Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-pn7tm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-20T19:20:33.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘STRANGE’ RHETORIC AND HOMERIC RECEPTION IN AELIUS ARISTIDES’ EMBASSY SPEECH TO ACHILLES (OR. 52)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2021

Stephen A. Sansom
Stephen A. Sansom*
Affiliation:
Cornell University, USA
*
sansom@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that Aelius Aristides adapts the word atopos (‘strange’, ‘out of place’) as figured speech in his Embassy Speech to Achilles, meaning something that is either illogical according to rhetorical topoi or inconsistent with the text of Homer's Iliad. By doing so, he not only expands the semantic range of atopos but also comments on the rhetorical, intertextual, and pedagogical relationship between oratory and the Homeric tradition.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , October 2021 , pp. 278 - 293
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I am grateful to Thomas Schmitz, whose 2014 Stanford seminar first sparked interest in Aristides, for his comments, encouragement, and welcome; to Rachel Ahern Knudsen for her helpful revisions; to the anonymous reader for their generous and timely criticism; and to Robert and Martha Carol Schiffman for their hospitality during early stages of the project. Translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.

References

1 Dodds, E. R. and Trapp, M. B., ‘Aristides, Publius Aelius, 117–after 181 ce’, in OCD (Oxford, 2015)Google Scholar, accessed online 5 October 2018.

2 See A. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide et la sophistique dans la province d'asie au IIe siècle de notre ère (Paris, 1923), 274: ‘cet exercise de rhétorique est à tous points de vue de mince valeur et de mediocre intérêt’ (‘this exercise in rhetoric is in all respects of little value and of mediocre interest’).

3 Porter, J., ‘Homer and the Sublime’, Ramus 44 (2015), 192–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Similar to the Embassy, POxy. 410 quotes primarily Iliad 9, and both (Embassy 432.12; POxy. 410 col. ii.53–4) quote Iliad 9.385 (‘as many as the sand and dust’, ὅσα ψάμαθός τε κόνις τε).

4 R. Nünlist, ‘Homer as a Blueprint for Speechwriters: Eustathius’ Commentaries and Rhetoric’, GRBS 52 (2012), 493–509; see also R. Nünlist, The Ancient Critic at Work. Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia (Cambridge, 2009). For Homer in Byzantine schools, see V. Valiavitcharska ‘Rhetoric in the Hands of the Byzantine Grammarian’, Rhetorica 31 (2013), 237–60. For the reception of Homer in the Latin rhetorical treatises of Fronto, see N. Méthy, ‘Homère dans la rhétorique latine: l'exemple du De eloquentia et du De orationibus de Fronton’, Philologus 156 (2012), 128–39.

5 Knudsen, R. Ahern, Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric (Baltimore, MD, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Kindstrand, J. F., Homer in der Zweiten Sophistik (Uppsala, 1973), 73–97Google Scholar, remains the best treatment of Homer in Aristides.

7 LSJ s.v. atopos I. For an assessment of the rhetorician Libanios that is similar but broader in scope, see Webb, R., ‘Between Poetry and Rhetoric: Libanios’ Use of Homeric Subjects in His “Progymnasmata”’, QUCC 95 (2010), 131–52Google Scholar.

8 The speech groups its series of arguments, but in no apparent order. C. A. Behr (ed. and trans.), P. Aelius Aristides. The Complete Works. Volume 1. Orations I–XVI (Leiden, 1986), 499, describes them in this way: harm of extreme anger (sections 1–3); Achilles should support Greeks against barbarians (4–7); Agamemnon's loss of reputation (8–9); inconsistent attitude toward safety of Achaeans (10–12); duty above personal feelings (13–15); Agamemnon's humiliation (16); inconsistent attitude toward war (17); inconsistent attitude toward glory (18–25); limit to anger (26–8); Achilles is no coward, and shame of withdrawal (29–32); delay is ruinous, and war cannot be regulated (33–6); moderate anger is fair, and everything has a limit (37–38); Achilles should turn his wrath on Hector's insolence (39); Achilles should help Greece (40–1).

9 Embassy 425.10, 428.3, 428.22, 430.6, 432.24, and 433.7.

10 Behr (n. 8). See also LSJ s.v. atopos I.2.

11 See LSJ s.v. topos II.2. See also Most, G. W. and Conte, G. B., ‘Topos’, in OCD4 (Oxford, 2012), 1489Google Scholar, who define topoi as ‘both the places where such elements [of persuasion] (especially plausible argumentative patterns) lurk, and those patterns themselves’.

12 Like Knudsen (n. 5), I will use Aristotelean topoi (Rh. 2.22–3) in order to describe the topological content of speeches in the Iliad.

13 See LSJ s.v. topos I.4.

14 Kindstrand (n. 6), 77–84, provides a full index of quotations, direct references, and indirect allusions to Homer in Aristides. See also Boulanger (n. 2), 274.

15 Translation from Pernot, L., ‘Aelius Aristides and Rome’, in Harris, W. V. and Holmes, B. (eds.), Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome and the Gods (Leiden, 2008), 186–8Google Scholar, who contextualizes Aristides within the ‘larger framework’ of ancient literary interpretation and its practice of reading on more than one level. My thanks to the anonymous reader for the reference.

16 R. Cribiore, ‘Vying with Aristides in the Fourth Century: Libanius and His Friends’, in Harris and Holmes (n. 15), 276; see also Boulanger (n. 2), 273–4.

17 For a recent survey of Homer in progymnasmata, see Hunter, R., ‘The Rhetorical Criticism of Homer’, in Montanari, F., Matthaios, S., and Rengakos, A. (eds.), Brill's Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship (Leiden, 2015), 673–705Google Scholar.

18 All translations of Aristides are from Behr (n. 8), 404–12, and of the Iliad from R. Lattimore (trans.), The Iliad of Homer (Chicago, IL, 2011). I use the edition of the Embassy Speech in W. Dindorf (ed.), Aristides, vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1829; reprinted Hildesheim, 1964), 584–608, and of the Iliad by D. B. Monro and T. W. Allen (eds.), Homeri. Opera (Oxford, 1920).

19 The cluster νῦν δ’ ἅμα occurs only once elsewhere in the Iliad, where Thetis consoles Achilles and reminds him of his short-life (Il. 1.417); cf. Achilles’ reformulation of Thetis’ speech (Il. 9.410–16).

20 Translation from G. A. Kennedy (trans.), Aristotle on Rhetoric. A Theory of Civic Discourse, second edition (Oxford, 2007). See also Knudsen (n. 5), 62.

21 See also 425.3, 10–11. For Aristotle's use of gnômê, see Kennedy (n. 20), 182.

22 Translation from Kennedy (n. 20). M. Meyer, What Is Rhetoric? (Oxford, 2017), 22, summarizes Aristotle's definition of topos thusly: ‘To be inclusive of all these meanings [of topos], let us say that a topos is a reductor of problematicity (or problemato-logical redactor), a bridge between what the speaker says and what the audience thinks or knows about what he says.’

23 See W. Harris, ‘Introduction’, in Harris and Holmes (n. 15), 1: ‘Aristides…was not attempting to put himself in the place of a Bronze-Age prince or an archaic poet…but to demonstrate with maximum cleverness the lack of logic, from his own point of view, in Achilles’ behaviour.’

24 Translation from Kennedy (n. 20).

25 B. Hainsworth, The Iliad. A Commentary. Vol. III. Books 9–12 (Cambridge, 1993), 107.

26 See ibid.

27 See Boulanger (n. 2), 274.

28 See Knudsen (n. 5) 162–3, who asserts that ‘Peleus’ employs an enthymeme using topic no. 20 (‘of consideration of incentives and disincentives’). See the scholia to 9.252b (Erbse ΣbΤ): (‘he introduces this in characterization from characters who are absent’ (ἐν ἠθοποιίᾳ ἐξ ἀπόντων προσώπων ταύτην εἰσήγαγεν).

29 The scholia to 9.254–58 (Erbse ΣbΤ) point out much the same: Peleus ‘exhorts him to put aside quarrel-loving from his character’, (παραινεῖ αὐτῷ ἀποθέσθαι τοῦ ἤθους τὸ φιλόνεικον).

30 See Dio Chrys. (Περὶ Πίστεως 73.9.3–6): ‘On the other hand, trusts bestowed by men in private life, though possibly they involve less risk, because the business in hand is less important, still entail untold trouble and labors, and often not even gratitude, however slight, is their reward’ (αἱ δὲ παρὰ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν πίστεις κινδύνους μὲν ἥττους ἴσως ἔχουσιν, ὅτι καὶ τὰ πράγματα ἐλάττω ἐστίν, ἀσχολίαν δὲ μυρίαν καὶ πόνους, καὶ πολλάκις οὐδὲ χάρις οὐδ’ ἡτισοῦν συνέπεται). Translation from H. L. Crosby (ed. and trans.), Dio Chrysostom. Volume 5. Discourses LXI–LXXX (Cambridge, MA, 1964).