SOURCE: Swain, Simon. “The Reliability of Philostratus's The Lives of the Sophists.” Classical Antiquity 1, no. 2 (1991): 148-63.

[In the following essay, Swain provides a summary of the sources Philostratus used in compiling his Lives of the Sophists, and how he interpreted and presented the information available to him.]

For those interested in investigating the Greek society and culture of the first three centuries a.d. Philostratus's record of sophistic activity in the Lives of the Sophists (VS) is unavoidable. There have been a number of important treatments of the Lives, including most recently a useful commentary on those of the sophists who held an official chair of rhetoric at Athens or Rome.¹ The question of the reliability of Philostratus's testimony is still open. In particular, his relationship with his sources, which are so far as we can tell oral, has not been properly explored. In what follows here I wish to consider the material that was available to Philostratus, and how it is packaged by him. The value we place on Philostratus's sources is closely connected with the value he places on them himself. If the Lives are intended to be read primarily as a species of literary creation, mention of sources will be seen as part of a standard Beglaubigungsapparat. Clearly, the Lives can be read in this way. In Reardon's Courants Littéraires, the fundamental discussion of the Greek literature of the period, they are naturally categorized as “une série de petites esquisses littéraires, élaborée à partir d'une matière donnée et de façons variées.”² This judgment is influenced by a comparison with another Philostratean work, the Imagines, where Philostratus goes far beyond simple exposition of his imaginary pictures and interprets the narratives with the help of rich allusion to classical myth and literature. But the Lives of the Sophists are more than mannered vignettes designed to display Philostratus's command of myth and literature. They can be of real value to us in forming an idea of the social and cultural background of the age known to us from Philostratus as the Second Sophistic, so long as we are aware of Philostratus's own terms of reference.

Philostratus applied the term Second Sophistic to the rhetorical movement that “handled the standard types of the poor men and the rich men and the war heroes and the tyrants and the named subjects that history provides” (VS 481). This sort of rhetoric began formally with Aeschines (481, 507), but really with Nicetes of Smyrna in the time of Nero (511). Philostratus's conception was derided by Wilamowitz.³ Right in terms of the history of rhetoric, Wilamowitz was wrong in that rhetoric is not the principal interest of the Lives. When Philostratus says he is to discuss those who are “properly called sophists,” as he puts it (479, 492), he is not thinking simply of exponents of a certain type of oratory, but of a group that shared a distinctive set of cultural, social, and political values. Many of the biographies, indeed, have nothing on teaching or rhetorical production and offer no flosculi for imitation. The longest biography, that of Herodes Atticus, is a perfect example of this. “It is felicitous,” says Philostratus in his preface to the Lives, “to know the virtues and vices of a man, where he succeeded or failed, and whether by fortune or judgment” (480). The narrative makes it plain that this statement (which could have come from one of Plutarch's preambles) refers not simply to cultural attainments, but rather to the social, economic, and political criteria that are presented as underpinning and complementing the sophists' paideia. It is the economic upturn distinguishing the Greek world of the Principate from that of the Republic that entitles us to apply the term Second Sophistic to this period in terms of Greek history. Economic power brings leisure power, and Philostratus is charting a leisure industry. The sophists discussed by him are shown combining wealth, culture, and power in a way that is especially characteristic of this age, as we know from other literary and lapidary sources.⁴

The diffusion of Second Sophistic culture has been made clear during this century by the unearthing of the epigraphical record, which attests the enormous and widespread popularity of the rhetors and their counterparts in other performance industries, such as theater and pantomime, in terms of their agonistic triumphs, membership on councils, and honorary statues. The ability to travel and the availability of money made the sophists of the Principate. As a practicing sophist himself Philostratus was well placed to capture all this. On the other hand his work on the sage Apollonius of Tyana treats another real figure of this age in a manner that is obviously not biographical, but is rather part encomium, part novel, and is extraordinarily difficult to use as historical testimony.⁵ How do we know the Lives of the Sophists are any different? The difference between the Apollonius and the Lives was evident in antiquity. Apollonius was viewed as encomium. That is shown by the title it was given (by Philostratus or others), Τὰ ἐs τὸν Τυανέα 'Απολλώνιον, which Reardon renders correctly as En l'Honneur d'Apollonios de Tyane.⁶ The title has clear analogues in the Greek novels, where besides those that allude to locality, such as Lollian's Phoinikika or Xenophon's Ephesiaka, we have Chariton's Τὰ περί Kαιρέαν καὶ Καλιρρόην and Achilles Tatius's Τὰ κατὰ/περὶ Lευκίππην καὶ Κλειτοφω̑ντα. Consideration of structure and content of Apollonius leads us in the same direction. It is in eight books, like the works of Chariton and Tatius. Other characteristics of the novels, travel and adventure, loom large in it. Philostratus's story of the origin of the work, ostensibly an assertion of the fidelity of his source, is in fact a novelistic topos. Philostratus says the work was written up first by a contemporary of Apollonius, Damis, who hailed from Nineveh. The tablets on which Damis wrote his narrative were brought to light by a descendant, and Philostratus claims to be merely restyling the ὑπομνήματα he found.⁷ Bowie is almost certainly right to take this story as a compliment to the great sophist Flavius Damianus, whom Philostratus used as an important source for the Lives of the Sophists (see below).

What of the Lives? Philostratus does not call his work βίοι. He refers only to his λόγοs. In her recent commentary Rothe argues that the Lives really belong to the genre of λαλιαί, the introductory speeches to declamations, often called διαλέξειs from their conversational tone, which sometimes constituted complete performances.⁸ But although Philostratus's relaxed style is suitable for these preambles, and his allusions to οἱ ἐλλόγιμοι—the classical greats—are characteristic of them, the Lives differ significantly in lacking the customary appeal to the audience to favor the speaker and to receive his message. This appeal may be seen, for example, in short pieces of Lucian, such as the Amber, or Heracles.⁹ Eunapius was right to refer to Philostratus's work as βίουs (454 B. = 2.1.2 G.). The Lives are not of course biography in the sense that Suetonius offers it in the Caesars or Plutarch in the Parallels (but cf. VS 480, quoted above). They are rather a sort of cross between biography and the blend of biography and doxography offered by Seneca (Controversiae), Suetonius (De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus), Favorinus (Apomnemoneumata), and Diogenes Laertius. This is an important realization, since, while inference or conjecture is always employed by ancient authors to some extent, the typology here does indicate a commitment to truth.

One concern about the credibility of the biographies focuses on their uneven lengths and varying content. Leo, indeed, was quite affronted by Philostratus's inattention to his own belief in “die fortlaufende Erzählung,” a sort of narrative by numbers that he had identified in ancient biography.¹⁰ At the outset Philostratus is awkward. He says that he is not especially interested in listing his subjects' parentage (479-80), which is normally a prerequisite of biographical technique. As a rhetorical commentator Philostratus again behaves improperly. Some of the Lives, for example that of Julius Pollux (592-93) or Onomarchus (598-99), do concentrate on rhetorical production, but many more are concerned with the pretense and prestige of the sophists, who fascinate our biographer as much as they fascinate us. One of the least satisfactory aspects of the Lives in the view of the older generation of moderns is their failure to record Greek rhetoric between Aeschines in the fourth century b.c. and Nicetes in the first century a.d. Kayser had no hesitation in postulating a lacuna.¹¹ Wilamowitz's insistence on the continuity of Greek rhetoric from the classical to the imperial age was aimed partly at exposing Philostratus's impercipience.¹² He did not understand Philostratus's approach. There are perhaps three reasons for the omission, all of which must be considered. One has to do with Philostratus's desire of producing a work that reflected the spirit of his age. In this sense it is hardly surprising that he draws the majority of his subjects from the time of Nero and beyond. A second reason, which Philostratus gives implicitly, is connected with his own tastes in rhetoric. Philostratus does in fact allow the continuity of rhetoric at the service of philosophy, and begins the Lives with eight philosopher-sophists stretching from the fourth-century Eudoxus of Cnidus to the second-century Favorinus of Arles.¹³ However, purely sophistic rhetoric had, he thought, declined to “desperate straits” (but not vanished) before the epiphany of Nicetes (511). Clearly, by placing the biography of Nicetes immediately after that of Aeschines, Philostratus is out to suggest that Nicetes was directly picking up the ancient tradition. The oratory practiced by those “properly called sophists” is characterized by fictional declamation, sometimes on themes offered by history. As has been said, Philostratus believed that Aeschines had initiated this type of speaking (481, 507). A similar opinion was held by Quintilian.¹⁴ Philostratus cannot have been ignorant of those rhetors who intervened between Aeschines and Nicetes. The fame of Hegesias, for example, from the third century was such that stories about him must have circulated in the schools. Or again, Hybreas from the first century was a powerful, charismatic man, who plays a memorable (if brief) role in Plutarch's Antony and features in the literary reminiscences of Seneca. Philostratus judged them deficient in talent. His bad opinions of them, perhaps on the grounds of Asianism, and of others who are passed over in silence for whatever reason, must be allowed him, whether they are agreeable to us or not. None of this is to deny that lack of information is another reason for omitting the Hellenistic rhetors. Indeed, given the fact that Philostratus depends greatly on oral sources, it may well be that Nicetes, who lived about 170 years before the Lives were published, might represent an upper limit for recollection.

How far can we trust Philostratus's use and understanding of his sources? The answer to this question is not supplied by old-fashioned Quellenforschung. There were, of course, other written traditions about the sophists, which were perhaps transmitted through the schools. Hesychius drew on them for his 'Ονοματολόγοs and handed them down to the Suda. Comparative inquiry with Philostratus's Lives appealed to Leo.¹⁵ We do not know what these sources really were. To be sure, Philostratus's account of the sophists of the first to third centuries is unique as far as extant literary texts go. But in using him we are not presented with the problems facing, for example, the historian who uses Cassius Dio's solitary account of Augustus.¹⁶ Naturally, Philostratus like Dio packages and plots his information. But in attempting to define the reliability of the Lives from their sources two considerations keep us from aporia. First, Philostratus's assessment can be checked against the extensive epigraphic record now available, which confirms the general picture he gives of cash, power, and culture. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Second, consider Philostratus's background. He was a member of the political and economic elite. His wife, Aurelia Melitine, came from a senatorial family, and at least one of his sons was a senator (I Erythrai I.63). He knew Julia Domna well, and was friendly with one of the Gordians, to whom the Lives are dedicated (479).¹⁷ To distort the substance of the information received from his teachers and friends—members of the same cultural and economic class—would involve Philostratus in a disrespect of which he shows no sign (cf. for example the elaborate compliment in the Apollonius mentioned above to the sophist Damianus, who is a major source for the Lives). The huge variation in the scope of different biographies suggests in fact that Philostratus did keep closely to what these sources said, and did not treat them in a cavalier fashion by “filling out” when they ran dry.

The Lives of the Sophists “were done in Athens.” So Bowersock, unimpeachably.¹⁸ What Athenian sources can be traced? First, there is Philostratus himself. He was de facto an Athenian.¹⁹ His student days were spent in the city. One of his teachers was the sophist Proclus of Naucratis. Philostratus's statement that he “knew the man well” (602) is borne out by details of Proclus's methods of instruction. Hippodromus of Larissa also features in Philostratus's student memories (617) and those of his son-in-law, Philostratus of Lemnos (617).²⁰ Information from Hippodromus about his relative Philiscus the Thessalian (621), who held the imperial chair of rhetoric at Athens (622-23), might have supplemented what Philostratus knew of the man from the court of Julia Domna (622).²¹ From his “elders,” as he calls them, Philostratus heard of Philagrus of Cilicia's unhappy performance in Athens (579-80), when the Cilician sophist was exposed as a fraud.²² Finally, Philostratus attests to the existence of two statues of the sophist Lollianus (527), one of which is known to us from epigraphy.²³

The chief beneficiary of Philostratus's access to Athenian sources is the plutocrat Herodes Atticus.²⁴ Philostratus claims originality to a degree. He tells us that his biography of Herodes was made up “partly of oral information, partly of things unknown to others” (566). Herodes' influence on the sophistic is sometimes decried, and the number of his pupils unkindly scrutinized.²⁵ He was not simply a rhetor, of course, and Philostratus brings out his leading political and cultural role very well. Memories of Herodes and his family would have survived to attract our biographer. Philostratus “heard” details of the extravaganza of Herodes' Panathenaic festival in 140 (550).²⁶ Less widely known—perhaps one of the ἠγνοημένα ἑτέροιs—may be Herodes' secret desire to slice the Isthmus, which he revealed to one Ctesidemus, who regaled Philostratus with the story in turn (552).²⁷ Philostratus knew Ctesidemus well enough to send him a note on the propriety of erotic letters (Ep. 68, 255 K.²). As an epistolographer himself Philostratus thought highly of Herodes' epistolary style (Dial. 1, 258 K.²). Use of his letters is clear.²⁸ One to the rebel Avidius Cassius was proof of τὰ τὴs γνώμηs ὅπλα: “Herodes to Cassius. You were mad” (VS 563).

Another letter of Herodes, written to Barbarus,²⁹ gives details of declamations held by the sophist Polemon over a three-day period at Smyrna (537-38).³⁰ The letter raises a problem of chronology. The occasion mentioned seems to be identical to that described immediately before (536-37), where Herodes is said to have come to Smyrna τὸν Πολέμωνα δὲ οὔπω γιγνώσκων in order to study with him (ἐπὶ ξυνουσίᾳ). Philostratus asserts that this meeting took place at the time when Herodes was diorthōtēs of the free cities, an office that can be dated by his traffic accident in the Troad with the future Antoninus Pius during his proconsulship of Asia in 134-35/135-36 (554-55).³¹ It is thus implied that Herodes had not heard Polemon's speech at the inauguration of the Olympieion in Athens at the end of 131 or the beginning of 132,³² something that seems unlikely (despite Herodes' tribunate at Rome during 131).³³ If there is an error, the cause may lie in the fact that the information Herodes gives to Barbarus on Polemon seems to postdate Barbarus's consulship in 157.³⁴ Herodes is looking back over twenty years, and it is possible that Philostratus has become confused about the time of the meeting sketched in the epistle. Moreover, there is an element of suspense in the late meeting of such great men, which improves the tale.³⁵ It is, however, easier and more plausible to accept Philostratus's account. Herodes may well have been in Rome from his quaestorship in 129 to his practorship in 133.³⁶ By the time he met Polemon he was plainly advanced in both his political and his rhetorical careers.³⁷ At the meeting Herodes believes initially that Polemon will hesitate “to run a risk before such a man as himself” (537). In fact Polemon straightaway delivers “a long and appropriate encomium” on Herodes' political and oratorical achievements (537, λόγων τε καὶ ἔργων). Finally, after three days of declamatory prowess, which costs Herodes 250,000 dr., it is Herodes who hesitates and “conceded to Polemon not to come against him in an oratorical display nor to declaim after him, but to leave Smyrna by night lest he should be compelled (for he thought that even to be compelled [to speak against Polemon] would seem bold)” (538-39).³⁸ The theme of Herodes' modesty before the maestro is continued (“he kept on … praising Polemon and saying how wonderful he was”), and Herodes tells his correspondent Barbarus that “I had such and such a teacher when I was being taught, but Polemon when I was already teaching” (539), a statement that again suggests an established reputation for Herodes in rhetoric and adds weight to the contention that he did not meet Polemon until the mid-130s.

The letter to Barbarus is a precious document for its description of Polemon's stage technique (σκηνή). Apart from the lengthy narrative of Herodes and Agathion (the wild man cultivated by Herodes for the purity of his Attic [552-54]), which is related from “one of the letters to Julian,”³⁹ the letter to Barbarus is the only occasion in the Lives when Philostratus avers that he is making extensive use of a written source.⁴⁰ That is worth stressing. In the introduction to his Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists Eunapius suggests that Philostratus “spat out his Lives in a cursory, glib manner” (454 B. = 2.1.2 G.). The disparagement has not gone unnoticed.⁴¹ The basis of Eunapius's scorn is that, while he uses oral information like Philostratus, he also claims membership of an elite written tradition of biography (453-55 B. = 1.1.5-2.2.8 G.). Eunapius does not in fact justify his claim to have used “precise commentaries,” whose mistakes he solicitously disavows. By contrast Philostratus seems more revealing about his own oral sources. For example, the meeting between Dionysius of Miletus and Polemon of Sardis “I heard of from Aristaeus, who was the oldest of the Hellenes [i.e., πεπαιδευμένοι] in my time and knew most about sophists” (VS 524-25). Again, Megistias of Smyrna, a preeminent physiognomist and no doubt rhetor besides, told Philostratus of the visit to his school and to Smyrna by Hippodromus of Larissa (618-19). Aristaeus and Megistias might well have provided further information; they are only cited for particular incidents. Of much higher importance is the sophist Damianus of Ephesus (605-6).⁴² Philostratus met Damianus thrice in Damianus's old age (606). It is a good indication of his unevenness in reporting the sophists' interests that there is much on Damianus's wealth and building activities, but only a brief and superficial verdict on his output as a speaker (cf. Herodes). Damianus's value to Philostratus lay in his study with Aristides at Smyrna and Hadrian at Ephesus. “Whatever I have recorded about these men I stated on the authority of Damianus, who knew both well” (605). The Life of Hadrian in fact makes no mention of Ephesus. It begins with information about Hadrian's student days under Herodes Atticus, which Philostratus heard of “from my own teachers” (585-86)—meaning perhaps Antipater of Hierapolis, a pupil of Hadrian (606-7)—⁴³ then develops to Hadrian's imperial chair at Athens (586-89), his chair at Rome (589), and finally his belated appointment as ab ep. gr. (590). Much of this, but not what came “from my own teachers,”⁴⁴ will have originated from Damianus. That Philostratus passes over Hadrian's period of residence at Ephesus, where he is attested in the 160s honoring M. Aurelius's son-in-law, Cn. Claudius Severus, may be attributed to his own Athenocentricity rather than to a lack of sophistic activity on Hadrian's part before he assumed the Athenian chair in 176 (586-87, 588-89).⁴⁵

The Life of Aristides precedes that of Hadrian. Damianus is cited for the first meeting between the sophist and M. Aurelius at Smyrna (582-83). But Philostratus did not rely only on him: “I have not given the theme of the declamation [before Marcus], since people report it differently” (583; Megistias may be meant). Damianus is then credited again in a note on Aristides' attitude to improvisation. Philostratus notes variants concerning Aristides' death, including perhaps written accounts (585, γράφουσιν). As with Hadrian it is difficult to gauge the degree of dependence on Damianus. Aristides' own works are important—more so than for any other of the sophists except Polemon—and Philostratus spends a quarter of the Life quoting from them. His source for these works is the doxographical/school tradition, as is shown by the quotation of extracts and titles that show Aristides' merits and demerits. Damianus may also have helped out. It was pointed out by von Arnim that such stylistic examples in the Lives come mainly from declamations and are quite likely to have been circulated by versions taken down shorthand during delivery, perhaps by unauthorized copyists.⁴⁶ Clearly, though, Philostratus had access to fully published material also. In the case of Aristides he seems to assume the availability of the speeches whose titles are cited in support of the sophist, and indeed one of these, “The Speakers' Deliberations Concerning Affairs in Sicily” (584), represents orations 5 and 6 in the surviving corpus. One thing is sure: the selection offered for Aristides, of objectionable and of commendable passages, is typically Philostratean in its preference for historical themes.⁴⁷ Damianus's anecdote about the meeting between Aristides and Marcus stands out from this material, and elaboration by Damianus or by Philostratus (and probably by both) should not be denied; complete fiction should never have been suggested.⁴⁸ On one point only may Damianus as reported by Philostratus be wrong: his claim to have paid Aristides 10,000 dr. (605) for tuition is contradicted by Aristides' boast that he never charged (Or. 3.99 L.-B., 28.127 K., 33.19 K.), unless of course the money was offered and taken ex gratia.

As one would expect, then, Philostratus uses other sources in addition to Damianus, even for Aristides and Hadrian. That does not disallow Damianus prominence among his oral sources. Information on some of the other sophists must have come from him. Dionysius of Miletus taught first at Lesbos (526), then established himself at Ephesus (568, κατέχοντοs), where he died greatly honored with burial in the agora (526).⁴⁹ Through Damianus Philostratus may have gained information about those who studied with his teacher Hadrian, like Apollonius of Naucratis (600), and Apollonius of Athens (601).⁵⁰ Lollianus of Ephesus is an obvious candidate for Damianus's local knowledge. Damianus may also be responsible in part for the list of worthless sophists dismissed at the beginning of his Life (605), though the scorn is as likely to come from Philostratus himself. It is interesting that among the condemned is Soterus, who is honored by the Ephesians in two inscriptions of Antonine/Severan date, one at Delphi, the other at Ephesus.⁵¹ The Ephesian text hails Soterus for his move to the city from Athens, secured at the second attempt by the lure of 10,000 dr. (equivalent to the salary of the imperial chair at Athens). The denigration of Soterus at least is likely to reflect enmity between him and Damianus.⁵² One of the other ridiculed sophists, Phylax, is more probably contemned by Philostratus, since he is almost certainly the brother of Philostratus's previous subject, Phoenix of Thessaly, who is damned with the faintest of praise (604).⁵³

Most of the activity of the sophists was, of course, in the East; some information was available to Philostratus about those who worked in the West. Heliodorus “the Arab” was observed by our biographer on the make before Caracalla among the Gauls (625-26), and “is growing old at Rome, neither admired nor neglected.” Since Philostratus lived at Rome for a number of years, information about sophists in Rome, for example, Hadrian's deathbed appointment as imperial secretary, or Euodianus's final injunction to his friends (597), doubtless stems from oral sources in the capital. Philostratus must have met Aelian there (cf. 625, ἔφασκε). Aspasius of Ravenna “was teaching in Rome, having grown quite old, when these things were being written by me” (628). Other Western information is provided by Philostratus of Lemnos. Philostratus's son-in-law quarreled with Aspasius in Rome and Ionia (627-28). The Lemnian's disdain for Aelian is also noted (625), and either he or Philostratus himself may have been at Rome to see Philiscus of Thessaly lose his immunity before Caracalla (622-23).⁵⁴

Philostratus's data can often be checked, and he is mostly found to be correct: for example, Aristides' statue at Smyrna from the citizens of the Delta (582), Dionysius's appointment as “satrap” (i.e., procurator; 524), Damianus's building program at Ephesus (605), Herodes' stadium at Delphi (551), the curse inscriptions on statues of Herodes' foster sons (558-59), and so on.⁵⁵ Some errors are simple slips. Herodes' daughter is called Panathenais in the Lives (557), but is known from epigraphy only as Athenais.⁵⁶ The birthplace of Aelius Aristides is almost certainly Hadrianeutherae rather than Hadriani (581).⁵⁷ A more serious mistake concerns Philostratus's statement that Herodes ἐτέλει μὲν ἐκ πατέρων ἐs τοὺs δισυπάτουs (545; cf. 536, Suda H 544), since there is no evidence that Atticus was consul twice (and indeed no certain cos. suff. II is known after 104).⁵⁸ A similar mistake is probably made about Aristocles (ἐτέλει μὲν γὰρ ἐs ὑπάτουs, 567), for whom no consular ancestors are known.⁵⁹ However, other errors, omissions, or areas of confusion are located where none exist (e.g., the arbitrary change of “Barbarus” to “Varus,” Herodes' Athenian chair of rhetoric, Favorinus's claim for immunity).⁶⁰ The temptation to do this stems from the anecdotal nature of much of the material Philostratus purveys. Our prejudice is at fault, not his reporting.

A particular charge of unreliability is made against Philostratus on the basis of his omission of certain sophists. The charge is unfair. The title “sophist” is slippery. It is not uncommon in inscriptions, and many who held it or claimed it will not have been worthy exponents. The word itself should be scrutinized. Does Philostratus use it correctly? Interpretation of “sophist” turns upon Galen's allusion to ‘Αδριανὸs ὁ ῥήτωρ, οὔπωρ σοφιστεύων ἀλλ’ ἔτι συνoν τἳ̑ Βοηθἳ̑ (in 163; see supra, n. 45). For Philostratus Hadrian had a marked sophistic bent from the beginning (“the displayed a great natural talent for sophistic, and it was quite clear that he would go a long way,” 585), whereas Galen seems to imply that Hadrian did not become a sophist until many years after his training. The Galenic passage has been taken as a starting point for uncovering the meaning of the word. Bowersock has correctly observed that “sophist” appears to be contained within the term “rhetor,” and designates someone who was “a virtuoso rhetor with a big public reputation.” Bowie has rightly stressed that the employment of the verb σοφιστεύων is significant, pointing to the “pursuit of a career” involving public performances as the hallmark of a sophist.⁶¹

One aspect of the pursuit of a sophistic career was the requirement to travel widely, making oneself known to as large an audience as possible. Galen's remark could be read in conformity to this—Hadrian was still a rhetor, not one of those who traveled around as professionals, and was residing at Rome in the house of his friend and countryman, the peripatetic philosopher and consul Flavius Boethus.⁶² However, the accepted distinction between rhetor and sophist may ironically not be that intended in the De Praecognitione passage. The facts of Hadrian's career suggest that Galen has something more particular in mind. No one will believe that Hadrian, who was at least fifty at the time Galen is recalling (163), had never yet given public declamations.⁶³ Further, there is evidence that suggests he had in fact embarked on a career as a sophist before 163. Certainly Hadrian was no ordinary rhetor, if we may judge him by his pupils from the 150s or earlier. Philostratus says of Damianus that “when Aristides and Hadrian were in control respectively of Smyrna and of Ephesus, he attended the lectures of both at a cost of 10,000 dr.” (605).⁶⁴ Damianus must have been born about 135,⁶⁵ and is therefore likely to have been a pupil of Hadrian during the 150s. That cannot be proved. However, there are other pupils of Hadrian (Apollonius of Naucratis, Apollonius of Athens, Proclus of Naucratis), who come before Damianus in the Lives. Everything supports the thought that Philostratus orders his subjects in a roughly chronological series. One of these pupils, Proclus, lived to be ninety (604). His biography is separated from that of Damianus by that of Phoenix. We may assume that Proclus was born before Damianus (say 120-25) and died after (say 210-15). When he was a νέοs (i.e., up to 30) at Athens, Proclus “attended the school of Hadrian [‘Αδριανἳ̑ ἐφοίτα]” (603). Hadrian, then, was teaching at Athens in the 150s or even 140s distinguished pupils who graduated as sophists.

Lucian's Pseudologista, in which Hadrian is maliciously arraigned, reveals a sophistic career for Hadrian himself. The main dispute between Lucian and Hadrian seems to have occurred at Ephesus in 163 or 164,⁶⁶ but the seeds had been sown at an Olympic Games some time before, when Lucian had laughed at Hadrian for feigning the extempore speech “Pythagoras Is Excluded from Initiation at Eleusis Because He Is a Barbarian” (Pseud. 5). Hadrian is there called a “sophist” (cf. 25). The games of 165, when Lucian was present (Hieronymus, Chron. 204.24-26 H.²; Lucian, Peregr. 35), are clearly too late. Those of 161, 157, or 153, when Lucian was also present (Peregr. 35), come into account. The fake improvisation had been “written up long before [πρὸ πολλου̑ συγγεγραμμένον]” it was delivered at Olympia. Philagrus of Cilicia's similar attempt to pass off an old piece as an extempore production at Athens (VS 579) makes it quite clear that Hadrian is here engaging in sophistic activity.⁶⁷ This activity can be placed many years before Galen would appear to allow. The title “sophist” is applied to Hadrian by Lucian also at the time of the Ephesian quarrel (8; 9, ἀοίδιμοs; cf. VS 589). In 19 Hadrian is ῥήτωρ καὶ σοφιστήs. We know from other sources that Hadrian was at Athens, Ephesus, and Rome. Lucian lists these and a number of other cities and countries as the scene of Hadrian's unprofessional conduct (5, 10, 20, 21, 22, 27). We may assume professional activity in these places too. And in the end it is Hadrian's traveling between famous centers like Alexandria and Antioch (cf. Libanius, Or. 64 Pro Salt. 41) that certainly marks him out as a sophist.

There are no good grounds for maintaining that Hadrian was not a sophist at the time when Galen calls him as a rhetor. What, then, does Galen mean? The De Praecognitione was written in 178.⁶⁸ Might it not be that Galen's οὔπω σοφιστεύων is pointing to Hadrian's official position at Athens, or even Rome, after 176 (“not yet [in 163] holding a professorship [as he is now in 178], but living [or studying?] with Boethus”)? If that is correct, it does not undermine the general sense of the term “sophist” as it is now understood (partly from De Praecogn.). Rather, Galen is seen to be in a very particular train of thought, alluding momentarily to Hadrian's current official position in 178.⁶⁹ What, after all, was Hadrian doing in Rome in the early 160s? Even if M. Aurelius did not hear him till 176 in Athens (VS 588-89), it is difficult to imagine that he gave no display of his talents at Rome, but simply taught quietly in a school. In sum, Philostratus is probably correct in his contention that when Hadrian arrived at Herodes' school he was already a sophist in the making.

It has been suggested by Jones that Philostratus uses the terms “philosopher,” “sophist,” and “rhetor” with “confusing and undue rigidity.”⁷⁰ But as Jones noted himself Herodes Atticus (for example) is called “rhetor” by Philostratus in Dialexeis (258 K.²), and in the Lives “sophist” by Alexander Clay-Plato (574), “one of the Ten [rhetors]” by his supporters, “the stuffed rhetor” by his critics (564-65). On the definition of Bowersock and Bowie “sophist” is included within the term “rhetor”—one does not cease to be a rhetor when one becomes a sophist. This is reflected in Philostratus. In the case of Herodes, indeed, different contexts produce the different labels. In Dialexeis 1 Philostratus is talking of Herodes' skill at composing letters, not declamation (hence rhetor); Alexander's remark comes immediately after a virtuoso performance by Herodes; Herodes' supporters could hardly have called him “one of the Ten Sophists,” “the Ten” being, of course, the Attic canon; similarly, Herodes' detractors could not (on the pages of Philostratus; contrast Lucian, above) have dignified him with the title “sophist.” Philostratus is not especially rigid in applying the term “sophist,” nor ignorant of its application. The list of six bogus sophists given at Lives 605 is a case in point. They clearly claimed to be sophists—that is why Philostratus remarks that they should rather be called ἀθύρματα. We can say that Damianus misled Philostratus about one of these men, Soterus, while another, Phylax, is probably belittled (justly or not) by Philostratus himself (see above); but we may ask whether the other four should really have been included if the Lives were to be any sense selective. Again, if Attalus, the son of Polemon, is omitted as a sophist,⁷¹ Philostratus clearly felt he had good reason to do so (cf. 544, “the qualities of Polemon went no further than Polemon,” etc.). Attalus is in fact mentioned en passant at 609, as are two other sophists, Nicomedes and Diodotus, who are attested epigraphically.⁷² Again, if the Suda refers to Hadrian's secretary Julius Vestinus as a sophist (O 835), it also makes it plain that his oeuvre was primarily scholarly, as does his career, so that Philostratus's silence is justifiable.⁷³ Philostratus would probably have justified what looks like a serious omission—the complete absence of Alexandrian sophists—in some similar way. Only in the case of Lesbonax of Mytilene is it possible (that is all) that personal enmity on the part of our biographer lies behind his exclusion.⁷⁴

Lies, lapses, the license of memory—these were traps for Philostratus as for anyone dependent on oral sources. They should not be held against him. Philostratus was no doubt capable of supplying τὰ δέοντα: for example, the calumniation of Scopelian by Cytherus, his father's cook (517). However, note that these words (at any rate) are introduced as τοιαυτὶ λέγων—Philostratus makes no claim for their veracity. Other snatches of converse may also reasonably be suspected. But, as has been indicated, the Philostratus of the Lives is not the same as the Philostratus of the Apollonius, where (for example) Apollonius's (undelivered) apologia before Domitian (8.7) is a remarkably sustained piece of fiction, accorded fake realism by an introductory analysis of style (8.6). In the Lives of the Sophists the conversation between Herodes and Ctesidemus, for which Ctesidemus is the avowed source (cf. above), should never have been impugned, at least as far as Philostratus is concerned (Ctesidemus's truthfulness and memory are another matter).⁷⁵ Philostratus could only report what he was told. That is of course most often the cause of his limitations for us. He himself is gullible on certain points (Herodes' defense for murder: τἀληθὲs ἴσχυεν, 556;⁷⁶ M. Aurelius's suspicions of L. Verus, 560-61⁷⁷). He can be unclear (the poor distinction between the municipal and imperial chairs of rhetoric;⁷⁸ Herodes' δευτέραν κλήρωσιν τη̑s ὑπάτου ἁρχη̑s, 556⁷⁹). On the other hand, he is not afraid of confessing uncertainty (the origin of the quarrel with the Quintilii, 559; the burial places of many of the sophists); this is not simply a literary ploy. Taking everything together, it seems that, unless we can be sure that Philostratus's information is muddled or mistaken, we should be inclined to believe it.

Notes

1. C. L. Kayser, Philostrati Opera² (Leipzig, 1871) iii-x; U. von Wilamowitz, Hermes 35 (1900) 9-14 = Kl. Schr. III (Berlin, 1969) 231-36; F. Leo, Die griechische-römische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig, 1901) 254-59; K. Münscher, Philologus Suppl. X.4 (1907) 469ff., esp. 491-96; F. Solmsen, RE [Real-Encyclopädie der Klassischen Altertumswissenshaft] XX.1 (1941) 171-73; G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969), esp. ch. 1; B. P. Reardon, Courants littéraires grecs des II^e et III^e siècles après J.-C. (Paris, 1971), 115-19, 188-89; C. P. Jones, in G. W. Bowersock, ed., Approaches to the Second Sophistic (University Park, Pa., 1974) 11-16; G. W. Bowersock, in P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox, eds., Cambridge History of Classical Literature 1 (Cambridge, 1985) 655-58; A. Brancacci, Rhetorike philosophousa: Dione Crisostomo nella cultura antica e bizantina (Naples, 1985) 82-110; G. Anderson, Philostratus (New York, 1986), esp. chs. 2-6; S. Rothe, Kommentar zu ausgewählten Sophistenviten des Philostratos (Heidelberg, 1989), esp. 1-36.

   These works are referred to by author's name (N. B. “Bowersock” means Greek Sophists), as also are W. Ameling, Herodes Atticus I-II (Hildesheim, 1983); and H. Halfmann, Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des zweiten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Göttingen, 1979).

2. Reardon, 188.

3. Wilamowitz 13-14 = 235.

4. Cf. Münscher 494: “Wir spüren in Phil.s Buche den Pulsschlag seiner Zeit-das ist und bleibt sein Verdienst”.

5. See E. L. Bowie, ANRW [Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt] II.16.2 (1978) 1652-99.

6. Reardon 189. This use of ἐs/εἰs is often found in the lemmata of the Anth. Pal. with a like meaning. On what follows, note esp. Bowie (supra, n. 5) 1663-65, 1670-71.

7. There are close parallels for the origin of the Apollonius in the alleged origin of Antonius Diogenes' Incredible Tales Beyond Thule (Photius, Bibl. 166, 111b), of Dictys Cretensis's Diary of the Trojan War (prologue = 2-3 Eisenhut²; 5.17 = 119 Eisenhut²), both probably earlier than Philostratus, and in one of the versions of The History of Apollonius King of Tyre (β 51 = 411 Kortekaas).

8. Rothe 35-36.

9. Cf. D. A. Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge, 1983) 77-79.

10. Leo 256.

11. Kayser ix.

12. Wilamowitz 9-10, 12-14 = 231-32, 234-35.

13. See Brancacci 89-90.

14. Quintilian Inst. Or. 2.41; cf. Russell (supra, n. 9) 19.

15. Leo 256ff.

16. Cf. J. W. Rich, in A. Cameron, ed., History as Text (London, 1989), 87-110.

17. Julia Domna: Bowersock 101-9. Gordian: Ameling II.21-22; Rothe 5-6.

18. Bowersock 5-6.

19. Cf. SIG³ 878, Φλ. Φιλόστρατον 'Αθηναι̑ον (Olympia).

20. On the problems of the precise relationship between these Philostrati, see most recently Anderson 293.

21. Hippodromus: H. Müller, ZPE [Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik] 3 (1968) 207-9. Philiscus: R. Flacelière, FD [Fouilles de Delphes] III.4 (1954) no. 273.

22. On the incident, note A. J. Papalas, RCCM [Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale] 21-22 (1979-80) 93-104; see also infra, n. 67.

23. IG [Inscriptiones Graecae] II/III² 4211; see J. Keil, JÖAI [Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Instituts] 40 (1953) 8-9.

24. On his career, see P. Graindor, Un milliardaire antique: Hérode Atticus et sa famille (Cairo, 1930); Halfmann no. 68; Ameling. Apart from oral sources there were available to Philostratus ἐπιστολαὶ δὲ πλει̑σται ‘Ηρώδου καὶ διαλέξεs καὶ ἐφημερίδεs ἐγχειρίδιά τε καὶ καίρια τὴν ἀρχαίαν πολυμάθειαν ἐν βραχει̑ ἀπηνθισμένα (VS 565). Given all this material, uncorroborated statements found in the literary sources may be discounted (e.g., the report of Aristides' Prolegomena that Herodes in the 150s was ὁ τὸν θρόνον ἐπέχων τὸν σοφιστικόν [114 L. = 739 D.]; cf. I. Avotins, HSCP [Harvard Studies in Classical Philology] 79 [1975] 315-16, 319; note that acceptance is urged by Ameling I.126 n. 53).

25. Graindor (supra, n. 24) 155-56 (cf. Anderson 85: “too sweeping”).

26. Note M. L. Clarke (CP [Classical Philology] 68 [1973] 120) for the suggestion that Ciris 21-35 reflects the festival of that year. On the date, cf. Ameling II.14.

27. Cf. Bowerstock 3; B. Baldwin (Studies in Lucian [Toronto, 1973] 28) on the relation between Herodes' plan and ps.-Lucian, Nero, which is probably to be identified with the Nero attributed to Philostratus's father.

28. They were “vielleicht nur sinngemäss zitiert” (Ameling 1.119).

29. M. Vettulenus Civica Barbarus, cos. ord. 157, uncle of L. Verus (Eck, RE Suppl. XIV [1974] 845-46; G. Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen [Bonn, 1977] 328, further in index s.v.; Halfmann 209). For Herodes' friendship, see Ameling II, no. 188. N.B. some earlier editions of the Lives arbitrarily changed the MSS. lection at 537 and 539 to Varus; see Graindor (supra, n. 24) 157-58; I. and M. Avotins, An Index to the Lives of the Sophists of Philostratus (Hildesheim, 1978) 52.

30. Cf. M. Aurelius in Fronto, ad M. Caes. 2.7.1 v.d.H. 29: “Polemona ante hoc triduum declamantem audivimus” (Naples, 143).

31. On the date, see Ameling II.2 n. 9 (with literature); add W. Eck, Chiron 13 (1983) 178 (135-36).

32. Date: H. Halfmann, Itinera Principum (Stuttgart, 1986) 208-9.

33. Amelling I.51, II.4 n. 23, 105 no. 76.

34. Barbarus is “consul” the second time he is mentioned (539). On ὕπατοs in Philostratus, see infra, n. 79.

35. Cf. perhaps Polemon and Dionysius of Miletus (524, ἐγήρασκε μὲν ὁ Διονύσιοs ἐν δόξῃ λαμπρa, παρeει δ' ἐs ἀκμὴν [aged ca. 35] ὁ Πολέμων οὔπω γιγνωσκόμενοs τἳ̑ Διονυσίῳ). There is no real cause to suspect M. Aurelius's delayed meeting with the sophists Aelius Aristides (582-83) and Hadrian of Tyre (588) in 176.

36. Ameling I.51 (“vermutlich”), II.4 n. 23.

37. Political career: Ameling I.48ff., II.1ff. Rhetorical career: cf. VS 567 (Ti. Claudius) Aristocles of Pergamum ἐs τοὺs τοφιστὰs μετερρυή θαμίζων ἐν τ[η] ‘Ρώμῃ τἳ̑ ‘Ηρώδῃ διατιθεμένῳ σχεδίουs λόγουs. This must belong to the period 129-33, for Aristocles seems to have been a teacher himself by the later 130s, taking Aelius Aristides (at Pergamum, 581), who was born 26 Nov. 117 (C. A. Behr, AJP [American Journal of Philology] 90 [1969] 77), and Herodes was not again in Rome till 140/1 (Ameling I.71). Aristedes himself studied at Athens κατὰ τὴν ‘Ηρώδου ἀκμήν (VS 581), which the Suda (A 3902) reasonably interprets as ἠκροάσατο δὲ ‘Ηρώδου κατὰ τὰs 'Αθήναs. This will have been in the later 130s after Herodes' office as corrector; but Herodes did teach in Athens earlier, in the 120s, since Hadrian of Tyre, born 105-10 (C. P. Jones, GRBS [Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies] 13 [1972] 480-85; my note to appear in CP 85 [1990]), became his student about the age of 18 (VS 585), when Herodes himself (b. 101-3) was not more than 25.

38. To translate this passage taking Polemon as the subject of the infinitives (e.g., Wright in the Loeb) is plainly wrong; cf. Ameling I.59 n. 65.

39. Ti. Claudius Julianus, cos. suff. 154-56; see Bowersock 78-79; Halfmann no. 94; Ameling II.180.

40. Note other short examples from Herodes' correspondence to Favorinus (490); from Polemon (543); to and from M. Aurelius (562-63).

41. A. Brancacci, Elenchos 6 (1985) 396-400.

42. For his well-connected family, see the stemmata at Forsch. in Eph. III (1923) 166-68 (Keil); PIR² [Prosopographia Imperii Romani, second edition] [III.178 (Groag); IEphesos VII.1, p. 90.

43. Note that Antipater, Severus's ab epist. gr., was known also to Philostratus's father: Suda Φ 422 (Bowersock 3-4).

44. Münscher (476) and Solmsen (136) wrongly include Damianus as a teacher of Philostratus.

45. On Hadrian's activity as a sophist before 176, see below. Claudius Severus (Halfmann no. 101): IEphesos V.1539; this is securely dated before 168-69 (R. Syme, Historia 17 [1968] 102 = Roman Papers II [Oxford, 1979] 690) and after 163, when Hadrian was staying with Flavius Boethus (Halfmann no. 95) at Rome in the first summer of Galen's first visit (Galen, De Praecogn. 14.627 K. = 96 Nutton, ‘Αδριανὸs ὁ ῥήτωρ, οὔπω σοφιστεὐων ἀλλ' ἔτι συνών τἳ̑ Βοηθἳ̑; on the date, see V. Nutton, CQ [Classical Quarterly] 23 [1973] 158ff.); see also E. L. Bowie, ANRW II.33.1 (1989) 247. Hadrian's residence in Ephesus during the early 160s is suggested also by the sure identification of Hadrian with Lucian's enemy in Pseudologista, a work that probably dates to that decade (see Jones [supra, n. 37] 478-86; id., Culture and Society in Lucian [Cambridge, Mass., 1986] 110-15). For Hadrian's assumption of the Athenian chair, see Avotins (supra, n. 24) 320; Ameling I.159.

46. H. von Arnim, Leben und Werke des Dion von Prusa (Berlin, 1898) 172-79; cf. Münscher 494 n. 57.

47. Of the 87 titles that may safely be attributed to Aristides (incl. fragments) Philostratus cites 9 (36٪) of the 25 historical themes and 9 (14.5٪) of the 62 other works. Similar distortion is found with other subjects in the Lives.

48. U. von Wilamowitz, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., (1925) 345. Cf. C. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam, 1968) 142. Note also the fancies about Aristides, Herodes, and the meeting of Aristides with Marcus at Smyrna, in A. J. Papalas, Aevum 53 (1979) 88-93.

49. IEphesos II.426 (T[ίτοs] Κλαύδιοs Φλαουιανὸs Διονύσιοs ῥήτωρ). Dionysius was in fact buried just outside the tetragonal agora, under the ramp leading from the Street of Marble to the small piazza immediately behind the south gate of the agora and before the Library of Celsus (cf. C. P. Jones, GRBS 21 [1980] 374; E. Atalay, JÖAI 52 Beiblatt [1978-80] 53-58); Philostratus is not completely accurate (cf. Bull. 1971 no. 574), but to say that “we now know that [the burial] was elsewhere in the city” (Jones 15) is essentially misleading.

50. Antipater, also a pupil of Hadrian and teacher of Philostratus, will have been the major source.

51. Flacelière (supra, n. 21) no. 265; IEphesos V.1546; discussion in Keil (supra, n. 23) 15-18; see also Bowie (supra, n. 45) 248.

52. Cf. Keil (supra, n. 23) 23 (= IEphesos III.826) for another Ephesian sophist unknown from Philostratus; two other sophists suggested by Keil (23-24) are doubtful (cf. IEphesos III.825, V.1789).

53. “Phoenix of Thessaly deserves neither admiration nor yet complete contempt” (cf. the disparagement of Pollux, 592); see C. P. Jones, BCH [Bulletin de correspondance hellénique] 96 (1972) 265-67.

54. Cf. Münscher 480, Solmsen 137.

55. Statue of Aristides at Smyrna: cf. that erected by the residents of the Delta at Alexandria, OGIS [Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae] 709. Dionysius as procurator: IEphesos VII.1.3047. Damianus's building program: D. Knibbe, ANRW II.7.2 (1980) 790-91. Herodes' Delphic stadium: P. Aupert, FD II (1979) 174. Curse inscriptions: Ameling II. 23ff.

56. Ameling II.18 n. 21; cf. also T. D. Barnes, Phoenix 26 (1972) 148.

57. W. M. Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London, 1890) 157 with addenda 437, looks conclusive (so L. Robert, Études anatoliennes [Paris, 1937] 207 n. 1); Philostratus is supported by Behr (supra, n. 48) 3 n. 3.

58. Ameling I.27.

59. Cf. PIR² C 789; Halfmann no. 121.

60. Barbarus/Varus: supra, n. 29. Herodes' chair of rhetoric: supra, n. 24. Favorinus: Philostratus's account is impugned by A. Barigazzi, Favorino di Arelate: Opere (Florence, 1966) 7-9; see my paper in ZPE 79 (1989) 150-58.

61. Bowersock 12-14; E. L. Bowie, in M. I. Finley, ed., Studies in Antiquity (London, 1974) 169 (cf. YCLS [Yale Classical Studies] 27 [1982] 39); cf. also G. R. Stanton, AJP 94 (1973) 350-64.

62. On Boethus cf. supra, n. 45.

63. Galen's phrase cannot apply to Hadrian “in his earlier years” (Bowersock 12).

64. For κατειληφότοιν, του̑ μὲν τὴν Σμύρναν, του̑ δὲ τὴν '′Εφεσον, cf. 568, κατέχοντοs [Dionysius] ἤδη τὴν 'Εφεσίων.

65. Cf. my note to appear in JHS [Journal of Hellenic Studies] 111 (1991).

66. 163; Jones (supra, n. 37) 484-85 (Jones [supra, n. 45] 115 is more cautious). 164: V. Nutton, ed., Galeni De Praecognitione, CMG [Corpus Medicorum Graecorum] V.8.1 (1979), 190 n. 4. The essay was probably composed at the same time in Ephesus.

67. Von Arnim (supra, n. 46: 177) suggests the two cases are different because Philagrus's piece had probably been published without his knowledge; however, Philostratus makes it clear that Philagrus regularly passed off “stale pieces” as improvisations and had, indeed, learned the piece in question by heart (μνήμην ξυνελέξατο; on this translation, see Rothe 76).

68. Nutton (supra, n. 66) 50.

69. Contra Nutton (supra, n. 66) 190: “The phrase οὔπω σοφιστεύων cannot be pressed to indicate that [Hadrian] was already the holder of the … chair at Athens when ‘On Prognosis’ was written … it merely denotes the difference between the small town rhetor and the virtuosi professionals”; but (a) by Nutton's (correct) dating of De Praecogn. (178) Hadrian had been chairholder at Athens for two years; (b) Hadrian was never a small-town rhetor.

    For a similarly strict interpretation of the word “sophist” as depending on an official position, cf. Eunapius 487 B. (10.3.8-3.11 G.), where inferior men elected to chairs at Athens after the death of Julian the Cappadocian acquire the name of sophist by virtue of their posts, but did not deserve it (οἱ μὲν εὐτελέστεροι Sopolis and Parnasius] τὸ ὄνομα εἰχον, καί μέχρι τω̑ν σανίδων ἦν τὸ κράτοs καὶ του̑ βήματοs ἐφ' ὃ παρeεσαν, εἰs δὲ τοὺs δυνατωτέρουs [Prohaeresius, Epiphanius, Diophantus] ἡ πόλιs εὐθὺs διeρητο); cf. L. Cracco-Ruggini, Athenaeum 49 (1971) 416.

70. Jones 12-14.

71. Cf. Anderson 94 n. 50. On Attalus, see Jones (supra, n. 49) 374-77.

72. C. Habicht, Alt. v. Perg. VIII.3 (1969) no. 31, Ti. Claudius Nicomedes (VS 591, ῥήτωρ εὐδόκιμοs); no. 35, Marcius Acilius Diodotus (VS 617, died young φύσιν μὲν παρεσχμηένῳ μελέτῃ ἐπιτηδείαν).

73. E. L. Bowie, YCLS [Yale Classical Studies] 27 (1982) 40; cf. Anderson 94 n. 50. Philostratus is similarly justified (in his own terms) in leaving out Zenobius, another “sophist” under Hadrian (Suda Z 73), since none of the sophists in the Lives would care to have been known for translating Latin literature (Sallust's Histories and “so-called Wars”) into Greek.

74. Σ. Lucian, De. Salt. 69 (189 Rabe): Lesbonax's μελέται ῥητορικαὶ φέρονται θαυμάσιαι καὶ ἐνάμιλλοι Nικοστράτου [T. Aurelianus Nicostratus, IGR [Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes] IV.1134] καὶ Φιλοστράτου. On the disputed identity of Lesbonax, see RE XII [1925] 2103-6 (Aulitzky); R. Hodot, EAC [Entretiens sur l’Antiquite Classique]5 (1976) 27-28; R. Penella, The Letters of Apollonius of Tyana (Leiden, 1979) 103 on Ep. 22; Jones (supra, n. 45) 73 n. 23. Any suggestion that Nicostratus (a friend of Philostratus: VS 624; Menander, Peri Epideikt. 3.390 Sp.) and Philostratus were rivals of Lesbonax is unsustainable if Lesbonax is a pupil of Timocrates of Heraclea Pontica (Lucian, De Salt. 69), teacher of Polemon ca. 110-15 (VS 536, 541) and Demonax (Lucian, Demonax 3; cf. Jones 92-93). Aulitzky's “ἐνάμιλλοι vielleicht kein Recht gibt, L. in ein engeres zeitliches Verhältnis zu Nikostratos und Philostratos zu setzen” is clearly correct. Nevertheless the scholiast's report-unless inferred from the omission-may reveal some envy over reputations.

75. Münscher (RE VIII [1913] 933) suggested fiction because the theme of canalizing the Isthmus was used in the schools; cf. Aemling I.87 n. 19 “ich ihm aber nicht folgen kann.” N. B. Müncher (949) rightly rejected the contention that Herodes' letter to Julianus (see supra, n. 39) was an invention of Philostratus.

76. Cf. Jones 15; but Philostratus was right not to repeat Fronto's allegations about another murder charge concerning Herodes' behavior after his father's will (ad M. Caes. 3.3.2 v.d.H. 38, “carnifex quidam Herodes,” etc.).

77. Cf. P. A. Brunt, JRS [Journal of Roman Studies]64 (1974) 6 n. 28; weak support for the credibility of Philostratus (and HA) is given by A. J. Papalas, Athenaeum 51 (1978) 182-85.

78. Avotins (supra, n. 24) 315-19.

79. “Sortition for a proconsulship” or “sortition for a second consulate” (cf. Ameling II.7-9, in support of the former). On ὕπατοs = ὑπατικόs in Philostratus (and others), see Bowersock 7 n.1; H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (Toronto, 1974) 167.