Aelius Aristides and Rhodes PDF

chapter eleven
AELIUS ARISTIDES AND RHODES:

CONCORD AND CONSOLATION
Carlo Franco
Introduction
The prosperous civic life of the Greek East under Roman rule may be
seen as the most complete development of Greek civilization in antiquity. In this context the so-called Second Sophistic played a crucial role,
and its cultural, social and political dimensions continue to attract the
attention of contemporary scholars.1 Beyond its literary interest, the
rich and brilliant virtuoso prose of the Greek sophists, together with
the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and archaeology, provides historians with invaluable material for the study of civic life. The connections
between higher education and social power, rhetoric and politics, central and local power, rulers and subjects, are becoming more and more
evident. On the surface, the subjects approached by the orators were
escapist (although perhaps no more escapist than a conference of classical scholars today), but on many occasions the sophists speeches were
closely connected to the time and place of their delivery, thereby opening the door to historical analysis.
In this context, Aelius Aristides rightly ranks among the most interesting and intriguing personalities: apart from the fascinating Sacred
Tales and the solemn Encomium To Rome, other writings of his appear
worthy of careful study. Having examined the Smyrnean Orations elsewhere, I will focus in this paper on two speeches about the ancient city
of Rhodes that are included in the Aristidean corpus.2 They are good
case studies for examining the impact of natural disasters on the Greek
Anderson 1989; id. 1993; Whitmarsh 2005.

These texts can only be understood when read in conjunction with other speeches
in praise of cities (Bowersock 1969, 16).
1
2
218
carlo franco
cities in the Roman Empire, as well as the social tensions that these
disasters revealed. The size and beauty of those poleis were sometimes
darkened and challenged by serious crises. But it was precisely in such
emergencies that the educated discourse of the orators played a pivotal
role. Leaving aside the momentous problem of the sophists political
ecacy, we may claim that their speeches met above all the emotional
needs of the cities: lamenting the disaster and preaching moral values,
the orators tried to restore mutual confidence and concord, thereby
preserving the deepest values of ancient civic life.3
The Rhodiakos
In modern critical editions of Aristides works, the sequence of the two
Rhodian speeches reverses their chronology: Oration 24, To the Rhodians on Concord, was apparently delivered more or less five years after
Oration 25, the Rhodiakos. In order to examine those texts from a historical point-of-view, it is expedient to observe their proper chronological
order by considering the Rhodiakos first.4
Oration 25 was delivered in Rhodes some time after a tremendous
earthquake, which razed the city in 142 AD. It is at once a commemoration of the ruined city, a memorial of the catastrophe, and an exhortation to the survivors.5 After an exordium, which laments the total loss
of Rhodes former greatness and beauty (Or. 25.110), there is a heartfelt exhortation to endure the disaster (1116). The earthquake and its
eects are vividly described in the central section of the speech (1733),
which goes on to reassess the importance of Rhodes and the duty of
endurance (3449). The oration then turns to a consolation, with an
empathetic narration of the most ancient traditions of Rhodes and a
forecast of the reconstruction (5056). After a series of historical examples (5768), it ends with the appropriate peroration (69).
In his 1898 edition of Aristides works, Bruno Keil asserted, primarily on stylistic grounds, that the speech was not written by Aristides.
Leopold 1986, 818.

The speech has been often disregarded because of its similarity with Oration 23:
according to Reardon, Il ny a aucunement lieu danalyser le discours Aux Rhodiens
(1971, 134). The Rhodiakos is not considered at all, following Boulanger 1923, 126 n. 14.
5 Chronology: Behr 1981, 371; Guidoboni 1994, 235236. Local context: Papachristodoulou 1994, 143 f.
3
4
aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation
219
Keils judgment, accepted until recently,6 has heavily conditioned the

critical evaluation of the text: the speech has generally been considered
a spurious and tasteless piece, deprived of literary, not to say historical, value.7 It may be useful to remember that, before Keil, important
scholars like Dindorf and Schmid judged the Rhodiakos perfectly appropriate to the style of Aristides.8 Recent studies have reconsidered the
question and shown that Keils condemnation was too hasty and probably wrong. The bulk of the evidence adduced against an attribution of
the text to Aristides was discussed and rejected by Jones.9 Upon careful scrutiny, no element of content and language was seen to conflict
explicitly with the authorship of Aristides.10 Nor do small factual discrepancies with other Aristidean works support the attribution to a different author.11 Consistency was not the mark of the genre. It was the
special occasion, the kairos, that dictated the choice of material to the
orator, even in historical narratives: ad tempus orator retractat sententiam, as
was wisely observed.12 If we were to adopt consistency as a criterion
Anderson 2007, 341342.

Keil 1898, 72, 91. As unauthentic, the Rhodiakos receives only a short mention
in Boulanger (1923, 374 n. 1). General introduction: Behr 1981, 371 (with analysis of
the structure); Corts Copete 1997, 175178. For a dierent hypothesis, namely that
the extant Rhodiakos is spurious and that the original Rhodian speech was delivered in
Egypt and subsequently lost, see Behr 1968, 16 and n. 48.
8 Aristides style was perfectly consistent with the Atticist mode. According to the
careful analysis in Schmid 1889, vol. II, the Rhodiakos shows no remarkable dierence
from the other texts of the Aristidean corpus (Jones 1990). Norden (1909, 420421)
found the Smyrnean Monody and the Eleusinian speech divergent from the normal
Aristidean style.
9 Jones 1990. The highly mannered use of topoi is studied by Pernot 1993a, II, index
s.v.; Corts 1995; Corts Copete 1995, 29 .
10 Much was made of the allocution to the daimones (Or. 25.33). This seems allowed
by Men. Rhet 2.435.911: see Puiggali 1985, quoting in a note not only Or. 25.33, but
also Or. 37.25, Or. 42, and Or. 46.32.
11 According to the author of the Rhodiakos, the members of the democratic group
that recaptured Athens in 403 BC were seventy in number (Or. 25.64, as in Plut. Glor.
Ath. 345D; see Xen. Hell. 2.4.2, Diod. 14.32), whereas Aristides (Or. 1.254) says that they
were little more than fifty (sixty, according to Paus. 1.29.3). The contradiction is of
slight import and should not be used as a proof against the Aristidean authorship of the
Rhodiakos. A rhetor was not bound to consistency in the evocation of ancient deeds. On
the treatment of the events of 404/3 BC by the authors of the Second Sophistic: Oudot
2003.
12 In the Smyrnean Orations Aristides gives three dierent accounts of the origins of
that city, choosing between several traditions according to the circumstances and the
dierent aims of his speeches: Franco 2005, 425 .
6
7
220
carlo franco
for judging a speechs authenticity, the study of these texts would face a
mountain of contradictions.13
The strongest argument against the authenticity of Oration 25 is based
on a debatable argumentum e silentio: in the speech To the Rhodians, On
Concord, Aristides does not refer to any prior declamation given on
the island, despite the fact that he refers to his actions on behalf of
the city, as well as to some prior visit paid to Rhodes (Or. 24.3, 53,
56). Moreover, he says that he is addressing the Rhodians tn prtn.
The meaning of these words has been much discussed: should we
understand for the first time, as the more common usage suggests,
or for the present? Whichever interpretation is chosen, the expression
seems compatible with the attribution of the Rhodiakos to Aristides. But
if this is the case, why did he fail to quote his previous speech about
the earthquake? Here, too, various answers, which have underlined the
dierence between oral performance and written texts and between
public and private declamations, have been given. There may be a
more compelling explanation. When he was in Egypt, Aristides met
the Rhodian ambassadors who were seeking help after the disaster (Or.
24.3). Five years later, in the same way, Rhodian delegates again came
to meet him, presumably in Pergamum this time, and requested help
for their city in the name of prior relations: the meeting in Egypt, but
not the form of the aid given, is duly recalled. The oration On Concord is
remarkably reticent about many themes, so the silence about Aristides
previous involvement with Rhodes may be not so relevant and should
be considered in a wider context. The speech is fully oriented towards
the present situation of Rhodes; the earthquake is briefly alluded to
only at the beginning and at the end of the text, as though it had been
forgotten and completely obliterated by the rapid renaissance of the
city. I will discuss at greater length later what the real motive for these
choices may have been. The same attitude appears in the Aristides
Panegyricus to Cyzicus, where the very reason for the reconstruction of
the temple, viz. an earthquake, receives no mention at all. This attitude
may explain the omission in the Concord oration: Rhodes faced a new
crisis, that is, stasis, and needed encouragement. So it might have
seemed inappropriate to recall the earlier disaster.
13 In Or. 33.29, for example, Aristides criticizes the cursed sophists because they
persuade you that even Homers greatest quality was that he was the son of the Meles,
which is precisely one of the greatest sources of civic pride prized by Aristides in the
Smyrnean Orations (Or. 17.14 .; Or. 21.8).
221
In addition to relevant similarities to the oration On Concord, which

might eventually outnumber the alleged discrepancies, the Rhodiakos
shares many themes, like the beauty or sea power of Rhodes, as well
as several stylistic echoes, with other works. All of these similarities led
a specialist like Keil to express the bizarre hypothesis that Aristides himself imitated the Rhodiakos (allegedly the work of a dierent author) in
his Smyrnean orations. It is high time to abandon such a theory, since
neither the analysis of content, nor that of style, provides irrefutable
evidence against the authenticity of the Rhodiakos.14 Indeed, the debate
on its disputed authorship is showing signs of reaching a generally
accepted conclusion. The diction of the Rhodiakos is compatible with
Aristidean authorship, and authorship of the Rhodiakos is also consistent with Aristides biography. In the description of the earthquake, the
author of the speech compares the rumble of the collapsing buildings
with the noise produced by the Egyptian cataracts (Or. 25.25): this may
be a fresh memory, for, in fact, when he went to Egypt, Aristides saw
the cataracts, a customary detour for tourists on the Nile.15 Thus, the
Rhodiakos could plausibly have been delivered during the journey back
from Alexandria to Asia.16 To sum up, I will assume that the speech
was written by Aristides. But in order to avoid bias in the analysis of the
text, I will for the time being maintain a neutral designation and speak
of the author of the Rhodiakos.
The first theme worth consideration in the text is the description of
Rhodes, which obviously refers to the days before its destruction. At the
beginning of the speech, the orator recalls the many great harbours,
the many handsome docks, the triremes and the bronze beaks along
with many other glorious spoils of war, the temples and the statues,
the bronzes and the paintings, the Acropolis full of fields and groves,
and above all the circuit of the walls and the height and beauty of
the interspersed towers. Up until the day of the earthquake, he says,
the ancient renown of Rhodes had remained largely intact: although
the glory of past sea battles was irremediably lost, all the rest of the
city was preserved purely pure.17 All this material follows the familiar
14 Linguistic and philological analysis does not always definitively confirm or reject
the debated authorship of ancient texts: see as a case-study the Tacitean fragment
created and discussed by Syme 1991b.
15 Arist. Or. 36 passim; Philostr. VAp 6.26.
16 Corts 1995, 207.
17 Or. 25.18. All translations of Aristides are from Behr 1981.
222
carlo franco
pattern of the laudes urbium and reveals a high level of rhetorical artistry:
its function is to prepare us for the subsequent reversal of destiny and
the total destruction of all the citys treasures, statues and monuments.
Although largely conditioned by rhetoric, the description is not a mere
literary essay. The task of an orator in front of a civic community was
to choose relevant aspects of the local reality and to reshape them,
creating an idealized image of the city, not a false one.18 Thus it is
possible to compare aspects of the speech with the actual city, so far as
it is known from literary and archaeological evidence.
Let us first consider the naval structures. At the beginning of the
Imperial Age, the glory of ancient Rhodian sea power was still considered among the greatest and best-preserved sources of Rhodian pride.19
The time of its thalassocracy, however, was over. After the great battles of the Hellenistic age, the Rhodian navy had been marginalized
by the increasing, and eventually prevailing, role of Rome. During the
last century of the Republic, the Rhodians were still fighting against the
pirates and collaborating with Caesar.20 But after heavy depredations
at the time of the siege by Cassius in 43 BC, the size and strength of
the Rhodian navy had been reduced to insignificance. Only commercial exchange and the local patrolling of the islands still under Rhodian
rule continued.21 So the authors reference to triremes, some ready for
sailing, others in dry dock, as it were in storage, but if one wished to
launch and sail any of them, it was possible (Or. 25.4), seems an elegant way to describe the present state of the Rhodian navy: the docks
and the huge triremes are preserved, but not all of them are actually
in use. The author of the Rhodiakos is fully aware of this situation, since
he praises this state of aairs as unique to Rhodes among the Greek
cities: only when one was with you, did he see precisely, not only hear,
what the city was (2). Thus, the orator can transform the remains of
the sea power into a justification for eulogy: for Rhodes has sensibly
18
This attitude allows us to undertake a historical analysis of these speeches, as in

the case of Dios speeches for Tarsus or Nicomedia, or Aristides for Smyrna: Classen
1980; Bouartigue 1996.
19 Strabo 14.2.5 reports that the roadsteads had been hidden and forbidden to the
people for a long time, in order to preserve its secrets, as in the Venetian Arsenal:
Gabrielsen 1997, 37 .
20 Pirates: Flor. 1.41.8; Caes. BC 3.102.7; Cic. Fam. 12.4.3. Alexandria: BAl 1.1, 11.13,
13.5, 14.1, 15, 25.36, App. Civ. 2.89.
21 But see Cic. Fam. 12.15.2 (Lentulus): Rhodiosque navis complures instructas et paratas in
aqua. Rhodes and commercial routes in the Imperial Age: Roug 1966, 132 f.
223
given up its empire, without losing any of its structures or its name (8)
and without diminishing the greatness of its ancestors.22 Archaeological
excavations have revealed significant traces of the dockyards beneath
later Roman structures;23 it is tempting to suppose that they were
abandoned after the earthquake. Surely, no one could possibly have
forecast at the time of the speech that the Rhodian navy would recover
something of its former glory when in the third century AD the seas
became less safe. A decree possibly dating to the beginning of the third
century AD honours an Ailios Alexander, who patrolled the area of
the Rhodian Chersonese and provided safety and security for sailors,
seizing and handing over for punishment the piratical band active at
sea.24
The memories of this great past provided the Rhodians with considerable moral strength. As a witness to the fierce character of the citizens
in the face of extremely serious situations, the author of the Rhodiakos
quotes an old local saying:
8 4 $ 4, { =, . 4 XA %? .
, &7 4 F. 7 , 7 4 8 "
., && X. 8 ! , ] *
%F. 7 c 0 & . " 8
&, { , $& @ P& k (25.13).
Now is the time, O men of Rhodes, to save yourselves from these

circumstances, to aid the race of the island, and to stand gloriously
against fortune, keeping in mind the words of your fellow citizen, the
helmsman, who, when his ship was tempest tossed and he expected that
she would sink, made that famous remark: Know well, Poseidon, that I
will lose my ship on an even keel.
Recourse to examples of vulgarized philosophy was common enough

in sophistic rhetoric, and especially in consolatory texts. The Rhodiakos
also reveals a rich display of traditional wisdom, very apt for a popular
assembly. Needless to say, the sailors phrase, which is widely attested in
the classical writers, was particularly fitting for a Rhodian public.25
See also Dio Or. 31.103104.
Cante 19861987, 181 n. 10: bacini di carenaggio, capannoni dei neoria, piani di
alaggio.
24 AE 1948, 201 = BullEp 19461947, 156; see De Souza 1999, 218219. The brave
man was also limnarchs.
25 Pernot 1993a, II, 603. Other occurrences of the saying were collected first by
Haupt 1876, 319. A preliminary list ranks: Teles 62.2 Hense [= Stob. 34.991 Wachsmuth-Hense]; Enn. 508 Skutsch [dum clavum rectum teneam, navemque gubernem = Cic. QF
1.2.13]; Sen. Ep. 85.33 [Neptune, numquam hanc navem nisi rectam]; Ep. 8.4 [aut saltem rectis,
22
23
224
carlo franco
As a complement to the memories of past sea power, the author

mentions the monuments which had borne witness, at least until the
day of the earthquake, to Rhodes ancient strength: bronze beaks and
many other glorious spoils of war, some taken from the Etruscans
pirate fleet, some from the campaigns of Alexander, others from wherever each had been brought into the city (4). As is typical in the culture
of the Second Sophistic, the memory of the past is limited to the Age
of Alexander, and the approach is largely generic and selective. Rhodes
had fought against the pirates already in the fourth century BC, before
the Age of Alexander, and had won power and glory, but the author of
the Rhodiakos does not mention this phase of Rhodian history.26 Actually
the spoils exposed in Rhodes were not all the result of military operations, nor was the Rhodian attitude towards piracy unambiguous, since
Rhodes had taken part, as has been recently argued, in a system of
raids in the eastern Mediterranean.27
Other events in the local history enjoyed even greater renown. Of
the sieges, for example, the author says, and of old you showed to
visitors the engines of war made from the shorn hair of your women,
and it was a wonderful thing (0 K 4 . . .
! 0 &8
_, Or. 25.32). Apparently female hair was commonly used for torsion
catapults in the Hellenistic and Roman epochs: Heron asserts that

such hair is long, strong, and elasticparticularly suitable for military
engines. After the great earthquake of 227 BC, King Seleucus II gave
the Rhodians, among many other gifts, a large amount of hair. And a
few years later, in 220 BC, the favor was returned by the Rhodians, who
allegedly sent several tons of (female?) hair to Sinope as help against the
attack by Mithridates.28 In the tradition of war stratagems, the use of
female hair during sieges was seen as a sign of dramatic emergency and
of a shortage of resources.29 Thus the machine is quoted as a brilliant
aut semel ruere]; Prov. 1.4.5; Cons. Marc. 5.5; 6.3 [At ille vel in naufragio laudandus, quem obruit
mare clavum tenentem et obnixum]; Quint. 2.17.24; Isid. Orig. 19.2. (both quoting Ennius);
Plin. Epist. 9.26.4; Max. Tyr. Decl. 40.5e.
26 Diod. 20. 81.23; Strabo 14.2.5. See Gabrielsen 1997, 108 f.; Wiemer 2002, 117 .
27 Gabrielsen 1997, 176 n. 134; id. 2001.
28 Heron Belopoiika 30; Plb. 5.89.9; 4.56.3. The chronology is somewhere blurred:
Walbank 19571979, I, pp. 511512; 621 ad loc. In general see Marsden 1969, 87 . (and
75 n. 7: no evidence for womens hair in Plb. 4.56.3).
29 Garlan 1974, 220, n. 3. See in general Vitr. 10.11.2: ad ballistas capillo maxime muliebri,
vel nervo funes, and anecdotes about dierent cities, e.g. Strabo 17.3.15; Frontin. 1.7.3;
Flor. 1.31.10; 2.15.10 (Carthage); Caes. BC 3.9.3 (Salona); Polyaen. 8.67 (Thasos); SHA
225
symbol of heroic endurance that encompasses the whole civic body,

from the soldiers to the women, and thus becomes an inspiring image
for the Rhodians resisting the present catastrophe. The war engines
dated presumably to the siege by Demetrius, more or less four centuries
before, but all details are omitted in the speech: the orator uses the
anecdote solely as a source of exhortation for the survivors. Some
have suspected a play on words involving the shorn women in the
past and Rhodes present condition, which is like that of a mourning
lady.30 The opposition is between the past and the present: before the
earthquake the Rhodians took pride in showing the war machines
that had preserved their city; now the city itself appears destroyed.
Nevertheless, there was chance in the misfortune, since
% F & X. T $ % . ! , % * %7 %0, % 8 . X
&K XF. J , S X *&
" X %. (Or. 25.59).
your city did not perish captured in war, nor was it seen to be conquered by other men, nor did anyone triumph over it, nor will anyone
adorn their temples with your oerings, as you have adorned your city
with foreign spoils.
Thus, paradoxically, the orator may confidently judge the destruction

of the city by earthquakes a reason to praise Rhodes, since the city
perished with a record of total invincibility (62), a claim that is surely
false, but aptly conceals the defeat inflicted by Cassius.
After praising the spoils and the memories of the past, the orator
turns to Rhodes artistic ornamentation:
4 &. 0 J 0 K 4 8 7&,
4 8 &, 4 8 K, S B . *
, 0 ) " B ! %. A &K (Or.
25.5).31
There could be seen the precincts of the gods, temples and statues, of
such number, size and beauty, that they were worthy thank oerings from
all the rest of the world, and that it was impossible to decide which of
them one would admire more.
Maxim. 33.3 (Aquileia); Lact. Div.Inst. 1.20.27; Serv. ad Aen. 1.720; Veget. 4.9 (Rome,
Gallic siege). The mention of Rhodes and Massilia in Frontin. 1.7.4 was apparently
interpolated.
30 Dindorf 1829, I.809 n. 4, ad loc. Towers as the citys hair: Eur. Hec. 910 f.; Troad.
784.
31 Apparently no mention of the Deigma: Plb. 5.88.8; Diod. 19.45.4.
226
carlo franco
The praise of Rhodes artistic treasures was typical. Some celebrated

paintings by Protogenes were said to have been spared by Demetrius
and were later recorded by Strabo.32 Pliny the Elder, relying on the
authority of Mucianus, stated that there were thousands of signa in
Rhodes,33 although the famous oration by Dio Chrysostom informs
the reader that, in his time, the Rhodians engaged in the dubious
practice of recycling old statues for new honorands.34 The practise,
albeit common elsewhere, was criticized by Dio.35 The author of the
Rhodiakos, to be sure, does not mention this deplorable habit, but states
that any one of the monuments that could be seen on the island was a
sucient source of pride for another city (5).36
The speech then turns to the city walls, a wonder [] which could
not satiate the eye (7). This sort of praise also was very common
in ancient descriptions of cities.37 According to Strabo, the Rhodian
enceinte was among the most noteworthy structures of the island, and
Dio Chrystostom assures us that the Rhodians took great care and
spent a large amount of money in order to keep their walls wellmaintained (although they were reluctant to pay for new statues!). Pausanias ranked the Rhodian walls among the best fortifications he had
seen: since his journeys are dated to the middle of the second century
AD, this could mean that he saw them after their reconstruction.38 But
an orator was not supposed to give technical or realistic details; rather,
his task was to select relevant elements and convert them into perfect
Demetrius: Gell. 15.31.1; Strabo 14.2.5.

NH 34.7.36. See also NH 33.12.55; 34.7.34, 63; 35.10, 69, 71, 93 for more information on Rhodian artistic treasures.
34 On the image of Rhodes in Dio Or. 31: Jones 1978, 26 . See Plb. 31.4.4 for the
dedication of a Colossus to the Roman people in the precinct of Athena (Lindia?).
Post-Hellenistic Rhodian statuary has not been the subject of intensive research: see
Gualandi 1976, 18. Late Hellenistic casting-houses for large bronzes are studied in
Kanzia and Zimmer 1998. Some monuments appear to have been restored after
earthquakes: Papachristodoulou 1989, 186 n. 29b (dated to the first century AD for
palaeographic reasons).
35 Recycling of statues at Athens: Paus. 1.18.3; Mycenae: Paus. 2.17.3, where criticism
of the practice appears implicit in the text. As a sign of economic shortage: Sartre 1991,
138.
36 The same topos appears in Plin. 34.7.4142 in reference to the Colossus and other
large statues: sed ubicumque singuli fuissent, nobilitaturi locum. In the Rhodiakos, mention of
the Colossus occurs at Or. 25.53.
37 Franco 2005, 391 .
38 Strabo 14.2.5; Dio Or. 31.125,146; Paus. 4.31.5, with Moggi and Osanna 2003, 493
(ad 8.43).
32
33
227
forms of the topos. The Rhodiakos describes the towers, which could be
seen from a distance when sailing to or from Rhodes and served as
a sort of lighthouse.39 Enceintes had no real importance in a world
completely pacified by Rome, but the Rhodian walls had a long history.
They had played a role in a huge flood at the end of the fourth
century BC, and later in the great siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.40
Following those events, according to historical tradition and to the
archaeological evidence, they had been restored after the earthquake
in 227 BC (this phase is probably the one alluded to by Philo) and again
after the Mithridatic wars.41 But such wars and troubles had no place
in the eirenic discourse of the orators. Praise belongs to a peaceful city,
where walls are no longer used and buildings fill the areas close to the
enceinte (Or. 25.7), a situation exactly contrary to what ancient military
engineers recommended for defence in the case of a siege.42
In comparison with other elements of the speech, the description of
the city itself is rather hasty. The author takes note of the Acropolis,
whose terraces have been identified in modern excavations,43 and the
general appearance of the city, marked by the regularity of its buildings: Nothing higher than anything else, but the construction ample
and equal, so that it would seem to belong not to a city, but to a
single house (%4 5 \ X , 7 0 $ "
" `, ) # % , A O!, 6). The
shape of the city was especially praised in antiquity, not only because
of its regular grid but also because of its theatre-like structure, which
Rhodes, among other cities, shared with Halikarnassos, although the
resemblance between the citys shape and a theatre belonged more to
the citys ideal image than to its real layout.44 In his description of the
39 On the topos see by contrast Arist. Or. 27.17 (after the building of the great temple,
only Cyzicus does not need a lighthouse).
40 Flood in 316 BC: Diod. 19.45. On Demetrius siege see now Pimouget Pdarros
2003.
41 Diod. 20.100; Philo Byz. Bel. 84 f., 85; App. Mithr. 94; Kontis 1963; Konstantinopoulos 1967; Winter 1992, Philemonos-Tsopotou 1999. See the historical analysis in
Pimouget Pdarros 2004.
42 See the prescriptions of Philo Byz. Bel. 80. This was actually attested by the
archaeological excavations.
43 Kontis 1952, esp. 551 f.; Konstantinopoulos 1973, esp. 129134.
44 Theatroeids: Diod. 19.45.3, 20.83.2; Vitr. 2.8.11; Arist. Or. 25.6. Modern research
in Kontis 1952; id. 1953; id. 1954; id. 1958; Wycherley 1976; Papachristodoulou 1994, id.
1996; Cali and Interdonato 2005, esp. 91 . about Rhodes.
228
carlo franco
city, the author considers only the elements pertaining to Hellenic culture (like the Rhodian fondness for paideia),45 but he does not record
any Roman element: this is hardly surprising, when we consider the
attitude of intellectuals in the Second Sophistic. Thus, no mention is
made of the many statues decreed (or reused) to honour Roman citizens, nor is there any mention of the imperial cult.46 The author is
silent, too, about the gladiators, although this may reflect the actual situation: Louis Robert years ago remarked upon the peculiar absence of
gladiatorial documents in Rhodes.47 In the Rhodiakos by Dio Chrysostom, the consistent preference for Hellenic practices is strongly contrasted with the excessive acceptance of Roman customs in Athens. Dio
quotes a law from Rhodes that forbade the executioner to enter the
city (31.122).48 The author of the Rhodiakos may refer to the same law
when he writes, it was not even in keeping with your religion to pass
a death sentence within the walls. The allusion to the Rhodian law is
debatable, however, since the orator is making a rather dierent point
about the perverse impact of the earthquake, which transformed the
city which could not be entered by murderers into a common grave
for the inhabitants (Or. 25.28).
It is easy to see that any orator appointed to praise Rhodes could
walk a well-trodden path, a path amply supplied with literary and
historical models; it would be even better if the author, as is the case
here, was familiar with the place and the local traditions. The outlines
for a eulogy of Rhodes were already established in Hellenistic times,
as Polybius digression on the great earthquake of Rhodes in 228/7 BC
makes clear.49 Relying on local sources, the historian lists in great detail
the gifts received by the city from several kings, dynasts and cities after
the disaster. He sings the praises of Rhodian freedom, opportunity,
and conduct, following the classical scheme described by the rhetorical
treatises (thesis, physis, epitdeumata).50
In Polybius epoch, Rhodes was at the peak of its international
power: the historians statements, or those of his sources, were the basis
45 Oratory and culture: Arist. Or. 25.67 (and Or. 24.6). Rhodian citizens praised for
paideia: Blinkenberg 1941, 2.449 and 2.465 D (second century AD). Decay of Rhodian
rhetoric in the Imperial Age: Puech 2002, 367369.
46 Statues of emperors and Romans: Dio Or. 31.107108, 115.
47 Robert 1940, 248.
48 Dio Or. 31.122, with Swain 2000, 44.
49 Plb. 5.8990, with Walbank 19571979, I, 1622; Holleaux 1968 [1923].
50 On Polybius sources see now Lenfant 2005.
229
for all subsequent praise.51 The tone of Strabos Rhodian section is

similar to that of Polybius. Here again, contemporary elements and
second-hand information are mixed together:
= 4 . =! 4 0 \& !, 4
0 - 0 ! 0 M7 M M7 .
S % * O \ %4 K, ! !
7 (14.2.5).52
The city of the Rhodians lies on the eastern promontory of Rhodes and
it is so far superior to all others in harbours and roads and walls and
improvements in general, that I am unable to speak of any other city as
equal to it, or even as almost equal to it, much less superior to it (trans.
H.L. Jones).
Strabo praises above all the eunomia, the politeia, the care for naval
aairs, and the citys faithful conduct towards Rome, all of which
resulted in Rhodes being granted the status of autonomy and receiving
the large number of votive oerings that adorned the city. Especially
celebrated are the provisions granted by the local government to the
poor: the redistribution of wealth is considered an ancestral custom
(patrion ethos). The description of the city, stylized rather than based
on autopsy, is nevertheless not remote from reality: some elements,
such as the Hippodamian plan or the harbours, have been confirmed
by modern archaeological research.53 A brief historical outline also
provides some useful hints. The Dorian origins of Rhodes are discussed
in reference to Homer: here Strabos fondness for the poet joins with
local tradition.54
The image of Rhodes put forth by later authors followed the same
pattern. The loyal attitude displayed by the city during Mithridates
siege won it wide celebrity and esteem.55 In the second century AD,
Aulus Gellius quotes at length from Catos speech Pro Rhodiensibus, writing that the city of the Rhodians is renowned because of the location
51
The local historians are likely to have played an important role in the formation
of this literary image of Rhodes, but their works are irremediably lost to us: Wiemer
2001.
52 See Pdech 1971.
53 Harbours: Kontis 1953, esp. 279 n. 2.
54 The other poetic authority incorporated into the praise of Rhodes was Pindar. As
we know from a scholion to the seventh Olympian, the text of the Ode was carved in
golden letters in the temple of Athena Lindia: Gorgon, FGrH 515 F18.
55 App. Mithr. 24 .; Liv. perioch. 78; Vell. 2.18.3; Flor. 1.40.8. See Campanile 1996,
150 f.
230
carlo franco
of the island, the beauty of its monuments, their skill in sailing the sea,
and their naval victories (6.3.1), and repeats this praise in the context
of an anecdote about Demetrius siege of the island (15.31.1). Apollonius
of Tyanas short visit to the island is also of interest: according to
Philostratus, the holy man debated with Damis in the vicinity of the
Colossus, engaged a talented flautist in conversation about his art, and
rebuked both a rich and ignorant young man and an overweight boy
fond of food. The island appears here in all its wellbeing and prosperity,
although apparently Apollonius did not pay homage, not even from a
critical perspective, to the beauty of Rhodes, as he did, for example, in
Smyrna.56 The brilliant ekphrasis of Rhodes from the beginning of the
Amores ascribed to Lucian is also worth attention. After his departure
from Tarsus and his visit to the decayed cities of Lycia, on the way
to Cnidus, the narrator arrives in Rhodes (610), where he admires
the Temple of Dionysus, the porch, and the paintings; he does not see
any sign of decline or crisis, nor does he mention the earthquake.57
The Amores are commonly believed to be a later composition.58 The
authorship of Lucian has been denied because the text does not allude
to the earthquake of 142 AD, among other reasons. But this silence does
not imply a terminus ante quem. In Xenophons Ephesian Histories, which
are dated toward the middle of the second century AD, there is a
nice description of Rhodes that includes the crowded festivals of the
Sun, the votive oerings, and the altar of the gods, without making any
reference to the earthquake:59 the peculiar atemporality of these texts,
which show no interest in historical change, conditions the selection of
local details.
The earthquake of 142 AD suddenly destroyed this magical world:
The beauty of the harbours has gone, the fairest of crowns has fallen,
the temples are barren of statues, and the altars, the streets and theatres
are empty of men (Or. 25.9). The orator turns the description into the
lamentation, exploiting the same classical topoi of the laus urbis, such as
the origins of the city, but from a dierent point of view: if, according
56 VAp 5.2123 and 4.7 for Smyrna. For the flautists name Kanos see SEG XXI 854b;
Suet. Galba 12; Plut. Mor. 785B. See also the rebukes by the cithara-player Stratonicus
in Plut. Mor. 525B.
57 The omission of the earthquake has been considered, perhaps erroneously, a
relevant proof against Lucianic authorship. Aristides, too, in the speech On Concord,
evokes the incomparable beauty of Rhodes without a hint of the recent disaster.
58 Jones 1984; Degani 1991, esp. 19.
59 Xen. Eph. 5.1013.
231
to the myth, Rhodes had emerged from the sea, now the city has sunk
beneath the earth and has gone from mankind (29). And if Zeus had
poured wealth and rained down gold on the island, as Homer and
Pindar had once sung, now the god of fortune has poured on Rhodes
very dierent gifts (30).
The orators eorts are directly primarily to restraining the grief of
the survivors and delivering a persuasive exhortation to them: their
suerings do not admit of any consolation, nonetheless, they must be
endured (34). He must prove that so terrible a catastrophe is bearable
and that the Rhodians, because of their glorious past, must be confident
that the city will flourish again. The skill in arguing in many dierent
ways about a single subject was a sophistic heritage: the author of the
Rhodiakos had only to follow the scheme of reversal. For as far as sophistic rhetoric is concerned, just as destiny transforms happiness into desperation, so misfortune will assuredly be transformed into a renewal of
prosperity. Take Rhodes past, for example. When the Rhodians created the new city of Rhodes by unifying Lindos, Cameiros and Ialysos
at the end of the fifth century BC, they did not choose an existing
schema, but created a totally new one.60 Thus the reconstruction of the
city after the earthquake is much easier [] than the original foundation was, because what is needed is only to make a Rhodes from
Rhodes, a new city from the old one (5253). The argument about the
monuments in the city, like the walls, is dierent. The earthquake has
destroyed them, but their loss is bearable because, according to the old
saying, Not houses fairly roofed, nor the well-worked stones of walls,
nor avenues and docks are the city, but men who are able to handle
whatever circumstances confront them (% O! .
%4 !& . ` %4 ! 0 , T ,
7& 0 K, 64). Thus, even if your
walls fell ten times, the dignity of the city will not fall, so long as one
Rhodian is left.61
All of the local traditions could be used by the orator to promote
endurance and confidenceexcept, it would appear, the tradition of a
negative omen that had oppressed the city from its very foundation.62
All the ancient sources are collected in Moggi 1976, 213243.
See also Or. 25.42. On the topos, which comes from Alcaeus fr. 112LP and Thuc.
7.77.7, see Pernot 1993a, I, 195 .
62 Not considered in Blinkenberg 1913, who focuses above all on Homer and ancient
legends.
60
61
232
carlo franco
The author asserts that the earthquake has already fulfilled the oracle,
so that one can hope that the reconstruction of the city may rest upon
more fortunate and better omens (69). The reference would have been
perfectly plain to the audience, but it is less evident for us. One must
turn to Pausanias. Speaking about Sikyon, he attributes the final decline
of the city to an earthquake that damaged also the Carian and Lycian
towns, and shook above all the island of Rhodes, so that it was believed
that the ancient prediction of the Sybil to Rhodes was accomplished
(2.7.1). It is dicult to define the period alluded to by Pausanias, since
the passage seems to be vague in its chronology. Elsewhere, Pausanias
records the same earthquake, adding that it occurred under Antoninus.63 Thus, even if the identity of the events is not assured, one may
assume that the oracle alluded to by Pausanias is the same as that mentioned in the Rhodiakos. The content of the prophecy is preserved, as it
seems, in the so-called Oracula Sibyllina, among several others concerning earthquakes. The tone is obscure and allusive, and thus does not
allow irrefutable identification, but the passage provides good elements
for the analysis of the Rhodiakos.
} = ! 4 ,, 4 / *M 4 , ,
, M,/ . 4 , K **
(Orac. Syb. 7.13).
O poor Rhodes! I will mourn you as first. Thou shall be first among the
cities, but also first in ruin, deprived of your men, totally *deprived* of
life.
And again:
0 , =, ? 4 *M,/ T! &K,
? ' '&/ *, F 5 K *
(Orac. Syb. 3.444448).64
And you, Rhodes, for a long time shall be free from slavery, O noble
daughter, and great prosperity shall be upon you, and on the sea you
shall reign over other peoples.
Similar oracles could refer to any big earthquake from 227 BC onwards,
including the serious one of 142 AD. The Sibylline prophecies are a
reminder of the symbolic and religious dimension of earthquakes in
antiquity. Apart from the gods, however, there was also the political
Paus. 2.7.1; 8.43.4.
Orac. Syb. 4.101 = 8.160 may refer to the earthquake recorded in Paus. 2.7.1: see
Gecken 1902, ad loc.
63
64
233
dimension of the event, such as the request for help and the problems
of reconstruction. This was the task for the ambassadors, and required
careful study: it is hardly surprising that natural catastrophes became
a common subject in imperial and late antique literature. This subject
was studied in the schools of rhetoric and appeared in the works of men
of letters and historians.65 More than a century ago, Rudolf Herzog
proposed the label of genos seismikon for this specific genre of speeches
about earthquakes and suggested locating its origin in Rhodes.66 This
kind of rhetoric was particularly linked to the life of the ancient city,
and orators focused their attention especially on the cities. The collapse
of buildings, the destruction of urban beauty, and the death of men and
women struck the general imagination much more than the destiny of
the rural areas did.67 This explains why in the Rhodiakos, after a sympathetic description of the earthquake, small islands around Rhodes
receive only a short and dismissive mention: to the dismay of the cultivated, a great and beautiful city was in ruins, while unimportant places
like Carpathus and Casus remained intact (Or. 25.31).68
But let us come to the earthquake itself. The author of the Rhodiakos
was not in Rhodes when the disaster occurred. Thus the speech does
not reflect any personal experience of the events, and the high dramatic
style, the impressive list of ruins and casualties, and the heavy rhetorical
expression are the substitutes for autopsy; this is the normal case in
antiquity, with the possible exception of the letter of Pliny the Younger
about the eruption of the Mount Vesuvius. At that wretched noon
hour says the orator,
- 4 q " " \ , 0 7 ! K - K. X, 4 T &K 0 A
. 8 8, 4 O! 0 ,
4 0 , 0 Fc 0
& K 0 K, 0 , 0 K
(Or. 25.20).
65 In the Progymnasmata by Aelius Theon, the seismos is listed among the themes for
ekphraseis (118.18 Patillon-Bolognesi).
66 Herzog 1899, 141 .
67 Guidoboni 1994; Traina 1985, and now Williams 2006. Contempt for outlying
areas: Arist. Or. 19.78.
68 This may explain also some inaccuracies about the administrative status of the
islands in relationship to Rhodes: Fraser and Bean 1954, esp. 138 n. 1; Papachristodoulou 1989, 43 ., Carusi 2003, esp. 219 .
234
carlo franco
The sun for the last time shone upon his city. And suddenly every terror
was at hand at once. The sea drew back, and all the interior of the
harbours was laid bare, and the houses were thrown upwards, and the
tombs broken open, and the towers collapsed upon the harbours, and
the storage sheds upon the triremes, and the temples upon the altars,
and the oerings upon the statues, and men upon men, and everything
upon one another.
The destiny of the population is a plurima mortis imago:

0 J 4 \. O! \ ,, J
\. X , J 4 & ,
J 4 & T&7, % * %4 X? <&, . & 8 8 K, 0 !, @ . " ! % `, ,. . 4
, T , 0 4 T! $ &. !, T!
* N. 0 5 ` ,, , !&, @
\KF - 8 (Or. 25.22).
Some in fleeing from their houses perished in those of others, others

transfixed by fear perished in their own, some overtaken while running
out; others left behind half alive, unable to emerge or save themselves,
starved in addition to their other miseries, and profiting only to the
extent of knowing that their country did not exist, they perished. Others
bodies were sundered by chance, half left within doors, half lay exposed
without. And in addition other bodies fell upon them, and household
implements, and stones, and whatever the earthquake carried o and
tossed upon each.
Nor is the description of the aftermath much better:

T 4 0 K ? 4 @ . ! . . !, ? 4 , % - * 4 . ., ) \K
D & 8 . (Or. 25.27).
The ensuing days and nights revealed those who were alive, at least who
were breathing, to be wounded and those who had already died to be
rotting, and without any limbs intact, but however the ruin had worked
its amputations and its graftings on each.
This description is very dierent from the euphemistic and pathetic

but reticent approach that a reader observes in other Aristidean writings, say, in the Smyrnean Monody. Some scholars have considered the
entire description tasteless and abhorrent to the writers style.69 Their
69 Swain 1996, 294 n. 146, still rejects Aristides authorship, underlining the gory
details.
235
disappointment originates, perhaps, from a misunderstanding about the

genre. The style of the Rhodiakos has been judged in comparison to
the restrained grief of the Smyrnean Orations. In fact, it shares with the
monodies some stylistic features such as parataxis, dramatic questions,
repetitions, pathos, asyndeta, antitheseis, figures of speech especially rapid
and vigorous (gorgotera kai akmaiotera),70 but it goes beyond the measure
and the restraint typical of the monodies.71 Thus there are abundant
details about the catastrophe, which is described prolixe vehementerque.72
In fact, the Rhodiakos is not a pathetic lamentation, but a consolation.73
At Smyrna, Aristides pours tears onto the ruins of the city, then goes
on to seek support from the emperor; he selects his topics according
to his dierent aims, describing in great detail the damage suered by
the buildings, but speaking more cautiously about the dead citizens.74
In Rhodes, the commemoration of the catastrophe is focused rather
on the survivors. Thus, much as in a funeral speech, the details are
pertinent and would have been requested; the style could develop at
length what Apsines called graphic descriptions (hypographai).75 There
was no obligation to temper dramatic elements in the narration or to
conceal the worst aspects of the catastrophe; indeed, these descriptions
satisfied the victims need to feel that they were not neglected in their
suering and their fear.76
A striking dierence between the Rhodiakos and other Aristidean
writings does exist: notwithstanding some echoes in the Monody for
Smyrna, carefully noted by Keil,77 the search for parallels goes beyond
the age of Aristides. Apart from some Latin examples,78 one may refer
in particular to the impressive tsunami that occurred in 365 AD, which
was described by Ammianus.79 More striking similarities are to be found
Apsines 10.48 Patillon. See Demoen 2001.

Men. Rhet. 2.437.
72 As Dindorf noted (1829, III, xlv).
73 On the paramythtikos logos see Men. Rhet. 2.413414 (syngraphikos style).
74 Arist. Or. 18: see Franco 2005, 477.
75 Apsines 3.23 and 27 Patillon. To be sure, Apsines does not suggest noting every
detail, in order to avoid excess: 10.31 Patillon.
76 Leopold 1986, 830.
77 Keil 1898, ad loc.
78 Sen. Ep. 91.13 (Lugdunum destroyed in one hour); NQ 6.1.8 (the earthquake
annihilates great cities).
79 Amm. 26.10.1519: Mare dispulsum retro fluctibus evolutis abscessit, ut retecta voragine
profundorum species natantium multiformes limo cernerentur haerentes, with Kelly 2004; on
Amm. 17.7.914 (Nicomedia) see de Jonge 1977, ad loc. See also Smid 1970.
70
71
236
carlo franco
in the oration composed by Libanius for the earthquake of Nicomedia

in 358 AD. Intertextual analysis leads to the attractive hypothesis that
the Rhodiakos itself was a model for Libanius: in both writers one finds
the polyptoton evoking walls collapsing over other walls and an allocution
to the Sun, who sees everything but did not prevent the disaster.80
Together with minor narrative details,81 these similarities might be an
argument for the attribution of authorship of the Rhodiakos to Aristides,
since the speech in Libanius epoch was probably included in the
Aristidean corpus.
The horrific evocation of the earthquake constitutes the negative side
of the speech, which in the end tends towards consolation and exhortation. The past and the present of Rhodes become the basis for a rapid
reconstruction: upon the sudden catastrophe a prosperous rebirth will
follow. The Rhodians are happier than their ancestors, who founded
the city in times of war and unrest (Or. 25.54), since the present is a
time of much peace and deep calm, which has benefited and prospered
the aairs of all mankind (55). Thus, they should confidently expect
that there will be many Greeks to assist the restoration. Such was the
glory of Rhodes and the gratitude towards its inhabitants, who were
the common hosts and friends of all and also the saviour of many (40),
that everybody, when asked to give help, will think that he gratifies
himself rather than that it is a favour to them (43). Here is another
line of argument: after the earthquake of 227 BC, according to Polybius (or rather, we may confidently assert, according to his source), the
Rhodian ambassadors who were requesting aid for the citys reconstruction behaved in such a wise and dignified manner that they were
able to transform the disaster into an opportunity for the city.82 Such
was the strength of the delegates request that those to whom it was
addressed felt obliged to honour it, and it was not Rhodes that was
indebted to the donors, but quite the opposite, since the recipient was
so great. Similar arguments recur in other texts of the genos seismologikon,
such as Aristides own Smyrnean Orations: beyond the rhetorical motiva80 Lib. Or. 61.14.9 . = Arist. Or. 25.20 (collapsing buildings); Or. 61.16 = Arist. Or.
25.3132 (allocution to Helios).
81 Such as the time at which the catastrophe occurred, an element clearly derived
from funeral orations and the equation between city and man. The Rhodiakos does not
mention the fire.
82 Plb. 5.88. Dignity: nounechs, pragmatiks, semns, prostatiks. Opportunity: m blabs,
diorthses de mallon [] aition. Reversal: hste m monon lambanein epidoseis hyperballousas, alla
kai charin prosopheilein autous tous didontas.
237
tions, this attitude reveals a consistent and shared faith in the system of
reciprocity, which regulated the relations between cities and the ruling
power. On a higher level, the assistance of the gods, Sun and Neptune,
is invoked. The invocation participates in a religious system of divine
justice,83 but in the text there is no explicit theodicy: only the god of
Fortune is held responsible for present suerings, and all will revert to
happiness in the future.
Besides willing Hellenes and compassionate gods, there was another
leading figure to invoke as a source of assistance: the emperor. Above all
the Rhodians must have hope in a ruler who should certainly decide
apace to restore the city as much as he can, so that the fairest of his
possessions may not lie upon the earth in dishonour (Fp K "
B 7 ) # L M_ " , ) "
8 K %F. . K ! 0 7 , Or. 25.56). The
dynamics of imperial subventions in the face of natural catastrophes
have been repeatedly studied: the Rhodiakos fits by and large the typical
patterns.84 Our information about the provisions granted to the island
for its reconstruction comes first from Pausanias. In his detailed eulogy
of the emperor Antoninus, he says that when the Lycian and Carian
cities, and Cos and Rhodes where shaken by a formidable earthquake,
the emperor restored them too, with large gifts of money and great zeal
(8.43.4).85 Actually, epigraphic evidence demonstrates that Antoninus
was honoured in Rhodes as ktists.86 His generosity towards the island
was referred to as a model by Fronto when he pleaded in the Senate for
the reconstruction of the Carthaginian forum.87 In Rhodes, imposing
Roman architecture began to transform the shape of the city.88 Thus,
the author of the Rhodiakos correctly forecast imperial aid. Like most
of his Greek contemporaries, however, he did not take an interest in
the broader dimension of the Empire. In this respect, at least, this
intriguing speech is reassuringly similar to other texts of the time.
83 Theodicy in this text is complexe et paradoxale (Pernot 1994, 363). On reciprocity: Lendon 1997, 82.
84 Waldherr 1997.
85 On the relationship between this passage and 4.31.5, see above. Some information
about the provisions granted by Antoninus is given also in SHA Ant. 3.9.1: omnia mirifice
instauravit.
86 Pugliese Carratelli 1940 = AE 1948, 199; BullEp 19461947 n. 156.
87 Fronto, Pro Carthaginiensibus, pp. 256259 van den Hout2: Rhodum condidisti (257).
88 Tetrapylon: Cante 19861987 (late second early third century AD).
238
carlo franco
To the Rhodians, On Concord
Oration 24, To the Rhodians, on Concord, was written in Smyrna between

147 and 149 AD.89 Because of his physical condition, Aristides did not
deliver the speech personally, but rather sent the text to be read in
Rhodes. His intervention had been requested: some Rhodian delegates
had come to visit him to ask for his help in settling some internal
troubles, and he had declared himself ready to intervene, being deeply
involved in the citys conditions as if it were his own country (Or.
24.23). After an exordium that defines the authors attitude towards
Rhodes (13), the speech begins with a discussion about the good eects
of concord and the evil consequences of faction (422). Then follows
a section devoted to historical examples from the Greek past (2327)
and a moving eulogy of concord (4144): this attitude is repeatedly
declared to be best suited to the Rhodian temper and the citys political
traditions (4557). An aecting peroration closes the speech (5859).90
The object of the quarrels itself is alluded to in the text in a manner
that is dramatic, but also quite general. This approach may be due
to the situation of the author, who would have been less informed
about local matters, as well as to his decision to euphemein, that is, to
allude only cautiously and indirectly to the problem. Civic dissent was
considered a serious and unpleasant subject, and therefore in need of a
very prudent approach.
F. , O L O, . , @
X % 0 M& 0 % X
K&, N& @ " N& @ B (Or. 24.3).
But when the present situation, which is much more terrible, if it is

possible to say so, was reported to me, that you distrust one another,
have taken sides, and are involved in disturbances unsuited to you, I did
not know whether I should credit it, or disbelieve it.
The city was apparently split into factions, each of whom Aristides tries
to placate in the speech.91 He speaks of the envy felt by the poor for the
rich, of the greed of the rich against the poor (32), and later of those
89 The chronological span depends on the notorious problem of the proconsulate of
Albus in Asia: see Behr 1968, 7374; id. 1981, 368 n. 1 for the later date; for the earlier
(JulyOctober 147), Behr 1994, 1204.
90 Structure: Behr 1981, 369.
91 The honorific decree from Lesbos (IG XII 2,135; SEG 29, 1979, 741) might refer to
the same crisis: Buraselis 2001, esp. 67 .
239
who think that they should be superior and those who are deficient
either in property or in some other fortune (34). The quarrel probably
had social and economic roots, which is why Aristides has recourse to
the authoritative example of two ancient poets: Terpander, who settled
civic unrest in Sparta (3), and Solon.92 The Athenian legislator was
most of all proud of the fact that he brought the people together with
the rich, so that they might dwell in harmony in their city, neither side
being stronger than was expedient for all (14). Beyond the cultivated
reference to an ancient figure of Greek history, the example of Solon
reveals the role that Aristides himself hoped (or pretended) to play in
the matter.
The argumentation follows a regular pattern. The undesirability of
faction is a self-evident truth, needing no demonstration: within the
city, the house, and the individual, discord makes clear its negative
impact, involving evil, peril, and dishonour. In the same way, everybody
must recognise the good of concord: thus the present attitude of the
Rhodians, so unworthy of local traditions, is patently dangerous and
absurd. The social unrest involved in the stasis threatened to subvert
the traditional structures of power. This may explain why, in the midst
of numerous exhortations and pathetic appeals, there is in the speech a
particularly frank passage:
K i ! &. X8 . &0, 8 q !. &!
7 8 &! 8 , X8 >A (Or. 24.35).
There is a natural law, which has truly been promulgated by the gods,
our superiors, that the inferior obey the superior. And if some one
regards the corruption of law as a sign of liberty, he deceives himself.
Here, the topical reference to a natural law, while mitigating the

strong and conservative political advice, does little to conceal the rhetors eort to protect the privileges of the higher ranks by means of
a message of reconciliation and amnesty: those who have suered
should not await the punishment of those who have committed these
wrongs, since evil is not the remedy for evil, and good things should
be underlined by memory, and bad things crossed out by forgetfulness.93
92 Terpander, testt. 1415 (Gostoli). Aristides had recourse elsewhere to this poet: Or.
2.336; Or. 3.231, 242. On Solon see also Or. 25.29, 32, 40.
93 Arist. Or. 24.36, 40. See Behr 1981, 369370 n. 21.
240
carlo franco
Our information on Rhodian society in this period does not permit

us to be more specific about the context and the nature of the crisis,
although the decline of the coinagethere is no minting later than
Commodusmight be considered evidence of the islands economic
decline.94 We may also link the troubles and the stasis, which challenged
traditional forms of social appeasement, to the aftermath of the earthquake that had occurred some years before. Whatever relationship we
may suppose between the Rhodiakos and On Concord, the cautious way in
which the latter speech alludes to the earthquakes may be revealing.95
The memory of the earthquake is minimized: Aristides does not mention his prior intervention for Rhodes, nor does he develop a classical
consolation argument, but keeps silent about the internal and external
solidarity expressed on the occasion of the catastrophe.96 We are led to
the conclusion that the rebirth after the earthquake had been very different from the happiness prophesied by the author of the Rhodiakos: if
it is Aristides, it is evident that he decided to omit any mention of his
previous actions towards the city, since the predictions of prosperity and
recovery had been disproved by subsequent events, notwithstanding the
eorts displayed by the emperor.
As many critics have noted, the speech On Concord comprises a number of general thoughts, which recur in similar works by Dio Chrysostom and by Aristides himself and could fit any troubled situation.97 In
fact, the text contains scant reference to the local situation and lacks
an adequate context.98 Aristides was aware of these limits. At the very
beginning of the text he anticipates all possible objections:
q . &7, ) 0 % -
8 X,. . % F. 4 & ) !
, 0 0 A , %? 4 " A
7& [ , " 8 X? .
*, 0 0 F. F &; c N 8
N ? T , 8 4 @
Kromann 1988; Ashton 1996. See in general Head 1897, esp. CXVIVII, and
RPC I (19982), 454457; II (1999), 179181; Suppl. I (1999), 3334.
95 The present situation of Rhodes is considered much more terrible, if it is possible
to say so than the misfortune of the earthquake (Or. 24.2), and in the peroration the
citizens are requested to desist from this earthquake (59).
96 Contrast Arist. Or. 19.12 and Or. 20.1518: Franco 2005, 488 .
97 See now Heller 2006.
98 Leaving aside some minor discussions, the bulk of the analysis is to be found in
Dindorf 1829, I, 824844; Boulanger 1923, 374 .; Behr 1981, 371 f.; Pernot 1993a, I,
289 .
94
241
e 0, ? @ & e " ,
@ 7 !, 0 &. %4
, ! & T. 5 , @ 8
, i O8 @ # X ! %
*& @ X. , . %. &7 p Z 0
(Or. 24.5).99
I would most willingly, I think, be criticized because my arguments were

old and I had found no new ideas. For is it not strange for you to blame
the speaker because his advice is well-known, stale, and accepted by all,
yet for you yourselves not to dare to make use of such obvious arguments,
but not only to be facetiously disposed toward one another, but also to be
at odds with your history up to now? I believe that neither an adviser nor
those who employ him should give any consideration to the following,
the one to how his remarks will be original, the others to how they will
hear new material, but that they should prefer a speech on what will
be expedient for all in common. In our bodily needs each of us has not
sought to learn of some new treatment, but the best doctor is the one
who knows how to make men well. No one of you will be annoyed if he
is saved by the same means as someone has been before.
But the orator knew well how to turn this kind of generic composition into a useful exhortation, carving the epideictic langue into the
parole of an oration directed toward a specific audience. The choice
of local themes was crucial. From the very beginning of the oration, the
troubled status of Rhodes is contrasted with the tradition of long-lasting
concord, so that present disturbances can be defined as unsuited (3) to
the citys attitude.
Ample use is made of examples from the Hellenic and Rhodian
past. The vicissitudes of the Athenian and Spartan empires were an
overused point of reference for On Concord speeches during the imperial
period: many centuries before, the two cities had lost their hegemony
because of endemic discord.100 In order to make these models more
eective for his audience, the orator had only to underline a connection
between them and Rhodes. The Athenians shared the Rhodians love
for democracy and sea power,101 the Spartans were fellow tribesmen
See also Or. 24.41. The rhetor like a medical doctor: cf. Jones 1978, 74.
See Arist. Or. 23.42 and in general Bowie 1974 [1970]; Schmitz 1999; Oudot 2003.
101 In the Rhodiakos, a brilliant connection is developed between the deeds of those
major powers and the local traditions of Rhodes through the mention of Conon (65
66). It was a troubled phase in local history when the Athenian admiral promoted an
anti-Spartan rebellion in Rhodes in 395 BC: Diod. 14.79.57; HellOxy 15, with Barbieri
1955, 116 . Note especially Paus. 8.52, where Conon is included in a list of benefactors
of Greece, obliterating his collaboration with the Persians.
99
100
242
carlo franco
of the Rhodians, and the citizens of Argos their ancestors (24 .).102
Each of the three cities had experienced the evils of faction: Now it is
fitting, O men of Rhodes, to believe that a common embassy has come
from all these cities, urging you to reconciliation (28). The Dorian past
conveys the more explicit caveat: the city, suering from self-inflicted
divisions, is compared to the Laconian Cleomenes who chopped up
his body, beginning with his feet (38): the remote source for the whole
story is obviously Herodotus (6.75), but the reference to it in Pausanias
(3.4.5) bears witness to its popularity in the second century AD. And
the example of the Doric past is particularly fitting for an audience that
is said to have preserved perfectly the qualities of its ancestors: the pure
Doric temper was a symbol of manliness.103 That symbol is exploited by
Dio Chrysostom in the Rhodiakos, as well as by Aristides, and not only
in the Rhodian orations.104
The prevailing attitude to faction in Rhodes is presented as completely unsuited to the Dorian tradition, which the Rhodians have
carefully preserved: You are originally Dorians from the Peloponnese,
and alone to this day have remained purely Greek (45), so that in the
recent past it was impossible to find any word among you which was
not Dorian (57). How far do these aspects correspond to the actual
situation in Rhodes? Pride in being purely Hellenes, as well as the
preservation of the Doric temper, were topics of praise attributed to
several cities.105 The concern for purely Greek names, too, was typical of the Greek East. Apollonius of Tyana was said to have rebuked
the Smyrneans because of the diusion of Roman names in the city,
whereas Aristides could praise Smyrna for its care in the preservation of
its Ionian character.106 On the other hand, the Dorian language was not
universally appreciated. If Marcus from Byzantium was famous for the
Doric flavour of his oratory, the Atticists considered this dialect rather
rough.107 This opinion was shared by Tiberius: the emperor did not
102 On the links between Rhodes and Argos, which share the common ancestor
Tlepolemos: ISE I 40; Thuc. 7.57.6; Pind. Ol. 7.36 .
103 Men. Rh. 1.354.19 f. (andriktat); cf. 1.357.20 . on Dorian origins.
104 Dio Or. 31.18; Arist. Or. 38.13. where the author quotes the rule of the sons of
Asclepius as a source of Rhodian pride.
105 See Dio Or. 48.3 on the citizens of Prusa; Paus. 4.27.11 on the Messenians.
106 Philostr. VAp. 4.5 (Smyrna); Franco 2005, 402.
107 Marcus: Philostr. VS 1.24.529 (dorizontos); Swain 1996, 198 f.; Schmitz 1997, 69 .,
176 .
243
appreciate men who spoke Greek with a Dorian accent, since it was an
unpleasant reminder of his long sojourn in Rhodes.108
For a Rhodian audience, needless to say, things were dierent. The
renaissance of Greek literary dialects has been sometimes considered
an artificial and literary phenomenon, largely surpassed by the diusion of the koin. Some Dorian elements in the language of Rhodian
inscriptions in the Imperial Age may be a superficial phenomenon,
but, in fact, Roman names became widespread on the island only at
a late date. Along with other elements, this has been judged as a sign
of resistance to Romanization. The loss of civic freedom in the early
Imperial Age probably involved a softening of this proud attitude.109
But the author of the Rhodiakos goes so far as to proclaim that even
foreign residents in Rhodes spoke a pure Dorian dialect (Or. 24.57).
As for the archaeological evidence, the absence of permanent Roman
settlement was interpreted years ago as proof that Rhodes was largely
uninfluenced by Rome because of a lack of penetration of Roman
civilization in depth.110 If that is true, it is not the whole truth, for
we have learned of some Rhodian citizens who were deeply interested
in Roman politics; we know, too, of important Roman elements that
penetrated the religious sphere of Rhodian life. The cult of Rome, for
example, included a priest and a festival from the second century BC
onward; the imperial cult, then, is already documented in the reign of
Augustus.111 Thus the pure Doric temper was only one part of Rhodian identity, although the diminished visibility of the Roman element
allowed the ancients (and sometimes the moderns) to minimize the
influence of the barbarians.
References to local culture were more beneficial and more suitable
for the audience than remote events from Greek history, although
the speech treats events from local history only in a selective and
somewhat random way.112 The leading principle is not historical truth,
108 Perhaps his own pronunciation of Greek had been conditioned by his time on
Rhodes: Suet. Tib. 56.1.
109 Linguistic analysis: Bubenik 1989, 94 .; historical analysis: Bresson 1996; id. 2002;
Rhodian civic exclusiveness and conservatism: Jones 2003, 158. On bilingualism in
general, see Adams 2003; Adams, Janse, and Swain 2002.
110 Fraser 1977, esp. 11, 74 f.
111 See Erskine 1991; ISE III 162 for the inscription in honour of Eupolemos.
112 In the Rhodiakos, the dominion of the sea was rightly abandoned as the new
Roman power grew, but as far as the praise of the city is concerned, no clear distinction
is made between the ancient glory and the contemporary inactivity. On dierent
grounds, this is even clearer in Dio Or. 31.1820, 161162.
244
carlo franco
but rather the kairos, that is, the search for what is expedient in a
given situation. The theme of origins, for example, was particularly
well-suited to preaching the good of concord.113 Since the Sun was the
founder of their race, the propatr and archegos tou genos, the Rhodians
should feel a sense of shame (Or. 24.50) on account of their improper
attitude.114 All of the arguments that might support the traditional
inclination of the Rhodians towards concord are carefully exploited:115
the solidarity of the ancestors when they unified the three communities
of Lindos, Camiros and Ialysos and Homers references to Rhodes are
quoted as the perfect counterbalance to the present state of division.
How could the Rhodians ruin the renown they had won on the basis
of their ancient spirit of concord? It was only on account of such
concord that they had successfully fought against the Etruscans and the
pirates, ruled the seas, adorned their city, and left their descendants
the right to be proud over these deeds (53). No detailed account is
given, only a sequence of uninterrupted examples of military virtue.
Dicult moments in local history are silenced, particularly those such
as the siege by Cassius, which caused faction in the civic body, and
times when an improper attitude was adopted towards Rome.116
The most explicit political point in the speech concerns the problem
of democracy and freedom. As in many other orations delivered in
the cities of the Greek East, exhortations to peace and concord in
civic conduct aimed at deterring people from actions that would lead
to the undesirable intervention of the Roman authorities.117 Rhodes
was at the time a free city in the Roman Empire. Thus, the broader
political context of the strife did not fall within the sphere of the
Roman governor and his legions.118 The danger that the citizens of
Rhodes faced was that they might provoke a tightening of indirect
Roman rule and, as a result, lose their precarious privilege, which had
113
In the Rhodiakos the rebirth of Rhodes is also linked with the myth of its origins:
if the gods blessed the emergence of the island from the sea, they will in the same way
care for its reconstruction.
114 Sun: Diod. 5.56. On the local cults see Morelli 1959; Papachristodoulou 1992, with
reference to recent discoveries and ongoing research.
115 See Or. 25.3132, with the mention of the nymph Rhode, symbol of the united
city: Robert 1967, 714.
116 Schmitt 1957, 173 .; Kontorini 1983, 159.
117 Classic reference to Plut. Praec.ger. 814E., and some speeches by Dio Chrysostom:
Lewin 1995, 50 ., Sartre 1991, 127 .; Salmeri 2000.
118 On the status of free cities in the empire: Millar 1999. On political problems:
Kokkinia 2004.
245
already been revoked several times. In the first century of the Empire,
the island had many a close relationship with the Julio-Claudians, from
the visits of Augustus to the long stay of Tiberius to the quarrels that
led to its loss of freedom under Claudius.119 Rhodes experienced the
same change of status as Cyzicus, perhaps on the same grounds: the
mistreatment or killing of Roman citizens.120 Some years later, Nero
granted the Rhodians the recovery of their freedom and reportedly
did not plunder their statues. Imperial favor ceased under Vespasian,
perhaps unexpectedly.121 Once again freedom was lost, but after further
quarrels under Domitian, the island probably recovered it in the early
eighties.122 Incapable of stability, the Rhodians alternated between good
faith (and flattery) towards Rome and unrest and internal sedition.
Aristides reflections are supported by an acute awareness of the
Rhodian situation: You are proud of the fact that you are free and
you praise your democracy so much, that you would not even accept
immortality unless someone would allow you to keep this form of
government (Or. 24.22), says the orator, adding that since the Rhodians
are not able to calculate that if things continue in this fashion, it is
quite possible that you will be in danger of being deprived of this
apparent liberty. And if you do not voluntarily heed this advice, another
will come who will forcibly save you, since, as a rule, rulers are neither
ignorant of such behaviour nor disregard it (22).123 This remark follows
a long section about the dynamics of tyranny that contains, it would
seem, historical analysis that draws on remote epochs of Greek history.
It is true that the reference to Lesbos (5455) does not hint at the
contemporary situation of the island,124 but alludes to the troubled times
of Alcaeus. The orator could address a concealed admonition to his
audience: at the present, faction was the best ally of Roman power.
Of course, Rome and Roman magistrates are not explicitly named
in the speech. More explicit caveats in Plutarch and Dio, however,
119 Augustus: Jos BJ 1.20.287. Tiberius: see recently Jacob-Sonnabend 1995, with
sources and literature.
120 Suet. Claud. 25; Tac. Ann. 12.58; Cass. Dio 60.24.4. Thornton 1999, esp. 512 .
121 Nero: AP 9.178. See the prudent treatment of the matter in Dio Or. 31.110, with
Jones 1978, 148150; Swain 1996, 428429; Salmeri 1999, 236 ., 241. Vespasian: Jos.
BJ, 7.2.1; Suet. Vesp. 8.6; Dio 66.12.
122 Quarrels: Plut. Praec.ger. 815C. The chronology is much debated: see Momigliano
1951, and now Bresson 1996.
123 Apparent liberty (tn dokousan eleutherian): supposedly a negative judgement, but its
meaning seems debatable. See Dio Or. 44.12: tn legomenn eleutherian.
124 Labarre 1996, 91 .
246
carlo franco
are illuminating. If a stasis allowed the Roman rulers to assume a sort

of tyrannical power over the Greek cities (Dio Or. 38.36), the risk of
losing the existing freedom was serious and became a strong argument
for preaching self-restraint.125 And if the precarious status of freedom
granted by the emperor did not automatically imply exemption from
tribute, at least it allowed the cities to control their own laws and
institutions and partially freed them from the obligations connected
with their status within the province.126 Beyond the arguments created
out of conventional topoi, care for civic concord was indeed the last
resort of the local authorities, as Plutarch knew:
! " F. F. . X *, ] 8 * . &., - 0 ! 0 ,
* 4 0 0 : (Praec. ger.
824D).127
The present situation leaves the politicians a benefit, which is not of

slight importance: to develop concord and mutual friendship among the
populace, to eradicate quarrels, discords, enmities.
To be sure, the oration On Concord is far from the polemical attitude

of Dio Chrysostom, and does not express an anti-Roman attitude. As
Aristides argues now, the present state of things is the best foundation
for concord, for the empire brings unity and freedom for everybody (Or.
24.31). Thus the Rhodians must preserve their wisdom and reason, as
well as their (limited) freedom: Believe [] that is more profitable to
be a slave than to use freedom as a means for evil, and that nonetheless
there is some fear that you may even be deprived of this means (58).
Whatever its actual content, the democratic pride of the Rhodians
deserves closer consideration. Modern information on local institutions
is unsatisfactory. The Rhodian politeia was analyzed by Aristotle, who
studied the troubled political situation of the island.128 After changes
were introduced in the early Hellenistic age,129 the politeia was praised
by Polybius for its concern with isgoria and parrhsia. Diodorus called it
125 Contra: Stertz 1984, 1258. The care for concord and autonomy was also part of
the system of honour which was very important in the civic life of the Empire: Lendon
1997, 154 .
126 But not from the correctores or from the inspections by the governor, if needed:
Sartre 1995, 205 f.
127 See now Bost-Pouderon 2006, II, 119 .
128 Aristot. Pol. 5.3, 1302b; 5.4, 1304b. On the Constitution of Rhodes see Aristotle
fr. 569R3 = 586 Gigon, but also Heraclides, Excerpta 65 Dilts.
129 Pugliese Carratelli 1949.
247
the best of all politeiai, and Strabo, who wrote at length about social
welfare in late Hellenistic Rhodes, specified that their rule was not
democratic.130 Strabos statement on the Rhodian welfare has been
repeatedly discussed: from a social point of view, we may note that if
the government cared for the have-nots, this implies that they actually
existed and needed help.131 Like Cyzicus, Rhodes could benefit from
a real eunomia (Strabo 12.8.11). This was perhaps due in both cities to
the permanent ecacy of the civic courts: during the Hellenistic age,
Rhodes apparently hosted no foreign judges, but was able to send its
own arbitrators to other Greek cities, as Aristides aptly remarks (Or.
24.55).132
Perhaps influenced by the authority of Panaetius and Posidonius, the
Roman tradition followed the same path: Cicero in the De re publica had
special praise for Rhodes, which he considered together with Athens
as a city with a sort of mixed constitution and as a place where the
defaults of democracy were limited.133 A later allusion in Tacitus Dialogus again couples Rhodes and Athens, where oratory flourished, but
under an ochlocracy where omnes omnia poterant, and his words appear
more as an allusion to the situation of Rhodes in the first century
BC than to the Hellenistic age.134 The troubles of the Roman civil
wars apparently destroyed that admired democratic balance and transformed Rhodes, as they did many other Greek cities, into a battlefield
of local factions. When Cassius approached Rhodes in the late spring
of 43 BC in order to collect ships and soldiers against Dolabella, he
met with resistance:135 a faction faithful to Caesar held power on the
island and refused to help him. Cassius delegate Lentulus branded the
Rhodians as foolish and arrogant (amentia, superbia).136 The subsequent
siege worsened the situation, with devastating eects on Rhodian poliPlb. 27.4.5. See also 33.15.3; Diod. 20.81; Strabo 14.2.5.
ONeil 1981; Migeotte 1989; Gabrielsen 1997, 24 . and 31 . on economic inequalities.
132 [Sall.] Ep. Caes. 1.7.12: Neque Rhodios neque aliae civitates umquam iudiciorum suorum
paenituit, ubi promiscue dives et pauper, ut cuique fors tulit, de maximis rebus iuxta ac de minimis
disceptat; Gauthier 1984, 103.
133 Cic. Rep. 1.31.47; 3.35.48, etc.
134 Tac. Dial. 40.3: the sarcastic remark by Maternus is currently thought to refer only
to Athens. The text does not guarantee it.
135 Cic. Fam. 12.13.3; 14.3; 15.24.
136 Not entirely new: Catos speech quoted by Gellius 6.3 refers often to the famosissima superbia of the Rhodians: Gell. 6.3.4851, 52 [= frr. 124 and 126 Sblendorio Cugusi].
See also the speech referred to by Liv. 45.23.18.
130
131
248
carlo franco
tics. Before launching the final attack on the island, Cassius met some
Rhodian delegates, among them his former teacher during his stay on
the island. Archelaos begged him to spare the city, using typical Rhodian arguments like the citys love for freedom, its Dorian origins, and
its warlike attitude against Demetrius and Mithridates.137 This concrete
exhibition of Rhodes goodwill towards Rome proved useless: the Rhodians were defeated by sea, they lost many ships, and after a short siege
they surrendered to Cassius. According to Plutarch, some Rhodians
tried to flatter the conqueror by proclaiming him king and lord. Cassius refused the honours: instead, 8500 talents were collected by the
seizure of all private treasure, and the city paid an indemnity of 500 talents. Later, in 42 BC, thirty more Rhodian ships were seized by Cassius
Parmensis, and the remains of the navy were burnt.138 It was the end
for the Rhodian navy. But tradition might prove stronger than reality.
Stereotyped and out-of-date as it might be, praise for Rhodian eutaxia,
eunomia, and sea power endured until the imperial period, as the Rhodian Oration by Dio Chrysostom repeatedly shows.139 In the same way,
the myth of Rhodian freedom survived in the literary tradition until the
days of Aristides.140
The orators of the Second Sophistic repeatedly urged the cities in
the Greek East to preserve even the palest form of freedom.141 This
behaviour has been considered both by the ancients and the moderns
to be a kind of wishful thinking that concealed the real situation of
total submission. The Rhodians called democracy what was in fact
a timocratic and elitist form of rule, where most of the local power
was in the hands of a restricted elite of families.142 The winged words
of Aristides were part of unceasing eorts to preserve local autonomy
App. Civ. 4.67.283 .: see also Gowing 1991.
Tribute: Plut. Brut. 30.3; 32.4. Burning: App. Civ. 5.2.4. Further data in Dio Or.
31.66, 103104.
139 Or. 31.6, 146, 157, and also Or. 32.52, where the behaviour of Rhodes is positively
contrasted to that of the Alexandrians (these lines however were bracketed by von
Arnim).
140 Also, the collection of possibly fictional epistles attributed to Brutus preserves a
couple of letters to and from Rhodes: Ep. Brut. 1112 Hercher. In Ep. 1314 (Letters to
and from Cos), Rhodes appears as having been won over by Cassius. Links between
Brutus and the islanders are unattested, but the material is close to the Plutarchean
narration, and might be of some historical relevance. Asked to choose between enmity
or friendship, the Rhodians give a proud answer, which exhibits a deep fondness for
freedom.
141 Guerber 2002, esp. 128 .
142 Schmitz 1997, 39 .; Bresson 2004.
137
138
249
vis--vis Roman power and internal social balance in favor of the

wealthy.143 The orator had the cultural and political skill necessary to
shore up the pride of the imperial oligarchies, since his celebration of
concord opened the path to the preservation of a total subordination of
the masses to the few.144 It was for the wealthy that the Roman Empire
formed a comfortable structure. Freedom, octroye as it might be, was
still preferable to a complete dependence within the formula provinciae:
4 ! D K ", D <>, % !; % " 4
: 7, ? 4 L, 4 0 A, & 4 0
A 0 ! 0 - ; (Or. 24.31).
But now what cause is there for faction, or what lack of opportunity for
a pleasant life? Is not all the earth united, is there not one emperor and
common laws for all, and is there not as much freedom as one wishes,
to engage in politics and to keep silent, and to travel and to remain at
home?
I cannot say whether this attitude was realistic or pessimistic, ingenuous or marked by illusion: I only understand very well that these texts
express above all the fear of losing a privileged status and reveal sad
resignation to the limits of political participation.145 Both attitudes make
the study of the Second Sophistic particularly fitting for our disillusioned times.
Ferrary 1999.
Schmitz 1997, 43 ., with reference to Arist. Or. 24.35; Or. 26.66, 68 and bibliography; Connolly 2001. On the role of the mob see also Thornton 2001; id. 2005, 276 .
145 Veyne 2005, esp. 215, about Dio Or. 31.
143
144

Aelius Aristides and Rhodes PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Aelius Aristides and Rhodes PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

chapter eleven

AELIUS ARISTIDES AND RHODES:

Anderson 1989; id. 1993; Whitmarsh 2005.

Leopold 1986, 818.

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

Keils judgment, accepted until recently,6 has heavily conditioned the

Anderson 2007, 341342.

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

In addition to relevant similarities to the oration On Concord, which

This attitude allows us to undertake a historical analysis of these speeches, as in

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

Now is the time, O men of Rhodes, to save yourselves from these

Recourse to examples of vulgarized philosophy was common enough

As a complement to the memories of past sea power, the author

catapults in the Hellenistic and Roman epochs: Heron asserts that

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

symbol of heroic endurance that encompasses the whole civic body,

Thus, paradoxically, the orator may confidently judge the destruction

The praise of Rhodes artistic treasures was typical. Some celebrated

Demetrius: Gell. 15.31.1; Strabo 14.2.5.

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

for all subsequent praise.51 The tone of Strabos Rhodian section is

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

(Orac. Syb. 7.13).

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

The destiny of the population is a plurima mortis imago:

Some in fleeing from their houses perished in those of others, others

Nor is the description of the aftermath much better:

This description is very dierent from the euphemistic and pathetic

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

disappointment originates, perhaps, from a misunderstanding about the

Apsines 10.48 Patillon. See Demoen 2001.

in the oration composed by Libanius for the earthquake of Nicomedia

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

Oration 24, To the Rhodians, on Concord, was written in Smyrna between

But when the present situation, which is much more terrible, if it is

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

Here, the topical reference to a natural law, while mitigating the

Our information on Rhodian society in this period does not permit

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

I would most willingly, I think, be criticized because my arguments were

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

are illuminating. If a stasis allowed the Roman rulers to assume a sort

The present situation leaves the politicians a benefit, which is not of

To be sure, the oration On Concord is far from the polemical attitude

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

aelius aristides and rhodes: concord and consolation

vis--vis Roman power and internal social balance in favor of the

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi