No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Addressees of Aelius Aristides, Orations 17 K and 21 K*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Among Aristides' extant works there are five speeches concerning the city of Smyrna, namely the first Smyrnaean oration (17), a monody for Smyrna (18), a letter to I Marcus and Commodus concerning Smyrna (19), a palinode for Smyrna (20) and the second Smyrnaean oration (21). The historical context and purpose of Orr. 18, 19 and 20 are well known and uncontroversial. In contrast, although the dating of Orr. 17 and 21 relative to the others is not in doubt, their context and purpose have been divergently interpreted. In this note I will reargue the case that the dominant modern scholarly tradition, which conceives the speeches as invitations to the emperors Marcus and Commodus respectively to visit Smyrna, is wrong. Rather the speeches were addresses of welcome to two proconsuls, father and son, on their respective arrivals in Smyrna. Secondly, I will briefly indicate the general significance of this identification.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1992
References
1 A.d. 178 is the traditional date. For ingenious argumentation for a date of early A.d. 177 see Behr, C. A., Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam, 1968), p. 112, n. 68Google Scholar. The exact date of the earthquake does not affect the relative chronology of the speeches.
2 See especially sections 5–11 (the emperors' generosity) and 21–3 (reconstruction).
3 Or. 21.11.
4 κατ⋯ τ⋯ν πρώτην… …⋯ρχ⋯ν, ἥν τῳ, ατρ⋯ συν⋯ρχες.
5 Or. 21.16.
6 Boulanger, A., Aelius Aristide et la Sophistique dans la province de l'Asie au IIième Siècle de notre ère (Paris, 1923), pp. 384–5Google Scholar, cf. p. 161. He can describe this identification as the then ‘commune opinion’, though he notes the possibility that the addressee was a proconsul (p. 385 n. 4).
7 A. Boulanger, op. cit. (n. 6), pp. 389–90, cf. pp. 161–2.
8 U. v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, review of Boulanger in Kleine Schriften, iii (Berlin, 1969), pp. 420–5Google Scholar at 424 and ‘Der Rhetor Aristides’, op. cit., pp. 426–53 at 452–3. Wilamowitz had gained this idea from the Russian scholar Turzewitsch.
9 Cadoux, C., Ancient Smyrna (Oxford, 1938), p. 278Google Scholar (Or. 17) and p. 284 (Or. 21) though he conjectures that Or. 21 was never delivered. Compare Pack, R., ‘Two Sophists and Two Emperors’, C.P. 42 (1947), 17–20 at pp. 17 and 19.Google Scholar
10 Reardon, B. P., Courants Littéraires Grecs des IIe et IIIe siècles après J.C. (Paris, 1971), p. 134Google Scholar, who cites both Wilamowitz and Behr in his bibliography.
11 C. A. Behr, op. cit. (n. 1), esp. p. 91 note la; cf. idem, P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works, ii (Leiden, 1981) at p. 356 and pp. 361–3Google Scholar. For equivocation, see Pernot, L., Les Discours Siciliens d'Aelius Aristide (New York, 1981), p. 10Google Scholar (‘grands personnages’).
12 The phraseology of Or. 17.7 may however, indicate the governor's presence: πολλοὺς δ᾽ ἂν τις αὐτης ἕχοι λ⋯γειν ⋯γ⋯νας κα⋯ ἄλλους, κα⋯ δ⋯ τοὺς τελευτα⋯ους τοὺς ὑπ⋯ρ ὑμων κα⋯ σὺν ὑμιν ⋯ν παντ⋯ τῷ παραστ⋯ντι πολλ⋯ς τινος ἔργον σχολης διηγ⋯σασθαι. ⋯λλ⋯ τ⋯ δει περ⋯ ταυτα τρ⋯βεσθαι; αἷς μ⋯ν γ⋯ρ ⋯στι τ⋯ν π⋯λεων ⋯ν μ⋯θοις ἢ διηγ⋯σεσιν ⋯ ϕιλοτιμ⋯α, εἰς τα⋯τα εἰκ⋯ς ⋯ναχωρειν, ἥτις δ⋯ εὐθὺς ⋯ϕθεῖσα χειρο⋯ται κα⋯ οὐκ ⋯ᾷ ζητειν τ⋯ ⋯ρχαια, τ⋯ δει τα⋯την σεμν⋯νειν ⋯π⋯ των παρελθ⋯ντων ⋯λλ᾽ οὐ περιηγεῖσθαι [καθ⋯περ οἱ της χειρ⋯ς ἔχοντες,] μ⋯ρτυρα τ⋯ν θεατ⋯ν τ⋯ν λ⋯γων ποιο⋯μενον;
13 Or. 21.1 ᾽Εβουλ⋯μην ἄν, ὦ θαυμ⋯σιε, μ⋯λιστα μ⋯ν τ⋯ν π⋯λιν οἳαν κατ⋯λιπες τοια⋯την ϕανηναι, εἰ δ⋯ μ⋯, παρὼν αὐτ⋯ς ποιεῖσθαι τοὺς λ⋯γουυς, ἳν᾽ ⋯μϕοτ⋯ρως ⋯κ⋯ρδαινον, σο⋯ τε συνὼν κα⋯ τ⋯ς ν⋯ν ⋯νιο⋯σης ⋯μῖν π⋯λεως ⋯πολα⋯ων τ⋯ γιγν⋯μενα
For Aristides' custom, later in his life, of not delivering his speeches in person see C.A. Behr, op. cit. (n. 1) (1968), pp. 113–14.
14 Note Or. 21.3 and 5.
15 See only Halfmann, H., Itinera Principum (Stuttgart, 1986).Google Scholar
16 Cf. C. A. Behr, op. cit. (n. 1) (1968), p. 91 n.l.a and pp. 113–14.
17 In general see Burton, G. P., ‘Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under I the Empire’, JRS 65 (1975), 92–106 with literature.Google Scholar
18 See Thomasson, B., Die Statthalter des römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus, i (Lund, 1960), pp. 58–64Google Scholar and Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian, (Munich, 1970), pp. 45–7.Google Scholar
19 C. A. Behr, op. cit. (n. 1) (1968), p. 41 n.l.a, a suggestion repeated in idem (1981), pp. 356 and 361.
20 For decisive refutation see Alföldy, G., Konsulat and Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen (Bonn, 1977), p. 218Google Scholar, who (inter alia) shows that the younger Paulinus was consul in 152 (not 162) while the elder Paulinus died before taking up office in Asia.
21 See G. Alföldy, op. cit. (n. 20), p. 216 and Leunissen, P. M. M., Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (Amsterdam, 1989), p. 221Google Scholar. The date of ‘um 184’ is based on the assumption of an average interval of fifteen years between consulship and – proconsulship.
22 Digest 1.16.7.pr. The speeches are assumed to consist of commendation of the city and the singing of the praises of the proconsul. Note also that Menander Rhetor (Spengel, 377ff.) classifies speeches to visiting governors as one of his three categories of λ⋯γοι ⋯πιβατ⋯ριοι (‘speeches of arrival’).
23 Florida 9, esp. 33ff. As Saller, R., Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge, 1982), p. 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar, noted, the speech also implies that Apuleius regularly gave such orations.
24 Florida 17.