SOURCE: Bowersock, G. W. “The Biographer of the Sophists.” In Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, pp. 1-16. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969.

[In the following essay, Bowersock discusses Philostratus's notion of the “sophistic,” characterizing his writing as a “reliable evocation of a grand baroque age.”]

Literature, illuminating the society of an age through acquiescence or dissent, must always have its place in history as a reflection of attitudes and taste. The relation of literature to politics, however, has not been uniform throughout the ages; from time to time there have developed close alliances between literature and politics,—in England, for example, in the early eighteenth century. Similarly, in the second century of the present era, literary men helped to determine the destiny of the Roman empire and never enjoyed more public renown. Their social and political eminence was not necessarily matched by superior literary attainments. The quality of the second-century works we possess (and they are many) is not high:¹ they are often over-elaborated productions on unreal, unimportant, or traditional themes. Such works were rhetorical showpieces, whose authors, highly trained in oral presentation, were showmen. Yet this fact does not preclude composition for important persons and occasions. The authors were themselves important men.

These were the sophists, still better known (where they are known at all) to philologists than to historians. They are crucial for the history of the second century a.d., which would look far different without them. Their enormous popularity and influence is characteristic of that exquisitely refined epoch; and their extensive travels, with numerous friends in diverse cities, illustrate a coherence of the Roman empire that had been long in the making and was not to exist again. Authors like Lucian and Aelius Aristides brilliantly mirror the world in which the sophists flourished.

From the writings of the second century alone it would have been possible to construct an adequate account of the sophists. In addition, the plentiful evidence of inscriptions and papyri reveals a staggering abundance of practitioners of the sophistic arts. From all this material alone favourite subjects of discourse and standard treatments of them can be adequately established; so can certain details of the sophists' petty quarrels. But, by some good fortune, Flavius Philostratus, a sophist born in the second century and dying in the third, composed the lives of many of his distinguished predecessors and near-contemporaries; his work has survived and provides a convenient basis and limit for historical studies of the movement which he himself designated the Second Sophistic (to detach it from the age of Gorgias). Inasmuch as Philostratus exemplifies what he is writing about and is at the same time so important a source, discussion of the man and the whole notion of a ‘sophistic’ is inevitable.

The family of Philostratus is a notorious snare. A late Greek lexicon registers three sophists with the name Philostratus,² and the confusion generated by these items has long frustrated scholarly certitude.³ The first man to be listed belongs second chronologically: he is manifestly the biographer of the sophists. The Lives of the Sophists and the romantic biography of Apollonius of Tyana are numbered among his works. The conjunction is supported by a reference in the Lives back to the account of Apollonius, which is automatically established as the earlier of the two works.⁴

While it is agreeable to recognize one of the Philostrati in the lexicographer's trio, the pleasure is spoiled by obscurities in the two other items. The biographer is said to have flourished under Septimius Severus and to have survived until the reign of Philip the Arab. Those chronological indications are approximately correct.⁵ Yet this Philostratus is credited with an eminent father who practised the sophistic arts under Nero.⁶ Something has gone wrong; hence an inclination on the part of scholars to see pure fiction in the report of the biographer's famous father. However, there may be truth in it up to a point. The man is said to have composed a work entitled Nero; whatever that work may have been, it is just the sort of thing that would induce a lexicographer like this one to lodge the author in Nero's reign. The biographer's father ought to have flourished under the Antonines. Three of the writings attributed to the father can be assigned precisely to that period: a letter to the sophist Antipater, a Proteus, and the Nero itself. Antipater was one of the biographer's teachers and would plausibly have belonged to his father's generation.⁷ Proteus was a name of the notorious Cynic of whom Lucian composed a satiric biography—Peregrinus Proteus, who immolated himself at Olympia in 165.⁸ No less a theme for a Philostratus than for a Lucian.⁹ Finally, the Nero calls swiftly to mind the dialogue now extant in the corpus of Lucian, Nero or Digging Through the Isthmus of Corinth. Whether this work, associated falsely with Lucian, is or is not the Philostratean Nero, it directs attention to Nero's great scheme to put through a canal from the Corinthian to the Saronic Gulf.¹⁰ That was a matter of relevance in the Antonine age, for the sophist Herodes Atticus contemplated the same plan but was deterred by the ominous example of the emperor Nero.¹¹ It seems best to allow a historical existence to the eldest Philostratus and to leave him with the works assigned to him. All the chronological indications cohere, apart from one that is wholly impossible (but easily explicable). There is insufficient warrant to remove the man altogether and to ascribe his writings to his son.¹²

The case of the third Philostratus is hopeless. The lexicon blandly states that he was a grand-nephew and a son-in-law of the biographer.¹³ He is said to have composed a set of word pictures, and indeed the biographer is also credited with a similar production. Curiously there survive under the name of a Philostratus one set of imagines and under the name of ‘Philostratus the Younger’ another set. But if the latter imagines are associated with the third Philostratus in the lexicon, that man emerges (from an avowal in the opening paragraph of the set) as a grandson of the biographer.¹⁴ This is too much to believe, in addition to everything else. It is more judicious to create a fourth Philostratus, author of the second set of imagines; it is probably best to remain baffled.

The biographer Philostratus, it seems, came from Lemnos.¹⁵ If his father was a sophist, it should not be surprising, since often in the high empire the profession descended within a family.¹⁶ There were years of study at Athens.¹⁷ In the course of the Lives Philostratus mentions several men as his teachers, including Proclus of Naucratis and Hippodromus of Larissa, both themselves taught by pupils of the great Herodes Atticus.¹⁸ Philostratus also names among his teachers the celebrated Damian of Ephesus and Antipater from Phrygian Hierapolis (to whom his father may have addressed a letter).¹⁹ The last of these was instructor of the sons of Septimius Severus. It cannot be said whether Philostratus studied with Antipater at Rome or elsewhere;²⁰ since, however, Philostratus belonged to the circle of the Syrian empress, Julia Domna, he may well have been introduced to it by Antipater himself.²¹ From early in the third century, in all probability, Philostratus mingled with the luminaries of the empress and travelled with them in the great lady's entourage. The opening of the Lives of the Sophists records a conversation conducted with a certain Gordian, perhaps a member of the group, in a suburb of Syrian Antioch. It was in Antioch precisely that Julia Domna received word in 217 of Caracalla's death and thereupon took her own life.²²

Philostratus was at the time engaged in the composition of his Apollonius novel, undertaken at the behest of Julia Domna but completed, or at any rate published, only after her death.²³ It is impossible to say how long it was after her suicide before the work appeared: perhaps not too long, or the reference to Julia's influence might have been less interesting. In any case, Philostratus' allusion to the Apollonius novel in the Lives establishes that they at least were written after it.

A juxtaposition of several items compels an inference that the sophists' biographies were done in Athens. A lexicographical entry concerned with one Fronto of Emesa records that Philostratus was teaching in Athens at the same time as Apsines of Gadara, and we happen to know from the biographer himself that Apsines was a younger contemporary and friend of his.²⁴ Therefore, Philostratus will have found himself in Athens with Apsines in the later years of his career and formed then the association which he attests at the end of the Lives. Furthermore, an inscription at Olympia alludes clearly to the biographer Flavius Philostratus and calls him Athenian.²⁵ In view of Philostratus' presence at the court for many years, there seems little doubt that the residence in Athens implied by these items followed Julia Domna's suicide.

A text from Erythrae must not be forgotten here: it displays senatorial descendants of Flavius Philostratus ‘the sophist’, and his wife, a certain Aurelia Melitine.²⁶ The progression from sophist to senator in successive generations was not uncommon in this age. Examples abound from the second and third centuries.²⁷

The dedication of the Lives of the Sophists has a peculiar interest. The recipient is Antonius Gordianus ὁ λαμπρότατοs ὕπατοs; at the end of the dedicatory preface he is addressed as ἄριστε ἀνθυπάτων. Who is this Gordian, and what is the date of the dedication? Standard and accessible works declare that the forms of address indicate that this is Gordian I, at the time proconsul of Africa,²⁸—a post he was definitely holding when he became in 238 the first emperor of that name.²⁹ In the Augustan History Gordian I is said to have held two consulates, the second with Severus Alexander: allegedly in 229.³⁰ On this uncertain evidence a date of 229/30 has long been considered the terminus post for the Lives, with Gordian's elevation to the Purple as the terminus ante.³¹ These termini presuppose a possibility which is altogether inadmissible: that Gordian could have gone to the proconsulate of Africa directly after his consulate and stayed there until he became emperor.

Objections can and have been raised against such an assumption. There is no warrant for believing in a second consulate for Gordian or that he held the African proconsulate for longer than a year. Moreover, Philostratus will have addressed Gordian at the outset by his highest and most recent office, while at the same time acknowledging him to have been an excellent proconsul of a province not specified. The consulate was thus Gordian's most recent office (Philostratus' ὕπατοs need mean no more than ὑπατικόs);³² the proconsulate was praetorian, not consular. This conclusion furnishes an explanation for the absence of a province's name in connection with the proconsulate: it was the praetorian proconsulate of Achaea, the province in which Philostratus was living.³³ Accordingly, the old chronological termini for the Lives of the Sophists vanish. The work was composed some time after the year of Gordian's only consulate, a year regrettably unknown.

There is, however, another possibility, recently propounded.³⁴ Perhaps Gordian II, not I, is the recipient of Philostratus' work. In his preface Philostratus states that his Gordian was descended from Herodes Atticus,³⁵—on any hypothesis an exceedingly difficult detail to elucidate. One is reluctant to doubt the connection with Herodes; Philostratus' account of that sophist is certainly the longest of any and prominently placed at the opening of the second book of the Lives. The second Gordian is more easily traced back to Herodes than the first,³⁶ but in neither case is the evidence sufficient. Credibility does not permit belief that Gordian I was the author of an epic poem in thirty books on the exploits of Pius and Marcus, as the Augustan History avers;³⁷ but it is not impossible that he was a man of literary tastes whom Philostratus may have known in the salon of Julia Domna. Until more evidence or argument accrues, Gordian I has a slightly superior claim as the honorand of Philostratus.

The Gordiani probably came from Asia Minor.³⁸ It is an instructive spectacle to see the sophist Philostratus presenting a work on sophists to an East Greek, soon to be emperor, whom he may have known at an earlier time in the Roman salon of a Syrian empress and whom he had encountered more recently as governor of the Greeks in Achaea. This is a fitting illustration of the historical significance of the so-called Second Sophistic.

Philostratus himself insisted upon the term ‘Second Sophistic’ for the efflorescence of sophists under the Roman empire. One ought not, he said, to call it the ‘New Sophistic’ (which evokes a suspicion that someone had), since it was old.³⁹ It began, according to Philostratus, with Aeschines, the great rival of Demosthenes.⁴⁰ Gorgias is credited with an older type of sophistic which concerned itself with philosophical themes, such as justice and the universe, treated rhetorically; it was ‘philosophic rhetoric’.⁴¹ The second form of the sophistic art, rightly or wrongly traced to Aeschines, is characterized by historical themes or at any rate types of persons who figure in history (princes, dynasts, the rich, the poor). Philostratus' rather arbitrary distinction would disqualify the prose hymns of Aristides; but, after all, these were quite self-consciously new contributions to sophistic literature.⁴² The definition of Philostratus is serviceable enough; as for the antiquity claimed for the movement by allusion to Aeschines, even Philostratus is hard put to think of any other representatives after Aeschines before the reign of Nero.⁴³ He mentions exactly three names from that vast intervening period and dismisses them immediately with a reference to the paucity of noble sophists in those times.⁴⁴ The plain fact is that the Second Sophistic, whether it might have derived from Aeschines or not, was a distinctive growth of the high empire, and it would not have been a senseless man who called it new.

It was, however, a growth, and there were certainly sophists before Nicetes of Smyrna, whose biography follows directly upon that of Aeschines in Philostratus. Cicero and Strabo leave no doubt of the activity of sophists and rhetors in the late republic and early empire; the reminiscences of the elder Seneca convey a similar impression.⁴⁵ Moreover, these earlier figures often had careers in politics and diplomacy: so, for example, Hybreas of Mylasa and the Augustan Polemo.⁴⁶ And as Polemo's family makes clear in subsequent generations,⁴⁷ there are palpable links between these earlier cultivated men and the true representatives of the Second Sophistic. There is continuity and development throughout, so much so that the Second Sophistic would not have occurred, had the way not been prepared. The Second (or New) Sophistic is a culmination, not a sudden burst or fad. This is true of the sophists' style as much as it is of their role in Roman history.

In the late nineteenth century the question of style in the Second Sophistic was hotly debated by the scholarly giants of the day. In retrospect the whole argument has an air of absurdity. It began when Erwin Rohde devoted a division of his thick book on the Greek novel to detailing the spread of Asianic rhetoric so as to demonstrate that the second century saw nothing more than a perpetuation of the Asianic style of Cicero's era.⁴⁸ Kaibel denied this, and he summoned as witnesses the Atticists among the sophists;⁴⁹ Rohde replied.⁵⁰ Norden observed sanely that the Second Sophistic had both Atticist and Asianic manifestations.⁵¹ Wilamowitz finally closed the case by synthesizing everyone's views in a long and important article.⁵²

Continuity, one has always to realize, does not require sameness; and an opposite reaction can nevertheless belong to a single line of development. The Second Sophistic is distinguishable and new not because it introduced a new type of person into literature and history, but rather because in the second century a type, long in existence, became so widely diffused and enjoyed such unprecedented authority. An access of inscriptions and papyri, enlarging our knowledge of social and political history, has authoritatively vindicated Philostratus' recognition of a great sophistic movement. The notion, once fashionable among scholars, that the Second Sophistic was a pure invention of its chronicler has to be banished.⁵³ Philostratus was not a scholar himself and his work is often superficial, but his subject was a real one.

In the work presented to Gordian Philostratus claimed to be writing biographies not only of true sophists (τοὺs οὕτω κυρίωs προσρηθένταs σοϕιστάs) but also of philosophers who could be regarded as sophists (τοὺs ϕιλοσοϕήσανταs ἐν δόξῃ του̑ σοϕιστευ̑σαι).⁵⁴ A little later Philostratus alludes to those philosophers who are not actually sophists but seem to be, and they are therefore so denominated; such philosophers are said to attain the rank of sophist by virtue of fluency.⁵⁵ It is fortunate that Philostratus provides guidance in these matters of professional titles, for in the second century they were sometimes important.

Of a genuine rivalry between philosophers and rhetors there can be no doubt (let sophists, for the moment, be subsumed in the general category of rhetors), for philosophy and rhetoric constituted the two principal parts of higher education.⁵⁶ Their practitioners competed with each other for the allegiance of the young. Because of the nature of their work rhetors were, of course, more eloquent in denouncing philosophers than were philosophers in denouncing rhetors. Among the most powerful assaults on the philosophers is the latter part of Aelius Aristides' Oration on the Four: philosophers, we are told, do not speak or write λόγοι, adorn festival assemblies, honour the gods, advise cities, comfort the distressed, settle civil discord, or educate the young.⁵⁷ This remarkable passage is nothing less than a catalogue of the work of a sophist, for it is in the various points enumerated by Aristides that sophists are superior to philosophers. Aristides' antipathy to philosophers was strong, and his strictures were not altogether just. Philosophers had been known to advise cities, comfort the distressed, settle civil discord, and educate the young.

It was, in fact, possible for the professions of philosopher and rhetor to be conflated and confused. They had many tasks in common, and both were obliged to use the spoken and written word. Accordingly, as Philostratus recognized, eloquent philosophers might be numbered among the sophists. As such, Favorinus of Arelate and Dio of Prusa figure in the Lives of the Sophists. The two professions are similarly conjoined on inscriptions, confuting Aristides and lending credibility to Philostratus. For example, the poet T. Flavius Glaucus appears on an honorific text as rhetor and philosopher;⁵⁸ on an epigram from Athens a man is declared to be a rhetor in his speaking and a philosopher in his thinking.⁵⁹ Another man appears as a sophist and philosopher,⁶⁰ and examples could be multiplied. There is a notable text in Alexandria in which Aelius Demetrius the rhetor is honoured by a group of philosophers (presumably those of the Museum).⁶¹ Cassius Dio, a contemporary of Philostratus, wrote of Julia Domna that because of the prefect Plautianus' hostility she began to study philosophy and associate with sophists.⁶² Philostratus, therefore, accurately reflects the relations of philosophers and sophists in the intellectual milieu of the second century.

In the elucidation of professional titles the distinction between rhetor and sophist poses a far more difficult problem than that of philosopher and rhetor (or sophist). It is clear from sundry texts that there was some kind of distinction felt between the titles ὁ ῥήτωρ and ὁ σοϕιστήs. Philostratus, on occasion, deliberately eschewed the word ‘sophist’ in alluding to certain persons,⁶³ and Galen once wrote of the sophist Hadrian that in his earlier years he was a rhetor but not yet a sophist.⁶⁴ However, often on inscriptions the terms ‘rhetor’ and ‘sophist’ coexist without discomfort: Dionysius of Miletus, the celebrated Hadrianic sophist, appears in an Ephesian text, for instance, as ῥήτορα καὰ σοϕιστήν.⁶⁵ Also in a letter to the Koinon of Asia Antoninus Pius can be seen using the word sophist and rhetor interchangeably.⁶⁶

Scholars have put forward various explanations of the terms ‘sophist’ and ‘rhetor’. For some ancient authors anyhow, it has been claimed, a rhetor was exclusively a forensic speaker and a sophist a professor or school teacher.⁶⁷ Strabo's phrase σοϕιστεύειν τὰ ῥητορικά can be invoked in support of this view; but Strabo also uses the verb ῥητορεύειν for the same idea.⁶⁸ Certainly for the second century such an interpretation is quite unacceptable in view of the fact that Aristides, an undoubted sophist, rarely taught anyone and was opposed to the idea of teaching for pay.⁶⁹

On another interpretation the designation of sophist is purely honorific and ranks higher than that of rhetor.⁷⁰ Yet this notion is hard to reconcile with certain epigraphical evidence or the letter of Pius, or—for that matter—with Galen's phrase. To say, as Galen does, that a man was not yet a sophist would have to be likened to calling a man a εὐεργέτηs but not yet a κτίστηs. Furthermore, Philostratus admits among his sophists a man like Varus of Laodicea for whom he has the lowest possible opinion.⁷¹ More to the point, it seems, is Dessau's conjecture that a rhetor practises his art in a less polished and more dilettantish fashion than a sophist.⁷² Philostratus can be cited in support of his view: he asserts that earlier generations called sophists not only those rhetors who were fluent and distinguished but also certain philosophers.⁷³ The implication is that sophists represent a category within the general group of rhetors, which will have been the broader term. The sense of sophist can perhaps best be had from the modern notion of professionalism. The sophist was a virtuoso rhetor with a big public reputation. So when Galen said of Hadrian the Sophist, ὁ ῥήτωρ οὔπω σοϕιστεύων, he probably meant that Hadrian had not yet embarked upon his professional, public career as a performing rhetor.

It appears, then, that rhetors and sophists are the same, except that not all rhetors will have been sophists. In Pius' letter to the Koinon the emperor refers to the two groups, γραμματικοί and ῥήτορεs / σοϕισταί, by the collective phrase οἱπαιδεύοντεs ἑκατέραν παιδείαν.⁷⁴ He has only teachers in mind, and for that reason he sees no difference between rhetors and sophists, since both might or might not be teachers. He was occupied with the distinction between teachers and non-teachers, and a distinction between professionals and non-professionals was of no concern to him. It was, however, of concern to Sextus Empiricus, who provides a particularly striking support for the interpretation preferred here: sophists, he declares, have reached the peak of rhetorical skill.⁷⁵

It has been necessary to dilate on these titles because much confusion exists, and these things clearly meant something to the sophists themselves. Pride in petty titles looms large in the second century, for cities—as everyone knows—as well as for individual men.⁷⁶

It has sometimes been claimed in support of the view of ‘sophist’ as a purely honorific term that the careers of Athenaeus' sophists at dinner were not exclusively rhetorical. The diners included philosophers, grammarians, a doctor, a musician, and (possibly) a famous lawyer.⁷⁷ The musician is somewhat surprising as a sophist; the others are not. In so far as rhetoric can be a relevant province of various professional persons, the title of sophist is open to them. The case of philosophers has already been examined. It is obvious that lawyers could have been adjudged sophists through forensic rhetoric of a polished kind; and whether or not Athenaeus really included a lawyer among his diners, there is no reason why he should not have done so. A doctor's claim to being a sophist can derive … from an interest in philosophy and fluent exposition of his subject. Presumably a musician could be entitled to sophistic rank in much the same way.

Both in his career and in his ideas Philostratus was a representative specimen of the sophistic movement he chronicled. His information came to him directly, either from his own teachers or from others who had known the great sophists of the second century. He was not attempting scholarly or authoritative biography. He was attracted by anecdotes and fond of quoting from the sophists' works (a feature of the Lives which may, on occasion, induce tedium). But he could hardly have been better placed to write about the sophistic movement. This is reporting at first hand.

Like many of his subjects, Philostratus had a career closely bound up with the imperial court and with certain leading Romans. The intimate relation between sophists and the masters of the empire must not, however, deceive. The men of whom Philostratus wrote were Greeks, in the broad sense—from Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt. Favorinus from Gaul was a special case (in this and in other respects too),⁷⁸ but his culture was indubitably Hellenic. These men were not oblivious of their tradition, and when they became so integral a part of the Roman world it was not because they turned upon their inheritance. On the contrary, their preoccupation with the glorious past of their ancient predecessors became more conspicuous. It is everywhere apparent, in their teaching, their examples, the very topics of their discourse. This is not because the sophists were eaten up by nostalgia for the old times, nor were they affirming the independent greatness of the Greeks against the Romans. They bore no grudge for belonging to the Roman empire; they did not object to the word ‘Ρωμαι̑οι, a collective and non-prejudicial term.⁷⁹ In fact, if there was any submergence of one nationality in another, it was at times the Roman which gave way to the Greek. The emperor Hadrian was, after all, a thoroughgoing philhellene; and Marcus Aurelius wrote his meditations like a Greek and in Greek. But there had been Roman philhellenes for centuries, not however—apart from Nero—conspicuously on the throne of the Caesars. It was possible for a proud Greek to be a Roman without any loss of national pride or abnegation of cultural tradition. Aelius Aristides' panegyric of Rome can only be understood when read in conjunction with his other speeches in praise of cities, the panegyrics of Cyzicus, Corinth, Athens, Rhodes, Smyrna.⁸⁰ These were all cities of the same world, Rome included in it.⁸¹

Within that great and hitherto unparalleled οἰκουμένη Greeks and Romans dwelt together, sharing in friendship and government without sacrifice of national integrity. The age had common tastes which worked themselves out in different ways according to different traditions. This proves the point. It is no secret that the second century shows a predilection for antiquity and archaism, and this predilection extended from East to West, dominating the literary activity of Greeks and Romans. But the Greeks looked back to Athens of the fifth century and to Attic purity, whereas the Romans turned to the Punic Wars, studying the old Cato and exploring archaic Latin vocabulary. The mood was shared in common; its expression was appropriately diverse. To see a serious nationalistic split in (at any rate) the cultivated classes of the Roman empire in the second century would be to miss perhaps the most striking feature of the age and something quite unique in ancient history. The equilibrium was far from perfect, and there was doubtless dissatisfaction in lower strata of society; moreover, personal ambition and chaotic rule can make any imperial coherence transitory, and did. But Philostratus and his sophists, with all the attendant witnesses of inscriptions and papyri, are a reliable evocation of a grand baroque age before its dissolution, an age in which Herodes Atticus and Cornelius Fronto could be consuls at Rome in the same year.⁸²

Notes

1. B. A. van Groningen, ‘General Literary Tendencies in the Second Century a.d.’, Mnemosyne 18 (1965), 41 ff.

2. Suid., s.v. Φιλόστρατοs, nos. 421-3 (Adler).

3. Cf. the survey in F. Solmsen, ‘Philostratus’, P-W 20. 1. 125 ff. and Solmsen, ‘Some Works of Philostratus the Elder’, TAPA [Transactions of the American Philological Association] 71 (1940), 556 ff.

4. Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum (VS) p. 570: εἴρηται σαϕω̑s ἐν τοι̑s ἐs 'Απολλώνιον.

5. Suid., s.v. Φιλόστρατοs, no. 421 (Adler): ἐπὶ σευήρου του̑ βασιλέωs καὶ ἕωs Φιλὶππου. The Severus is Septimius (cf. Rohde, Rh. Mus 33 [1878], 638-9). For the accuracy of this rough chronology, see the discussion of Philostratus' career later in the present chapter.

6. Suid., s.v. Φιλόστρατοs, no. 422 (Adler).

7. See below [in this text] pp. 55-6.

8. Lucian, Peregrinus: the immolation is described in ch. 36 (cf. VS, p. 563, Amm. Marc. 29. 1. 39). On the date of the event: K. von Fritz, P-W 19. 1. 657 and G. Bagnani, Historia 4 (1955), 108.

9. Suidas also ascribes to this Philostratus a work entitled τὰ ἐν 'Ολυμπίą ἐπιτελούμενα. Perhaps including an account of Peregrinus' immolation?

10. On Nero's plan, see Dio 62. 16. 1-2.

11. VS, pp. 551-2.

12. It is true that Philostratus does not mention his father at all (cf. F. Grosso, Acme 7 [1954], 376 n. 23). Should he? Plutarch says relatively little, in all his vast writings, about his father. As a sophist, the biographer's father may have had no importance.

13. Suid., s.v. Φιλόστρατοs, no. 423 (Adler).

14. On all this, see Solmsen, Transactions of the American Philological Association (TAPA) 71 (1940), 556 ff.

15. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. et Soph., p. 454 (ὁ Λήμνιοs, of the biographer of sophists); Synesius, Dio 1; Suid., s.v. Apollonius Tyaneus and s.v. Crates Cynicus. Cf. Schmid, Philol. 57 (1898), 503. Note Philostratus' reference to Lemnos in Vit. Apoll. 6. 27 and his allusion to a younger contemporary (and, presumably, relative), Philostratus of Lemnos, at VS, p. 617. Cf. Philostr. Epist. 70.

16. Observe, e.g., the Licinii Firmi of Athens (IG ii/iii². 3563, cf. Anth. Plan. 322), the Flavii Menandri of Ephesus (Forsch. Ephesos 3. 145, no. 62), the Claudii Aurelii of Aphrodisias (L. Robert, Ant. Class. 35 [1966], 396-7), the Flavii Alexander, Phylax, and Phoenix of Thessaly (PIR², F 199; cf. J. Pouilloux, REG 80 [1967], 379 ff.).

17. Suid., s.v. Φιλόστρατοs, no. 421 (Adler). Eusebius and Hierocles called him an Athenian (PIR², F 332). Philostratus will have heard Proclus and Hippodromus in Athens. See next note.

18. VS, pp. 602 (Proclus), 618 (Hippodromus).

19. VS, pp. 605-6 (Damian), 607 (Antipater). On the letter to Antipater, see the foregoing discussion in this [essay].

20. In P-W 20. 1. 136, Solmsen objected rightly to a terminus ante of 193 for Philostratus' study with Antipater: this terminus was postulated by K. Münscher in Philol. Supp. 10 (1905-7), 475-6, on the unsupported assumption that Philostratus heard Antipater at Athens. VS, p. 607 tells how Philostratus used to praise Antipater's lectures at Rome.

21. On Philostratus' membership in Julia's circle, Vit. Apoll. 1. 3: μετέχοντι δέ μοι του̑ περὶ αὐτὴν κύκλου.

22. VS, p. 480 (the conversation outside Antioch). On the suicide of Julia: Dio 79. 23-4.

23. The work is not dedicated to Julia, although Philostratus states explicitly that he wrote it at her instigation (Vit. Apoll. 1. 3).

24. Suid., s.v. Φρόντων 'Εμισηνόs: the biographer is called, in this entry, ὁ πρω̑τοs (cf. W. Schmid, Der Atticismus [1896], p. 6 with n. 6). See also VS, p. 628. An Athenian inscription now provides the nomen Valerius for Apsines and links him with an important family of Athens, the Claudii of Melite: Hesperia 10 (1941), 261.

25. SIG³ [W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (Third Edition)] 878: Φλ. Φιλόστρατον 'Αθηναι̑ον τὸν σοϕιστήν.

26. SIG³ 879 = IGR 4. 1544.

27. Many illustrations of this progression will be found in the pages that follow.

28. e.g. Münscher, op. cit. (p. 5, n. 1), p. 471, or Solmsen, P-W 20. 1. 138 and 170.

29. HA Tres Gordiani 2. 4, 5. 1, 7. 2, 18. 6. Cf. B. E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter der römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diokletianus (1960), pp. 120-1.

30. HA Tres Gordiani 2. 4, 4. 1. Alexander Severus was consul ordinarius III in 229 with Cassius Dio, cos. ord. II; it would have to be assumed that a suffect replaced Dio while the emperor remained in office. Alexander was also cos. ord. in 222 and 226.

31. Cf. PIR², A 833.

32. For Philostratus' usage, observe the following instances where ὕπατοs means ‘consular’ (ὑπατικόs): p. 512 (ἀνὴρ ὕπατοs), p. 536 (του̑ ὕπατόs τε καὶ ἐξ ὑπάτων δοκει̑ν), p. 555 (ἐν ὑπάτοιs), p. 567 (ἐs ὑπάτουs), p. 576 (Κοδρατίων ὁ ὕπατοs), p. 588 (ἀνδρὸs ὑπάτου), p. 609 (ἀνὴρ ὕπατοs). Scholars have attended insufficiently to this usage in Philostratus. It is not unlike the word consul on a cursus inscription well after a man has ceased actually being consul.

33. Cf. E. Groag, Die römischen Reichsbeamten von Achaia von Augustus bis auf Diokletian (1939), 87-8. Philostratus was writing after 222: VS, pp. 624-5.

34. A. R. Birley, Britain and Rome: Essays pres. to E. Birley (1966), pp. 58-9. For a full discussion of this possibility: T. D. Barnes, ‘Philostratus and Gordian’, Latomus 27 (1968), 581 ff.

35. VS, p. 479: γένοs ἐστί σοι πρὸs τὴν τέχνην ἐs ‘Ηρώδην τὸν σοϕιστὴν ἀναϕέποντι. For the view that Philostratus errs here, cf. J. H. Oliver, AJP 89 (1968), 346.

36. Since Gordian I was about eighty years old when he became emperor in 238 (Herodian 7. 5. 2; HA Tres Gord. 9. 1), he was born c. 159. Of Herodes' two daughters it is hard to see which could have been Gordian's mother, although Elpinice, dying after Athenaïs and without recorded husband, is possible (cf. PIR², C 802). However, Claudia Regilla, wife of M. Antonius Antius Lupus, might be exploited as mother of Gordian II in a previous marriage (she predeceased Lupus, cf. ILS 1127). The name Claudia Regilla proclaims some connection with Herodes and his wife Regilla.

37. HA Tres Gordiani 3. 3.

38. A. R. Birley, op. cit. (p. 7. n. 3), pp. 59-60, and the opinion of H.-G. Pflaum cited by Birley.

39. VS, p. 481.

40. Ibid., p. 507.

41. Ibid., p. 480: ῥητορικὴ ϕιλοσοϕου̑σα.

42. Cf. Aristid. 45. 4-14 Keil (Hymn to Serapis) on the writing of prose hymns.

43. VS, p. 511, Nicetes of Smyrna. He has to be dated to the reign of Nero: the emperor on p. 512 is not Nerva but Nero (cf. A. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide [1923], p. 84, n. 1).

44. The three (all unknown) are Ariobarzanes of Cilicia, Xenophron of Sicily, and Peithagoras of Cyrene (VS, p. 511).

45. U. von Wilamowitz, Litteris 2 (1925), 127. Cf. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (1965), ch. 1. For Strabo, there is the very useful book of E. Stemplinger, Strabons literarhistorische Notizen (1894); for Seneca some of the persons in H. Bornecque's register are relevant: Les déclamations et les déclamateurs d'après Sénèque le père (1902).

46. Bowersock, op. cit., pp. 5-6.

47. Ibid., pp. 143-4.

48. E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman (1914), pp. 310-87. This material appeared in the first edition of 1876.

49. G. Kaibel, ‘Dionysios von Halikarnassos und die Sophistik’, Hermes 20 (1885), 497 ff.

50. E. Rohde, ‘Die asianische Rhetorik und die zweite Sophistik’, Rh. Mus. 41 (1886), 170 ff. = Kl. Schr. (1901) 2. 75 ff.

51. E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (1915), pp. 351-92, which appeared in the first edition of 1898.

52. U. von Wilamowitz, ‘Asianismus und Attizismus’, Hermes 35 (1900), 1 ff. Cf. the very sensible remarks on this controversy by A. E. Douglas in CQ n.s. 5 (1955), 241-7, and in his commentary on Cicero's Brutus (1966), p. xiii.

53. Cf. U. von Wilamowitz, rebuking A. Boulanger in a review of his Aelius Aristide: ‘Von der schlechthin unbrauchbaren Erfindung des Philostratos, der zweiten Sophistik, hat er sich nicht losgemacht’ (Litteris 2 [1925], 126).

54. VS, p. 479.

55. Ibid., p. 484: τω̑ν ϕιλοσόϕων τοὺs ξὺν εὐροίą ἑρμηνεύονταs.

56. H. I. Marrou, Histoire de l'éducation dans l'antiquité (1960), pp. 288 ff. Cf. also M. D. Brock, Studies in Fronto and his Age (1911), ch. 8.

57. Aristid. 46, p. 404 Dindorf.

58. Hesperia, Suppl. 8 (1949), 246 ff.

59. Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca, no. 106 = Peek, Griechische Versinschriften 588: ῥήτωρ μὲν εἰπει̑ν, ϕιλόσοϕοs δ' a χρὴ νοει̑ν.

60. Suid., s.v. Hippias of Elis.

61. E. Breccia, Cat. général, musée d'Alexandrie, Iscrizioni greche e latine, no. 146 (an improved text of OGIS 712). See C. P. Jones, CQ 17 (1967), 311 ff.

62. Dio 76. 15. 7: ϕιλοσοϕει̑ν … ἤρξατο καὶ σοϕισται̑s συνημερεύειν. Note also Plut. Quaest. Conv. 710 b: βαθυπώγων σοϕιστὴs ἀπὸ τη̑s στοα̑s.

63. Observe VS, p. 605, where a group of men are designated ἀθύρματα of the Greeks rather than σοϕισταὶ λόγου ἄξιοι. However, one of this group, Soterus, is attested on inscriptions at Ephesus and Delphi, indicating that not everyone was of Philostratus' opinion: JÖAI 40 (1953), 15-18, and Fouilles de Delphes iii. 4 (1954), no. 265, p. 290 (plate 35, 4). Similarly Phylax, attested at Olympia and Delphi: REG 80 (1967), 379 ff.

64. Galen 14. 627 Kühn: ὁ ῥήτωρ οὔπω σοϕιστεύων.

65. JÖAI 40 (1953), 6.

66. Dig. 27. 1. 6. 2. See below, pp. 33-4.

67. This was the view of R. Jeuckens, Plutarch und die Rhetorik (1907), pp. 47-54 (‘Der Begriff des σοϕιστόs’). Cf. C. Brandstätter, ‘De notionum πολιτικήs et σοϕιστήs usu rhetorico’, Leipzig. Stud. z. class. Phil. 15 (1894), 129-274. The definition of the late rhetorical theorist, Victorinus, is not relevant here: Vict. Rhet. Lat. Min. 156. 21 Halm.

68. Strabo, p. 614 (σοϕιστεὐειν τὰ ῥητορικά), p. 650 (ἐρρητόρευε).

69. The word ‘sophist’ is claimed as a term of abuse in Aristides: E. Mensching, Mnemosyne 18 (1965), 62, n. 3; C. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (1968), p. 106, n. 39. But cf. Aristid. 50. 100 Keil, which Behr emends.

70. This is the view of K. Gerth in his article ‘Zweite Sophistik’ (unreliable), P-W Suppl. 8. 723. Note the comment of W. Spoerri on Gerth's article: ‘une mine inépuisable d'inexactitudes et d'erreurs’ (Rev. de Philol. 41 [1967], 118, n. 1).

71. VS, p. 620.

72. Hermes 25 (1890), 160, n. 1.

73. VS, p. 484.

74. See p. 12, n. 8 above.

75. Sextus Empiricus, adv. math. 2. 18: οἱ σοϕιστεύοντεs ἐπ' ἄκρον μὲν τὴν ῥητορικὴν ἐξήσκησαν τεχνολογίαν.

76. On cities' squabbling for titles like μητρόπολιs or πρώτη πόλιs see D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), i. 635-7, ii. 1496, n. 17.

77. The Ulpian at dinner may or may not be the lawyer: cf. W. Dittenberger, ‘Athenäus und sein Werk’, Apophoreton (1903), 1 ff., and W. Kunkel, Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen (1952), pp. 245-54.

78. He was a hermaphrodite (VS, p. 489).

79. Cf. J. Palm, Rom, Römertum, und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit (1959), and G. W. Bowersock, JRS 58 (1968), 261 f.

80. D. Nörr, Imperium und Polis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit (1966), pp. 83 ff. makes much use of the εἰs ‘Ρώμην but is largely ignorant of Aristides' other panegyrics. The attempt of J. Bleicken to extract what is original in the εἰs ‘Ρώμην is more substantial: NGA 1966, 7, pp. 225-77. Cf. H. Bengtson, Gymnasium 71 (1964), 150 ff.

81. It is worth observing that at Greek games encomia of members of the imperial house were among the fields of competition: cf., e.g., SEG 3. 334; Corinth, viii. 3. 153 (on which REG 79 [1966], 743).

82. Namely a.d. 143.

Bibliography

von Arnim, J., Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa (1898).

Atkinson, K. M. T., ‘The Third Cyrene Edict of Augustus’, Ancient society and institutions: studies pres. to V. Ehrenberg (1966), 21 ff.

Babelon, E., ‘Le Faux-Prophète, Alexandre d'Abonuteichos’, Rev. Num. 4 (1900), 1 ff.

Backmann, P., ‘Galens Abhandlung darüber, dass der vorzügliche Arzt Philosoph sein muss’, NGA 1965, no. 1.

Bagnani, G., ‘Peregrinus Proteus and the Christians’, Historia 4 (1955), 107 ff.

Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Roman Women (1962).

Barigazzi, A., Opere: Favorino di Arelate (1966).

Barnes, T. D., ‘A Note on Polycarp’, JTS 18 (1967), 433 ff.

———‘Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum’, JTS 19 (1968), 509 ff.

———‘Philostratus and Gordian’, Latomus 27 (1968), 581 ff.

Barrow, R. H., Plutarch and his Times (1967).

Behr, C. A., Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (1968).

Bengtson, H., ‘Das Imperium Romanum in griechischer Sicht’, Gymnasium 71 (1964), 150 ff.

Birley, A. R., ‘The Origin of Gordian I’, Britain and Rome: essays pres. to Eric Birley (1966), 56 ff.

———Marcus Aurelius (1966).

Bleicken, J., ‘Der Preis des Aelius Aristides auf das römische Weltreich’, NGA 1966, no. 7.

Bloch, H., I Bolli laterizi e la Storia edilizia romana (1938-9).

Bompaire, J., Lucien écrivain (1958).

Bornecque, H., Les Déclamations et les déclamateurs d'après Sénèque le père (1902).

Boswinkel, E., ‘La Médecine et les médecins dans les papyrus grecs’, Eos 48, i (1956; Symbolae Taubenschlag, i), 181ff.

Boulanger, A., Aelius Aristide (1923).

Bowersock, G. W., Augustus and the Greek World (1965).

———‘A New Inscription of Arrian’, GRBS 8 (1967), 279 f.

———‘The Proconsulate of Albus’, HSCP 72 (1968), 289 ff.

———Review of D. Nörr, Imperium und Polis, JRS 58 (1968), 261 f.

Brandstätter, C., ‘De notionum πολιτικόs et σοϕιστήs usu rhetorico’ Leipzig. Stud. z. class. Phil. 15 (1894), 129 ff.

Brock, M. D., Studies in Fronto and his Age (1911).

Buckler, W. H., ‘T. Statilius Crito, Traiani Augusti medicus’, JÖAI 30 (1937), Beibl. 5 ff.

Caster, M., Études sur Alexandre ou le Faux-Prophète de Lucien (1938).

Cichorius, C., Rom und Mytilene (1888).

———Römische Studien (1922).

Cohn-Haft, L., The public physicians of Ancient Greece (1956).

Day, J., An economic history of Athens under Roman domination (1942).

Dessau, H., ‘C. Sallius Aristaenetus’, Hermes 25 (1890), 158 ff.

Dittenberger, W., ‘Athenäus und sein Werk’, Apophoreton (1903), 1 ff.

Dodds, E. R., Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (1965).

Duruy, V., Histoire de Rome, vol. vi (1879).

Edelstein, E. J. and L., Asclepius (1945), 2 vols.

Fitz, J., ‘Ummidio Quadrato, governatore della Moesia inferiore’, Epigraphica 26 (1964), 45 ff.

Flacelière, R., ‘Inscriptions de Delphes de l'époque impériale’, BCH 73 (1949), 464 ff.

Frend, W. H. C. ‘The Date of Polycarp's Martyrdom’, Oikoumene (1964), 499 ff.

Geagan, D. J., The Athenian Constitution after Sulla, Hesperia, Suppl. 12 (1967).

Graindor, P., Un Milliardaire antique: Hérode Atticus et sa famille (1930).

Groag, E., ‘Cn. Claudius Severus und der Sophist Hadrian’, Wiener Studien 24 (1902), 261 ff.

———Die römischen Reichsbeamten von Achaia von Augustus bis auf Diokletian (1939).

Groningen, B. A. van, ‘General Literary Tendencies in the Second Century a.d.’, Mnemosyne 18 (1965), 41 ff.

Grosso, F., ‘La Vita di Apollonio di Tiana come fonte storica’, Acme 7 (1954), 333 ff.

Hanslik, R., ‘Fronto und Herodes’, Opus. Phil. kath. Phil. (Vienna) 6 (1934), 29 ff.

Hepding, H., ‘“Ρουϕίνιον ἄλσοs”, Philologus 88 (1933), 90 ff., 241 ff.

Herzog, R., ‘Urkunden zur Hochschulpolitik der römischen Kaiser’ Sitzungsberichte d. preuss. Akad. 1935, 967 ff.

Hüttl, W., Antoninus Pius i (1936), ii (1933).

Isnardi, M., ‘Techne’, Parola del Passato 16 (1961), 257 ff.

Jameson, S., ‘Cornutus Tertullus and the Plancii of Perge’, JRS 55 (1965), 54 ff.

Jeuckens, R., Plutarch von Chaeronea und die Rhetorik (1907).

Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City (1939).

———‘The Greeks under the Roman Empire’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963), 3 ff.

Jones, C. P., ‘Towards a Chronology of Plutarch's Works’, JRS 56 (1966), 61 ff.

———‘The Teacher of Plutarch’, HSCP 71 (1967), 205 ff.

———‘A Friend of Galen’, CQ 17 (1967), 311 f.

Jüttner, H., De Polemonis Rhetoris Vita Operibus Arte (1898).

Kaibel, G., ‘Dionysios von Halikarnassos und die Sophistik’, Hermes 20 (1885), 497 ff.

Kapetanopoulos, E. A., “'Αναθηματικὴ ἐπιγραϕὴ ἐξ 'Ελευσι̑νοs”, 'Αρχ. 'Εϕ. 1964, publ. 1967, 120 ff.

Keil, J., ‘Vertreter der zweiten Sophistik in Ephesos’, JÖAI 40 (1953), 5 ff.

Kornemann, E., Grosse Frauen des Altertums (1942).

Kunkel, W., Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen (1952).

De Lacy, P., ‘Galen and the Greek Poets’, GRBS 7 (1966), 259 ff.

De Leeuw, C. A., Aelius Aristides als Bron voor de Kennis van zijn Tijd (1939).

Magie, D., Roman rule in Asia Minor (1950), 2 vols.

Marrou, H. I., Histoire de l'éducation dans l'antiquité (1960).

Mensching, E., Favorin von Arelate (1963).

———‘Zu Aelius Aristides' 33. Rede’, Mnemosyne 18 (1965), 57 ff.

Meyer, Th., Geschichte des römischen Arztestandes (1952).

Millar, F., A study of Cassius Dio (1964).

———‘Emperors at Work’, JRS 57 (1967), 9 ff.

Momigliano, A., Review of Peretti, Luciano, in Rivista Storica Italiana 60 (1948), 430 ff.

Mommsen, Th., ‘Die Chronologie der Briefe Frontos’, Hermes 8 (1874), 198 ff. = Ges. Schr. 4. 469 ff.

Münscher, K., ‘Die Philostrate’, Philologus, Suppl. 10 (1905/7), 469 ff.

Neugebauer, O., and van Hoesen, H. B., Greek Horoscopes (1959).

Nock, A. D., ‘Alexander of Abonuteichos’, CQ 22 (1928), 160 ff.

Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa (1915).

Nörr, D., Imperium und Polis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit (1966).

Oliver, J. H., ‘Two Athenian Poets’, Hesperia, Supp. 8 (1949), 243 ff.

———The Athenian expounders of the sacred and ancestral law (1950).

———The ruling power (1953).

———‘The Sacred Gerousia and the Emperor's Consilium’, Hesperia 36 (1967), 329 ff.

———The civilizing power (1968).

———‘The Ancestry of Gordian I’, AJP 89 (1968), 345 ff.

Pack, R., ‘Two Sophists and Two Emperors’, CP 42 (1947), 17 ff.

Palm, J., Rom, Römertum, und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit (1959).

Peretti, A., Luciano: Un intellettuale greco contro Roma (1946).

Perry, B. E., Secundus the silent philosopher (1964).

Petersen, L., ‘Iulius Iulianus, Statthalter von Arabien’, Klio 48 (1967), 159 ff.

Pflaum, H.-G., Les Procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain (1950).

———‘Lucien de Samosate, Archistator praefecti Aegypti’, Mélanges de l'École française de Rome 71 (1959), 281 ff.

———Les Carrières procuratoriennes équestres (1960-1), 4 vols.

———‘Les Correspondants de l'orateur M. Cornelius Fronto de Cirta’, Hommages Bayet (1964), 544 ff.

———‘Le Règlement successoral d'Hadrien’, Historia-Augusta Colloquium Bonn 1963 (1964), 91 ff.

Platnauer, M., The life and reign of the Emperor Lucius Septimius Severus (1918).

Pohl, R., De graecorum medicis publicis (1905).

Pouilloux, J., ‘Une famille de sophistes thessaliens à Delphes au II^e s. ap. J.-C.’, REG 80 (1967), 379 ff.

von Premerstein, A., Das Attentat der Konsulare auf Hadrian, Klio, Beiheft 8 (1908).

Reidinger, W., Die Statthalter des ungeteilten Pannonien und Oberpannoniens (1956).

Reinmuth, O., ‘A working list of the Prefects of Egypt 30 B.C.-A.D. 299’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 4 (1967), 75 ff.

Réville, J., La Religion à Rome sous les Sévères (1885).

Robert, L., Les Gladiateurs dans l'orient grec (1940).

———La Carie ii (1954).

———‘Inscriptions d'Aphrodisias’, Ant. Class. 35 (1966), 377 ff.

Rohde, E., ‘Γέγονε in den Biographica des Suidas’, Rh. Mus. 33 (1878), 161 ff., 638 ff.

———‘Die asianische Rhetorik und die zweite Sophistik’, Rh. Mus. 41 (1886), 170 ff. = Kl. Schr. 2 (1901), 75 ff.

———Der griechische Roman (1914).

Sarikakis, Th., The hoplite general in Athens (1951).

———“Αἱ ἐπὶ του̑ ἐπισιτισμου̑ τω̑ν 'Αθηνω̑ν ἁρμοδιότητεs του̑ στρατηγου̑ ἐπὶ τὰ ὅπλα”, Platon 9 (1957), 121 ff.

Sarton, G., Galen of Pergamum (1954).

Schissel, O., ‘Lollianos aus Ephesos’, Philologus 82 (1927), 181 ff.

———‘Die Familie des Minukianos’, Klio 21 (1926), 361 ff.

Schmid, W., Der Atticismus iv (1896).

Schwartz, J., Biographie de Lucien de Samosate (1965).

Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny: A social and historical commentary (1966).

Solmsen, F., ‘Some Works of Philostratus the Elder’, TAPA 71 (1940), 556 ff.

Stein, A., ‘Zu Lukians Alexandros’, Strena Buliciana (1924), 257 ff.

———‘Zur sozialen Stellung der provinzialen Oberpriester’, Epitymbion Swoboda (1927), 300 ff.

———Die Präfekten von Aegypten (1950).

Stemplinger, E., Strabons literarhistorische Notizen (1894).

Syme, R., ‘Antonine Relatives: Ceionii and Vettuleni’, Athenaeum 35 (1957), 306 ff.

———Tacitus (1958), 2 vols.

———‘Hadrian the Intellectual’, Les Empereurs romains d'Espagne (1965), 243 ff.

———‘The Ummidii’, Historia 17 (1968), 72 ff.

———Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968).

Thomasson, B., Die Statthalter der römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diokletianus (1960), 2 vols.

Thompson, H. A., ‘The Odeion in the Athenian Agora’, Hesperia 19 (1950), 31 ff.

Tod, M. N., ‘Sidelights on Greek Philosophers’, JHS 77 (1957), 132 ff.

Townend, G. B., ‘The Post Ab Epistulis in the Second Century’, Historia 10 (1961), 375 ff.

Waddington, W. H., Mémoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rhéteur Aelius Aristide (1867).

Walden, J., The universities of ancient Greece (1912).

Welles, C. B., ‘The Romanization of the Greek East’, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 2 (1965), 75 ff.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, ‘Asianismus und Atticismus’, Hermes 35 (1900), 1 ff.

———Review of Boulanger, Aristide, in Litteris 2 (1925), 125 ff.

———‘Der Rhetor Aristides’, Sitzungsberichte Akad. Berlin 1925, 333 ff.

———‘Marcellus von Side’, Sitzungsberichte Akad. Berlin 1928, 3 ff.

Wirth, G., “'Αρριανὸs ὁ ϕιλόσοϕοs”, Klio 41 (1963), 221 ff.

———‘Helikonios der Sophist’, Historia 13 (1964), 506 ff.

Wood, J. T., Discoveries at Ephesus (1877).

Woodhead, A. G., ‘The State Health Service in Ancient Greece’, Cambridge Historical Journal 10 (1952), 235 ff.

Zwikker, W., Studien zur Markussäule (1941).

Abbreviations

AE L'Année épigraphique

AJA American Journal of Archaeology

AJP American Journal of Philology

Ant. Class. L'Antiquité classique

Ath. Mitt. Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung

BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique

CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

CP Classical Philology

CQ Classical Quarterly

CR Classical Review

FGH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker

GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies

HA Historia Augusta

HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

IG Inscriptiones Graecae

IGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes

ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae

JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies

JÖAI Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Instituts

JRS Journal of Roman Studies

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua

NGA Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse

OGIS Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae

PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani (PIR² referring to available volumes of the Second Edition)

P-W Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Real-Encyclopädie

REA Revue des études anciennes

REG Revue des études grecques

REL Revue des études latines

Rh. Mus. Rheinisches Museum

SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

SIG³ W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (Third Edition)

TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association

VS Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum (with reference to the Olearius pagination)

All other abbreviations should be clear enough without further expansion.