Lives of the Sophists (Philostratus and Eunapius)

Greek classics, the archaioi Ancient ones/standard authors., or standard authors; and a thorough knowledge of the Greek poets, orators, and historians—such as we would hardly find equaled among professors of Greek today—was taken for granted in Syrian, Egyptian, Arab, and Bithynian humanists. They were expected to be able to illustrate their lectures with echoes of Homer, Plato, Thucydides, and Demosthenes. In their declamations, historical allusions drawn from the classics played much the same part and were as essential as the heroic myths had been to the Odes of Pindar or Bacchylides. Not only were they well read, but their technical training in rhetoric was rigorous, and they would have considered any claim of ours to understand or teach the art of rhetoric as superficial and amateurish. We do not even know the rules of the game. Moreover, they had audiences who did know those rules and could appreciate every artistic device. But to be thus equipped was not enough. A successful sophist had to have the nerve and equipment of a great actor, since he had to act character parts—and the terminology of the actor’s as well as the singer’s art is frequently used for the sophistic profession. He needed unusual charm of appearance, manner, and voice, and a ready wit to retort on his rivals. All his training led up to that highest achievement of the sophist: improvisation on some theme which was an echo of the past, stereotyped, but handled with some pretense of novelty. The theme was voted on by the audience or proposed by some distinguished visitor, often because it was known to be in the declaimer’s répertoire. He had to have a good memory, since he was never to repeat himself except by special request, and then he had to do so with...