from the title of Plutarch’s treatise, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρᾶν ἔμμετρα νῦν τὴν
Πυθίαν, that the practice had ceased in the second century.
[62] Cf. e.g.. Pindar, _Frag._ 127 (118), μαντεύεο μοῖσα προφατεύσω δ’
ἐγώ; and, in later times, Ælius Aristides, vol. iii. p. 22, ed. Cant.
[63] Dio Chrysostom, _Orat._ i. vol. i. p. 12, ed. Dind.
[64] Id. _Orat._ xxxvi. vol. ii. p. 59: καί πού τις ἐπίπνοια θείας φύσεώς
τε καὶ ἀληθείας καθάπερ αὐγὴ πυρὸς ἐξ ἀφανοῦς λάμψαντος.
[65] It was a natural result of the estimation in which he was held
that he should sometimes have been regarded as being not only inspired,
but divine: the passages which refer to this are collected in G.
Cuper, _Apotheosis vel consecratio Homeri_ (in vol. ii. of Polenus’s
Supplement to Gronovius’s Thesaurus), which is primarily a commentary
on the bas-relief by Archelaus of Priene, now in the British Museum
(figured, e.g. in Overbeck, _Geschichte der griechischen Plastik_, ii.
333). The idea has existed in much more recent times, not indeed that
he was divine, but that so much truth and wisdom could not have existed
outside Judæa. There is, for example, a treatise by G. Croesus, entitled,
ομηρος εβραιος _sive historia Hebræorum ab Homero Hebraicis nominibus
ac sententiis conscripta in Odyssea et Iliade_, Dordraci, 1704, which
endeavours to prove both that the name Homer is a Hebrew word, that the
Iliad is an account of the conquest of Canaan, and that the Odyssey is a
narrative of the wanderings of the children of Israel up to the death of
Moses.
[66] Plat. _Protag._ 72, p. 339 _a_.
[67] _Ibid._ 22, p. 317 _b_: ὁμολογῶ τε σοφιστὴς εἶναι καὶ παιδεύειν
ἀνθρώπους. For detailed information as to the relation between the
early sophists and Homer, reference may be made to a dissertation by
W. O. Friedel, _de sophistarum studiis Homericis_, printed in the
_Dissertationes philologicæ Halenses_, Halis, 1873.
[68] Cf. H. Schrader, _über die porphyrianischen Ilias Scholien_,
Hamburg, 1872.
[69] Strab, 1. 2. 8.
[70] Id. 1. 2. 3.
[71] Dio Chrys. _Orat._ 2, vol. i. pp. 19, 20.
[72] Dio Chrys. _Orat._ 1, vol. i. p. 3.
[73] Plat. _Theæt._ 9, p. 152 _d_, quoting Hom. _Il._ 14. 201-302. In
later times, the same verse was quoted as having suggested and supported
the theory of Thales, Irenæus, 2.14; Theodoret, _Græc. Affect. Cur._ 2. 9.
[74] Celsus in Origen, _c. Cels._ 6. 42, referring to Hom. _Il._ 15. 18
sqq.
[75] Cic. _N. D._ 1. 15: “ut etiam veterrimi pœtæ, qui hæc ne quidem
suspicati sint, Stoici fuisse videantur.”
[76] Xen. _Sympos._ 4. 6; 3. 5.
[77] Ps-Plutarch, _de vita et poesi Homeri_, vol. v. pp. 1056 sqq.,
chapters 148, 164, 182, 192, 216.
[78] The earliest expression of this feeling is that of Xenophanes, which
is twice quoted by Sextus Empiricus, _adv. Gramm._ 1. 288, _adv. Phys._
9. 193:
πάντα θεοῖς ἀνέθηκαν Ὅμηρος θ’ Ἡσίοδός τε
ὅσσα παρ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀνείδεα καὶ ψόγος ἐστί.
[79] Plutarch, _de aud. poet._ c. 4, pp. 24, 25.
[80] Lucian, _Jupit. confut._ 2.
[81] The connection of allegory with the mysteries was recognized:
Heraclitus Ponticus, c. 6, justifies his interpretation of Apollo as
the sun, ἐk τῶν μυστικῶν λόγων οὓς αἱ ἀπόρρητοι τελετὰι θεολογοῦσι:
ps-Demetrius Phalereus, _de interpret._ c. 99, 101, _ap._ Walz,
_Rhett. Gr._ ix. p. 47, μεγαλεῖόν τί ἐστι καὶ ἡ ἀλληγορία ... πᾶν γὰρ
τὸ ὑπονοούμενον φοβερώτατον καὶ ἄλλος εἰκάζει ἄλλο τι ... διὸ καὶ τὰ
μυστήρια ἐν ἀλληγορίαις λέγεται πρὸς ἔκπληξιν καὶ φρίκην: so Macrobius,
in _Somn. Scip._ 1. 2, after an account of the way in which the poets
veiled truths in symbols, “sic ipsa mysteria figurarum cuniculis
operiuntur ne vel hæc adeptis nuda rerum talium se natura præbeat.” That
a physical explanation lay behind the scenery of the mysteries is stated
elsewhere, e.g. by Theodoret, _Græc. Affect. Cur._ i. vol. iv. p. 721,
without being connected with the allegorical explanation of the poets.
[82] Pausan. 3. 25. 4-6.
[83] Plat. _Phædr._ p. 229 _c_.
[84] Plat. _Resp._ p. 378 _d_.
[85] Diogenes Laertius, 2. 11, quotes Favorinus as saying that
Anaxagoras was the first who showed that the poems of Homer had virtue
and righteousness for their subject. If the later traditions (Georg.
Syncellus, _Chronogr._ p. 149 _c_) could be trusted, the disciples of
Anaxagoras were the authors of the explanations which Plato attributes
to οἱ νῦν περὶ Ὅμηρον δεινοί, and which tried by a fanciful etymology to
prove that Athené was voῦv τε καὶ διάνοιαν (Plat. _Cratyl._ 407 _b_).
[86] Diog. Laert. 2. 11: Tatian, _Orat. ad Græcos_, c. 21, Μητρόδωρος
δὲ ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ Ὁμήρου λίαν εὐήθως διείλεκται πάντα εἰς
ἀλληγορίαν μετάγων. A later tradition used the name of Pherecydes:
Isidore, sun of Basilides, in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 6, p. 767.
[87] On the general subject of allegorical interpretation, especially
in regard to Homer, reference may be made to N. Schow in the edition
of Heraclitus Ponticus mentioned below; L. H. Jacob, _Dissertatio
philosophica de allegoria Homerica_, Halæ, 1785; C. A. Lobeck,
_Aglaophamus_, pp. 155, 844, 987; Gräfenhan, _Geschichte der klassischen
Philologie_, Bd. i. p. 211. It has been unnecessary for the present
purpose to make the distinction which has sometimes (e.g. Lauer,
_Litterarischer Nachlass_, ed. Wichmann, Bd. ii. p, 105) been drawn
between allegory and symbol.
[88] The most recent edition is Heracliti _Allegoriæ Homericæ_, ed. E.
Mehler, Leyden, 1851: that of N. Schow, Göttingen, 1782, contains a Latin
translation, a good essay on Homeric allegory, and a critical letter
by Heyne. It seems probable that the treatise is really anonymous, and
that the name Heraclitus was intended to be that of the philosopher of
Ephesus: see Diels, _Doxoyraphi Græci_, p. 95 _n_.
[89] The most recent, and best critical, edition is by C. Lang, ed. 1881,
in Teubner’s series. More help is afforded to an ordinary student by that
which was edited from the notes of de Villoison by Osann, Göttingen, 1844.
[90] c. 1, πάντως γὰρ ἠσέβησεν εἰ μηδὲν ἀλληγόρησεν: he defines allegory,
c. 5, ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα μὲν ἀγορεύων τρόπος ἕτερα δὲ ὧν λέγει σημαίνων
ἐπωνύμως ἀλληγορία καλεῖται.
[91] c. 2.
[92] c. 8.
[93] c. 61.
[94] c. 66.
[95] c. 69.
[96] c. 16.
[97] c. 18.
[98] Sallust, _de diis et mundo_, c. 4, in Mullach, _Fragmenta
Philosophorum Græcorum_, vol. iii. p. 32.
[99] _Incerti Scriptoris Græci Fabulæ aliquot Homericæ de Ulixis
erroribus ethice explicatæ_, ed. J. Columbus, Leiden, 1745.
[100] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 5. 8, p. 673.
[101] Marcellinus, _Vita Thucydidis_, c. 35, ἀσαφῶς δὲ λέγων ἀνὴρ
ἐπιτηδὲς ἵνα μὴ πᾶσιν εἴη βατὸς μηδὲ εὐτελὴς φαίνηται παντὶ τῷ βουλομένῳ
νοούμενος εὐχερῶς ἀλλὰ τοῖς λίαν σοφοῖς δοκιμαζόμενος παρὰ τούτοις
θαυμάζηται.
[102] The analogy is drawn by Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 5, chapters 4 and 7.
[103] It is impossible not to mention Aristobulus: he is quoted by
Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ 1. 15, 22; 5. 14; 6. 3), and extracts
from him are given by Eusebius (_Præp. Evang._ 8. 10; 13. 12); but
the genuineness of the information that we possess about him is much
controverted and has given rise to much literature, of which an account
will be found in Schürer, _Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes_, 2er Th. p.
760; Drummond, _Philo-Judæus_, i. 242.
[104] Philo, _de somniis_, i. 20, vol. i. p. 639.
[105] Hom. _Il._ 2. 204.
[106] Ps-Justin (probably Apollonius, see Dräseke, in the _Jahrb. f.
protestant. Theologie_, 1885, p. 144), c. 17.
[107] Hom. _Il._ 18. 483.
[108] Ps-Justin, c. 28.
[109] Hom. _Il._ 14. 206; Clem. Al. _Strom._ 5. 14, p. 708.
[110] _Il._ 22. 8; Clem. Al. _Strom._ 5. 14, p. 719; but it sometimes
required a keen eye to see the Gospel in Homer. For example, in _Odyss._
9. 410, the Cyclopes say to Polyphemus:
εἰ μὲν δὴ μή τίς σε βιάζεται οἶον ἐόντα,
νοῦσόν γ’ οὔ πως ἔστι Διὸς μεγάλου ἀλέασθαι.
Clement (_Strom._ 5. 14) makes this to be an evident “divination” of
the Father and the Son. His argument is, apparently, μήτις = μῆτις; but
μῆτις = λόγος: therefore the νόσος Διός, which = μῆτις = (by a μαντείας
εὐστόχου) the Son of God.
[111] Hippol. _Philosophumena_, 6. 14.
[112] Herod. 4. 8-10.
[113] Hippol. 5. 21.
[114] _Clementin. Hom._ 2. 43, 44.
[115] _Ib._ 2. 51.
[116] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 5. 4, p. 237.
[117] These are given by J. G. Rosenmüller, _Historia Interpretationis
librorum sacrorum in ecclesia Christiana_, vol. i. p. 63.
[118] Athenag. _Legat._ c. 19: ps-Justin (Apollonius), _Cohort. ad.
Græc._ c. 8, uses the analogous metaphor of a harp of which the Divine
Spirit is the _plectrum_.
[119] Tertull. _adv. Marc._ 3. 5.
[120] Justin M. _Apol._ i. 54.
[121] _Ib._ i. 35.
[122] _Ib._ i. 32.
[123] _Ib._ _Tryph._ 78.
[124] Iren. 1. 8. 4, of the Valentinians.
[125] _Ib._ 1. 8. 2.
[126] Clem. Al. _Strom._ 1. 3, p. 329.
[127] _Ib._ 6. 11, p. 787.
[128] Id. _Pædag._ 2. 8, p. 76.
[129] This was the contention of Marcion, whose influence upon the
Christian world was far larger than is commonly supposed. By far the best
account of him, in both this and other respects, is that of Harnack,
_Dogmengeschichte_, 1er Th. B. i. c. 5.
[130] Euseb. _H. E._ 6. 19. 8.
[131] Origen, _de princip._ 1. 16.
[132] _Ib._ c. 15.
[133] Clement. _Recogn._ 10. 36.
[134] Clement. _Hom._ 6. 18.
[135] Tatian, _Orat. ad. Græc._ 21.
[136] Euseb. _Præp. Evang._ 2. 6, vol. iii. p 74: θεραπεία became a
technical term in this sense; cf. Gräfenhan, _Geschichte des klass.
Philologie im Alterthum_, vol. i. p. 215.
[137] Porphyr. ap. Euseb. _H. E._ 6. 19. 5.
[138] Origen, _c. Cels._ 4. 48-50.
[139] Origen, _in Gen. Hom._ 13. 3, vol. ii. p. 94; _in Joann. Hom._ 10.
13, vol. iv. p. 178.
[140] Euseb. _H. E._ 7. 24.
[141] Kihn, _Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten_,
Freib. im Breisg. 1880, p. 7.
[142] J. G. Rosenmüller, _Hist. Interpret._ iii. p. 161. The letter is
printed, with the other remains of Julius Africanus, in Routh, _Reliquiæ
Sacræ_, vol. ii.
[143] See the chapter on “Scripture and its Mystical Interpretation” in
Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” especially p.
324 (2nd ed.), “It may almost be laid down as an historical fact that the
mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together.”
[144] I have endeavoured to confine the above account to what is true
of _Greek_ Rhetoric: the accounts which are found in Roman writers,
especially in Quintilian, though in the main agreeing with it, differ in
some details. The best modern summary of Greek usages is that of Kayser’s
Preface to his editions of Philostratus (Zürich, 1844; Leipzig, 1871,
vol. ii.).
[145] E. Rohde, _der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer_, Leipzig,
1876, p. 297.
[146] There is a distinction between τὰ δικανικὰ and τὰ ἀμφὶ μελέτην, and
both are distinguished from τὰ πολιτικὰ in Philostratus, _V. S._ 2. 20,
p. 103. Elsewhere Philostratus speaks of a sophist as being δικανικοῦ μὲν
σοφιστικώτερος σοφιστοῦ δὲ δικανικώτερος, “too much of a _litterateur_ to
be a good lawyer, and too much of a lawyer to be a good _litterateur_,”
2. 23. 4, p. 108.
[147] θέσις is defined by Hermogenes as ἀμφισβητημένου πράγματος ζήτησις,
_Progymn._ 11, Walz, i. p. 50: ὑπόθεσις as τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους ζήτησις, Sext.
Emp. _adv. Geom._ 3. 4: so τὰς εἰς ὄvομα ὑποθέσεις, Philostr. _V.S._
proœm. The distinction is best formulated by Quintilian, 3. 5. 5, who
gives the equivalent Latin terms, “infinitæ (quæstiones) sunt quæ remotis
personis et temporibus et locis cæterisque similibus in utramque partem
tractantur quod Græci θέσιν dicunt, Cicero propositum ... finitæ autem
sunt ex complexu rerum personarum temporum cæterorumque: hæ ὑποθέσεις a
Græcis dicuntur, caussæ a nostris, in his omnis quæstio videtur circa res
personasque consistere.”
[148] Philostr. _V.S._ 1. 25. 7, 16.
[149] _Ib._ 2. 5. 3.
[150] Dio Chrysost. lvi. vol. ii. p. 176.
[151] προσωποποιΐα, for which see Theon. _Progymnasmata_, c. 10, ed.
Spengel, vol. ii. 115: Quintil. 3. 8. 49; 9. 2. 29. The word ὑποκρίνεσθαι
was sometimes applied, e.g. Philostr. _V.S._ 1. 21. 5, of Scopelianus,
whose action in subjects taken from the Persian wars was so vehement that
a partizan of one of his rivals accused him of beating a tambourine,
“Yes, I do,” he said; “but my tambourine is the shield of Ajax.”
[152] “They made their voice sweet with musical cadences, and modulations
of tone, and echoed resonances:” Plut. _de aud._ 7, p. 41. So at Rome
Favorinus is said to have “charmed even those who did not know Greek by
the sound of his voice, and the significance of his look, and the cadence
of his sentences:” Philostr. _V. S._ 1. 7, p. 208.
[153] _Orat._ lix.
[154] Rohde, pp. 336 sqq.
[155] This trained habit of composing in different styles is of
importance in relation to Christian as well as to non-Christian
literature. A good study of the latter is afforded by Arrian, whose
“chameleon-like style” (Kaibel, _Dionysios von Halikarnass und die
Sophistik_, Hermes, Bd. xx. 1875, p. 508) imitates Thucydides, Herodotus,
and Xenophon, by turns.
[156] Philostratus, V. S. 1. P. 202, τὴν ἀρχαίαν σοφιστικὴν _ῥητορικὴν_
ἡγεῖσθαι χρὴ _φιλοσοφοῦσαν_. διαλέγεται μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ ὧν οἱ φιλοσοφοῦντες
ἃ δὲ ἐκεῖνοι τὰς ἐρωτήσεις ὑποκαθήμενοι καὶ τὰ σμικρὰ τῶν ζητουμένων
προβιβάζοντες οὔπω φασὶ γιγνώσκειν ταῦτα ὁ παλαιὸς σοφιστὴς ὡς εἰδὼς
λέγει: _ib._ p. 4, σοφιστὰς δὲ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐπωνόμαζον οὐ μόνον τῶν ῥητόρων
τοὺς ὑπερφωνοῦντάς τε καὶ λαμπρούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ _τῶν φιλοσόφων τοὺς ξὺν
εὐροίᾳ ἑρμηνεύοντας_.
[157] On the distinction, see Kayser’s preface to his editions of
Philostratus, p. vii.
[158] Philostratus, _V. S._ 2. 3, p. 245, says that the famous sophist
Aristocles lived the earlier part of his life as a Peripatetic
philosopher, “squalid and unkempt and ill-clothed,” but that when he
passed into the ranks of the sophists he brushed off his squalor,
and brought luxury and the pleasures of music into his life. On the
philosopher’s dress, see below, Lecture VI. p. 151.
[159] Epictetus, _Diss._ 3. 21. 6; 3. 23. 6, 23, 28: so Pliny, _Epist._
3. 18 (of invitations to recitations), “non per codicillos (cards of
invitation), non per libellos (programmes, probably containing extracts),
sed ‘si commodum esset,’ et ‘si valde vacaret’ admoniti.” Cf. Lucian,
_Hermotimus_, 11, where a sophist is represented as hanging up a
notice-board over his gateway, “No lecture to-day.”
[160] Philostratus, _V.S._ 2. 10. 5, says that the enthusiasm at Rome
about the sophist Adrian was such that when his messenger (τοῦ τῆς
ἀκροάσεως ἀγγέλου) appeared on the scene with a notice of lecture, the
people rose up, whether from the senate or the circus, and flocked to the
Athenæum to hear him. Synesius, _Dio_ (in Dio Chrys. ed. Dind, vol. ii.
342), speaks of θυροκοπήσαντα καὶ ἐπαγγείλαντα τοῖς ἐv ἄστες μειρακίοις
ἀκρόαμα ἐπιδέξιον.
[161] _Orat._ 23, p. 360, ed. Dind.
[162] _De sanit. præc._ 16, p. 131.
[163] _V. S._ 2. 5. 3.
[164] _Pseudolog._ 5 sqq.
[165] _Orat._ viii. vol. i. 145.
[166] Epict. _Diss._ 3. 23. 35, ἐν κομψῷ στολίῳ ἢ τριβωνίῳ ἀναβάντα
ἐπὶ πούλβινον: but Pliny, _Epist._ 2. 3. 2, says of Isæus, “surgit,
_amicitur_, incipit,” as though he robed himself in the presence of the
audience.
[167] Pliny, _Epist._ 2. 3, says of Isæus: “præfationes tersæ, graciles,
dulces: graves interdum et erectæ. Poscit controversias plures,
electionem auditoribus permittit, sæpe etiam partes.” Philostratus,
_V.S._ 1. 24. 4, tells a story of Mark of Byzantium going into Polemo’s
lecture-room and sitting down among the audience: some one recognized
him, and the whisper went round who he was, so that, when Polemo asked
for a subject, all eyes were turned to Mark. “What is the use of looking
at a rustic like that?” said Polemo, referring to Mark’s shaggy beard;
“_he_ will not give you a subject.” “I will both give you a subject,”
said Mark, “and will discourse myself.” Plutarch, _de audiendo_, 7, p.
42, advises those who go to a “feast of words” to propose a subject
that will be useful, and not to ask for a discourse on the bisection of
unlimited lines.
[168] Plin. _Epist._ 2. 3. 4; cf. Philostr. _V.S._ 1. 20. 2. His disciple
Dionysius of Miletus had so wonderful a memory, and so taught his pupils
to remember, as to be suspected of sorcery: Philostr. _V.S._ 1. 22. 3.
[169] _Rhet. præc._ 18.
[170] _V.S._ 2. 26. 3.
[171] _Orat._ xxxiii. vol. i. p. 422.
[172] Epict. _Diss._ 3. 23. 24.
[173] Plut. _de audiendo_, 15, p. 46, speaks of the strange and
extravagant words which had thus come into use, ‘θείως’ καὶ ‘θεοφορήτως’
καὶ ‘ἀπροσίτως,’ the old words, τοῦ ‘καλῶς’ καὶ τοῦ ‘σοφῶς’ καὶ τοῦ
‘ἀληθῶς,’ being no longer strong enough.
[174] _Rhet. præc._ 21.
[175] _De audiendo_, 4, p. 39.
[176] _Diss._ 3. 23. 11.
[177] _Diss._ 3. 23. 19.
[178] ἐτυράννει γε τῶν Ἀθηνῶν, says Eunapius of the sophist Julian, _Vit.
Julian_, p. 68.
[179] Philostr. _V. S._ 1. 21. 6, of Scopelianus, βασίλειοι δὲ
αὐτοῦ πρεσβεῖαι πολλαὶ μέν, καὶ γάρ τις καὶ ἀγαθὴ τύχη ξυνηκολούθει
πρεσβεύοντι: _ib._ 1. 24, 2, of Mark of Byzantium: 1. 25. 1, 5, of
Polemo: 2. 5. 2, of Alexander Peloplaton.
[180] Philostr. _V. S._ 1. 22, of Dionysius of Miletus, Ἀδριανὸς σατράπην
μὲν αὐτὸν ἀπέφηνεν οὐκ ἀφανῶν ἐθνῶν ἐγκατέλεξε δὲ τοῖς δημοσίᾳ ἱππεύουσι
καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ σιτουμένοις: so of Polemo, _ib._ 1. 25. 3.
[181] The inscription of one of the statues which are mentioned by
Philostratus, _V. S._ 1. 23, 2, as having been erected to Lollianus at
Athens, was found a few years ago near the Propylæa: Dittenberger, C. I.
A. vol. iii. No. 625: see also Welcker, _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. i. 210, and a
monograph by Kayser, _P. Hordeonius Lollianus_, Heidelberg, 1841. It is
followed by the epigram:
ἀμφότερον ῥητῆρα δικῶν μελέτησί τ’ ἄριστον
Λολλιανὸν πληθὺς εὐγενέων ἑτάρων.
εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις τίνες εἰσὶ δαήμεναι οὔνομα πατρὸς
καὶ πάτρης, αὐτῶν τ’ οὔνομα δίσκος ἔχει.
Philostratus, _V. S._ 1. 25. 26, discredits the story that Polemo died
at Smyrna, because there was no monument to him there; whereas if he had
died there, “not one of the wonderful temples of that city would have
been thought too great for his burial.”
[182] ἡ βασιλεύουσα Ῥωμὴ τὸν βασιλεύοντα τῶν λόγων, Eunap. _Vit.
Prohæres._ p. 90.
[183] Μόδεστος σοφιστὴς εἷς μετὰ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν μὴ γεμίσας εἰκοσι πέντε
ἔτη, _Bulletin de correspondence Hellénique_, 1886. p. 157.
[184] ὅσ πάντα λόγοις ὑποτάσσει, _Mittheilungen des deutsches archæol.
Institut_, 1884, p. 61.
[185] Philostratus, _V. S._ 1. 25. 3, p. 228, narrates the incident with
graphic humour, and adds two anecdotes which show that the Emperor was
rather amused than annoyed by it. It was said of the same sophist that
“he used to talk to cities as a superior, to kings as not inferior, and
to gods as an equal,” _ibid._ 4.
[186] Dio Cassius, 71. 35. 2, παμπληθεῖς φιλοσοφεῖν ἐπλάττοντο ἵν’ ὑπ’
αὐτοῦ πλουτίζωνται.
[187] For example, the father of Herodes Atticus gave Scopelianus a
fee of twenty-five talents, to which Atticus himself added another
twenty-five: Philostr. _V. S._ 1. 21. 7, p. 222.
[188] Dio Chrysost. _Orat._ xxxii. p. 403: so Seneca, _Epist._ 29, says
of them, “philosophiam honestius neglexissent quam vendunt:” Maximus of
Tyre, _Diss._ 33. 8, ἀγορὰ πρόκειται ἀρετῆς, ὤνιον τὸ πρᾶγμα.
[189] _Orat._ xxiii. p. 351. The whole speech is a plea against the
disrepute into which the profession had fallen.
[190] _ap._ Aul. Gell. 5. 1. 1.
[191] _De audiendo_, 12, p. 43.
[192] It is clear that the word “sophist” had under the Early Empire, as
in both earlier and later times, two separate streams of meaning. It was
used as a title of honour, e.g. Lucian, _Rhet. Præc._ 1, τὸ σεμνότατον
τοῦτο καὶ πάντιμον ὄνομα σοφιστής; Philostr. _V. S._ 2. 31. 1, when
Ælian was addressed as σοφιστής, he was not elated ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος
οὕτω μεγάλου ὄντος; Eunap. _Vit. Liban._ p. 100, when emperors offered
Libanius great titles and dignities, he refused them, φήσας τὸν σοφιστὴν
εἶναι μείζονα. But the disparagement of the class to whom the word was
applied runs through a large number of writers, e.g. Dio Chrys. _Orat._
iv. vol. i. 70, ἀγνοοῦντι καὶ ἀλαζόνι σοφιστῇ; _ib._ viii. vol. i 151,
they croak like frogs in a marsh; _ib._ x. vol. i. 166, they are the
wretchedest of men, because, though ignorant, they think themselves
wise; _ib._ xii. vol. i. 214, they are like peacocks, showing off their
reputation and the number of their disciples as peacocks do their tails.
Epict. _Diss._ 2. 20. 23; M. Aurel. 1. 16; 6. 30. Lucian, _Fugitiv._ 10,
compares them to hippocentaurs, σύνθετόν τι καὶ μικτὸν ἐν μέσῳ ἀλαζονείας
καὶ φιλοσοφίας πλαζόμενον. Maximus Tyr. _Diss._ 33. 8, τὸ τῶν σοφιστῶν
γένος, τὸ πολυμαθὲς τοῦτο καὶ πολυλόγον καὶ πολλῶν μεστὸν μαθημάτων,
καπηλεῦον ταῦτα καὶ ἀπεμπολοῦν τοῖς δεομένοις. Among the Christian
Fathers, especial reference may be made to Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 1,
chapters 3 and 8, pp. 328, 343.
[193] Epict. _Diss._ 3. 23.
[194] The functions are clearly separable in the _Teaching of the
Apostles_, 15, αὐτοὶ [sc. ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι] γάρ εἰσιν οἱ
τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων; but they are combined
in the second book of the _Apostolical Constitutions_, pp. 16, 49, 51,
58, 84, ed. Lagarde.
[195] Euseb. _H. E._ 6. 36. 1.
[196] Sozom. _H. E._ 8. 2.
[197] Eusebius, _H. E._ 6. 36. 1, speaks of Origen’s sermons as
διαλέξεις, whereas the original designation was ὁμιλίαι. So in Latin,
Augustine uses the term _disputationes_ of Ambrose’s sermons, _Confess._
5. 13, vol. i, 118, and of his own _Tract._ lxxxix. _in Johann. Evang._
c. 5, vol. iii, pars 2, p. 719.
[198] Phot. _Biblioth._ 172.
[199] Sozomen. _H. E._ 8. 5. Augustine makes a fine point of the analogy
between the church and the lecture-room (_schola_): “tanquam vobis
pastores sumus, sed sub illo Pastore vobiscum oves sumus. Tanquam vobis
ex hoc loco doctores sumus sed sub illo Magistro in hac schola vobiscum
condiscipuli sumus:” _Enarrat. in Psalm._ cxxvi. vol. iv. 1429, ed. Ben.
[200] _Adv. Jud._ 7. 6, vol. i. 671; _Conc._ vii. _adv. eos qui ad lud.
circ. prof._ vol. i. 790; _Hom._ ii. _ad pop. Antioch._ c. 4, vol. ii.
25; _adv. eos qui ad Collect. non occur._ vol. iii. 157; _Hom._ liv. _in
cap._ xxvii. _Genes._ vol. iv. 523; _Hom._ lvi. _in cap._ xxix. _Genes._
vol. iv. 541.
[201] S. Chrys. _Hom._ xxx. _in Act. Apost._ c. 3, vol. ix. 238.
[202] Greg. Naz. _Orat._ xlii.
[203] Socrates, _H. E._ 6. 11; Sozomen, _H. E._ 8. 10.
[204] An indication of this may be seen in the fact that words which
have come down to modern times as technical terms of geometry were
used indifferently in the physical and moral sciences, e.g. _theorem_
(θεώρημα), Philo, _Leg. alleg._ 3. 27 (i. 104), θεωρήμασι τοῖς περὶ
κόσμου καὶ τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ: Epict. _Diss._ 2. 17. 3; 3. 9. 2; 4. 8. 12,
&c., of the doctrines of moral philosophy: sometimes co-ordinated or
interchanged with δόγμα, e.g. Philo, _de fort._ 3 (ii. 877), διὰ λογικῶν
καὶ ἠθικῶν καὶ φυσικῶν δογμάτων καὶ θεωρημάτων: Epictet. _Diss._ 4. 1.
137, 139, and as a variant _Ench._ 52. 1. So _definition_ (ὁρισμός)
is itself properly applicable to the marking out of the boundaries of
enclosed land. So also ἀπόδειξις was not limited to ideal or “necessary”
matter, but was used of all explanations of the less by the more evident;
e.g. Musonius, _Frag. ap. excerpt. e Joann. Damasc._, in Stob. _Ecl._
ii. 751, ed. Gaisf., after defining it, gives as an example a proof that
pleasure is not a good.
[205] ὁ δὲ νόμος βασιλέως δόγμα, Dio Chrys. vol. i. p. 46, ed. Dind.