IvIBRARY OF THF. University of California. OTF"T OF" Received V^^;^^ . iSg^_. ^ Accession ^o./ O J O Class No. Si< 'i^ PAULO SHOREY AIAAKTPA Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/emperorjuliansreOOwrigrich THE EMPEROR JULIAN'S RELATION TO THE NEW SOPHISTIC AND NEO-PLATONISM : WITH A STUDY OF HIS STYLE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF ARTS, LITERATURE AND SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OP DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY BY WILMEE CAVE FRANCE SPOTTISWOODE & CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE, LONDON 1896 Z7U/7 73 lio Mvj CONTENTS CHAPTER I PAGK Julian and the New Sophistic 1 CHAPTER II Julian's Relation to Philosophy 38 CHAPTER III Julian's Style and Vocabulary C7 APPENDIX I The Letters 93 APPENDIX I£ Julian and Dio 101 PEEFACE The chief aim of the following studies has been, as the title indicates, to give a more complete presenta- tion of Julian's relation to the Ehetoric and Philo- sophy of the fourth Christian century than has hitherto been attempted. Beyond the brief notices given in histories of literature and philosophy, I know of no other systematic treatment of Julian's relation to the New Sophistic, and there seems to have been no previous discussion of his style. Whatever interest the fragments contra Christianos possess for the student of divinity, they have little significance for the student of literature, and have not been taken into consideration here. Special ackowledgements to books consulted have been made in the proper places ; I have reserved for this place the acknowledgement of my general indebtedness to Zeller's History of Philosophy, to the monograph of M. Naville, Julien VApostat et sa philosojphie du Paganisme, to Boissier's La fin du Paganisme, and to Vacherot's Ecole d'Alexandrie. VI PKEFACE Of those under whose direction my studies have been pursued I wish to express my thanks to Professor E. A. Sonnenschein of the Mason Science College, to Professor J. P. Postgate of Trinity College, Cambridge, to Professor H. W. Smyth of Bryn Mawr College, to Professor W. G. Hale of the University of Chicago, and, especially, to Professor Paul Shorey of the Uni- versity of Chicago, who suggested the topic of this dis- sertation and to whose counsel and criticism I am greatly indebted. WILMER CAVE FRANCE. University op Chicago. CHAPTEK I JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC Among the writers who rank as the classics of the fourth Christian century the Emperor Julian holds the first place. His peculiar position as leader of the revival which was the last systematic effort of the Hellenists to rescue Greek culture from the indif- ference of Christianity is enough of itself to secure for his works an attention which a mere writer of panegyrics could not arouse. The Sophists Libanius, Themistius, and Himerius owe their importance to the fact that their Letters and Orations help the student to reconstruct the surroundings and in- fluences that worked on Julian. But apart from their interest for the historian of Hellenism, Julian's writings hold a definite place in the history of the development of Greek prose. To show what that place is, and what is Julian's relation to the literary movement of the fourth century, a brief retrospect will be necessary. The fall of Athens took from the Greeks the independence and the stirring political life that had inspired their orators and historians. For the next century and a half Greek literature, like Greece her- self, has no history. Not that there was any cessa- B 2 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC tion of literary activity, but it was exercised in narrow fields, and the philosophers, historians, grammarians, and polyhistors, who are the links between the earlier intellectual life of Greece and its revival under the Greco-Eoman Empire, have little significance for the history of Greek prose. Yet they serve to show how rapid was its decay. For philosophical prose, the first sign of that decay had been Aristotle's indif- ference to style — an indifference that, with Epicurus, turned to something like hostility.^ The decline of oratory was no less sudden. Early in the third century B.C. Hegesias of Magnesia stands for the degradation of oratorical prose, and the over- throw of the Demosthenic tradition of a periodic and rhythmical style. '^ It is significant of the causes of the general feeble- ness, that the first noteworthy name is that of an historian, and still more significant of the source of the coming revival is the fact that Polybius went to Eoman history for a theme. To the student of Greek literature Polybius is mainly interesting as personi- * See Spengel, Uebe?' das Studium der Rhetorik bei den Alien, Miinchen, 1842, p. 3. * Of the writings of Hegesias we possess only the few fragments preserved in the quotations of his critics ; but subsequent writers on Khetoric are unanimous in condemnation of his jerky style ; his effort to imitate Lysias appears to have been a complete failure. Strabo, xiv. p. 648 : 6 pijTWp ts ^p|e ixAXiara. rov ^Amavov Xeyojxevov Trapacpdeipas rh KaOeffTTjKhs €0os to 'Attlk6u. Cic. Orator, § 226 : quam perverse fugiens Hegesias, dum ille quoque imitari Lysiam volt . . . saltat incidens particulas. For a parody of Hegesias' style, Cic. ad Att. xii. 6, 1, and for a criticism of it, Dion. Hal. De Comp. p. 122 ; and ibid. 30, where, speaking of the neglect of rh avvTiBeyai, he says, oySels {pero 5e7v avayKa7ov avrh tiuai ov5i avjiL^dWeaOai ri Tcp KdWd Twu \6ycav, ^vKapxov Kiyui Ka\ 'HyriTiav rhv MoiyvrjTa. JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 3 fying the relations between Greece and Eome which make the year 146 b.c. a memorable date. He was one of the first of the Greeks to come into contact with the political life of Eome, and he lived before the frankly expressed admiration of the Eomans, and their emulation of Greek literature, had begun to arouse in the degenerate Greeks a feeling of supe- riority on the score of their past.^ But while his freedom from this affectation, and his appreciation of the Eoman genius, distinguish Polybius, he illus- trates, on another side, the lowest level of Greek historical prose, judged by the Attic standard of vocabulary and style. He wrote the KoLvrj, as might be expected of a Megalopolitan who had had no Attic training in Ehetoric, and had lived but little in Greece. It was because of this neglect of Attic models that his inartistic and unequal prose found so little favour with Dionysius of Halicarnassus.^ The century between Polybius and Dionysius saw the development of all that was best in Latin litera- ture, but for Greek prose it is as blank of distin- guished names as the period preceding Polybius. Nevertheless in oratory, at any rate, things had not been standing still. Even when Polybius was writing in the Kolptj, schools of Ehetoric were flourishing at Athens. It is probable that Asianism then still held the field, but early in the second century before Christ ' Hence his popularity with the Eomans. Cic. De Rep. ii. 14 : Polybium nostrum quo nemo fuit in exquirendis temporibus dili- gentior. 2 Dion. Hal, De Comp. 4. That Dionysius did not hesitate to go to Polybius for his subject-matter, Kaibel has shown in Hermes 20 : ' Dionysius v. Halikarnassus.' B 2 4' JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC its supremacy was challenged, and its waning popu- larity is marked by the appearance, about this time, of the Tex v7) of Hermagoras of Temnos. Herma- goras, by inaugurating a reaction in favour of scientific Ehetoric, paved the way for scientific Atticism and a school of style. ^ Yet he did not set up an ideal of the regeneration of Greek oratory through Atticism, such as later inspired Dionysius. The importance of Hermagoras lies in the fact that he made the first effort, since Aristotle and Theophrastus, to give to Ehetoric a distinct system and function, and so to raise it to the dignity of a science, and that in ad- vising the study of ancient models, he drew attention to style as well as to subject-matter. ^ The history of Greek prose in the last half- century of the Eoman Eepublic is the history of the development of two schools of oratory, the Attic and the Asianic.^ The direct or Greek evidences of that development we are not permitted to see. It is from Latin writers that we must judge of the character of Asianism and Atticism at this period. Cicero wrote of them from the point of view of a Eoman orator, and Quintilian as a critic of Eoman oratory, and a discussion of • The Asianic orators were usually men of little rhetorical train- ing. Dion. Ha}. De Comp.'p. 206: &vdpa}voi. rvs fxlv ijKvKKiov iraiSeias 6.rreipoi, rh 5' ayopalov ttjs pr)TopiKris fxipos oSoO re koX idxvns X^P^^ €7riT7}5€uoj/Tey. Cf. Blass, Griech. Bered. p. 56. - On Hermagoras, see Volkmann, Bhetorik, p. 5. Blass, Griech. Bered. von A. bis A. pp. 84-8. Jebb, Attic Orators, ii. 444-5. Wilkins, Introduction to Cic. De Oratore, p. 44, and Hermagoras, von Georg Thiele, Strassburg, 1893. 3 The words Attic and Asianic, as has been frequently pointed out, should be taken to denote a difference of ideal, and have little geographical significance ; the Atticists themselves came chiefly from Asia. JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 5 Attic and Asianic rhetoric here becomes, necessarily, a discussion of the attitude of Cicero and his contem- poraries to these opposing tendencies, such as would be out of place in these introductory remarks.^ It is enough to note that the Eoman schools of oratory, of which Hortensius, the follower of the Asianic school, and the Atticist, Calvus, are the typical representa- tives, must have had their counterparts in the schools of Greece and Asia Minor. It was at Eome, the literary centre of the world, that the struggle between them was carried on ; and of the influence exercised on Greek oratory by Eoman, at this time, we can judge from the Greek critic, Dionysius of Halicar- nassus. His importance for the study of the classic period of Greek literature and of the literature of the revival can hardly be over-estimated. In the early years of the Eoman Empire he wrote, at Eome, an appreciation of the Greek prose masterpieces, which has formed the basis of all subsequent criticism. But, though none can have realised more clearly than did Dionysius, that the Golden Age of Greek literature could never return, because the conditions by which it had been inspired could never be renewed, he was far from contenting himself with the contemplation of a glorious past. His hopes for the future of Greek prose, and his high ideal of what that prose must be, connect Dionysius closely with the literary activity of the whole Greco-Eoman period. He imagined, with the author of the irspl yy^ovs^'^ that a sincere and ' See Blass, Griech. Bered. von A, bis A. pp. 104 sqq. ^ A^ict. irepl v^ovs, xiii. : /cot toi/tou ye airpl^ e;tc6;Lie0a rod ffKonov (i.e. TTJs Tuv €fjLrrpo(rd€y fieydAwy avyypa(pewy Ka\ iroiTjToiv fxiixijfffws 6 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC sedulous imitation of the Greek masterpieces might lead to the development of a Greek prose which should have something of the spirit as well as the form of its models. Like Polybius, Dionysius was unfettered by the later conventional literary attitude towards the Eomans. It was the improvement in Greek oratory which led him to hope for a revival of Greek prose, and that improvement, as he frankly admits, was due to Eome.^ So rapid had been the change, that Dionysius expressed the hope that the next generation might see the last of that OsarpLKrj koX avdyco'yos prjTopLfcrj.'^ The question how far his ideals of Greek prose were realised by the writers who came after him is one of the most interesting in the history of the later Greek literature, but it can hardly be more than suggested here. That he exercised any direct influence on subsequent Greek prose seems impro- bable, for he is hardly mentioned except by Quin- lilian.^ The first century of the "Roman Empire is a transition period in Greek literature. Dionysius, writing under Augustus, recognised that the revival, of which he thought he saw the beginning, must re Koi ^T7\ci(rea>s). ttoAaoj yap aWoTpi 6(o ovTOS 6 &v6puiros Aiccvos iroKv KoiWiov ypdcpei, Epictetus, iii. 23, 17. ' For Plutarch's opinion of hyper-Atticism, which meant, in most cases, the unskilful sprinkling in of archaic or farfetched Attic words (ridiculed in Lucian' s Lexiphanes), see Plutarch, de Audiendo. For the fourth century, cf. Themistius, 253, cd. ' The term New Sophistic is used, as Philostratus used it, to denote the oratorical revival of the later Greco-Roman period. For while there had been no break in rhetorical studies (as Strabo's account of the Greek rhetoricians, Seneca's descriptions of the schools, and Pliny's reference to Isaeus would prove), the non- forensic style of oratory became more and more prominent in the reigns of the Hellenising Emperors from Nerva to Commodus ; and we can only begin to judge of it from Dio Chrysostom. JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 9 Every historian of the Greco-Eoman period has been at pains to point out the weaknesses of these rhetoricians, who, at any rate for the period between Plutarch and Plotinus, represented all the interests, rhetorical, philosophical, and historical, of the litera- ture of Eome, Greece, and Asia Minor. Their ideal was, it is true, in most cases no higher than the satis- faction of the degenerate tastes of their audiences.^ An orator of the New Sophistic must improvise, to be successful, and could count on delighting his hearers with a sing-song refrain, and feats of memory or of pantomimicry. If Dionysius could have been present at one of the theatrical Eirihsl^sLs of Polemo or Scopelian or Herodes Atticus, he would probably have found in them all those glaring faults, all that av a IB sea dsarpoKT], which he had so severely criticised, and which he had thought was giving place to a more correct and sober standard. He would have found them, moreover, flourishing under the patronage of those very Eomans from whose severer taste he had hoped so much. But that was the public or epideictic side of the New Sophistic. If he had turned to the schools of Ehetoric in which those men were trained, and over which they presided, the schools for which those displays of eloquence were, in most cases, an advertisement, he would have found a system of Greek education which might have satisfied him in its methods, however little he would have approved of its results. He would have found a diligent study of classic models too often carried on in a spirit of narrow pedantry, and an ideal of Atticism in vocabulary, far removed from his broader conception of a revived * tV rexvrjv dpl^ea-Qai rep xwp'C^o-^a'j Aristid. Or. 50, p. 566 D. 10 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC national Greek prose. ^ Of the extent to which Atticism in vocabulary was carried in the actual de- clamations of the Sophists, we can hardly form a judg- ment from the fragments preserved by Philostratus. The slight remains of Herodes Atticus and of Polemo that we possess are orations which were probably carefully worked over for publication, and the impro- visations of these Sophists may have been in a very different style.^ But it was under the wing of Sophistic that Atticism, both of vocabulary and style, flourished, and if Aristides must be regarded as excep- tional, because he did not improvise, yet his orations show what could be achieved by a scientific study of classic authors, such as the schools of Ehetoric must have encouraged.^ For in Aristides we have the phenomenon of a Mysian of the second Christian ^ Dionysius Hal. (cf. ad Pomp. 2. 3) is distinguished from the later theoretical rhetoricians by his use of eW-qvl^eiv, rather than aTTiKi^eip. 2 Phrynichus (Lobeck, p. 271) proves that Polemo employed a grammarian to correct some of his published writings, and this may have been the case with the extant declamations. Cf. Kohde, Bhein. Mus. xli. p. 185 n. ^ Historians who (like Blass, op. cit. p. 89, and Eohde, EJiein. Mus. xli.) see in the Sophistic 'ETrtSe t^ts a direct descent from Asianism, as represented by Hegesias and Hortensius, must admit that, while in their effort to satisfy the Greek love of improvisation, men like Polemo and Herodes Atticus were betrayed into precisely that dithyrambic abuse of bold metaphors, and those hyperbolic expressions, which are associated with the florid Asianic style, yet it would not be fair to condemn them along with Hegesias, who thought himself superior to Demosthenes. The fact seems to be that absolute distinctions cannot here be maintained, for it is certain that an effort after pure Attic speech and careful studies in style were made in the schools of the second Christian century by Sophists whom Eohde condemns for reviving Asianism. JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 11 century writing Demosthenic Greek.^ In the absence of worthy themes in contemporary life Aristides was thrown back on the themes of the schools, and the inevitable result is an effect of artificiality and pedantry. Aristides was proverbially unpopular as a teacher of Khetoric, probably because of his lack of the talent for improvisation, ^ though for the later Sophists he ranked with Demosthenes himself as a model of Greek prose (Themistius, 330 c). But in inferior writers the linguistic revival only increased that aTrscpoKaXla in the use of archaisms, to produce astounding effects, which had irritated Dionysius, Plutarch, and Lucian, and which, in the middle of the third century, meets us in the anecdotes of Athenaeus.^ And side by side with the honest, if mistaken, efforts of Aristides, there must have been a good deal of wholesale plagiarism.'* After that period of literary activity under the Antonines, of which Aristides is, for us, the most important representative, there comes another break ' Aristides' conception of Atticism would have been too narrow for Dionysius. Cf. Aristid. Bhet. ii. 6 : irepl Se kpfirjueias roaovTou hv etiroiixi, /x^Te o^Sfiari fii]Te p-fifiari XP^'''^"* 6.W01S ttX^v to7s e/c rwy ^i^Kiwv. His practice, however, lagged behind his theory, as may be seen from Schmid's list of his innovations, Atticismus, vol. ii. p. 225. 2 The comment of Philostratus on Aelian's choice of a pro- fession shows that the mere writer held a much less distinguished position than a declaimer. irpoap-qQ^h ao}v Kadidpiificvos, €5t5aTroi avTacnrd^ourai {tovs (To^KTras) Kol avTCiraivova't, Koi ivrevdeu TrAefrj /j-hv ya7a rovroav wXeir] Se QaXacraa ' ol Se airh rijs XaiKpaTov yeveas e'lKdrcos &pa kol iv Bikt) aTiecpdiKaai re koI airfppv'{]Ka 'A. is 81' aSwa/xiau rov \4yeLv a-efxvoT-nTa crxvi^v Ixvcov ex^aOai C 2 20 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC Libanius, on the other hand, is enth-ely uncon- scious of any need for uneasiness as to his position. He was the Aristides of his age, but without the religious Schwdrmerei of Aristides, and his talent for ETTihsi^Ls encouraged him to a greater variety of com- position. But, unlike Aristides, he never jeered at philosophic speculation, and nowhere hints at a desire for the title of philosopher.^ He thought that of ' Sophist ' more honourable than any that the State could bestow,^ and the most flattering that he could give to Julian,^ whose oratorical power he rated high. * Like the nightingale,' he says, ' I ask only to sing,' ^ and, if elsewhere he calls the Sophists Temys^, he means to praise (Lib, E2). 304). Of all the Hellenists who supported Julian's re- 'Apiffreldov Koi TreipaaOai rovs ijiiovs aVTOs, NiKocrrpaTOu, ^iKocrrpaTov. Lucian had found it necessary to warn writers jx)] fiiixflffQai rwv oXiyov rrph 7}}xS)V yeuoixefoov ao(pi(Tr(hv ta ^avXoTara, Suidas, Metro- phanes ; and the highest praise which Eunapius can give to Himerius is, on irapa rhv Q^iov 'ApirrreiSTjj/ 'lararai, Eunap. Vit. p. 494. ' Libanius separates himself from the philosophers, Ep. 244 to Themistius, ttjs aocpias %v Stj X^l^&vos iroiKiKaor^pav ZeiKvvoov ttciAo: KpaTf7s, et jj-ev Koi tqvs ravrd aoi KaXovuivovs, ovk. olSa. Cf. Ep. 1072 : v/MV rots 57vas "npotrtpQiyyovrai. 3 Ep. 9, Wolf's Century. * Ep. 43, Wolf's Century. * Epp. 33, 1059, Larger Wolf. « Ep. 866 ad Priscum. ' Eunap. Vit. Maxim. » Lib. Or. i. 38-42 ; Epp. 285, 654, 1490. Libanius taught at Nicomedia for five years, 344-9 a.d. For an account of his life there vide Sievers, Leben, p. 53. ^ The evidence for Themistius' sojourn in Nicomedia about this time is not precise. But it is not easy to see how Julian could have been his pupil at any other period. Cf . Julian, Ep. ad Themist. 257 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 23 his association with Libanius at Nicomedia that Juhan owed his Sophistical training, his technical knowledge of epideictic oratory, and to some ex- tent, at any rate, his Greek style. He was under an oath not to attend the Sophist's lectures^ but there was no attempt to hinder their daily intercourse, and he diligently studied all that Libanius wrote, so that he ranked as his most apt pupil.^ Of Julian's relations with Themistius it is not so easy to speak definitely. He received no appoint- ment at Julian's hands, ^ but neither did Libanius. From Julian himself we gather that he carried on a continuous and friendly correspondence with Libanius, while the long letter to Themistius proves that he had been the latter 's pupil,^ and that Themistius had addressed a letter of exhortation and flattery to him on his accession. Julian deprecates the flattery, and refutes the argument of Themistius in favour of the ^ios TTpaKT LKos. lu vicw of the meagre evidence for Julian's attitude to Themistius it would not be D : Xiyoiix' Uv ^Stj (Toi rh. tov TIKoltuvos . . . elSori /xei/ koI S(5a|aj/Tt /xe. That Themistius taught at Nicomedia we know from his 2J:th Oration, p. 306. Baret, De Themistio, p. 9, assumes too hastily, on the score of the friendship between Libanius and Themistius, that they must have taught at the same time at Nicomedia ; they could quite as easily have become acquainted at Constantinople. * Libanius, i. p. 232. It was the Christian sophist Hecebolius, if we may judge from the hints of Libanius, who prevented Julian from attending his lectures. - He held his only prefecture under Theodosius, Them. Or. 34, c. xiv. with Mai's note. Baret, p. 22, assumes that it was Julian who offered the prefecture of Constantinople to Themistius, and to whom Themistius refers as 6 ai5o7o5 ifx-ol ahroKpdrwp. ^ Julian, Ep. ad Them. •24 JULIAN ANI> THE NEW SOPHISTIC safe to accept the suggestion of some critics that the respectful tone ' in this letter is ironical. Libanius in his Orations and Letters has placed his relations with Julian beyond question. But when we turn to the Orations of Themistius we find no trace of such a hero-worship of Julian. Themistius speaks of him with the greatest reserve, and some- times with an ambiguity which leaves it open to question whether he is referring to Julian or to another emperor. He only once mentions Julian by name,^ though he alludes to him several times, and always with respect.^ His indirectness contrasts strongly with the open lamentations of Libanius, expressed at the same period and under the same Christian emperors. But the evidence for actual estrangement is and must remain negative.^ Themis- ' Julian, Ep. 26B : 5 ^j\^ KetpaXh tal irda-ns e/xoiye rifXYJs a^ia. - apKil fiiacrdels ^louKiavhs rrjs olKOv^evrjs KaXeaai irpeafievTrju &^iov O'j jx6vov rr\s KaWiiroXeois KaX to irpSjTa cfi [i.e. COUsin) a.fj.(po7u ayaBolv jxkv Ka\ anx^^^ Zioiv. And perhaps 99 d Themistius is speaking of Procopius, who claimed relationship with Julian, as o rhv irwywva KaOei/xcvos /cat rov , 3 c. ^ Menander ap. Spengel 221. 228 insists on such a procemiura for each division of the panegyric ; Julian observes this rule by the affectation of airopia [e.g. 6 d) ; by a question intended to call the attention of the audience to a fresh division, or by a plain statement that he is passing on to it. * 4 c. 5 4d. * 5 B. So Menander, 215 : ii^ra ret irpooifna eVJ t^ irarpida ^^is. JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 27 Here comes in the praeteritio which Menander ^ advises in the case of an emperor whose birthplace was not especially renowned, for Constantius was born in lUyria. After an inventory of the nations which can claim a share in the jsvaa-cs Kal Tpo>' \6ywp airopiav Koi rh fir) ex^*'' ^"P**'' «'* ''''^"^ irapdpTwv '6 n (paxriv. JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC 31 Leto and her children, and shrill swan-songs and dewy meadows, and the scent of flowers and spring.' ^ Themistius declares that, for his part, he is free from this affectation — kuI imtj fjLS dWcos voixiays oipal^sadao Tco KVKVW Kol TTj arjSovi, KaOdwsp ol KOfi'^oi ao(f)L(TTal, ol KOfjLfiovvres tovs \6yovs olov (pvKLw Ks^^prjvrac TovTOLn T0L9 opvsoos.^ Neither Julian nor Themistius uses the trite illustrations mentioned in these passages, though Himerius abounds in them.^ But there were many other poetical and literary allusions which had passed into the Sophistic lan- guage, and were quite as well-worn as those which Julian avoids. The following tabulation, while it does not pretend to be exhaustive, will show, at any rate, that he followed the Sophistic usage in the matter of those rjSvo-fjbara Xoyayv, ^ Julian, 236 a : ri ArjXos iirepXfrai kuI rj AtjtcIj fxerh rtcv iral^cou, clra KvKvoi Xiyvphu aSovTfs Koi iir7]xovvra avTo7s to deudpa hcificivis ts ^vZpocroi Kai Tipes e'lKoves TOiavrai. Uov tovto 'itro/cpaTTjs e\6yois ^po9 inaivovs Koi xfAiSoVcot- kol a.r)d6vcov ; cf. with this Lucian's description of the degradation of rhetoric, Bis Ace. 31 : iyio yhp bpSov ravTTjv ovKin acotppovovaau . . . KoaixovfjLevrjv 5e Kol ras rpixo^s evderi^ovaav Koi (pvKiov ivrpifio^iv-qv . . . and D. Hal. vet. auct. proem. ^ Aristides, Or. xx. p. 428 d : £ kvkvwv &55rj hoL a-nSSiwu x^P^^ ', Himerius, Or. 18. 1 Delos and Leto, ib. 4 nightingale and swan ; 6\iyos 6 A€i;uci'j/ Tov KVKvov o.KK'' uBovTt avTc^ cvvvn7]X^7v id4\ei to (TiifjLTrayTa ; cf. Julian, 236 a : kvkvoi koX iirrjxovvTa outoTs ra S4i/5pa ; Choricius Gaz. (Boisson) p. 173 : ol kvkvoi vfxuovai rhu 'AirSWocva, cf. Philostr. Vit. Scop. 4. Scopelian refused to go to Clazomenae, tt/j/ oiTjSJfa pi)aas iv oWiaKif fjut] a5eiv, Sxrirep 8' &\aos t^ju ^/xipvav eVKe»|/OTo Koi T^j/ rjxoi} TTf]V e/cet TrAetCTOi; a^iav (f-i\Qr]. Libanius wrote an iyKwixiov eapos, iv. p. 1051, and for the general tendency to this sort of common- place see Epictetus, iii. p. 282, Teubner. 32 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC Herodotos, Thalia, 139-140. Pindar, Olymp. vii. 50 : KsivoLS 6 fxsv ^avdav ayafyoDV ve^s- \av I TToXvv vo9. Themist. 357 a : (pvsrat sv Tols (piXoao^las Xsi/jucbacv (pdpfiaKOP . . . OTTOLOV ''Ofirjpos Xsyst TTjv rov ^cbs dvyarspa *^\iv7)v iropicraadav irapa TTjs Aiyvirrlas. Philostr. prooem. to F. S. 201 : TO 7)v 7rpo(T(j)dpstv ols /jLsXec tovtcov. Himerius, Or. 5. 16 : del yap ris iiriKadi^st ireiOu} rots ')(slX£(TLV. Eunap. Vit, Chrys, 112 : TO d^sXss sirsKdOrjTO rols \6yoLS 7]rs sttI tovtols d(ppo- hiTT) TOiV prjfidroyv KarsdsXys TOV dKpOODfJbSVOV. Themist. 330 a : \6yov he Ksvrpov EyKaTakiirelv. 37 B. Julian, 314 c : ovk olaOa on rd TTLKpd <^dpiiaKa fii- yvvvTSs ol larpol r5> fisXc" Kpdrcp 7rpo(T2 36 JULIAN AND THE NEW SOPHISTIC TTpoa^spovac /jlsXltc •y^piaa^ fj k.t.X. Herod. Thalia, Julian, 9 b : kuI Kvptp . . ov')(^ vTrrjp'^e TovTO • TsXsvrrj' aavros jap 6 irals co(f>6ri /jbaKpM (pavXoTspos ooars 6 fxsv SKoXelro Trarrjp 6 Bs iTTCOvo/xdo-Orj hsairoTTjs ) and 85 D. Themist. 233 a. Dio C. Or. 4, p. 72, Arnim. The illustration in 241 a seems to have been a common one ; cf. that passage, sirsl koI rrjv fiskiTrav SK TYjs BpLfjLvrdrijs iroas k.t.X. , with Psellus, Ep. 174 (Boiss.) : y fjLsXcaaa . . . Kai rw dvjiw irpoa-laTaraL. vTov 6 OvjJbos Bpifivrarov k.t.X. The almost proverbial expression Tais fiovaais aBco KoX ifjLavTQ) (Misop. 338) is found Themist. 366 b, Dio C. Or. 78. 420 ; cf. Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy , * I have lived mihi et Musis in the University.' The proverbial phrase tov saxctTov ;)^/Twi/a aTro- Bva-aaOai, 96 c, is not easy to trace to its source ; cf. Dioscorides ap. Athen. 507 n : v^ Bs 6 HXutcov (J>lX6Bo^09 OaTLS S(f)T]Or£V S