattheappropriatefeesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,222RosewoodDrive,
Suite910,Danvers,ma01923,usa.Feesaresubjecttochange.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperandproducedinasustainablemanner.
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction 1
LieveVanHoof
1 “IAlsoHavetoDialoguewiththePosterity”.AeliusAristides’Legacy
totheLateAntiquity 7
LorenzoMiletti
2 ΣωφροσύνηandSelf-KnowledgeinMethodius’Symposium 26
RyanC.Fowler
3 Rhétoriqueetargumentationdansl’Apologétiquelatine
delapériodeconstantinienne 44
GuadalupeLopeteguiSemperena
4 ImageandWordinEusebiusofCaesarea(vc3.4–24):Constantine
inNicaea 73
JoséB.TorresGuerra
5 InHeavenunlikeonEarth.RhetoricalStrategiesinJulian’sCaesars 90
AlbertoJ.QuirogaPuertas
6 Asianism,Arianism,andtheEncomiumofAthanasius
byGregoryofNazianzus 104
ByronMacDougall
7 RhetoricagainsttheTheatreandTheatrebyMeansofRhetoric
inJohnChrysostom 117
LeonardoLugaresi
8 SocratesamongsttheHolyMen.SocraticParadigmsandStyles
inEunapius’Lives 149
JavierCamposDaroca
vi contents
9 Harmonia’sNecklace(Nonn.D.5.135–189):ASetofJewellery,ekphrasis
andaNarrativeNode 165
LauraMiguélez-Cavero
Bibliography 199
IndexofNamesandTerms 221
Acknowledgements
Theeditorwouldliketothankthecontributorstothisvolumefortheireffort,
interestandenthusiasm.Someoftheessayspresentedinthisbookwereorig-
inally delivered in Oxford at the xvii. International Conference on Patristic
Studies, and at a seminar held in Granada in May 2015 (“Retórica y filosofía
enlaAntigüedadtardía:cánonesculturalesyortodoxiareligiosa”)underthe
auspicesof theResearchProject“Lateatralizacióndelaretóricayelestable-
cimientodeuncanonenlaliteraturagriegaylatinaenlaAntigüedadtardía”
(Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, ffi2012-32012). The
ResearchGroup“Tradiciónypervivenciadelaculturaclásica”(hum404)also
contributedtotheorganizationofthisseminar.
Iwishtoexpressmydeepestgratitudetotheanonymousrefereeforoffer-
ingusefulinsightsandcommentsonthemanuscript.Specialthanksaredueto
JosephM.Pucci,GiuliaMoriconiandCasVandenHoffortheircontinuoussup-
portandadviceineditorialmatters.LievevanHoof,LauraMiguélez-Cavero,
Ryan Fowler, Byron MacDougall and Alexander Petkas have been especially
involved and offered help at different stages of the production of this book,
forwhichIamverygrateful.Finally,thisvolumeisdedicatedtothememory
of Pierre-LouisMalosse,whowascrucialtotheinceptionof thisproject.His
polymathyandconstantsupportovertheyearsareaneverlastingandinspir-
inglegacy.

Introduction
LieveVanHoof
Thecontributionscollectedinthisvolumefindthemselvesatthecrossroadsof
twobloomingfieldsof research:LateAntiquityandancientrhetoric.Indeed,
as a result of the cultural and linguistic turns in Humanities in general, and
ClassicsandAncientHistoryinparticular,scholarshavenotonlyopenedupa
rangeof textsthatwerepreviouslyundervaluedandunderstudied,theyhave
alsodevelopedavariegatedrangeof interpretativestrategiestoanalysethese
texts. The current volume illustrates both these projects and achievements:
studyingwell-knowntextssuchasEusebius’LifeofConstantinealongsidetexts
thatwere,foralongtime,mostlyneglectedorconsideredtobeoflesserquality,
such as Methodius’ Symposium, its various contributions also present a rich
varietyofinterpretativemodels.Inthefollowingpages,Iofferasurveyofthe
individualchapters,followedbyabrief discussionof thethreadsconnecting
them.
In the first chapter, Lorenzo Miletti examines the reasons behind Aelius
Aristides’(117–181)extraordinarypopularityinLateAntiquity.Afirstreasonis
Aristides’mysticismandinspirationbyasingleGod,understandabletoboth
pagan and Christian readers in Late Antiquity. Secondly, Miletti shows that
Aristides’ public exposure of himself and his ill health was, in many cases,
rhetoricallyapttotheperformativecontextof theAsclepieionof Pergamum,
wheretheoratorcouldthuspresenthimselfasanexemplarypatienttofellow
sufferers.Asaresult,ancientaudiencesandauthors,farfrominterpretingthe
prominentplaceofAristides’personandillnessinhisspeechesasasignofan
egocentric,neuroticnature,asmanyscholarsinthepastcoupleof centuries
havedone,founditacceptableandevenadmirable.AthirdreasonforAristides’
popularity in Late Antiquity is his nuanced position towards Plato: whilst
AristidesconquerstheheartsofrhetoricianssuchasThemistiusandSynesius
bycriticizingPlato’sstanceonrhetoric,healsomanagestokeepPlatonistssuch
asPorphyryonboardbyamplyquotingPlato.Aristidescouldthusfunctionas
amediatorbetweenrhetoriciansandphilosophersinLateAntiquity.Fourth,
AristidesbothsurpassesIsocratesbytreatinghistopicsinDemosthenicstyle,
andupdateshimtothenewrealityofaGreekworlddominatedbyRome.Last
butnotleast,Aristidesalsobecameamodelofrhetoricalpracticeandtheory
throughseveraltypesofencomiasticspeeches,throughhisAtticismandstyle,
andthroughhispiousandmoderateethicaloutlook.Allinall,Aristidesthus
managestotapintothemesanddiscoursessuchasmonotheism,Greekidentity
© koninklijkebrillnv,leiden,2017 | doi:10.1163/9789004340114_002
2 van hoof
under Roman dominion, and the relation between rhetoric and philosophy,
thatwere,inLateAntiquity,asrelevantasever.
Thesecondchapter,byRyanC.Fowler,presentsastudyoftheuseoftheterm
andideaofsophrosyneintheSymposiumofMethodiusofOlympus(d.c.311).
AsFowlerdemonstrates,Methodiusdefends(hisown,Christianinterpretation
of)Platoagainsttheencratitesbyarguingthatsophrosyneisnotsomuchabout
chastityinthesenseofabsoluterestraintofthebody,butaboutunderstanding
theformof“chastity”propertooneself—insomecasesvirginity,inotherswell-
practicedmarriageandprocreationorevenremarriage—,andtoharmonize
one’s impulses accordingly. In line with the topic of the volume, rhetoric is
shown to play a key role in developing Methodius’ view on sophrosyne: by
developingthedefinitionofsophrosyneprogressivelythroughtheelevenmain
speechesincludedinthedialogue,Methodiusmanagestoshowthesuperiority
ofhisowndefinitionoverthatofhisencratistopponents.
In the following chapter, Guadalupe Lopetegui Semperena discusses two
Latin apologetics: Arnobius’ Adversus nationes and Firmicus Maternus’ De
erroreprofanarumreligionum. As both authors were converts to Christianity
andcomposed(inthecaseofArnobius,atleastthefinalversionof)theirapolo-
geticsaftertheEdictofMilan,scholarshaveoftenassociatedbothtextsunder
the common denominator of “post-Constantinian apologetics”. Yet, whilst
acknowledging shared characteristics, Lopetegui Semperena demonstrates
howthedifferentargumentativeaims,targetaudiences,andpolitical-ideolog-
icalcontextsbroughtaboutbythemorethanthirtyyearsthatseparateboth
works,leadArnobiusandMaternustoadoptsubstantiallydifferentrhetorical
strategies: whereas Arnobius, especially in his first book, uses induction and
deductioninanalmostdialecticalset-upinordertorefutetheaccusationthat
Christianitycausedtheevilsandconfusionexperiencedbyhislate-thirdand
early-fourthcenturycontemporaries,Maternus,writingunderConstantiusii
andConstansandaddressingtheemperorsalongsideamoregeneralreader-
ship,producessomethingthatresemblesasermon,fullofBiblicalreferences,
inordertoexhortthesereaderstobananypublic,respectivelypersonal,pagan
cults.ThesedifferencesillustratenotjustthevaryingoutlookofArnobiusand
Maternus, but also testify to the continuing pragmatism of rhetoric in Late
Antiquity:asopposedtowhathassometimesbeensuggested,rhetoriccontin-
uedtobeacreativeandpowerfulspeechact.
Inchapterfour,JoséTorresGuerraexaminesEusebius’Lifeof Constantine.
Building on recent research on the use of images in that text,Torres Guerra
zooms in on the relation between word and image in Eusebius’ account of
the Council of Nicaea. After a discussion of the various senses of the word
“image”—which includes material images as well as symbols and signs—he